Mr.  W. B.@: NORTHRUP (East Hastings) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 5). to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900. He said: The election law was consolidated and amended by the Dominion Elections Act, passed in 1900. In that Act, there are stringent provisions against bribery of electors and there is one provision against the bribery of a candidate. Section 108, clause (i) provides :-
Every person wbo, to induce a person to allow bin'self to be nominated as a candidate or to refrain from becoming a candidate, or to withdraw if he has become -a candidate, gives or procures any office, place or employment, or agrees to give or procure, or offers or promises to procure, or endeavours to procure any office, place or employment for such person or any other person, is guilty of an indictable offence under the Act.
There is no provision in the Act as it stands to prevent any person offering money to induce a person to become a candidate or to withdraw after being nominated as a candidate; and the Bill I have drawn is merely for the purpose of adding to this clause another subsection so that the same penalty shall attend the offering of money to bribe a candidate as is now provided in the case of offering an office to a candidate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 6) to amend the Railway Act with respect to drainage. He said :	It is not necessary
to make any remarks in connection with this Bill. It is similar to the Bill introduced last year, which was passed by a sub-committee, but not acted upon by the House.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
BATTLE OF THE WINDMILL-PENSIONS. Mr. REID (Grenville)-by Mr. Sproule- asked :
Have any pensions been paid to persons who took part in the battle of the windmill, near Prescott? If so, for what reason? If any persons were paid, are any of these who received such pensions still living, and are they still receiving same?
['As usual a few days notice will be given.']
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am informed by the

Deputy Minister of Militia that it will be impossible to answer this question verbally. The hon. gentleman had better move for the papers.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria)-by Mr. Sproule- asked:
What officers are now taking the staff course at Kingston?
What are their occupations in private life? Who among them are in the permanent force?
Who in government service?
What are the text books used in the course? The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :
1 and 2. Major R. Costigan, merchant; Major E. A. O. Hosmer, farmer ; Major J. A. McDougall, farmer; Major F. X. A. Carriere, insurance inspector ; Major W. H. Floyd, boots, shoes and clothing ; Major L. J. O. Ducharme, civil service ; Oapt. T. W. Lawlor, lumber surveyor.
3.	None.
4.	Major U. J. o. Ducharme. Lt. Col. Hodgins, R. O., (joins 15th March).
5.	Hereto attached is the syllabus showing the text books. [DOT]
(5. No pay_is allowed. A per diem allowance of $2.50 is paid to each officer in lieu of subsistence.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria)-by Mr. Sproule- asked :
How are the officers for the staff course at Kingston selected?
What rates of pay were named in the circulars calling for officers?
How were the officers attending selected? When were these each selected?
-The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :
1.	Officers for the staff course were selected from those nominated by the D.O.C.'s, except Lt. Col. Hodgins, R.O., who is permitted to attend to complete the staff course interrupted in 1900.
2.	The instructions to D.O.C.'s were sent
by telegram and the rates of pay were referred to in these words :	' Allowances
same as 1900.'
3.	By the general officer commanding.
4.	30th January.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria)-by Mr. Sproule- asked :
1.	Has the Canadian government a copy of the report or memorandum furnished to the Imperial authorities in 1885 by each, General Middleton and Lord Kclgund, on the conduct and qualities of the Canadian volunteers serving in the North-west rebellion of 1885?
2.	Is it permitted by the Canadian government to the General Officer Commanding or any subordinate officer, to make reports to the Imperial authorities without the consent
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: of the government of Canada, or the minister of the department concerned ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1.	There is no copy of any such report in this department nor is there any record of any such having been rendered.
2.	There is no authority for such procedure nor any orders relative thereto.
COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE CADET CORPS. Mr. CLARKE asked:
1.	Has the government received any petition or petitions from collegiate institute cadet corps, asking for facilities in rifle shooting and for swords for use by officers?
2.	Has the government in store any swords suitable for use by officers of cadet corps, and if so, is it the intention to issue the same for this purpose?
3.	Does the government intend to place collegiate institutes on the same footing in regard to rifle shooting as it has placed Upper Canada College, that is to say, by issuing Morris tube outfits and granting free ammunition?
4. Has the government received a petition from the Toronto - Collegiate Institute Board, asking for Lee-Metford rifles, and for encouragement to cadets to practice at the Long Branch ranges ? If so, what does the government intend to do in the matter ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Morris tubes are no longer required. Free ammunition is isstfed to rifle associations only. None has ever been issued to educational establishments. They are only organized for drill.
4.	Yes. By the application received it appears that the corps consist each of fifty young gentlemen between the age of fifteen and twenty years, and consequently all above sixteen years of age can form themselves into a rifle club and thus obtain the advantages they desire under provisions of G. O. 150 of 1901, paragraph 6.
As regards lads under sixteen years, the major general does not consider that they should be entrusted with ammunition and permitted to perform range practices.


WELSH IMMIGRATION FROM PATAGONIA.
Mr. WILSON asked :: Has the Dominion government appointed a commissioner to proceed to Patagonia to negotiate with the 4,000 Welshman now residing there, with a view to their settling in Canada?
If so, has the commissioner reported, and will the government lay his report on the Table of the House?
What was the cost of these negotiations, and is it the iidention of the government to give the Welsh colony in Patagonia any assistance to induce them to settle in Canada?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: The government appointed a delegation to proceed to Patagonia

with a view to ascertaining and reporting to what extent the members of the Welsh colony there were likely to remove to Canada.
2.	The delegation has not yet reported to the head office. The deputy minister, being now in England, has, no doubt, conferred verbally with the delegation.
3.	The accounts are not yet in a position to enable an answer to be made to this question. The matter of further assistance is now under consideration.


RETIREMENT OP MAJOR TASSIE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria)-by Mr. Sproule- asked :
What are the facts connected with the retirement of Major Tassie from the Royal Grenadiers of Toronto?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The facts are as follows) :
1.	On the 6th of February, 1899, Major Tassie addressed a letter to his commanding officer in which he stated that, ' if at the expiration of two years ' from the date of his promotion to the rank of major, the officer commanding the Royal Grenadiers considered it expedient, the district officer commanding was authorized to forward 4 this my resignation ' of any position he might hold in the battalion, and that for so doing that letter shall be sufficient authority. On this condition, Lieut.-Col. Bruce recommended Captain Tassie for promotion. He was promoted to be major.
2.	Major Tassie submitted the plea that he made it under the assurance of a brother officer that it would be inoperative.
3.	The major general commanding, in his reports to the Minister of Militia and Defence, maintained that, in his opinion, Major Tassie's resignation is absolutely valid and binding. The recommendation of the major general commanding was accepted and Major Tassie was retired on the 31st of August, 1901.


YUKON-CONCESSION TO THE TREDGOLD SYNDICATE.
Mr. BELL (Pictou) asked :: 1.	What is the date of the concession to A. & C. Tredgold, or to the Hydraulic Mining Syndicate, associated with A. & C. Tredgold, and proposing to operate in the Yukon?
2.	What are the terms of such concession?
S. What area of the Klondike is by this concession given over to such syndicate, and closed to the general public?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) :: 1.	Order in Council June 12th. 1901; subsequently amended by Order in Council 29th June, 1901, and by Order in Council 7th December, 1901.
2.	The terms are set forth in the Orders in Council above cited, copies of which will be laid on the Table.
3. Claims on Bonanza, Bear and Hunker Creeks and their tributaries, which have been staked out by miners and thereafter abandoned and allowed to lapse.


EMPLOYMENT OP JAPANESE IN YUKON TERRITORY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PUTTEE asked ;
1.	Were Japanese employed as special officers by mounted police officers in the Yukon Territory in December last ?
2.	If so what was the emergency necessitating such action ?
3.	Have instructions been issued forbidding such appointments in future ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir "Wilfrid Laurier).: The government have no information that Japanese were employed as special officers by mounted police officers in December last, or at any time; and the government does not credit the rumour to that effect.


BOUNDARY LINE THROUGH DETROIT RIVER.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. COWAN-by Mr. Parmelee-asked :
1.	Has the boundary line between the United States and Canada, through the Detroit River, been determined ?
(a.) If yes, when and by what convention ? (b.) Was the line shown by maps ?
(c.) Has any work been done on the Canadian side of the line in the Detroit River by the American government ?
(d.) If any work has been done by the American government, how much, and at what cost ?
(e.) Has consent been asked by the American government to do work in Canadian territory ?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) :: (a.) Yes, by commissioners appointed under the sixth article of the Treaty of Ghent.
(b.) The line was shown on the maps ffled by the commissioners with their report.
(c.) Yes.
(d.) The government-has no information as to the amount and cost of the work done in Canadian waters by the United States government.
(e.) Yes ; permission was asked by the United States government to proceed with projected improvements in the Detroit River without regard to the exact location of the international boundary line, and permission was granted.
WELSH IMMIGRATION PROM PATAGONIA. Mr. CLARKE asked :
1. Has the attention of the government been called to the following cablegram to the Toronto ' Evening Telegram,' which has been republished in other Canadian papers :-
'Toronto, February 18.-"Evening Telegram's" special cable :-London, February 18.-A deputation of Welshmen to-day waited on Right Hon. Jos. Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, to ask that the government provide a transport for the purpose of removing to Canada a number of their countrymen and their families, who had migrated to Patagonia, and who de-

sired a change of settlement. Mr. Chamberlain explained that when the reception of the deputation was first mentioned he understood that the Welsh in Patagonia wished to emigrate to South Africa. Had such been the case, arrangements could easily have been made, but he was powerless to render them assistance to emigrate to Canada. He suggested that the deputation should call on Lord Salisbury, or that a subscription be started in the United Kingdom to raise the necessary five or ten thousand pounds ; or that the Canadian government might increase their liberal offer of a pound per head. The deputation, which was greatly disappointed at the Colonial Secretary's reply, was headed by a representative Welshman, resident in London. The Canadian High Commissioner's office was not represented. It is reported in some quarters that the Elder-Dempster Company will offer a steamship to transport the Welsh settlers to Canada.'
2.	Has the government made any inquiries, or, if not, does it intend to make -any from the Canadian High Commissioner in London, respecting the foregoing alleged statement of Right Hon. Jos. Chamberlain, as to his inability to assist the families above named to emigrate to Canada, as to his willingness to assist them to emigrate to South Africa ?
3.	If the government has made 'any inquiry from the Canadian High Commissioner, as above, has any answer been received, and, if so, of what nature ?
4.	Has the Canadian government made any offer, and, if so, of what nature, 'and to what extent, to assist the emigrants above, to come to Canada ?
5.	Has any steamship company offered to convey the said emigrants free to Canada, and, if so, has the offer been accepted ?
6.	What has the government done for the purpose of attracting or bringing the said emigrants to Canada ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) :: 1.	No ; except through press reports.
2.	No.
3.	No report has yet been received of this interview.
4.	No.
5.	No.
0.	The government sent two delegates to Patagonia to investigate and report to what extent members of the Welsh colony were likely to move to Canada, to place before this colony the natural advantages offered by Canada as a place of settlement and the regulations existing with regard to free grants of land, and to advise the colony that the government is willing to make a reservation of land on their behalf. The government is now in cable communication with its Welsh agent respecting the desirability of giving further assistance.


THE CANADIAN SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTABULARY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Leonard-(Translation) asked :
1.	Did the government, or any member thereof, give a public assurance that in the selection of the officers for the Canadian South African Constabulary, which sailed last year preference would be given (a) to those Cana-
Mr. CLARKE.: I
dian officers who have served in South Africa, and to other officers of the Canadian militia 7
2.	What persons, officers, or others, applied for commissions in the said constabulary ? What is the military record of each, either in Canada, South Africa, or elsewhere ?
3.	(a.) What, officers were selected and appointed ? (b.) What is the military record, of each ?
4.	Who of those selected as officers, had never before been officers ?
5.	Were there enough applications from officers of the Canadian militia to officer the constabulary ? If so, why were they passed over, and men without qualification, if there were any such, selected ?
6.	How many commissioned officers of the Canadian militia were enlisted in the first and second contingents, in the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Canadian Mounted Infantry, the Royal Canadian Dragoons, and the Canadian Artillery, as (a) non-commissioned officers, and (b) as men ?
7.	How many non-commissioned officers and
men of the permanent corps were enlisted in the corps named in question ? How many of these were non-commissioned officers in South Africa ?	(c.) Why were the commissioned
officers enlisted in the corps as privates, not given the non-commissions ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: In answer to my honourable friend, I must inform him that in order to secure the documents relating to this question, it is necessary that he should make a motion.


IMMIGRANTS IN 1892.
Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the number of immigrants who came to Canada during the year 1892, classified under headings British and Foreign, including the United States ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: The total number of immigrants who came to Canada during 1S92, was 27,898, classified as follows : British, 16,357 ; foreign, 6,054 ; total, 22,411. In addition to these there arrived at the port of Montreal, not defined as to nationalities, 5,487. Grand total, 27,898.


ARTICLES PUT ON FREE LIST OR REDUCED IN DUTY SINCE 1897.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARE-by Mr. Henderson-asked :
1.	What articles have been put on the free list by Order in Council since the adoption of the Customs tariff of 1897 ?
2.	What articles have been reduced in duty by Order in Council since the above date ?
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson) :: 1. The articles transferred to the free list by Order in CoubcH since 29th June, 1897, are as follows :
' Cotton seed oil, when imported by manufacturers of liquid annatto, to be used in their' factories exclusively in the manufacture of liquid annatto.'
* Metallic tubes for use in the manufacture of vaccine points, made in Canada.'

24G
' The chemical compounds known as " Safety Bate " and " Tanning Preserver " when imported by tanners for use exclusively in " the tanning of leather in their own tanneries
' Cotton yarn, polished or glazed, when imported by manufacturers of shoe laces for the manufacture of such goods in their own factories.'
' Syrup or molasses of cane or beet testing under 35 degrees by the polariscope, for use in the manufacture of compressed food for live stock, when imported by the manufacturers of such food, to be used for such manufacture only in their own factories.'
' Key pins, damper springs, jack springs, rail springs, regulating screws, spoons, bridle wares, damper wires, back check wires, dowel wires, German centre pins, brass pins, rail hooks, brass brackets, plates, damper rod nuts, damper sockets and screws, shell, brass sapstan screws, brass flange plates and screws, hammer wires, fly felt, butt felt, damper felt, hammer rail cloth, back check felt, catch felt, thin damper felt, whip cloth, bushing cloth, hammer felt, back hammer felt, bridle leather and buck-skin, when imported by manufacturers of piano keys, actions, hammers, base dampers and organ keys, to be used exclusively for the manufacture of such articles in their own factories.'
' Botany yarn, single, in numbers 30 and finer, on mule cops, dry spun on what is known as the French or Belgium system, not doubled or twisted in white only, when imported by manufacturers of cashmere socks and stockings, to be used exclusively for the manufacture of such articles in their own factories.'
' Glass caps, shells, containers and capillary tubes, rubber bulbs, boxes and corks, for use in the manufacture of vaccine points; and only when imported by manufacturers of vaccine points.'
' Materials which enter into the construction and form part of cream separators when imported by manufacturers of cream separators to be used in their own factories for the manufacture of cream separators, until otherwise ordered.'
' Silver tubing, when imported by manufacturers of silverware to be used in their own factories in the manufacture of silverware.'
' Hemp Bleaching Compound, when imported by manufacturers of rope, to be used in their own factories for the manufacture of rope, until otherwise ordered.'
' Steel castings in the rough for the manufacture of scissors and hand shears, when imported by manufacturers of scissors and hand shears, to be used in making such articles in their own factories.'
' Steel for the manufacture of cutlery when imported by manufacturers of cutlery to be used in their own factories in the manufacture of such articles,'
' Yarn of jute, flax or hemp, for the manufacture of jute, linen or union towels, to be
used in their own factories in the manufacture of such articles.'
2. By Order in Council of February 11th, 1902, the customs duty on news printing paper in sheets and rolls, including all printing paper valued at not more than two and one-quarter (2i) cents per pound, was reduced from twenty-five per cent ad valorem to fifteen per cent ad valorem.


IMPORTATIONS THROUGH WESTERN ONTARIO PORTS, 1901.
Mr. SPROULE asked :: 1.	How many bushels of grain, or other seeds,, were shipped through the ports of Depot Harbour, Midland, Collingwood, Meaford, Owen Sound and Sarnia, respectively, during the year 1901?
2.	How many barrels of flour?
3.	How many bags oatmeal?


The MINISTER. OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: As that question is worded, I suppose the hon. gentleman's intention is to get the quantity of grain, not only that has been sent through those ports and exported, but also the trade between one port and another. We are already in communication with those ports to get the information for the hon. gentleman, and if he will allow his question to stand for a few days, I will be able to answer it.


QUEBEC-ISLAND OP ORLEANS MAIL SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Leonard-asked :
1.	How many times each week, in winter and in summer, has the mail been carried from Quebec to the Island of Orleans ?
2.	What is the cost of said mail service during the winter and the summer, respectively ?
* 3. What are the average receipts from such service, considering the different parishes separately?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. William Mulock) :: *
1.	Daily in summer, tri-weekly in winter.
2.	The service costs $045 per annum.
3.	The receipts from each parish are as fellows :-St. Jean, $150.50 ; St. Francois, $8 ; St. Pierre, $76.48 ; St. Laurent, $64 ; St. Famille, $44.62.


MR. ALFRED MARANDA.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Leonard-asked :
1.	Has Alfred Maranda, of St. Pierre, lie d'Or-leans, been replaced as contractor for the carrying'of His Majesty's mails ?
2.	If so, by whom, and for what reason ?
3.	Were tenders called before the granting of such mail-service contract ?
4.	If so, how many tenders were received by the department, and what is the amount of each of such tenders ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. William Mulock).: Tenders were called for before entering into the contract with

Maranda in 1897. Five tenders were received, namely From A. Maranda at $045, from N. Ferland at $700, from O. Vezina at $750, from F. Oampeau at $800, from F. Labbe at $900. The contract was awarded to Maranda, the lowest tenderer. This contract expired on the 31st of December, 1900, and was continued on a temporary arrangement during pleasure pending certain changes under consideration. It has since been placed in the hands of Pierre Plante pending the receipt of tenders for a new contract.


ROSEAU INDIAN RESERVE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaRIVIERE asked :
1.	Has the government considered the request -of the rural municipality of Franklin, Manitoba, signified by a resolution of its council, dated 10th April, 1900, and asking that the Roseau Indian Reserve be opened for settlement ; said consideration having been promised by the then Acting Minister of the Interior at the sitting of this House on the 10th May, 1900 ?
2.	When will the few Indians now remaining on that reserve be removed to some more convenient place for themselves, and their land opened for settlement ?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: The question of the surrender of the Roseau River Reserve was submitted to the Indians to whom it belongs on the 26th February, 1901, by Mr. Inspector Mnrlatt, and a report was received from him that the Indians declined to sell any part of the reserve. In view of this decision it is impossible at present to take the action desired by the municipality of Franklin. I may state to the hon. gentleman, that, as be is no doubt aware, the Indian Act requires that before an Indian reserve, or any portion of it, can be sold there must be a surrender of it by the Indians, in order to authorize the government to take action.


DEMAND FOR LABOUR IN MANITOBA.
Mr. WILSON asked :: 1.	Was there a cablegram sent to the High Commissioner by the Dominion government relating to good crops in Manitoba, and consequently a demand for hired help with good wages ?
2.	If so, what was the date of said cablegram ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	July 29th, 1901.


IMPROVEMENT OF ST. ANDREW'S RAPIDS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaRIVIERE asked :
How much has been voted up to the end of the present fiscal year for the contemplated Improvements of St. Andrew's Rapids, Manitoba ?
How much has been spent so far out of these votes, and what for, in each year ?
Is the work done so far meeting the expectation of the Minister of Public Works, as to extent and quality ?
Hon. Mr. MULOCK.: Was there any unnecessary delay, and what was the cause of it ?
When is it expected the locks will be completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. LaRiviSre) will make a motion for a return the papers will be brought down immediately. The question cannot be properly answered.


RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk) moved
That this House is of the opinion that Canadian import duties should be arranged upon the principle of reciprocity in trade conditions so far as may be consistent with Canadian interests ; that a rebate of not less than 40 per cent of the amount of duties imposed, should be made upon dutiable imports from nations or countries admitting Canadian natural products into their markets free of duty ; and that the scale of Canadian duties should be sufficiently high to avc-id inflicting injury upon Canadian interests in cases where a rebate of 40 per cent or more shall be made under the conditions aforesaid.
He said : Mr. Speaker, the motion that I am about to submit through you to the House for its consideration affirms what I believe to be a correct principle in regard to the management of our fiscal affairs in this country. The motion first affirms that reciprocity in trade conditions will be proper except in case where such conditions may not be favourable to Canada. The motion next proposes that countries admitting the natural products of Canada into their markets free of duty shall be accorded a rebate or differential duty of 40 per cent or more in the customs duties levied in Canada. The motion next proposes that the scale of duties shall be sufficiently high to avoid injury to Canadian interests in cases where the minimum duty is imposed, as has been done under the present arrangement of a differential duty in favour of Great Britain to the distress and detriment of our woollen interests. The export trade of Canada is largely with the mother country. About 63 per cent of the export trade of Canada is with Great Britain. The import trade of Canada is to a very small extent with the mother country ; less than one-(juarter of our imports coming from that source. It is, I affirm, a proper course to pursue to have regard to the interests of the mother country which affords us our chief market, in the adjustment and arrangement of our tariff duties.
We have, in the past, been making unsatisfactory progress in this country. An increase of 10J per cent in the last decade, an increase of less than 12 per cent in the previous decade and an increase of less than 47 per cent during the last three decades is an unsatisfactory rate of increase in population. Canada has a limited increase of population not for the reason that we

are incapable of supporting an enormous population, but for some reason Canada has been forging ahead at a rate in the highest degree unsatisfactory to those who desire to see this country become a great nation. We had, in 1871, a population of 3,649,782, allowing an estimate of 50,000 for the population of British Columbia and Manitoba. We had last year, by the last census, 5,338,883. We had an increase in 30 years of 1,689,111 souls, an increase, as I have said, of 104 per cent in the last decade, and of 47 per cent for the entire period covered by the space of time between 1871 and 1901. Now, the United States, when similarly situated with us, with a growing country, with a small population with great natural resources, with an infinite stretch of virgin land and with practically every inducement to offer to settlers, had, in 1790, a population of 3,929,214 and in 1820 a population of 9,600,781, or an increase of 5,671,569 in 30 years against an increase of 1,689,111 in our own case, or an increase of 141 per cent in 30 years as against an increase of 47 per cent in our own ease ; yet, during that period of 30 years the United States received but 250,000 immigrants from the old world.
Now, there is something wrong. No doubt we have, living in the United States to-day, 3,000,000 people who are either Canadians by birth or descendants of Canadian ancesters in the first and second generation. We are losing the flower of our population, we have been losing it for the last 30 years, and if by any possible means we can arrest that drain of our population, if by any means we can adopt a policy that will lead to a more rapid expansion of our resources, a more rapid increase of our population, a more rapid increase in the direction of creating in Canada a nation, it is worth our while to study the question and ascertain if there are any possible means by which this result can be reached. We have enormous resources. Without question, in my opinion, Canada can sustain a population of 100,000,000 souls. Some disadvantages and drawbacks, as we deem them, appertaining to our country, are really calculated to make our population a people of virility, of great courage and self assertion. We have the resources of the maritime provinces, the resources of Quebec and of Ontario, the enormous region of the North-west Territories, with an arable area extending over 500,000 square miles, the resources of British Columbia ; we have fisheries, and timber and minerals and agricultural resources in great abundance, in unlimited supply ; we have all the resources that are necessary to create in Canada a great nation. Now, Sir, our trade with all the countries of the world, except Great Britain, is in an unsatisfactory condition, in my opinion. We had a total trade last year of $191,000,000 with the United States. Our total imports were, from the United States, $119,306,000, and our
total exports to the United States were $72,382,000. The balance of trade against us was $46,924,000 and the import percentage of our total trade with the United States was 63 per cent.
United States.
Total imports from	 $119,306,000
Total exports to	 72,382,000
Total trade	 $191,688,000
Balance against Canada	 46,924,000'
Import percentage of total trade, 63..per cent. But this statement presents an unduly favourable aspect of the case. While our Trade and Navigation Returns show an export trade to the United States last year of $72,382,000, it is well to take into account that $28,331,000 of that amount was gold and silver coin, nuggets, gold dust, silver concentrates, the product of our mine in the Klondike, and that this $28,331,000 was actually a payment upon our balance of trade with the United States.
Revised.
Total imports, less coin and bullion, $3,335,000	 $115,971,000
Total exports, less $28,331,000, coin, bullion, gold nuggets, silver, &c.	44,051,000
Balance against Canada, $71,890,000. 160,022,000 Import percentage of total trade, 72 per cent. When you eliminate from our exports to the United States the gold and the silver that are included in the returns of exports, you bring the amount down to $44,000,000, which includes the re-exports of articles not the produce of Canada. That leaves the balance of trade against us actually $71,890,000 and it leaves the percentage of imports of our total trade 72 per cent, instead of 63 per cent. So that we imported from the United States $72 of the amount of our total trade, and we exported to that country $28 of the amount of our total trade out of every $100. This is the condition of our trade with the United States, a most unsatisfactory condition ; a condition which I shall enlarge upon later on.
Then with regard to Germany : Our total trade with Germany last year was $9,162.000. The balance of trade against us in our trade with Germany last year was $4,879,000. The import percentage with our total trade with Germany last year was 76 per cent.
Germany.
Imports from	 $7,021,409
Exports to	 2,141,532
Total trade	 $9,162,932
Balance against Canada	 4,879,021
Import percentage of total trade, 76 per cent.
Our total trade with France last year was $6,979,000. The balance of trade against Canada with that country was $3,806,000. The import percentage of our total trade with France was 77 per cent.
[Stage Direction]
France.
Imports from	 $5,398,021
Exports to	 1,581,331
Total trade ..,	 $6,979,352
Balance against Canada	 3,806,690
Import percentage of total trade, 77 per cent. With Holland, our trade total was $984,000. In that comparatively small trade the balance of trade against us was $010,084 and the import percentage of our total trade with Holland was 81 per cent.
Holland.
Imports from	 5797 493
Exports to	 187',378
Total trade	 $984,840
Balance against Canada	 $610,084
Import percentage of total trade, 81 per cent.
With Spain, our total trade was $S97,000. The balance of trade against us in this comparatively small transaction was $5oi,U00, and the import percentage of our total trade with Spain was 82 per cent.
Spain.
Imports from	 $742,537
Exports to	 185,354
Total trade	 $897,993
Balance against Canada	 557,183
Import percentage of total trade, 82 per cent.
Now, this is the condition of our trade with all these countries ; with the United States, with Germany, with France, with Holland, with Spain ; and we have a satisfactory trade balance ; we have a satisfactory condition of trade relations with one nation only, and that is with Great Britain. Our imports from Great Britain last year were $43,164,000, and our exports to Great Britain were $105,018,000. The balance of trade in our favour in this case,was $61,853,000, and the import per cent of our total trade with Great Britain was but 29 per cent; the export percentage being 71.
Great Britain.
Imports from	 $ 43,164,297
Exports to	 105,018,164
Total trade	 $148,182,461
Balance in our favour	 61,853,867
Import percentage of total trade, 29 per cent.
Now, we took this $62,000,000, which we got from Great Britain, and we paid tribute to the United States. We paid tribute to the United States, from whom we purchased $3 worth of goods for every $1 which we sold them. We paid tribute to them under the arrangements of their tariff which have existed for the last 35 years! and which they have arranged with the purpose of buying little and selling all that is possible. The time has come, in my opinion when this arrangement should be set aside' either by satisfactory and proper concessions from them, or by action upon our part | Mr. CHARLTON.
that wall render these attempts nugatory. Great Britain, as I have said, is our chief market. Great Britain will no doubt continue to be our chief market, and as I said at the outset, it is proper that we should give due attention to the cultivating of that market in Great Britain ; that market which to-day takes 82 per cent of our total farm products ; that market which to-day takes 63 per cent of our exports.
The United States, of course, is a nation contiguous to us. Our boundaries are common from ocean to ocean. Nature has decreed that unless its purposes are thwarted by unfriendly legislation, the relations between these two countries shall be of the most intimate character ; and that the trade between these two countries shall be enormous in its proportion. That trade already is enormous ; enormous, notwithstanding the obstacles that have been thrown in the way of free intercourse between these two countries. These two countries are one geographically, the very barriers that separate them invite intercommunication. Their railroad lines cross and re-cross and knit them together. The maritime provinces have their natural trade associations with the States on the Atlantic seaboard. Ontario and Quebec can reach the ocean, in winter, at least, more conveniently across American territory than by any other route. Our great North-west is geographically a portion of the Mississippi valley, and its trade will naturally tend to that section. On the Pacific slope, nothing is more natural than that trade relations should exist between British Columbia and the States of Washington, Oregon and California. This contiguity of territory, this intermingling of interests will lead and should lead to enormous trade transactions. But, Sir, these transactions should be and must be upon a different basis from that which exists today. Now, this natural tendency to intimate trade relations and rapid increase in the volume of trade between the two countries, if obstacles are not interposed, was strikingly illustrated by the experience of Canada and the United States under the Reciprocity Treaty which existed from 1854 to 1866. That treaty provided for free trade in natural products only. During the first year of that treaty, the exports of Canada to the United States were less than $10,000,000. Twelve years later, in the year 1866, the exports of Canada to the United States (including the usual allowance for inland short returns) was $44,000,000, an increase of 440 per cent in the' export trade between Canada and the United States in twelve years under the fostering influence of freedom in the interchanging of natural products. During that same period the Canadas largely increased their import trade with the people of the United States. In 1866, with an export trade of $44,000,000 from the United States, the imports from the United States were $28,000,000, and im-

ports from Great Britain in the same year were $40,000,000, while the exports to England during the same year were, in round numbers, $17,000,000.
Exports.
1866-Great Britain	 $ 16,826,000
1890-Great Britain	 48,353,000
1901-Great Britain	 105,328,000
1866-United States	 44,143,000
1890-	United States	
40,452,0001891-	United States	
72,382,000On deducting coin, bullion, precious metals and goods not produce of Canada	
41,626,000
. Imports for consumption.
1866-Great Britain	 $40,062,000
1890-Great Britain	 43,390,000

Great Britain	 43,018,000
United States-Imports.
1886	$ 28,572,000
1901	 119,306,000
Increase, $90,734,000, or 318 per cent.
Summary Movements, 1866 to 1901.
Great Britain-Imports.
1866	 $40,062,000
1901	 43,164,000
Increase, $3,102,000, or 7 7-10 per cent.
This gives evidence of the tendency that would be exerted on the trade between these two countries by the removal of restrictions. The year 1866 came and with it came the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty. It was a treaty that was working to the mutual advantage of both countries, and it was abrogated largely no doubt because of the influence of other motives than those appertaining to the loss or gain that might accrue from the operation of it. Unfortunately, we were unwise enough to allow expression to be given in the Canadian Assembly to a feeling of felicitation at the federal defeat at Chancellorville, and although there were as large a proportion perhaps of the population of the North who were copperheads and rebel sympathizers as of the population of Canada, and although the only difference was that in Canada they had a right to express their opinions while in the North they had not, the United States government took umbrage at this display of sympathy with the South ; and although we had given evidence of our devotion to the North by sending forty thousand men to fight in the Union armies, and although as large a proportion of our population sympathized with the cause of the Union as of the population of the Northern States, and although we had maintained neutrality and discharged our duties as neutrals wisely and well, yet the single circumstance to which I have alluded probably had a great influence in causing the repeal of the reciprocity treaty of 1854.
We were aware that that treaty was an advantageous one. We were aware that the circumstances under which we exported
to the United States so much more extensively than we imported were exceptional circumstances, due to the existence of .a war in that country. The importation of American fabrics was rapidly decreasing, and but a few years would have elapsed before the imports and exports between the two countries would have become equalized. Efforts were made on the part of Canada to bring about a modification of the treaty, to do anything within the bounds of reason to make the treaty acceptable to both countries ; but all these efforts were spurred. The United States government, in point of fact, refused to consider any applications or arguments with reference to the renewal of that treaty, and entered upon a period of repression, which has been continued for thirty-five years. The United States was then the chief market for our products. The belief in the United States and the belief in Canada was that that market was essential to us. Possibly American statesmen may have thought that putting on the screws and shutting us out from their market would force us into annexation. If this was not the case, pains ought to be taken to disabuse the Canadian mind of that impression. For thirty-five years we have had a war of tariffs, fought chiefly on one side, and the result has been rather disappointing to both the United States and ourselves -agreeably disappointing to ourselves, perhaps not as agreeably disappointing to them. Our exports to Great Britain have increased from 1866 to 1901 as follows : Great Britain Exports'.
1866	;	$ 16,826,000
1901	 105,328,000
Increase, $88,502,000, or 527 per cent.
Our exports to the United States in the same years were as follows :
United States Exports.
1866	$44,143,000
1C01	 72,382,000
Increase, $28,239,000, or 64 per cent.
But, as I said a moment ago, deducting corn and bullion and the products of the mines of the Yukon and the export of goods not the produce of Canada, our net exports to the United States last year were $41,626,000, or $2,517,000 less than they were in 1866. That condition of trade was brought about by the repressive tariff legislation of the United States.
A summary of these trade movements shows that our imports from Great Britain increased from 1866 to 1901 7'7 per cent, and our imports from the United States increased in the same interval 318 per cent; and this result was brought about, not by the application on the part of Canada of the American principle, which we ought to have applied, but by a liberal low-tariff arrangement which offered no impediment to the importation of their wares into this country, while we were almost absolutely excluded from their markets.
[Stage Direction]
In the same period our exports to Great Britain increased 527 per cent, while our exports to the United States, eliminating the precious metals and the exportation of goods not the produce of Canada, have fallen $2,500,000.
Now, I will proceed to consider some of the reasons that have led to this anomalous and unsatisfactory condition of trade I will look first at our tariff rates. Last year our rate of duty upon the total imports from the United States was 12-5 per cent, and our rate of duty upon dutiable imports from the United States was 24-83 per cent. In the same year our duty upon the total imports from Great Britain was 18 2 per cent, and our duty upon dutiable imports from Great Britain was 24-87 per cent, or 4-100tlis higher than our duty on dutiable imports from the United States.
Mr.   OLARICB@: Notwithstanding the preference.


Mr. CHARLTON.: Notwithstanding the preference. Our duty upon the total imports from all countries, the United States included, was 10-6 per cent, and our duty upon dutiable imports from all countries was 27-45 per cent. Here you have the fact that the duties upon United States imports were lower, both upon dutiable imports and upon total imports, than the duties upon imports from Great Britain or upon imports from the whole world ; and you can contrast those duties as I now propose to do, with the duties imposed by the United States. While we admitted their total imports at a duty a fraction above 12 per cent, their duty upon our total imports last year amounted to 28 per cent. And while we imposed a duty of less than 25 per cent upon dutiable imports, their duties were 50 per cent last year, or almost exactly as high again as in our own.
And when we come to the percentage of imports, 63 per cent of our total imports came from the United States, 22} per cent from Great Britain, and 14} per cent from the rest of the world. It is scarcely necessary for me to say that these duties are unequal, that they are not in our interest, and that the duties we impose should bear some proportion to the duties which the United States imposes upon us. This goes without saying. The American policy has been applied not only to us, but to all the world. The object of the United States has been to sell all that it possibly could of the products of its soil, its mills, and its workshops, and to buy just as little as it could from other countries, and thus have as large a balance of trade in its own favour as possible. The result has been that the balance of trade in favour of the United States last year amounts to $600,000,000 against the whole world, and $71,000,000 against Canada. That is a good thing for the United States. Let them cling to their policy as long as the rest of the world


John Charlton: will permit them to do so, but it is not a good thing for us.
I need hardly claim that I am not open to the charge of being biased by racial animosity, or national animosity, or prejudice of any character against the United States. The time has been when I have been sometimes misunderstood, and oftener I imagine misrepresented in relation to the attitude that I have taken on our relations with that country. I have always been in favour of the most friendly relations between all Anglo-Saxon communities. I have realized for many years that any policy which is calculated to draw these commonwealths closer together in the bonds of amity and union is a good policy, and have acted upon that principle, and the Liberal party has acted upon that principle in the past.
It is beyond question that the United States, is a great nation, a mighty nation- perhaps the greatest to-day in the world. I have no intention to belittle their might, and prowess, or to say anything even against their tariff policy, which is no doubt a good thing for them, and one which they should adhere to so long as the rest of the world allows them to do so, but I do not think it is a good thing for us to submit without effort to secure change of existing conditions. But while I recognize that the United States is destined to play a great part in the direction of the world events in the future, while I recognize that it has an immense population, intelligent, energetic and aggressive, while we must admit that the construction of the Isthmian Canal will give it the command of the Pacific and that it is bound to become a great naval and military power, while it is evident that by the possession of the Philippine Islands, it will gain control of the Asiatic trade, and while I acknowledge freely that it is a mighty nation, I still say that as Canadians, we must uphold the interest of our own country and enact such a policy for the development of Canada as the circumstances of the case require. I did believe once that if our friends opposite had shown a proper disposition, and had gone to Washington in a proper spirit, they might have got something advantageous to Canada. I still think it is a pity that they did not make any attempt in this direction under the administration of Grover Cleveland instead of waiting until Mr. Harrison was president. However, I must confess that my expectations are hardly as bright to-day as they were at one time, and while I did believe that we had only to approach them in a proper spirit, when we were governed by an administration known to be friendly to them, in order to get something in return, I must confess that my experience upon the [DOT]loint High Commission was not such as to fully justify the entertaining of that belief.


Mr. LARIVIERE.: Open confession is good for the soul.


John Charlton: Tliis is not a confession, it is simply a statement of the facts.


Mr. McCREARY.: That is what confession should be.


John Charlton: It is a very easy matter to prove to an American audience that the importance of the trade of Canada to the United States is so great that this country is entitled to better treatment. Canada is the third largest customer in the world of the United States. She is only outranked in that respect by Great Britain and Germany. She is the best customer of the United States for manufactured goods-for the products of the mills, the looms and the factories. The importance of the Canadian trade is illustrated by a comparison of that trade with the trade of the other portions of the American continent. Take Latin America, comprising Mexico, Central America, South America, the West Indies, all but Cuba and Porto Rico, and the total imports of all this vast region, with a population of nearly sixty millions, from the United States in 1900, was $96,140,000, while the imports of Canada in the same year amounted to $116,972,000. Or the five and a half million population of Canada bought $20,-
832,000	worth, of United States goods more than the sixty million inhabitants of Latin America, the Philippine Islands, although they cost the United States an initial outlay of $20,000,000-being the cost of their purchase from Spain-and a further sum of $300,000,000 in the maintaining of forty ships of war and 100,000 soldiers-the Philippine Islands with a population of nearly 10,000,000, imported from the United States last year only $4,027,000 worth of goods or twenty-seven times less than Canada.
These are facts it is well for the people of Canada to understand and for the people of the United States to understand. They are facts of which the people of the United States were in ignorance, and I have urged for years past that we were making a mistake in not attempting to make the public men of the United States understand the conditions that exist and which should have weight with them in arranging with us their trade relations. I have been doing a little work in that line. I was invited a little less than a year ago to address the Free Trade League of New England in Boston. I took for my subject free trade with Canada, and my speech at Boston was well received. Fifty thousand copies were published by the Boston Chamber of Commerce. A copy was placed in the hands of every member of Congress and of the State Legislatures, and of every board of trade and chamber of commerce in the United States. I next spoke to the Detroit Bankers' Association at Detroit, and the Chamber of Commerce in New York. Then to the Manufacturers National Reciprocity Convention at Wash-9
ington. Then to the Merchants' Exchange at Buffalo, and at other places.
I have seen the statement made that this was a very injudicious thing to do. I noticed an editorial in the newspaper of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) advising my right hon. friend the leader of the government to bring me home, not to allow me to be running up and down among these Yankees giving away the Canadian case. And I have been assured by some highly esteemed friends in this House that they hardly approved of the kind of propaganda that I engaged in in the United States. So far as getting my leader to bring me home is concerned, I hardly think that he Would have acceded to such a request had it been made to him. While I did not go at his expressed command, I did consult him as to the best course to take in many matter^, and received an expression of his opinion; and I have reason to believe that he thinks the work I did in the United States not an entirely useless work. I happen to know- and I learned this, of course, through having access to means of information that put me in possession of the facts-and I state it not as a matter of egotism, but as a plain matter of fact, that the speeches I made in the United States, the articles of mine that appeared in the ' Forum,' the ' North American Review,' and other periodicals and the other means I have adopted to influence American sentiment, have produced an impression. And 1 believe that it is within the range of possibilities, and not only that, but that it is highly probable that, by pursuing this course, by bringing the American people to understand the actual condition of affairs between the two countries, a trade arrangement may be secured which will be satisfactory to Canada-and no arrangement will be satisfactory to Canada that does not give us reciprocity of natural products without granting any return or any concession beyond what has already been granted.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) mean reciprocity in natural products only ?


John Charlton: Certainly. I mean that we are buying $65,000,000 worth of manufactured goods. I mean that we are buying of the United States three times as much as we sell to them. I mean that we are buying of the United States two and a half times as much farm products as we sell to them; and that we are entitled to-day to reciprocity in natural products, absolutely and unrestricted, without granting one solitary iota of a concession, further than that we have granted, without putting an article on the free list that is not already there, and without diminishing our duties by a single fraction. That is what I have been preaching in the United States; that is what I have



been assuring the American people was our just due. I have been telling them that they could not give us less than this, and that, if they did not give it, probably we would do something for ourselves.
There have been changes in the condition of affairs since 1866, Mr. Speaker, that it would be well to bear in mind, changes that the ordinary American, who regards this question through impressions he had received from day to day does not understand. For instance, in 1866, the United States was our chief market in agricultural products, while we imported almost all our manufactured goods from Great Britain. Now this condition of things is reversed-actually and absolutely reversed. To-day, England is our chief market for agricultural products, while the United States is our chief supply for manufactures. More than that, in 1866 we bought no agricultural products or food products from the Uuited States, but now, as I say, we now buy of them two and a half times as much as we sell to them. These facts constitute a reversal of the conditions of 1866 that is well to understand and take into account when we deliberate as to the proper course to pursue in the attempts we shall make and the limit to which we shall go in making arrangements.
Now, I wish to say a few words about, perhaps, the most important matter in connection with this question, I refer to the magnitude of the trade in manufactured goods imported from the United States into Canada. I must confess, that when I first commenced to investigate this case, I was amazed at. the revelations that were made to me. I suppose, that, as a matter of course, we bought more manufactures from Great Britain than we bought . from the United States-never dreamed that the contrary was the fact. But I found that in 1898 our purchase of manufactures, free and dutiable, from the United States, were much greater than our purchases from Great Britain. These are the figures
Import of Manufactures into Canada.
From Great Britain-
1898,	free	$ 5,181,1261898,	dutiable	
21,551,460Total	$26,732,586
From the United States-
1898,	free	$12,271,4481898,	dutiable	
31,563,321Total 	$43,834,769
In 1899 our imports of manufactures free and dutiable from Great Britain and the United States respectively were as follows:-
From Great Britain-
1899,	free	$ 5,144,8041899,	dutiable	
26,501,435
. $31,848,239
From the United States-
1899,	free	
1899,	dutiable	 37,247,807
Total	$51,546,637
The figures for the following year afford a still more striking comparison between our imports of manufactured goods from Great Britain and our imports in the same line from the United States. These are the figures :-
From Great Britain-
1900,	free	
1900,	dutiable

Total

From the United States-
1900,	free	
1900,	dutiable

Total	 * [DOT] [DOT]* $62,858,945
The figures for 1901, I have had in my hands for only a few days. They are as follows :-
From Great Britain-
1901,	free	$ 6,906,1851901,	dutiable	
30,864,488
Total

From the United States-
1901,	free	
1901,	dutiable

Total	$65,559,245
These figures show that our imports of manufactured goods from Great Britain last year were $714,000 less than those of the previous year, while our purchases from the United States were $2,700,000 more than those of the previous year. What does that mean ? There was a preference of 334 per cent in favour of Great Britain, yet we find a considerable falling off in the imports of manufactured goods from that country ; while the United States which enters our market against that preference, made a great increase in the quality of manufactured goods sold to us. The figures show that we purchase from the United States manufactured goods to the extent of $28,-
289,000	in excess of what we purchase from Great Britain, and to the extent of at least $15,000,000 in excess of what we purchase from all the rest of the world, Great Britain included. There were 381 articles on the list of importations, and, of that number, we purchased from the United States in excess of Great Britain- and very largely in excess in most cases-in the case of 269 articles ; and we purchased from Great Britain in excess of our purchases from the United States in the case of 112 articles. Why, Sir, the United States has command of the market of Canada for manufactures. Now, if we cannot sell to these people of whom we buy manufactured goods to the amount of over $65,000,000 to these people of whom our farmers


Total .. ..: Mr. CHARLTON.

buy fully $35,000,000 of that $65,000,000 worth ; to these people who allow our farmers on the other hand to squeeze in a paltry $8,000,000 worth of farm produce through their tariff fence, while over $20,000,000 of farm products exclusive of raw cotton comes into our markets from that country. I say that if we cannot secure some arrangement by which we can exchange the products of our own labour for the immense quantity of goods we buy from them, we had better make arrangements to manufacture the goods ourselves. It will cost us something at the start; but, for my part I am perfectly willing to pay my share of that additional cost.
One more presentation to show how favourable is the position of the United States in this market. 1 have some figures here that will show the free imports into Canada last year
Free Imports, 1901.
p.c.
From the United States, ex.
coin and bullion	 $53,549,000 74'66
From Great Britain, ex. coin
and bullion	 11,118,000 15'50
From all other countries		7,063,000	9'84
These figures show that almost seventy-five per cent of our total importation of free goods come from the United States. And what do they give us in return ? Why, they allowed us to send to them the products of our Klondike mines, our gold dust, our nuggets and our rich gold-bearing quartz. They allowed us also to send them free of duty saw-logs, pulp wood and hop poles, and if there is anything else, I have not had time to look it up. We have practically no free list in return for this free list of 53,000,000 odd dollars. And what did we give them on that free list ? Of this $65,000,000 of manufactures I spoke of a moment ago, $21,941,000 are on the free list. Of these free goods there were $3,464,000 of forest products. While they are putting $2 a thousand on our lumber, we are letting theirs come in here free. Of anthracite coal, $7,871,000 worth was free. Of farm products free of duty, consisting of corn, flax seed, wool, hides, hemp, broom corn, tobacco leaf, etc., $14,775,000 were free, or a total of $48,051,000, besides raw cotton, and if you add that to the list, you make it $52,782,000. This is our free list : $22,000,000 of manufactures, and $14,750,000 of farm products from a country that allows us to sell them-I will show how much shortly.
Here are two specimen - facts that I want to place before you in connection with this large subject. Last year our importation of corn from the United States free of duty was $6,484,000. Last year our total export of agricultural products of all kinds from Canada to the United States was $2,907,000. It lacks $700,000 of being one-half of what we permitted them to send to us in the shape of free corn.
9J
Now here are some figures in relation to our trade in farm products. Our imports from the United States last year were, of animals and their products, dutiable and free, $7,549,758 ; of agricultural products, dutiable and free, $17,919,000, or a total of $25,469,000 of agricultural products imported from the United States last year ; or if you eliminate raw cotton from the list, which is as much an agricultural product as wool, it still leaves $20,737,000. And in return what did they allow us to send them ? Of agricultural products we sent to the United States last year, the produce of Canada, $2,907,924 ; of animals and their products, $5,331,651, a total of $8,239,581 of the products of the farm which we were permitted to sell to the United States last year. We bought from them almost exactly $25,000,000 of the products of the farm, about $15,000,000 of which was up on the free list.
Now in 1866 our exports of farm products to the United States were $25,000,000, and the trade has fallen to one-third of what it was in 1866. In 1866 our exports of farm products to Great Britain were $3,544,000 ; in 1901 they were $78,527,000. That trade increased 2,115 per cent between 1866 and 1901, an increase of 21 fold in the exportation of farm products from Canada to Great Britain, against a decrease of two-thirds in the trade of the United States in the same article. Last year we sent to Great Britain 82 per cent of our total export of farm products, while we sent to the United States 9 per cent. We sent to Great Britain 82 per cent, and to all the rest of the world, the United States included, 18 per cent. Last year we bought articles of the United States raised on the farm in excess of our sales to that country-I do not want to weary you, but I think it would be profitable to read a list of the articles which we purchased in excess of our sales to the United States.
Corn, oats, rye, wheat, cornmeal, oatmeal, rye and wheat flour, malt, seeds, apples, small fruits, potatoes, vegetables, tobacco leaf, broom' corn, hemp, flax seed, horses, bogs, poultry, eggs, butter, lard, bacon, hams, beef salted In barrels, pork in barrels, other meats, grease, hides and skins, wool, and many other articles.
In all these articles, comprising the great bulk of our exportation to the United States, we bought of that country in excess of our sales to them.
Now if the conditions of our trade relations between Canada and the United States are not grotesquely and unfairly unequal, then I confess I am no judge. If these conditions are such as we are called upon to submit to, if we are to go on maintaining trade relations with the United States of the character that have existed for the last thirty-five years, we will certainly show a lack of spirit, and we will also show a lack of comprehension in my opinion of that which our interests require.

I now come, Sir, to the consideration of the question of reciprocity in natural products. I say right here that the very easiest, simplest and most favourable arrangement that we are called upon to make with the United States is to have reciprocal free trade in natural products, without references to any other conditions of tariff or trade. We are not called upon to increase our free list, we are not called upon to reduce our duties ; but we have a right to ask, and should be content with nothing less than reciprocal free trade in natural products. I have spoken of the balance of trade, the actual balance of trade of nearly $72,000,000 in favour of the United States, after eliminating from our exports the precious metals that were an actual payment on the balance of trade. I have pointed out that there is a heavy balance of trade between our exports of farm products and our imports of farm products. We buy of the United States, including cotton, three times as much as we sold to them. We buy of them, eliminating cotton from the list, two and a half times as much as we sell to them. Now, if we were to enter upon an arrangement by which there was free passage to and fro for all these natural products, the first thing we would have to overcome would be this balance of trade in favour of the United States In farm products ; and if the duty were removed, while there would be a great impetus given to importations into the United States from Canada, there would also be an increased amount of purchases in Canada from the United States. In almost all these articles except Indian corn, we impose duties which are calculated to interfere with the trade and to lessen importation. Now, if these duties were removed, we would export more largely to the United States, and of course we would import more largely from the United States ; and I do not believe that the balance of trade, in adjusting balances with reference to the products of the farm, would be a very large sum when we came to let the policy have full scope. For instance here is British Columbia and the Klondike region. Their natural sources of supply for food are Oregon and Washington. Take off the duties and the great bulk of the food that goes into that province and into the Klondike region will come from these two American states. Take off the duties and the maritime provinces will send their coal and lumber to the seaports on the Atlantic coast and will take from these ports nearly the entire amount of food that is consumed by the 900,000 inhabitants, of those provinces. Take off the duties and the mining and lumbering operations of Ontario and Quebec will use largely increased amounts of American corn and meats-and other products.
While we would largely increase our exportations to the United States we would also increase our imports not only of farm products, but also of manufactures. The in-Mr. CHARLTON.
creased trade thus created would be mutually advantageous, and even under this proposed arrangement of free trade in natural products we would round up every year with a balance of $20,000,000 or $30,000,000 against us in our trade with the United States.
There is another question that it is proper to discuss in connection with this matter, a very important question so far as it concerns influence upon American sentiment in relation to this question, and that question is : Would free trade in natural products lower prices in the United States ? Well, with regard to the articles for which both countries have a common market, wheat, cheese and all articles of which both countries produce a surplus and sell that surplus in Great Britain, or elsewhere, it could have no influence whatever upon prices in the United States. If all those articles were taken into the United States the merchants of that country would simply act as our factors in the business of exportation and if they went into the consumption of the United States they would merely displace that amount of the products' of United States that would go abroad. It would, however, have a good influence in Canada, it would increase competition in our markets and introduce new classes of buyers. But as far as prices in the United States are concerned the placing of natural products on the free list would have no appreciable influence upon the prices of such articles as that country, has a surplus of to export.
Then, let us take into consideration the question as to whether free trade would have any influence in the direction of depressing the prices of articles the United States imported from Canada for consumption into that country. I hold in this relation also that it would not. I hold that the volume of importation in any line would be so insignificant compared with the great volume of production in the United States that the comparatively insignificant quantity that went into that country from Canada would have no influence upon prices. I will illustrate this by a few quotations from the United States census of 1890. I have not the returns for 1900 which would be much more favourable to the view that I am endeavouring to present. In 1890 the production of eggs in the United States amounted to 819,722,000 dozen in volume of a value of about $120,000,000. The largest exportation of eggs from this country, when they were free, was about two and a quarter million dollars worth and last year we sent to the United States $7,185 as against a domestic production of $120,000,000. That little dribblet of eggs could have no influence upon the price of the vast production in the United States. In regard to horses, in 1890, there were in round numbers 15,000,000 horses in the United States. We sent them last year 3.289, or one horse for every 4,550

that they had in the country- Suppose we sent them three times as many horses, the exportation of horses would still be one horse for about every 1,500 in the country. Would that one horse in 1,500 influence the price of horses in the United States ? Of cattle last year we exported 46,320 head, while in 1S90 there were 51,363,575 head of cattle in the United States. We sent them one steer for every 1,100 they had in the country. In regard to sheep and lambs, there were about 41,000,000 in the United States in 1890. In 1900 we sent them 309,-0S7, or 1 lamb, or sheep, for every 130 in the country. Of potatoes, in 1890, they had
217.546.000	bushels. We sent last year
255.000	bushels, or one bushel of potatoes for every 920 raised in the United States. Of hay they had in the United States in 1890, 66,831,000 tons, and we exported last year 155,000 ton, or we sent them 1 ton to every 430 raised in the United States. In 1S90, the United .States raised about 79,000,000 bushels of barley, and we sent them last year 85,927, or 1 bushel to every 910. Suppose we increased our export to 7,000,000 bushels, the highest figures of our former importations, the importation of 7,000,000 bushels would have no influence upon the price. Of oats the United States in 1890 raised 809,250,000 bushels and we sent them in 1900 1 bushel for every 42,500 they raised.
Mr. Speaker, when this thing is considered in the light of common sense, when we take the figures of production in the United States and the figures of exportation from Canada, it becomes clearly apparent that the fear that free importation of Canadian products, and particularly of farm products, will have an influence upon American prices is sheer absurdity. Uast year we sent to the United States $7,266,000 worth of sawn lumber. This included what came from St. John, the product of the state of Maine logs, and it included what went through in bond for export. It included vast amounts of lumber bought by the Standard Oil Company for boxes on which they received a rebate of 90 per cent. The product of the United States in sawn lumber in 1890 was $446,000,000 worth-last year it was $100,000,000 more-but take 1890 as the basis of calculation, $446,000,000 worth of lumber was produced, while our export to the United States was $7,266,000, or the entire importation of lumber into the United States was
1.000	feet to every 63,000 feet produced in that country.
Let me present this information in tabulated form.
Sale of Farm Products for Consumption. Eggs in the United States, Census,
1890,	 819,722,000 doz.
Value	$120,000,000
Largest import from Canada	 2,100,000
Last year import from Canada .. ..	7,185
Head.
Horses in the United States, 1890 .. .. 14,969,467
Exported	last	year	 3,289
1 to 4,fa-30.
Head.
Cattle in	United States, 1890	
51,363,575Exported	last	year	
46,320
1 to 1,100.
Head.
Sheep and lambs in the United States,
1890	 40,876,312
Exported	last	year	 309,087
1 to 130.
Bush.
Potatoes in the United States, 1890... 217,546,000
Exported last year	 255,000
1 to 920.
Tons.
Hay in the United States,	1890	 66,831,480
Exported last year	 155,000
1 to 430.
Bush.
Barley in the United States, 1890.. .. 78,322,000
Exported last year	 85,927
1 to 910.
Bush.
Oats in the United States,	1890	 809,250,000
Exported last year	 18,858
1 to 42,500.
Lumber sawn, value produced in 1890. $446,000,000 Lumber sawn, imported in 1901 .. ..	7,266,000
1,000 ft. to 63,000 ft.
We had this matter under discussion before tbe Joint High Commission in Quebec. I presented substantially this argument in relation to lumber, and Mr. Dingley next morning came to me and said : ' Well, Mr. Cbarlton, I admit the soundness of your argument that importations and exportations amounting to only one and a half per cent of the production of our country can have no material influence upon prices. You have convinced me, but perhaps you would have a little more difficulty in convincing the United States Senate '.
I have no hesitation in saying, and I assert with perfect confidence that the fears of the American lumbermen and agriculturists in regard to the supposed effect of reducing prices in the United States on articles from Canada imported free of duty is a mere bugbear.
I noticed the other day an editorial from one of the Canadian papers copied approvingly by the Philadelphia ' Ledger ', an editorial criticising the speech I made in Chicago recently, in which the editor proceeded to set forth that if we had reciprocity of tariffs with the United States it would put us in a bad box, because we would bave to impose a duty on cotton and hides and would be obliged to impose a duty on a great many of tbe things we want for tbe interest of tbe people and which we import free. Well, the policy I am advocating does not contemplate any such nonsense. It does not contemplate hampering the operations of the cotton mills by putting a duty on cotton, it does not contemplate

hampering the operations of the woollen mills by a duty on wool, it does not contemplate hampering the interests of our tanners by a duty on hides. What I ash for is, that we shall have duties upon such things as it is desirable to produce in Canada. We want to foster our manufactures. They can have all the cotton they want. We want to foster our woollen mills. But I want to see some arrangement made by which this $65,000,000 worth of these American goods for which we pay hard cash which we receive from England on account of the handsome balance of trade we have with that country ; I want to see some arrangement by which the Americans will allow us to pay for these goods in the products of our own labourer, I want to see that they are manufactured here.
I spoke upon this question before the Merchants Exchange in Buffalo, and one of the leading Republican papers of that city, admitted next morning the force of my arguments ; admitted that the treatment which Canada received from the United States was hardly what the United States would want to receive from Canada. But, the editor said :	There is a consideration
here that we do not want to loose sight of; we want to avoid adopting a policy that would promote the prosperity of Canada, because we must bear in mind that the day may come when Canada will be hostile to the United States, and then we will regret that we did anything to promote her prosperity. The editor of that paper reminded me of the story of the elder of the Presbyterian congregation, who in the course of his charge to the new minister who was being inducted said : Now my dear brother, may the Lord in his great mercy keep you humble, and we will keep you poor. That seems to be the policy the United States propose to adopt towards Canada. They want the Lord to keep us humble, and they will do what they can to aid the Lord in that purpose and they will take every means that lies in their power to keep us poor. That is the policy that they have pursued for thirty-five years. That is the policy that some Canadians resent. That is the policy which in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, nine-tenths of the citizens of Canada will resent when they come to understand this case thoroughly.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the tariff of the Amercan nation is essentially unjust to us, but I have not the remotest anticipation that the presentation of proof to the American people that their tariff is unfair would have the slightest influence on their policy towards us. These circumstances do not weigh in the United States; they do not have weight here. The policy is that after you have secured the advantage, you should hold it, and that. I think, will be the policy of the United States. I remember discussing this question with John Sherman when he was Secretary of the Treasury for the Mr. CHARLTON.
United States, and I laid before Mr. Sherman the condition of trade between the two countries, and the reason that Canada had to complain of the tariff policy of the United States. I think I made it perfectly apparent to Mr. Sherman that we were not getting, as the saying is, a fair, show; but when I got through, Mr. Sherman said:	' Well, Mr. Charlton, I
think that our tariff suits us pretty well.' 'Yes,' I said, ' I rather think Mr. Sherman that it does, and I think moreover that the time will come when the Canadian people will discover that your tariff does not suit them, and then you will have either to do something to remove its bad features or we will do something ourselves to counteract them.'
The question is; whether we should not do that now. My proposition, Mr. Speaker, is simply this. I want to give the Americans an inducement to be just; an inducement to the extent of 40 per cent or more, of the duties levied upon their imports into this country. I would make it 50 per cent; 1 would make it 60 per cent; I would make it 75 per cent; I would make it almost anything to be effectual if we enter upon this business. I know very well the feelings of the American people. If they see a prospect of this being adopted, then they will be prepared to consider the nature of their own policy on its merits, and we will probably be able to do something. If the inducement is not sufficient; if the inducement when it is offered does not bring the concessions we hope and desire, why all right. We have simply threatened to do what we will do, we have simply threatened to do what it will be in our interest to do, and so far as I feel about this thing, I do not know that I care a very great deal which thing is done, but I am very clearly of the opinion that one thing or the other had better be done. I know that my hon. friend to my right (Mr. Edwards) and my hon. friend to my left (Mr. Ross, Victoria) may tell me that I have gone stark mad on the question of protection. Well, this is a matter out of the ordinary line of protection. This, Mr. Speaker, is a question of self-protection. Here, we are alongside of a mighty nation of 80,000,000 people. Our sons and our daughters are drifting to that country; the choice of our population goes there. We have no arrangement in our trade with them that gives us the advantages which we have a right to demand, and if we cannot get fair trade relations with that great nation, trade relations mutually advantageous and just, then I say that it is not a question of protection per se, but that it is a question of self-protection. It is a question whether we will turn the left cheek when we have been smitten on the right cheek, or whether we will assert our own independence, and proceed upon the principle that the best thing possible for us to do is to care for our own interests.

X am not insensible of tbe benefits of free trade. I am well aware that tbe greatest blessing tbe United States enjoys to-day is that uninterrupted free trade that exists between tbe forty-four states and tbe seven territories of tbe American union. I know that this policy bas been fraught with nothing but blessings since it was adopted when their constitution was first ratified. I know that very well, and I know that tbe nearest approach we can make, in our relations with tbe United States to that same trade condition that exists between tbe various states of tbe American union- tbe better for ourselves. And so far as our condition will permit, X am in favour of tbe adoption of that American interstate free trade policy. We must have of course a tariff for revenue. We cannot adopt tbe zollverein, but we can adopt free trade in natural products, and we can allow a trade to grow up between these two countries in all tbe articles which are mentioned in our imports and exports, which trade will attain enormous proportions and be to our mutual advantage. But we have got to have that matter arranged on a fair basis. We cannot go on as we have been going on. Tbe Americans profess now-many of them-to be prepared to give this country commercial union. Well, tbe time was I am perfectly frank in saying it-tbe time was when I was under tbe impression that a zollverein between Canada and the United States would promote our interests. In many respects I am prepared to say it would do so now. But, a zollverein is not now practical. A zollverein now would simply involve the sacrificing of Imperial interests that we cannot honourably sacrifice. We have built up a trade with Great Britain; she is our chief customer for our exports; we are a portion of tbe empire of which she is tbe bead. To adopt commercial union would be to discriminate against England-to discriminate very seriously against England. We would put tbe United States upon the same footing with regard to our exports. We would adopt tbe American tariff, or have a common tariff, which would give to tbe United States tbe advantage in our markets which would be represented by the amount of duty imposed, whatever that might be; and while it would give us uninterrupted access to the American market, there would be no investment of money in manufacturing operations in this country. We would buy our goods manufactured in the United States, because no man would invest money in manufacturing here under such an arrangement as a commercial union, that would be liable to be terminated and leave his investment worthless. So that as a question which may be ruled out of court a question to which, after full reflection, we can hardly give a favourable consideration.
There may arise in connection with this matter a complication of an unexpected character. It is possible that Great Britain may conclude to give a preference to the colonies-possible that we may have some arrangement by which duties shall be levied by England and all the colonies on all imports from the outside world; possible that we may get a duty of 10 per cent on wheat. If this policy were adopted, it would turn reciprocity down. I imagine that if the Americans want to improve then-trade relations with Canada, and retain a position which is advantageous to themselves, they had better make haste to give this country reciprocity in natural products ; for the time may come, and come soon, when this country would not accept or would not listen to such a proposition.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the House for having detained it so long.
I wish to recapitulate just a few of the points I have made. One point is that our tariff is one-half lower than the tariff of the United States-that it permits the admission of American goods into this market almost without impediment, while their tariff excludes our products from their market. The next point is that we give to the United States, notwithstanding the lack of liberality and generosity which they show towards us. lower tariff rates than we give to the rest of the world-lower tariff rates than we give to the mother country. The next point is that we buy from the United States three times as much as we sell to them. Last year we bought from them $119,000,000 worth, while we sold to them, after taking out the precious metals, less thau $42,000,000. Another point is that we buy from the United States three times as much agricultural products as we sell to them, if we include cotton ; two and a half times as much as we sell to them, if we exclude cotton. The next point is that we buy manufactures chiefly from the United States-$15,000,000 worth more than from the rest of the world, $28,000,000 more than from England ; and in view of the fact that we are the best customer they possess on the globe for the finished products of their factories, we have abundant reason for complaint. Another point is that while the United States is doing this enormous business with us, while we are their third best customer for total imports and their best customer for manufactured goods, we are not allowed to exchange the products of our labour for the goods we buy, the very first princiifle of commercial transactions. We are a four-fold better customer of the United States than we were in 1806, while they are not as good a customer of ours as they were at that time. Our business with them has increased with four times the rapidity that their business has increased with us. The United States has nearly obliterated our farmer's market in their country, which is smaller to-day than it was in 1866, when

our population was only three-fifths of what it is to-day.
Now, the country tires of these conditions; they are intolerable. Something must be done to change the trade conditions that exist between the United States and Canada. Free trade in natural products would afford a reasonable adjustment ; nothing short of this would do it ; and this concession of free trade in natural products must, be granted by the United States without a solitary concession from Canada further than those we have already made ; we cannot afford any more. If we are denied these reasonable concessions, I repeat again, we can resort to self-protection, and that is the policy we must pursue.
Sir, we have illimitable resources. Year by year our conception of the natural wealth this country possesses rises. There is not an intelligent Canadian who does not believe twice as much to-day as he believed five years ago with regard to the potential wealth of Canada. We have in Nova Scotia, as American iron masters were well aware when I was chairman of the Mining Commission of Ontario in 1889-we have in the iron region of Cape Breton conditions which will enable us to produce iron at a lower cost per ton than is possible at any other place in the world, even at Birmingham, Alabama. That business will develop until we shall supply our own wants and export iron and steel in vast quantities, and compete witli the United States in the neutral markets of the world. We talk about New Ontario; but we have a New Quebec stretching up to James bay, a great region where there are thirty thousand square miles of virgin country, with admirable soil, with a good climate, and capable of supporting hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. We have New Ontario developing with rapid strides, in agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and lumbering-a region possessing vast wealth. We have Hudson bay, our closed sea, one-third larger than the German ocean, towards which we are stretching out railway lines from Quebec, from Montreal, from Toronto ; a great expanse of water, with great piscatorial wealth. We have on the Ungava river, in Labrador and on the eastern shores of Hudson bay, millions and trillions of tons of iron. We have the isothermal line stretching from the American boundary to the shores of the Great Slave lake and inclosing a vast region in every part of which spring opens almost simultaneously, where four hundred million acres of wheat land are awaiting the plough of the husbandman. We have a vast auriferous region extending along the American boundary for three hundred miles to the west of the Rocky mountains, and to the north fourteen hundred miles. We can support a hundred million people from the products of our soil. We have fisheries, minerals, timber resources, and agricultural resources


John Charlton: beyond the fondest and wildest dreams we entertained but a few years ago, and, Sir, we putter along, making an advance in population of 11 or 104 per cent each decade. Shall we go along at the ambling pace we have been pursuing, increasing our population in thirty years from 3,600,000 to five and a quarter millions ? Why, it will take us two hundred years at this rate to people the country, which we have awaiting settlement. Something needs to be done ; some change of policy is desirable. It is for us to consider what it is. One thing is certain : we do not want to continue the trade conditions that exist between us and the United States. We do not want to pay them tribute annually to the extent of from $50,000,000 to $70,000,000. We want from them some concessions uiat will enable us to trade with them upon a fair basis. The policy I have to propose is one that will give to any country which admits our natural products free of duty a preference over all countries that do not do so. That will settle the question of the maximum rate with Germany in a summary manner. It will give the United States an inducement to deal with us fairly, and if that inducement does not produce the result desired, we will simply go on and map out a course of our own and strike out our own pathway to empire in the best way we can.
I beg, therefore, to move :
That this House is of the opinion that Canadian import duties should be arranged upon the principle of reciprocity in trade conditions bo far as may be consistent with Canadian interests ; that a rebate of not less than 40 per cent of the amount of duties imposed, should be made upon dutiable imports from nations or countries admitting Canadian natural products into their markets free of duty ; and that the scale of Canadian duties should be sufficiently high to avoid inflicting injury upon Canadian interests in cases where a rebate of 40 per cent or more shall be made under the conditions aforesaid.


Mr. W. C. EDWARDS (Russell).: I cannot hope, Mr. Speaker, to command the attention of the House to anything like the extent to which the hon. gentleman, who has just taken his seat, has succeeded in doing, for not only do I lack the well known parliamentary skill of the hon. gentleman in debate, but I labour under the further disadvantage that the line of argument which I propose to take, is not one likely to commend itself to hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, or to appeal to their sympathies as do the sentiments just expressed by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). At the outset of his remarks, my hon. friend said that the policy he proposed to commend to the House was one which he considered best in principle. In taking this stand, he nailed his colours to the mast absolutely as a protectionist pure and simple. Had he said that the course he proposed, was one he considered best, under the existing conditions, as a

policy, but not as a question of principle, then the position he took would be an entirely different one. He asserts, however, policy, but not as a question of principle, Well, Mr. Speaker, I entirely dissent from the hon. gentleman's proposition. I submit that the course he advocates is neither best as a policy for the Canadian people nor is it best in principle. It is not the policy we ought to adopt, no matter what the Americans may do.
The hon. gentleman pointed out that while our imports from the United States have largely increased, our exports to that country showed a decrease, despite the fact that we are giving a preference of 33 i per cent to English goods over American imports. He then went on to show that our tariff in general is higher on the dutiable goods coming from Great Britain than on the same class of goods from the United States. To those who do not consider or understand the situation, that statement may have some force, but to me it has no force at all. In order that it should be properly understood, my hon. friend should have taken the articles imported from the United States and shown what tariff they paid, and then compared the rates of duty with those on goods imported from England. If he will do this lie will find that many of the articles which we buy from the United States are those which England does not manufacture at all. But if it be true that Canadians, notwithstanding the more favourable tariff on English goods, wilfully buy their wants from the United States, then the people of Canada are not only disloyal but a pack of fools. Why do Canadians buy more largely from the United States than from England ? Because it is in their interest to do so.
The hon. gentleman then went on to show the very rapid growth of the United States as compared with Canada. No one will deny that the growth and development of the United States has been most wonderful in every respect. And we must also admit that the growth of Canada has not been relatively as great. But there are other causes for this disparity besides the trade question. I am of the opinion that a great many immigrants from European countries, where the governmental system is very autocratic and severe, and no doubt also many people coming from our own British Isles, imagine that in the United States they will find a freer country than Canada. Of course, no Canadian, no one who knows anything of the institutions of this country, will doubt for a moment that we are the freer of the two, but none the less is it undeniable that that is not the opinion of the mass of the people who live in European countries, especially on the continent.
There is another fact which must not be lost sight of, and that is the geographical position of the United States. The United States is a country of great breadth and depth. It has many natural resources which
Canada does not possess. Its geographical conditions are certainly more favourable. In Canada we occupy a long strip of country-our transit being from east to west. And until there are more means of outlet for the products of our great North-west, until there is competition for the carriage of these products, that country cannot make its greatest development.
But what are the conditions to-day ? My hon. friend says that Canadians are going to the United States. No, Sir, things have changed in that respect. It is not Canadians who are going to the United States, but Americans who are coming to this country to settle here. There are reasons for that. Canada is, to-day, making the very greatest development it ever made. And I just want to show the hon. gentleman that he has proved the very reverse of the position he takes. Any one who watched his speech closely, cannot come to any other conclusion than that it was one of the most illogical speeches ever made in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr. ED WARDS.: That is the style of argument we hear from hon. gentlemen opposite, and that is the extent of their understanding of this question. Now, I will make a statement and will challenge satisfactory contradiction. Has our tariff in Canada been raised ? No. The consequence of giving the preference of 33J per cent to Great Britain is to lower the prices of goods in the country. But that is a very small matter indeed. The effect of that reduction of tariff is to lower the prices of all similar goods coming into this country. And my statement is that it is in consequence of the lowering of our duties Canada is now making the greatest development she has ever made.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Cameron Edwards: I am quite aware, Mr. Speaker, that when I speak to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, I address a very capable audienee. But I quite admit also that this is a question that they have never studied. The hon. member for North Norfolk went on to show, about the close of his speech, the glorious advantages of free trade among the many states of the union. If he had been discussing this whole question on the basis of policy and had said that he was going to strike back at the Americans because of something naughty that they had done, I might extend forgiveness to him. But when he says that he is advocating this as a matter of principle,
1 then I desire to ask : If free trade amongst the states of the union has been a great ! blessing to them on what ground of principle can we possibly say that increasing the tariff as between Canada and the rest of the world will prove a blessing to Canada ? By lowering the tariff 33i per cent on goods

coming from Great Britain-the consequence of which is to reduce the protection afforded to the manufacturers of our country-we have been blessed, as shown by the progress we are making. Let the present government go further in that direction and Canada instead of developing as she is now developing, will develop in far greater ratio.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen on tlie other side of the House, who choose to speak, will have an opportunity to speak; but nothing will be made out of any attempt to interrupt me. I am perfectly aware that my views on this question are very divergent from those of lion, gentlemen on the other side.


Mr. MACLEAN.: And from those of your neighbour.


William Cameron Edwards: I am sorry for my neighbour. But I cannot help it. In the discussion of a question of this kind there is a class of people who should not be lost sight of, and they are the men who produce the great wealth of Canada. And who are they ? First and foremost amongst them are the agriculturists of our country. They are the men who should receive first consideration in every question of this kind. It is useless for any gentleman in this House or out of it to pretend that a tariff between Canada and the United States on agricultural products would have any general effect. The fact is that the people of the United States are large exporters of manufactured products, and so are we. The general prices, then, must be governed by the markets of the world, and a tariff would only have a local effect. That is to say, in some certain localities, agricultural products might cost the buyer more, but the seller, the producer, would not get a cent more because of the tariff. The tariff on agricultural products does not benefit the Canadian farmer by a fraction of a cent. Next to the Canadian farmer in importance is the Canadian lumberman. My hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) a few years ago was very anxious that sawlogs should be exported to the United States. I think that now he is glad that they are not so exported. But there is one thing he does desire, and that is that Canadian lumber shall go into the United States free of duty. Though I am a farmer I also do something in sawing wood, and, perhaps, export as much lumber as my hon. friend. But, I will say this-that beneficial as it would be to the Canadian lumberman to have our lumber go into the United States free of duty, I would not cross the line to ask for that concession. And I make this further statement-that if any proposition comes from any hon. member of this House to place a tax on lumber coming into Canada, I will oppose it in any way I can. The taxing of goods imported into the United States is a great detriment and curse Mr. EDWARDS.
to the American people, and because the people of the United States are cursed in that respect, my hon. friend wants the people of Canada to be similarly cursed by a tariff on goods imported into this country. Now, if it is true that the goods coming from the United States are purchased there more cheaply than they can be got anywhere else, who in Canada is hurt by their importation ? Is the Canadian farmer hurt by low duties upon articles that are imported for him ? Not at all. Is the Canadian lumberman hurt by the low duties ? Not at all. Is the Canadian fisherman hurt by low duties, or the Canadian miner ? Not at all. A protective tariff is simply class legislation, legislation for the benefit of the few to the detriment of the many. My hon. friend speaks of our not having made great development in this country so far as population is concerned. Sly firm belief is that if we had never had the curse of protection our population would be twice what it is to-day. And not only that, but we would manufacture twice what we do today. Why, if you want to enable us to manufacture, you must place the people in a position to purchase. Do you place the people in a position to purchase by making it difficult to bring in goods, when the natural products of Canada must be sold in the open markets of the world or in competition with all the rest of the world ? The only effect of such a course is to compel those who are engaged in producing wealth in Canada to pay tribute, not to the public treasury, but to the treasuries of the protected few. There are those who say that, if certain industries in Canada were not carried on to their present extent Canadians could not find employment. What could be more absurd ? In a country such as we have, a country with resources unbounded, is it to be supposed for a moment, that, if a few of our men are diverted from the industries in which they are engaged, they will not be able to find employment within the bounds of the whole Dominion ? There is employment in Canada for ten times the population we have to-day. I have always contended, and I always will contend, that if you would have Canada achieve its greatest prosperity, you must let those who are producing the natural wealth of our country buy in the same way as they sell-in the open market of the world. Until that is done. Canada cannot attain its greatest development.


Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: I have great pleasure in seconding the motion made by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). I am sure that no more important question has been discussed in the parliament of Canada since those days when discussions of trade and tariff took place during the sessions preceding 1879. I am sure nothing could be of more importance to the people of our country to-day than that this matter which, to a certain

extent, perhaps, has been overlooked by the people of Canada, should receive such full and thorough discussion as would make it impossible for speeches so divergent in tone and in intention as we have just listened to, to be delivered on the floor of this House in so short a period of time. I have not a great deal of sympathy with the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards); but believing as I do that he is convinced of the correctness of the views which he holds in reference to free trade, I listened with a good deal of interest, in the course of his speech, for any remarks which would seem to have the effect of weakening the very strong impression made upon my mind by the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk. Well, I did not recognize anything that to my mind inpaired the force of the argument of the hon. member for Norfolk, to which we listened for a considerable time, without at all, so far as I was concerned, exhausting the great interest that I felt in every word that he uttered. We did hear from our friend from Russell, if not stated with the same clearness and fullness, at least the echoes of the old arguments which were adduced during the debates of almost a generation ago. We did hear in the latter part of his speech what lie thinks is the gist of the argument that can be adduced against the speech made by the member for North Norfolk, and that is the contention that a protective system involves a certain amount of loss to the consumers of the country, a certain amount of sacrifice upon their part, and that therefore it is a policy which is not in the general interest.
Those of us who have a clear recollection of the old discussions that took place during the eighteen years of Conservative regime since 1879. have often heard the charge advanced with great force that the imposition of protective duties in any country has the effect of injuring the consumers for the benefit of a protected class, and it is strange to my mind to hear that same argument reproduced in parliament at the present time when we remember that the hon. gentleman from Russell is to-day sitting and voting in support of an administration which has adopted and is maintaining and upholding a protective system in every detail. The hon. gentleman cannot consistently occupy his position as long as he holds the views which he has expressed to-day: he cannot consistently support a government of which he is, I believe, a most loyal supporter holding such opinions as he has expressed to-day. All that he has said, while it leaves his own course in great doubt, and I think it devolves upon him the task of making some further utterance that will explain his course and the support which he sees fit to give to this present administration, does not at all affect that great and important question which has been raised by the hon. member from North Norfolk.
Now, I should not follow the hon. member
for Russell in all his remarks, although to my mind one could do so with great profit.
1 think it would be impossible for him to fail to draw from the speecli of the member for Norfolk ample proof of the inaccuracy and mistaken opinions which he sterns to hold in reference to this subject. In referring to the abandonment of a protective system as likely to increase the population of this country, he maintained that in this country we have labour sufficient for all the people of this country.


William Cameron Edwards: And ten times more.


Adam Carr Bell: And still that state of affairs, as was shown by the hon. member for Norfolk exists in the neighbouring country where there is no free trade, a country which draws directly from Canada many of our labouring people. In that country they have a system which the hon. member for Norfolk rightly praises as being adapted to the maintenance of their prosperity, but which I think is a policy that is antagonistic and injurious to us as a people. Now, it must be borne in mind, and that was very apparent in the speech of my hon. friend from Norfolk, that he does not at all attack the policy of the United States administration in reference to that country; but he does maintain, and. I think has proved absolutely, that the two peoples living 'side by side show such remarkable contrast in the matter of development of population, wealth and resources, as to make any reasonable man consider the relative policies of these two countries in order to discover if possible the reason why the one country is so amazingly prosperous and is increasing at such an amazing rate in population and wealth, while this country is lagging behind in the race.
There are I am sure no gentlemen in this House who have paid the slightest attention to the study of these questions, who are not prepared to admit that a tremendous argument can be made in favour of free trade. The hon. member for North Norfolk told us, at least I gathered as much from one passage in his speech when he pointed to the remarkable career of the United States and attributed it in great measure to that enormous system of free trade which prevails between all the states and territories of the great union. We in Canada have every reason to know and to feel that in that measure of free trade that tve enjoy as a people and which, after 1867, threw down all the barriers between the provinces making up the Confederation, Canada has derived an immense advantage.
But this, Mr. Speaker, is not an abstract question as to whether free trade is the right system. That is not the state of affairs that exists in the world to-day. In trade matters we find to-day all countries engaged in rivalry or active hostility, having in view on the part of the governments of

all these several countries, the progress and the advancement of their people, and the success of those people in grasping the prize of power and of wealth which is held up for them all to struggle for. The situation is just this : We are living in a world in which the several governments are endeavouring to overcome the disadvantages, if such there be, of their position, and are for the most part, indeed I may say unanimously, relying upon a system of protection to enable them to surpass their competitors in the race.
The really critical point to which the hon. member for North Norfolk directs the attention of the House is this: Can we as a people afford to allow that great people with whom we are so immediately in contact and who are our natural competitors to maintain a system by which they refuse to give us any part of the trade of the country so far as they can prevent it, while they are absorbing the whole trade of our country V I need not go over the figures quoted by the hon. gentleman. They are accurate so far as I can judge, listening to them in gross, and they are startling. The very fact that it appears that in every department of commercial activity the United States are not only shutting us out of their markets and benumbing our trade and cutting off to a minimum our exports to them, but are grasping the larger part of our trade, is one of the most startling statements to which I have ever listened. It cannot be denied that it would appear that our policy is not a well chosen one-I am not speaking in this connection of the government of the day or of the opposition- but there are some defects in the manner in which we are carrying out our system when it appears that the people of Canada, who have been taking great credit to themselves for giving an advantage in their markets to the mother country find themselves in this position, that upon dutiable imports coming into the country they are levying a less rate upon articles from the United States than upon articles from that great country which receives nearly the whole of their exports. There cannot be any doubt that there is something wrong and there cannot be very much doubt either, because there is not very much reason to doubt, that this state of affairs is one that has been brought about by design. When we decreased the tariff in 1897, the government of the day claimed a great deal of credit and claimed that they were exhibiting a great deal of friendliness to the mother country by giving a 25 per cent rebate-at first 12i per cent and afterwards 25 per cent. At that time it was pointed out that the expected benefit to the mother country would prove to be much less than it proraised and that upon the lines of goods we largely imported from the mother country the cutting down of the tariff was pre-


Adam Carr Bell: ceded by a raising of the tariff. Duties upon the goods which we import from the mother country had been marked up in the first place so that the taking off of one-eighth and then one-quarter and afterwards one-third did not produce so great an effect as it apparently did.
There is no doubt at all that the figures that have been advanced by the hon. member for North Norfolk are correct. They show that at the present time that country which has shown to us the utmost unfriendliness has come to our markets in such a position of advantage that no other country can compete with it in securing the trade of this country. The result is that the trade of this country is passing not only in the matter of raw products, but in the matter of manufactured goods, very rapidly into the hands of the people of tiie United States who practically have control to-day of the trade of Canada. Now, under these circumstances, it seems to me that it is amazing that more attention has not been given to this subject. I have watched during the last twelve months with the utmost interest the fact that the hon. member for North Norfolk has been bringing this matter to the attention of the people of the United States by speaking on the subject before a great many of the most important bodies in that country. I have sometimes wondered what his purpose was, because, judging from the efforts that have been made by the people of Canada to derive any advantage in the markets of the United States, efforts in which be himself participated in very great degree during the course of a few years past, I could scarcely hope that he had any anticipation that any effort made in that direction would have any effect whatever. We can, in our province, very well remember the enormous change that took place in our circumstances when the old reciprocity treaty was done away with, and while we are forced to admit, that, to a large extent it has interfered with our trade and with our exports, still, I would feel disposed to go so far as to say that the repeal of the reciprocity treaty was not an unmixed evil for our country. I can recollect very well the position of affairs before the repeal of the reciprocity treaty and what was that condition ? Actually, in that country, in Nova Scotia, where, today, there are very many important industries, some of national importance, some of them of such great magnitude that they are practically national concerns, such as our great iron and steel industries, the fact of the matter was that at that time, under the operation of that treaty, we were supplying natural products to a large extent to the United States and we were absolutely without any manufacturing industries. The commonest articles, the hay rake of the farmer and the cheap chair that is in the workingman's dwelling, everything in the

line of those articles which it might be supposed a comparatively young people would be beginning to make were imported, we were making no progress in the direction of establishing manufacturing industries and our principal business was to find raw materials to be sent to our more progressive, more businesslike and more active neighbours from whom we received them back in manufactured forms. ThCn again the effect of the repeal of the reciprocity treaty, while it was largely to promote manufacturing in this country, was also to develop that condition of affairs in which you see the mother country our great purchaser and in which we have created a state of affairs that makes it clear to the world and to every man who has Imperial interests in view and considers of the safety of the empire that we are now, or very shortly will be, in the position in which we can feed the mother country and make her independent of outside sources of supply. In these directions, both in the stimulus given to our home manufacturers in Canada and the stimulus given in the direction of swelling our exports to the mother country so as to make us more important to that country, to bind us closer together and to give us an enormous part in the welding together of the empire which has built up the Imperial sentiment existing to-day, the repeal of the reciprocity treaty was not an unmixed evil but rather an advantage to Canada. Now, however, we have advanced many steps in the course of our life as a people, and these steps are perhaps best marked in the minds of most of us by the decennial periods in which our census is taken. In 1879 the government of this country adopted a system of protection and they promised and hoped for very great things in the direction of industrial advancement from that policy. The census of 1891 was unquestionably a surprise to the people of Canada. It was a painful surprise; it was startling to find that we had made a progress so small as we had made under the stimulus of the effort to swell our industries and to keep our people at home and increase our population. Living as we have done since 1896 under a government, which has certainly, no matter what else may be said of it, enjoyed a period of enormous prosperity, which has lived under a most auspicious star and enjoyed luck beyond what it is ordinarily to be expected will fall to the lot of any government, We could not help supposing that the census of 1901 would show an enormous increase, or at least, an increase that would prove a fair rate of progression in our population. But what is the result. I am sure there is not a gentleman on the other side of the House who is not prepared to admit as 1 was prepared to admit in 1891, that the result of the last census is a disappointment. If we are a wise people we must not lose
much time in considering the disappointment, and we should lose not one moment in sinking under the disappointment, but we must, following the lines laid down for us by the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) consider whether or not that system under which we are working out our course is so well devised that it does not admit of change. I believe that the resolution introduced by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) should be followed up by a sufficiently exhaustive discussion, from which I would like to see all feeling of party spirit removed, and all party recrimination eliminated. I believe that if we exhaust the subject as this parliament of Canada is capable of exhausting it, we cannot fail to come to some definite conclusion as to whether that course of conduct indicated by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) be or be not a wise one. I must admit that we should all approach such a question with an open mind, and that it is not well that we should have our opinions fully formed upon it. Although I am proud indeed to have the honour of seconding a resolution moved by a public man of such a reputation as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton), 1 feel that I cannot at this moment absolutely make up my mind as to the correctness of the course he indicates, though I am prepared to say, from the observations of years past and from that spirit of national pride and self-respect that all Canadians have; I feel very much inclined as a man to follow the eourse that is marked out forme in that resolution, and when I find Canada treated with unfriendliness and unkindliness, and apparently overreached in the great bargain conducted between two neighbouring nations; I feel inclined to strike back and to meet unfriendly blow with unfriendly blow. I feel inclined to go back to the old ways in which we discussed this matter a long time ago, and to decide that we do not want a jug handled trade system on this continent, but that we want a system that will give equal and fair treatment to both contracting parties.
I am satisfied that the government of Canada feels that having made the fullest efforts possible-and having done so in that spirit that the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) said he could have wished the preceding government had shown-I am persuaded that having made every effort consistent with national self-respect, they are satisfied that they need not hope for any measure of relief from the administration of the United States in the direction of bettering our trade relations. It is not for us to criticize the policy of the government of a nation friendly in a sense, and with which we wish to cultivate the most cordial relations. We In this country cannot lose sight of the fact that we must occasionally suppress our wishes, and modify our demands in view of that larger Imperial policy In which we are all involved and to which we must contribute a share of our support. But I do say

that we should not hesitate for one instant to put into force as against that neighbouring country, without apology and without explanation, a system that will enable us to retain for ourselves those industries for which Canada is well adapted, and without which this country cannot achieve that national greatness for which she is unquestionably destined. My hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) waxed almost poetical and undoubtedly eloquent in speaking of the resources of this country. It was a passage in his speech to which he will look back, I believe, with great satisfaction. It was the portion of his speech to which I listened wi th the greatest of pleasure, and it touched the hearts and to a certain extent the imaginations of his listeners as he painted the advantages, and the possible wealth, and the future greatness of this our country. But after all, could we realize all these advantages, could we realize within that measurable distance of time in which we may expect to do our part as the builders of Canada, could we expect to achieve these results, without some change in the policy under which we have been acting in the past ? I do not think we could. And, while I am prepared to go a long way in the direction of meeting my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Edwards) in his appreciation of the farmer, and of the fisherman, and of the miner, and of the lumberman, still I do not think that it is wise for us to shut our eyes to the facts. It is very true that the farmer is the foundation of all our prosperity. He, and the fisherman, and the miner, directly receive from the hands of the Great Disposer and Provider of all our wants, these natural gifts that are the basis of all national prosperity. But there is another class which have grown up, since the days the old Latin writer spoke of agriculture as being the fruitful mother of all industries. There is in our country and in our time, an enormous development in the direction of manufacturing industries. It is the outcom-ing, the extension of that great farming class, and it receives at the hands of the miner, and the fisherman, and the farmer, the food and the materials out of which to create national wealth. And by the enormous development of industry, in which not only the body and the brawn, but the mind of man as well, is an active worker, the artisan creates that state of advancement and elevation whicli sets some countries in the world far in advance of others. Why. the lesson of our times; the lesson taught by our census, is conclusive on that point. To what do our people tend. Do they tend to go to the farm, or when they migrate from our country do they go to some other country where they can secure farms ? Do they go to work at the fisherman's nets ? No, Mr. Speaker, we find that the people of our country, in common with the people of the most enlightened and model countries in the world, go to the Mr. BELL.
towns, to create great centres and great hives of industries, and in that way to do their part in elevating and building up and strengthening our country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having as I have, that sentimental feeling and kindly consideration for the farmer, the fisherman and the miner-and thereby taking the line that seems to be marked out for himself by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) that nothing whatever must be done to interfere witii the freedom of trade-even if I were disposed to accept that course with these ample reservations which the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) has adopted in his own case, and which would allow me to support a government which imposes a tariff which in some cases exceeds 75 per cent, and in other cases maintains a tariff very well up to the protective standpoint, I would still not feel disposed to fall in with that view. I would believe it to be more in the interest of the country that we as public men should not allow ourselves to be influenced by such views unless a careful consideration of all the circumstances, and all the facts and figures that could be brought to bear, would confirm our judgments, and support that sentiment by arguments of such a solid character that we could not get away from them.
Now, I cannot help thinking that the hon. member for North Norfolk has made an enormously strong case. He has shown conclusively that the United States, while not solicitous for the welfare of its neighbours, but exceedingly able in conducting its own affairs, has prospered beyond our prosperity in a manner almost surprising. He has made out a case so strong that at the first blush I would be inclined to think we should all give the most favourable consideration to his arguments, and inquire whether we could not at once adopt a system of reciprocity of tariffs which we could apply to any country which would not give us reciprocity of free trade.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Adam Carr Bell: Mr. Speaker, the resolution of the hon. member for North Norfolk, which we were discussing at C o'clock, calls practically for a measure of reciprocity-reciprocity in the direction of a very liberal measure of free trade between Canada and the United States. From my understanding of the speech made by the hon. member, liis first alternative seemed to be, if it were available, that the United States should lower its tariff and show the same liberality in dealing with the products of this country that we have shown in dealing with theirs. At the same time, it was impossible to avoid the impression that from his knowledge of our relations with the United States, and

his experience and the experience of the government in dealing with that country, he had not very much hope of seeing any great lowering of its duties. Practically, then, such a resolution, if it were to take the form of a measure to be adopted by a government and put into operation, would carry us entirely and irrevocably, if logically followed out, in the direction of a reciprocity of tariffs. Of course, it could not for a moment be supposed that this parliament or any member of it would adopt a policy aimed particularly at any country without some good reason ; and yet one noticeable fact in the speech of the hon. member was that it dealt almost exclusively with our relations with one particular country, that is, the United States. The fact first cited by the hon. member, the foundation fact as it were, was a contrast which he drew between this country and the United States exhibited by the census in regard to the growth of population. Not taking into account for the moment any other facts revealed by the census, he showed that Canada has made very trifling gains-only 104 per cent in the last twelve years, 12* per cent in the preceding, and only 47 per cent in the whole period since confederation-whereas the United States in a similar period, and at a time when there was not the same great activity in business that there is to-day, had made an increase in population three times as great.
There is one noticeable distinction between the policies of the two countries. The United States, with one or two reversions to a comparatively free trade system, has been a protectionist country we may say throughout, whereas Canada has not, in my opinion, been a protectionist country in the full sense of the word. It is certainly not a highly protectionist country. In the old days of the provincial governments, we had duties that were revenue duties solely, and these were placed at such a low point that they afforded no protection whatever. The province of Nova Scotia not long ago had a tariff of ony 10 per cent. While the upper provinces went a good deal beyond that, still we have not had in Canada, either before or since confederation, a really high and effective protective tariff at any time. Now, contrasting the two countries, we have equal natural resources, quite as healthful a climate, and people not at all inferior, and it does not seem unnatural to argue that the marked difference of growth in them is due to the wide difference in their tariff policies. We have had, it is true, since 1879, a certain amount of protection. We have been supposed to have a protective system, but it has not been a high protective system. It has not gone the length of the United States system, either in setting up the duties in the first place or in maintaining them at a high and efficient point afterwards. There are only two exceptions to this remark in our tariff system. We have had adequate protection given to the coal oil industry, and a fair measure of protection to our iron and steel industries in the form of government bounties. What is the result ? While in some other lines Canada may not be holding her own in the struggle for mastery, in these particular industries we find Canada achieving a great and splendid success ; and if that system is maintained without weakening, these industries will be not only established, but will go on and develop their strength to a point at which they will be able to enter into competition and hold their own in the markets of the world with the people of the United States or any other people.
Taking into consideration the fact that we have, on the whole not, afforded protection to our manufactured industries as compared with the United States, and have therefore not made a proportionate advance, and considering on the other hand the instance cited of the iron and steel industry, which has been afforded more generous protection and achieved more gratifying success, it strikes me that a good prima facie case has been made out to justify our revising our policy and entering upon a genuine, earnest system of protection. To any one who has followed the tariff discussions and changes in Canada, it must be evident that even when the principle of pro-teetion was adopted by the Canadian government, a very strong influence was exercised by public men, who were sympathetic with free trade and who impressed with great force the interests of the consumer on the attention of parliament. The result followed that even while adopting the principle, only a so-called system of protection was adopted, which did not prove itself efficient and which therefore prevented the development that would have followed the adoption of an effective system. The force of circumstances is compelling us to reconsider our position. A certain condition of affairs is revealed to us. We know that we enjoy natural advantages unsurpassed elsewhere, and yet we have made a noticeable failure to make such increase in our population, wealth and development as might have been expected from our circumstances and the character of our people. We are therefore confronted with a condition of things which compels us to seek its causes, and if we should fail, as we are almost certain to do, in inducing the United States government to reduce its tariff and make it as favourable to our natural products as ours is to them, we will be compelled, by the sheer force of reason and necessity, to adopt the other alternative suggested by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). We will be compelled, If we cannot obtain reciprocity or a reduction of tariff, to adopt, not only against the United States, but against the whole

world-witli the sole exception of the mother country which has treated us with every liberality-a policy of protection similar to that under which our American neighbours have achieved such great success.
No doubt the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) will be pressed with great force, not only in this House but outside, especially in the agricultural sections of the country. No doubt people will be told that the consumer pays too much for protection. Well, if we are driven into that discussion again, we will be merely going back to the old controversy, and we will have to prevail upon the consumer to submit to some sacrifice-temporary and not at all serious-as may be necessary in order to give him those advantages that unquestionably flow from great manufacturing industries, such as a large increase in population and consequently magnificent home markets for the farmer, the fisherman, the miner, and every man who is (frawing on natures bounty and passing it into consumption. But that question has been threshed out already. It is not possible that the Canadian people could ever have consented to the measure of protection they did adopt unless they were convinced that it would give them some compensation, and the time I believe is within measurable distance when this whole question of developing home industries, and thus increasing our population and creating a home market for our natural products, will force itself upon the attention of the government. It is possible that a government may continue in power whicli will be half-hearted in this matter-which will give a certain measure of protection-which will pose both as a friend of the manufacturer and of the farmer, but it is not likely that such a state of affairs can long continue, and I have no doubt the time is near at hand when the administration will have to come to a decision and shape its course definitely, either as one of decided protection or free trade. Free traders we cannot expect or hope to be, and therefore it strikes me that the only alternative before us is one leading to a system of protection, which shall be really effective and not merely nominal-one which will give to our manufacturers and capitalists the assurance that their investments of energies and labour and money will rest on a solid and durable foundation. It is therefore of the highest importance that every view on this matter should be expressed-the view both of the man who is in favour of protection and of the man who is opposed to it. There are innumerable instances which may be cited, and special circumstances that may be urged, which we cannot expect to meet in speeches made in general terms. There are special circumstances that modify and affect almost every industry. There are some things we can do


Adam Carr Bell: better in Canada than elsewhere, and others which it would not be advisable for us to undertake. But a full and thorough discussion of the subject, embracing almost all the various industries of the country and the circumstances which affect each, will bring us no doubt a remedy to our present condition, which is that of stagnation. It will then be incumbent on those gentlemen who do not agree with the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Chariton), who do not believe in the remedy which he suggests and the reasons in favour of which he gives with great force and power-it will then be the duty of these gentlemen to suggest some alternative measure by which some relief can bp brought to this country. We have not done what we should have, and we are doing now still less than we did in the immediate past. Our population, instead of increasing more rapidly, is increasing less rapidly. The exodus is not a thing of the past, but is going on now as it went on before. Our people are leaving the country and going to the neighbouring republic where, owing to protection-owing to their efficient protective system-their young men and women find an ample field for the exercise of their energy and their ability which is lacking in this country. We can unquestionably in Canada, in a comparatively short time, establish some industries on such a footing as to make them perfectly safe. We have already established the iron and steel industry upon a perfectly safe foundation, and there is at least one other great industry which can be established and built up in Canada.
For some things, we have peculiar advantages. I cannot hesitate for a moment to believe that a similar system of protection, not as great in amount perhaps, but given with the same freedom with the same liberality and heartiness, that established our iron and steel industry, would, in a short time, establish an enormous pulp industry that would make Canada not only the great producer of pulp, but the manufacturer for the whole world of those classes of paper which are to-day so extensively consumed. We cannot do these things without making sacrifices, without drawing on our resources, without taxing ourselves. There is another direction in which the government will be bound to give protection in some form, either by bounties or by subvention; and that is in the direction of restoring Canada to the position which she at one time held of being pre-eminently a maritime country, a country with an enormous marine in proportion to her population. In that respect we have fallen behind. We cannot hope, in the face of the competition of countries where the governments are liberal, where they realize the importance of having control of the high seas and of the commerce of the world, to recover our place in the handling of that great world-wide business which has poured

its wealth into one country after another and has given every country that has for a time held supremacy in it a leading place among the nations of the world-we cannot hope to have maritime supremacy restored to our country, unless the government rises above too small, too close, consideration of petty matters, and demands from its party, support in establishing a broad system by which the country will pledge its wealth and resources to the great national duty of pressing Canada forward into its true position as a manufacturing, commercial and maritime country. I do not propose to speak at greater length at this time, because I feel sure that many special cases will arise to which careful attention should be given, and further opportunity for discussion will be afforded as these subjects are considered. It is true that there are some things that cannot be effected by government aid and action; it is equally true that there are some things that cannot be effected without government aid and action. And I believe that careful examination of the questions that rise under the resolution placed in your hands by the hon. member for North Norfolk will lead to a comprehensive view of our situation and will indicate the line that the government should take and that it will be warranted in calling upon its followers to support it in taking.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: It has been a matter of curiosity for me during the last few hours to see what course the government would take upon this question. I made up my mind, from the start, that they had sent up this balloon to see which way the wind blew ; they wished to keep silent on the question itself so that they may not be committed before the country. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is listening to me, and I have no doubt that I have been sufficient of a mind-reader to express what is passing in his mind. I have been much interested in the figures given by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Looking over those figures we can come to but one conclusion, and that is that our country is not in a healthy condition with regard to its trade. We have heard it said many times, and the representatives of the Crown was caused to say it in the Speech from, the Throne, that our country is in a thriving condition, that the people are prosperous and happy. But, if the conditions exist which the hon. member for North Norfolk has shown by the figures he has given, it is not possible for the country to be in as favourable position as we would desire. The hon. member for North Norfolk, last summer, was sent to the United States, if not oil the advice of the government or the premier, at least with the premier's approval, to make a missionary tour of that country, either to convince the Americans of the truth of the views he laid before them or 10
to ascertain what their feelings were with regard to this question of trade or reciprocity. When I saw the announcement of the hon. gentleman's meetings, I said that it seemed to me that it was belittling the country from which he went. 1 thought that if the government did its duty, it would call him home and say to him that our highest duty would be to assemble the representatives of the people in parliament and have them pass such legislation as the interests of the country required, quite regardless of what other countries did against us-saying nothing about retaliation, not going upon a begging expedition to a foreign country, not going upon our bended knees to any other country to implore them to change their tariff because if they did not it would bring us to ruin. Such a course seems to me unworthy of a great nation like Canada, and it seems to me belittling to Canada that any prominent supporter of the government should be found going through the United States with such a wail. The hon. gentleman went to Detroit, Chicago, New York, Boston, Washington, and some other places I do not recall at the moment. But he came home without having brought about any beneficial results so far as we know, and, I think so far as he himself knows. I can only tell the hon. gentleman that, so far as I can judge the sentiment of the Canadian people, that sentiment entirely disapproves of his course. We should legislate for the benefit of Canada, and let the United States legislate according to their own sweet will. We need not talk about retaliation or about what we can do to drive eighty millions of people to take the course we want them to take. We should take the means which seems to us most liable to promote the best interests of our country and say no more about it. The hon. gentleman's speech will be an interesting disclosure to the Canadian people, one that they did not expect, especially in view of the speeches that have been made, not only by the ministers of the Crown, but by prominent members of the Reform party throughout the country during the past few years. The country has been told that the policy of the present government was a wise one-that it raised revenue, that it kept Canada for the Canadians, that it did something for the mother country, and developed our trade with that country, and, in every respect was an advantageous one. And the result of this policy was, we are told, that there was nothing but prosperity and happiness in this country. But to-day the hon. gentleman tells us that the condition of affairs in Canada is a very unfavourable one. He said that, last year, we sold about $42,000,000 worth of goods to the United States, leaving out gold and the goods of other countries that only passed through Canada. But we took back $119,000,000 worth from that country, dhat is, the balance of trade against us with the United States that we must pay



for in gold or something else, is $71,890,000 for one year. That is going on with increasing ratio every year. The balance of trade against us with Germany, after this government had succeeded in getting England to denounce the German treaty, was $1,829,000; the balance of trade against us with France was $3,810,000; the balance of trade against us with Holland was $010,000; the balance of trade against us with Spain was $557,000.
We have been told over and over again that the reduction in the duty on British goods was in favour of the mother country, that we did it ini our generosity to favour the mother country, and that we were giving her this advantage which other countries did not enjoy in our market. But the hon. member for North Norfolk tells us that the rate upon dutiable and free goods coming from the United States was only 12 05 percent, on the total importations from that country, while the goods coming from England, dutiable and free, paid an average rate of 18-2 per cent. Yet we are told that we have been giving England a great reduction in the duty so as to favour her.
Now, the hon. member disclosed what many on this side of the House have always contended, that instead of the tariff change favouring England it was in reality a discrimination against England. We said years ago when that duty was put on thfit such would be the result, and facts have verified our contention. What we contended years ago is amply justified by the speech which has been made to this House this afternoon. Take the dutiable and free goods from England and what do we find ? That the duty on them is 18-2 per cent, while on the dutiable and free goods from the United States it is 12-02 per cent. We have often heard it said that the bulk of our free goods come from the United States, and if we take the rate of duty on the dutiable and free goods from the United States, it is unfair to take the rate on dutiable goods from England, and we are told that 33J per cent of the duty as against other countries is thrown off in favour of England. But the average on dutiable goods from England last year was 24-83 per cent, while on the dutiable goods from the United States it was 24-87 per cent. Is it not as plain as anything can be that instead of the duty being in favour of England it discriminates against England ? Or in other words, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Finance told the British people that in our generosity towards the mother country we had thrown oil 331 per cent, we still are charging a higher duty upon the goods coming from England than upon the goods from the United States. I think he will be loath to admit that. But if he is not inclined to do so, let him establish beyond any question that the figures given by the hon. member for North Norfolk are incorrect.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: My hon. friend is proving there is no reduction. Then how can this preference do all the harm we hear about if it does not exist ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am proving that the contention of the Conservative party all along was that there was no substantial preference given to England, and the trade figures now prove it beyond question. If these figures be correct, and I assume that they are, Canada has paid a higher rate of duty upon free and dutiable British goods, than upon free and dutiable goods from the United States. We were told that this was going to do a great deal of good to the people of Canada, but we find now that it has not done a great deal of good. We were told that it was going to improve outtrade with other countries, and the balance of trade would turn in our favour; but we find now that the reverse is the case and the balance of trade is against us, and yet we have a government sitting still. We ask them, what are you going to do about it ? Will you give us any information, as to what you propose to do to remedy this terrible state of affairs ? But not a word from the government benches, they are as silent as the grave upon these questions. They have sent up a balloon to see what is the sentiment of this House, and then they will try to square themselves with the favouring gale. We ask the government, what remedy do you propose for this unfavourable state of affairs to Canada ? When told they were making no reforms, the Prime Minister said to the people of Canada a short time ago, in Montreal, the older I grow I am becoming more and more conservative ; and I find myself and my colleagues in the happy position that we are reformers without anything to reform. What an acknowledgment to make to the country ! Is it possible that the evolutions of time bring us to no new conditions that require reform year after year ? If so, this is the only country in the world in that happy condition. But that is the acknowledgment of the present government-they are reformers without anything to reform. They have nothing to reform, though the trade is going against us in our dealings with every country in the world. We are being out-done in every market, and there is no effort being made to remedy that condition of affairs. There is a balance against us everywhere, and the government are allowing it to go on, still drifting-yet they are reformers without anything to reform. Now, we are told that they have done a good deal. If the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) were talking he would tell us how much we had developed our trade with England, and how many agricultural products we have sent there, and what a wonderful thing his cold storage system was

in increasing that trade. I w*.s struck -with the figures in a speech made a short time ago by the Hon. Dr. Montague, who spent eight months in Australia, and I wish to quote those figures to put them alongside the figures we have heard in regard to what has been done with the admirable cold storage system given to Canada, so that our people may understand how much they are entitled to appreciate the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture. Dr. Montague said :
The recent figures published by Waddell & Co,. London, go to show that England imports about 425,000,000 pounds of frozen meat. Of this Australia and New Zealand sent 72,000,000 pounds, while Canada contributes a little over .10,000,000.
And yet Australia and New Zealand, that are over three times the distance from England that Canada is, and with her advantage of cold storage, have been enabled to send to England 72,000,000 pounds of frozen meat last year, while Canada only sent 10,000,000 pounds. Does not that tell a great deal on behalf of Australia, and is it not a wonderfully strong argument against the contention of the Minister of Agriculture that he has done so much for the Canadian farmer in giving him the cold storage which he speaks about so much ? But we find that the United States have sent over 408,000,000 pounds as against Canada's 10,000,000 pounds. So I do not think we have so much to boast of in the success of the present Minister of Agriculture. But in face of these figures and the disclosures that have been made to-day, we are entitled to ask the government what they are going to do about it. Have they got up and told the Canadian people what they are going to do about it ? Not at all. Have they given us any information in the Speech from the Throne ? Not at all. They are silent on that as on many other things. When they came to power a few years ago they were going to do wonderful things. They have been in power sis years and have allowed things to drift along. They have accomplished little or nothing. What have they accomplished ? We have no new or better markets for the people. But what advantage have they been to us when the figures show that the balance of trade is against us in every country in the world with whom we are dealing ? Not a single market has been secured for the people of Canada since the present government came to power six years ago that we did not possess before. But they are drifting along-reformers with nothing to reform.
They were going to get a reciprocity treaty which would help to improve trade between Canada and the United States. With their sunny ways and their liberality, and their good fellowship towards the Americans, they were going to accomplish much. But the figures that have been given to-day by 10i
the hon. member for North Norfolk show that although our trade with the United States is increasing rapidly every year, the balance of trade is against us, and they have failed to secure either a reciprocity treaty or any other treaty that would be in the least degree favourable to the people of Canada.
They told us that they would settle our disputes with the United States and that we would be able to trade with them on more favourable terms. But, these disclosures prove that they have not done so. What disputes have they settled ? Is it the Alaskan boundary or the Atlantic fisheries or the seal fisheries dispute ? Not a single dispute has been adjusted between us and the United States since they came into power and yet they are sitting there helpless and telling us that they are reformers when they have nothing to reform. They are practically doing nothing. They told the farmer of the great wonders they would do for him. They said that they would help the farmer to get the market of 65,000,000 to the south of us which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) said was the most valuable market in the world. They would get that market if the Canadian people would return them to power. Well, the Canadian people took them at their word and have they got any market in the United States ? The government have done nothing for the farmer. The hon. member for North Norfolk has told us that the American manufacturers are rapidly taking control of our markets-not taking control of our markets because they have control of them to-day. They practically control oui' markets to-day in the manufactured goods of our country. They are driving our own manufacturers out of the market, they are hampering their operations and compelling many Canadians to seek homes in the United States. Are the government making any effort to remedy this unfortunate condition of things ? They have not given us any evidence of a single effort that they have made to remedy this condition. They have not given us' efficient cold storage, they have not saved our markets, they have not reduced our taxation. What have they done and what do they propose to do in the future ? They have remained in office and drawn their salaries and they have taken pleasure jaunts all over the country. Half of them are in England almost every summer. They have had a Joint High Commission sitting in Washington. It has been going on for the last three, four, or five years and we cannot even get the papers that should be laid before the House and the country to inform us what offers and proposals they made. They are always held back on the plea that these negotiations are not completed. The right hon. leader of the government said, in Montreal, a few months ago, that he did not expect that there would

be anything more done by this commission. Then, I say, lay the papers on the Table of the House so that parliament will see what efforts are made on behalf of the country by our representatives who are sent to negotiate upon the questions considered by the commission. We have no information at all regarding what has been done and we are practically drifting. The government of to-day are doing very little beyond taking their jaunts through the country, drawing their salaries, having a good time and trying to hold themselves together.
I was very much amused at the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) who endeavoured to answer the hon. member for North Norfolk, especially so when I remember that they are both ardent supporters of the present government, the one an extreme protectionist, the other an extreme free trader, the one as directly opposed to the other as day is to night or light is to darkness, and yet they are both together in supporting the same government. The free trader thinks the principles and policy that he stands by are the best for Canada, and the protectionist thinks the principles and policy which he supports are the best for Canada. Well, I am pleased to agree with the principles promulgated by the hon. member for North Norfolk and I would like to say right here that I was especially pleased with the compliment to the policy carried out by the Conservative party during the eighteen years that they were in office, and if anything more were needed to justify the wise policy they carried out in the interest of Canada beyond what we have heretofore heard and seen we had it this afternoon in the free and frank acknowledgment of the intelligent member for North Norfolk who opposed that policy as strongly as he could for eighteen years and more and who came around to-day and frankly admitted that this is the only policy that is suited to the wants of Canada. It is a justification of the policy so wisely carried out by the Conservative party from 1879 to the time they left office, it is a verification of all the arguments they addressed to the Canadian people and it is an acknowledgment from a source that was scarcely expected. I have often seen these two hon. members sitting beside each other, the hon. member for Russell and the hon. member for North Norfolk, and I have asked myself, how could it be possible that they were held together. I could only explain it upon the theory that there is some electro-magnetic influence at work between them. You know that in electricity there is the peculiarity that likes repel each other and unlikes attract each other. If you put a positive pole to a negative pole they will attract each other and stick themselves together, but if you put two positive poles together they will fly asunder. That is the only explanation I can offer as to why these two hou. gentlemen stand together support-Mr. SPROULE.
ing the government. Likes and unlikes attract each other. I am of the opinion that if other hon. members supporting the government were as frank as these two hon. gentlemen it would be found that they hold quite as divergent views as those expressed by the hon. member for Russell and the hon. member for North Norfolk. I am not so much concerned with the divergence between the opinions held by the hon. gentlemen as I am to know what the government are going to do with this proposal. I know if they would speak as freely as the hon. member for North Norfolk what some of them would say. I am sure that if the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) would get up, if he wished to save time, he would say, like the old Quaker ' Them are my sentiments '. I believe he is right and I commend him for it. Notwithstanding that he has gone over there, a protectionist of the protectionists and stands by the free traders, he imbibed his old doctrine too early in life to ever be relieved of it despite the fact that he occupies a place amongst those who hold a doctrine the very reverse of his. I commend him for his courage and intelligence and the Canadian people regard him as being a better statesman in that line especially than many of his colleagues. I believe though that he is bringing them over to his way of thinking. It is sometimes said that he is master of the cabinet. I think he will prove himself so, because, if I judge by the signs of the times in political life, it seems to me thev are drifting over there very rapidly and I would not be surprised to see the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), notwithstanding all that he has said against protection, or the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), who sits beside him and who is one of the strongest free traders in Canada, getting up and propounding a radical protective policy in the interests of Canada, saying that the interests of Canada required it to-day and that they were prepared to give it and stand by it. I know that the country would give these hon. gentlemen credit for doing what is right though it might not be in accord with their previous history. I think it is a humiliating position for us and for this government that we have not a single word from any member of the government disclosing to the House whether they approve or disapprove of the principle involved in the resolution which the hon. member for North Norfolk submitted to the House this afternoon. I hope that before this debate closes, the Minister of Finance or some prominent member of the government will give his views upon this question. In justice to the country, and to the House, and to the government itself, it is incumbent that this should be done. The government seem inclined to let this question pass without comment. They have got beyond the line of Torres Vedras on

this question, as the prime minister has on other questions, and unless the over sanguine Minister of Public Works gets on his feet to speak out his mind plainly, we may not have the pleasure of knowing what the government think on this question. If the government fail to give its views on this matter they will fail in their duty to the people.


Mr.  C. B.@: I-IEYD (South Brant). Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances in which I am placed, I do not think it is wise for me to permit this debate to close without saying a few words in connection with the resolution presented by my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton). I do not intend to follow the hon. gentleman from Grey (Mr. Sproule) in an address that would be suitable on the hustings, but which is hardly quite germane to the question we are now discussing. It is only necessary to allude to one or two statements he has made to show how inaccurate are his conclusions. When the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) tells us at this date that our trade is in an unhealthy and unhappy condition he manifests an ignorance on the trade question that is surprising to me. He could easily have seen from the returns of the deposits of the people in the banks, that the wealth of the people has doubled within the past five years, while the foreign trade of the country has likewise doubled during the same period, with our revenue buoyant, with our coffers overflowing, to tell us that the trade of the country is unhealthy and that the people are unhappy is something that one would not expect to find believed by even the most credulous member of this House.
1 agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) when he says that it is the duty of Canadians to make their tariff in their own interests. I go with him hand and hand in that statement. While the United States in the exercise of their rights have raised a prohibitory tariff not only against Canada but against the people of the world, they have simply done what they had the right to do. They did what they believed to be in the interest of their own people, and having done that the only right we have left is to follow in their footsteps if it is in the interest of the Canadian people to do so. I take exception to the statement made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) when he said that the preference given to Great Britain is an injury to the people of the British empire and to Great Britain herself. It hardly needs the intelligence of a school boy ten years old to appreciate the fact that 33 J per cent preference in favour of Brxush goods cannot be injurious to the British manufacturer. It is against all reason, it is against the dictates of common sense that it could be so. Indeed, such a statement does not require an answer. Neither is it fair for the hon. gentleman to say that our tariff is hostile to Great Britain, because the rate of duty on British products is higher than upon
American products. That argument can be easily answered by saying that we do not import from Great Britain free goods to the extent we do from the United States. We import from the United States nearly $60,000,000 worth of free goods, and it necessarily follows that the tariff based upon the entire imports from the United States must be lower on the average than ,the tariff on goods coming from Great Britain, which practically sends us nothing but manufactured articles.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it is higher on the manufactured articles.


Mr. HEYD.: No. In order to get the facts as to the tariff on the manufactured articles you have to compare the articles on which the duties are levied. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) will see at once tnat the very high average duty on British goods is influenced by the fact that all manufactured goods are not subject to the preferential tariff, and that on $5,000,000 worth of spirits, tobaccos, and other goods which are exempt from the preferential tariff, a duty of nearly 50 per cent is collected. Therefore, in striking a grand average rate that factor must not be eliminated. But, take it article for article on every article with reference to which the preferential tariff operates, and you will find that the preference is in favour of Great Britain. And, Mr. Speaker, it is not the American competition now that has given rise to the trouble in this country. It is this very preference that is precipitating this discussion, and bringing once more this tariff question before the attention of the House and before the country. It is not the competition from the United States that induces the manufacturers' associations to meet together. It is the trouble the woollen manufactures are experiencing in this country because of the preferential condition that exists, that is accentuating their troubles and precipitating the tariff question upon the people once more. It is hardly worth while to waste any more time over the statements made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule). However, as I partially agree with my hon. friend from Norfolk (Mr. Charlton)-though I do not go to the extent he goes-I want to say a few words in connection with this resolution. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) has been for so many years engaged in bringing about more amicable relations between the people of Canada and the United States, and has put forth more effort in that direction than almost any other man in Canada, certainly more than any man in this House; that he, not having been successful in the work he had at heart, like a bow relaxed has gone to the other extreme and from being what, we might almost call a free trader in days gone by, he has now become one of the most ardent protectionists there is in this House. But the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) is not a protectionist for the same

motive that makes other men protectionists. He is a protectionist to-night because through the medium of protection he wants to bring about reciprocal trade relations. He does not believe that extending the hand of friendship across the border will bring about the conditions he has at heart, but he believes that by protection he may bring about conditions that we cannot obtain by any other method. His position is entirely different from that occupied by protectionists on the other side of the House who are protectionists purely and simply because of the benefits of protection to the manufacturers.
I am sorry that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cliarltou) introduces his resolution just at this juncture. When a country is particularly prosperous it is not the time to bring about violent changes. I myself am in favour of changes in the direction of assisting the manufacturing industries that are established in this country. Although I am not a high protectionist, I am not one of those who believe that Canada should not remain for ever only a farming country. It is all right to have agriculturists iu our midst, but there is a time in the history of a . country when it should strive to develop all the resources that are placed within its control. That we should go on for ever raising wheat and corn, and cattle, is not the height of my ambition and I am a loyal Canadian
But, Sir, while that is the fact, I am prepared to go only so far as will be in the interest of the people of this country. I am not willing, through the resolution which the hon. gentleman has placed before us to-night, to make changes so vast and so violent that the National Policy, which we had in this country for so many years, will bear no comparison with them. He did not explain to us what the full effect of his resolution was. He did not tell us how high, in his opinion, it was necessary to raise the tariff in order to enable us to take 40 per cent off, and still do no injury to the manufacturing establishments of this country. He did not tell us how we who have been prating about what we have done for Great Britain, would be able to reconcile the statement that we have given her a preference in our markets of 33i per cent with a proposal to take it away again as soon as it pinches. I am in favour of increasing the protection of the woollen industry of this country. I believe in a system that will protect industries that are not alien, but are indigenous to the soil. I am one of those protectionists who say you cannot protect the natural industries of tills country too highly. Prom the iron ore which comes from the mine to the steel spring in a watch, through all the various stages of the iron industry I am a high protectionist. I am not a protectionist with regard to any industry which requires for its success the importation of its raw materials, especially when those materials bear a large proportion to the cost of manufacture. Such an industry, what-Mr. HEYD.
ever it may be, will always remain a spoonfed industry, maintained at the expense of the great mass of the consumers. But an industry that is indigenous to the country, and requires for its development only the intelligence, the industry, and the skill of Canadian workmen, I am willing to protect even to the extent of extreme protection. Therefore, holding the views I do, there are some objections to my hon. friend's discourse that appeal to me. The high protectionist notions which he has expressed tonight as applicable to industries that are alien and not indigenous to this country, industries which would never thrive here, do not appeal to my reason, although my antagonism to the United States makes it less hard to swallow them than would have been the case four or five years ago. The mode of operation which my hon. friend proposes is retaliation, which is a very poor mode for securing the object we have at heart. If he supposes for one moment that the people of the United States can be driven to give the people of Canada access to their markets in natural products without expecting anything in return, he mistakes the intelligence of the American people. They have never manifested a disposition to give something for nothing, and they are not going to do it to-day. One of the things I most decidedly object to at the present stage of the proceedings is any kind of reciprocity with the people of the United States. 1 believe the time has come when Canada may well realize that it has such a future before it that we need not enter into any entangling alliances either with the empire as a whole or with the United States. I as a Canadian want to leave my hands untied, and to be free to take advantage of the bounties which a kind Providence has placed within our reach, to develop our resources to the very best of our ability, and do the best we can for the people of Canada; and I do not think it is necessary to conciliate either the people of the United States or those of any other nation under the sun.
Holding these views, I am not in sympathy with the conditions as they exist to-day. But the resolution which was brought before us gives us the opportunity to express our opinions upon those conditions. It may be said that men such as I have changed our views. True, I do not claim to be so wise or to be so much of a prophet as to see changes in the distant future; and even in 1893, when I endorsed the platform of the Liberal party adopted at the convention in Ottawa, who could have anticipated the changes which have taken place ? Great Britain, which was once the most conspicuous figure in the manufacturing world, has assumed an entirely different relative position in comparison with the rest of the world. She no longer reigns supreme in the manufacturing heaven, but, according to the statements of even some gentle-

men in tliis House, slie has been compelled to take a second place to the United States. Germany also looms up on the horizon; and who ten years ago could have foreseen the position that Canada itself would occupy ? Who dreamed of the resources that have been lying undiscovered and unused in the bowels of the earth? Who could realize that an industrial development would take place in Canada within ten years such as we see down by the Atlantic coast, at the Soo, and away out on the Pacific coast ? All these things were in the future, and I am not so ignorant nor so persistent in my beliefs that I am not prepared to change them when a change in the conditions makes a change in my beliefs necessary. X believed then that it was in the interest of the country to adopt that clause in the policy of the Liberal party.
I believe still that it is in the interest of the country to adhere to it as closely as possible, and not to depart from it simply from protection's sake. But when cases present themselves that require special treatment,
I do not think we should adopt a cast-iron rule and refuse consideration to industries that are suffering unfair competition for the want of that relief which in other circumstances they might not require. The views I entertain are entertained by the Board of Trade of the city of Brantford. Hon. gentlemen know that Brantford is a manufacturing city, an industrial city. It is the third largest exporter of manufactured products among the cities of Canada; and yet what is the opinion of the Brantford Board of Trade, seven-tenths of whom I presume are Liberals, loyal adherents of the present government ? That body passed a resolution not so extreme as that proposed by my hon. friend, who has not a five-cent piece of interest in any manufacturing concern in this country, unless it be in a lumber mill; but these men of Brantford, who own the great industrial establishments of this country, whose names are known from one end of the country to the other, simply say :
That, in view of the present conditions of trade and the expansion of Canadian industries, it is highly desirable that the government revise the present tariff with a view to the preservation of our markets against unfair competition, thus assisting to maintain and increase our present industries and to establish new ones.
Now, what is meant by unfair competition ? That is one of the phrases that must be explained. It appears to each man according to his humour. Some men may consider a legitimate competition unfair. I do not; but I do say that where prices are maintained by a combination in the United States, which sells goods in Canada at lower prices than they receive for the same goods in the United States, that is an unfair competition, and should be put down by an increase in the tariff in the particular line affected. In order to show what I mean, I will give you a specimen case which
took place in my own city. In 1898 the first cutlery establishment that has been established in Canada, began its career in the city of Brantford.
They began, knowing full well the conditions under which they were starting their industry. They knew that the duty upon cutlery was 30 per cent. They figured out the cost of raw material and labour, and decided that they could make money upon the prices which the American, English and German manufacturers were receiving, and they put $75,000 capital into the industry, and are to-day making the various branches of cutlery and selling them in the Canadian market. They have secured some of the largest wholesale dealers to handle their goods. But what is the result ? Let me just take the article of shears, as an example of the way in which business is done. In 1898 a certain brand of shears was selling at $4.80 per dozen in the American market. The same quality of shears was sold in England at $4.80, and adding the Canadian duty of 30 per cent, made the price to the wholesale dealer in Canada $6.24 per dozen. That was the competition which the home industry anticipated it would have to meet. But what are the conditions to-day ? After it was established, although the price in the United States has not varied up to the present time, and although the same shears are selling in England at the same old price of $4.80, when the American travellers came into Canada and found that the Canadian wholesalers were tied down to this Canadian concern-first because its goods are equally good, second because it is a Canadian institution, and third because it sold cheaper-what did they do ? They reduced the price of shears in the Canadian market to $2.88, so that the shears which, four years ago, were selling in Canada at $6.24, are now selling at $3.i4.
I call that unfair. The Americans have a protective tariff which prevents us, under any circumstances, from selling a single razor or knife or pair of shears in the United States, but they can take their goods, which they sell at $4.84 in their own market, and sell them in Canada at $2.S8. Of course that would not continue once the Canadian industry was out of the way. The Canadian consumer will no doubt ask why should I be deprived of the benefit of cheap American cutlery ? But this benefit is only temporary, and these low prices will only last until the Canadian industry is destroyed, when the price will be raised again. That case is not an unusual one.
We have a similar condition of things in the pottery at Brantford. A few years ago, for the lack of baking capacity, this company was compelled to make arrangements with an American pottery, and it was given a remarkably low price on American goods. The Canadian company consequently did not build an oven, but at the


Charles Bernhard Heyd: 


William Findlay Maclean: Let there be an end to this supplication of Washington, and, in a way, let there be an end of all threatening of retaliation. On the other hand, let there be a determination on our part to do for our country what the people of the United States have done for theirs. Let that be our ground of action. The people of the United States will pay no attention to either threats or supplications from us. They are too big a people-too great a people We cannot bring them to time, but we can do something for ourselves. Don't let us go any more to Washington. Let us do something for ourselves, let us show we are equal to the occasion; let us do something on the lines laid down by the hon. member for North Norfolk this afternoon, on the lines laid down by the member for Brant (Mr. Heyd). He was only telling half of what he was told by his own people. The people of Brantford are out and out protectionists, and the people of Ontario, and the manufacturers from one end to the other of the province, and the farmers of Canada are for protection. The farmers of Canada know one thing very well, and that is that wherever there is a great home market, wherever there are prosperous manufacturers, wherever there is a great manufacturing centre, wherever there is a great number of workingmen, there is a splendid home market. You can always get the farmers to support a national policy if it is on good lines. I trust that after the confession that has been made here this afternoon by these two hon. gentlemen, and the statements that have been made throughout the country, and the new principles advocated by the Liberal press throughout the country, that we will have some kind of effort made by the government to move on the lines indicated by the member for North Norfolk.
Now, the Prime Minister dealing with this very question not long ago said : We are a people who wish to buy and who wish to sell; the Americans are a people who do not wish to buy but who wish to sell. Now accepting that definition, I would ask him what is he going to do about it ? If they insist on their policy of selling to us and not buying from us, what does he propose to do about it ? Are they to continue to raid our markets ? I say no. Let us treat them as they treat us. No, 1 won't use that term, I will say, let us follow their example, and perhaps if we follow their example they will be ready to buy from us as well as sell to us.
Now, what should be the policy of Canada V-we won't call it protection. What should be the policy of the empire ?-we won't call it protection. But what is the lesson of this debate ? What is it that is coming home to Canadians ? What is the thing coming home to Englishmen all over 1 It is this :	If not free trade, then fair
play. Fair trade is the word, fair trade is Mr. MACLEAN.
the sign, and in that sign the empire can conquer, and will revive. I will put it in another way, reciprocal trade, or preferential trade between the various members of the empire, and fair trade to all outside the empire. I think that policy was very nearly suggested this afternoon by the hon. member for North Norfolk. I prefer to call it fair trade to retaliation. I have spoken a good deal in favour of what I called a retaliatory tariff. Perhaps another better term is reciprocity of treatment. But the thing for this country, the thing for the empire, is preferential trade within the empire and reciprocity of treatment to all outside of it.
The hon. gentleman who just sat down said that he did not want to interfere with the great conference that was to take place this summer in London. Now, that conference is to take place, and it is well there should be frequent discussions in this House on the subjects likely to come up there. Now the lesson that is coming home to us, and the lesson I am trying to convey to the government is this, that we have two problems to settle, and we must settle them now before that conference takes place. I wish to impress it upon the leader of the government, and upon the keeper of his political conscience so far as the tariff is concerned, the Minister of Finance, that there are two things to do. We have to do something in regard to our attitude towards the United States, and we have to do something in regard to our attitude to the mother country. And we must do it this summer, and we must state clearly and explicity what we intend to do. We must take up the gauntlet that has been thrown down to us this afternoon by the member for North Norfolk. We must say what we intend hereafter to do toward the people of the United States, and we must say what we intend to do toward the people of England in regard to trade between the mother land and Canada. We ought to lead in this matter as I believe we are competent to lead. As I said in Toronto the other night at a public meeting, and it seemed to meet with a good deal of approval, we Canadians as a portion of the empire, have the clearer vision in regard to the trade future of the empire. We vindicated that, and Englishmen to-day are calling on us to make suggestions as to the trade policy of the empire. Then what ought these suggestions to be ?
What ought the Prime Minister to say this summer when he goes to England ? He ought to go there prepared to say to the empire and in the face of all the world, that we Canadians are determined at last to build up our own country and to follow, if necessary, the example of the United States, and to force them if we can to trade fair with us; and also to say to the empire that we are prepared to join with them in fore-

ing tlie whole outside world if necessary to trade fair with the empire. Now those are the two great things. I do not know whether the Prime Minister will rise to the occasion, whether he will make a declaration or not. But this discussion this afternoon, and other discussions in this House at other times, and discussions yet to take place will make clear the fact that the manufacturers, the workingmen and the farmers are waiting to know what the new policy of the government is to be under these new conditions. The conditions are new. The future of Canada is in the scales. If something is not done we will be a portion of the United States In a short time. We cannot help ourselves, if they control our trade, if they control our great corporations. But if we have confidence in ourselves, if we adopt those principles which have been vindicated in regard to trade, the principles of protection, then we are bound to stand for our own interests and to keep our own markets to ourselves. We are bound to become much stronger protectionists than we are to-day, and we are bound to tell the empire that we are willing to join with the empire, not only for preferential trade between the different portions of the empire, but for fair trade between the empire and all outside portions as well.
t say the Prime Minister should not let this resolution pass without telling us where the government stands in regard to it. He cannot gain the support of the hon. member for North Norfolk unless he accepts the doctrine laid down here tonight. There is no time like the present to make a new departure. It has got to be made, and it has got to be made in a manly way. There has got to be a confession of mistake in the past. Hon. gentlemen opposite- were free traders and nothing else in the past, they were for free trade in Canada as they have it in England. But that won't do. Free trade is a failure in England to-day. What Canada wants is protection as they have it in the United States. Wliat the empire wants is that kind of attitude and that kind of treatment from other nations which she accords to them and if she does not get it she will give to other nations that treatment which they accord to her.
Now in face of all that, in face of the new conditions, in face of the way that the empire is trying to hold its own when it is raided from all quarters from protectionist nations, what advice is the Prime Minister going to give this House to-night on this motion presented by the hon. member for North Norfolk ? What advice is he going to give the empire when he goes to the celebration in the coming summer ? The question must be faced. There is no way of escaping it. If it must be faced let it be faced courageously here and now. Let us not be afraid, as at last the member
for North Norfolk has shown that he is not afraid and as the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is not afraid to avow that the only salvation of this country is in the adoption of a protectionist policy.
I congratulate the hon. member for North Norfolk on freeing himself from his bonds.
I take it that he is honest in his purpose. They say, and it is said freely, that he is flying a "kite in the interests of the government. I believe the conversion is deep and pronounced and that there are scores of hon. members on the other side of the House ready to speak as the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) spoke here to-night. If there is one vindication of that old man now dead and buried in Cataraqui Cemetery who introduced the national policy into this country, it is afforded in the conversion of John of Norfolk that we have heard this afternoon. If there ever was a man who went about persecuting the people who believed in protection, it was the hon. member for North Norfolk. Now, he has made his peace. He will feel all the better for it. He has got the trouble off his mind, he lias made his confession and he will be a much happier man. The hon. member for North Brant should do the same and the hon. Minister of Public Works should do the same. I believe the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce will yet do the same and that we will have him coming down and approving of the policy of protection. The right hon. Prime Minister has no political principles in regard to the tariff or the future of the country. He has said time and again that he is an opportunist and it will be no trouble for him to do what the hon. member for North Norfolk did here to-day. It will only be making a slight change to adapt himself to circumstances so that he will not be wrestling with his conscience as the hon. member for North Norfolk did. He will do it easily and I believe the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will be able to do the same thing. Why not take the manly course and take the step to-night ? I am following out the line of the exliorter in the revival meeting. Do it now, and do it completely. Don't wait ; to-night is the accepted hour, now is the appointed time. If the hon. Minister of Public Works would only walk up and down among the brethren as the revivalist does, he would be able to bring them in. The wandering boys would all be home to-night, if the head of the government should make a straight and sudden departure just as the hon. member for North Norfolk has done here to-night. This is the easiest way out of it, it is the way that will benefit Canada and benefit the empire and the easiest for his reputation. These hon. gentlemen are like the woman in the problem play ; they have a past and they are ashamed of it. We will give them an opportunity here and now to come out straight and completely for protection as the hon. member for North Norfolk has come

out to-night. I hope this is the last time that we will have to appeal to them. Having gone so far as they have on the road to protection they should take the final leap and admit before the whole country that the only salvation of this country is the national policy lived up to by the government and not the one-sided jug handled protection they seem to favour at the present time.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: Mr. Speaker, I would not have intruded on the time of the House even for a few minutes were it not that I have been very deeply impressed by the vast difference between the speech of the mover of this motion and the utterly meaningless and illusive motion that has occupied the attention of the House this afternoon. If I were as conversant as the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Maclean) with the political history of the hon. gentleman who has placed it before the House I might take a different view of the motion from that which I have derived from reading it, but, referring to the motion and confining myself to the subject before the House without wandering over the whole sphere of political economy, I would like to direct the attention of the House to the actual words in the motion which we are asked to adopt. The motion reads :
That this House is of the opinion that Canadian import duties should be arranged upon the principle of reciprocity in trade conditions.
Any person can understand mat. It means that our import duties are to be arranged on the principle of reciprocity ; that is if one country favours us we shall favour that country and if another country taxes our products we shall tax the products of that country. But, the sting of this sentence is in the end.
So far as may be consistent with Canadian interests.
Consistent with Canadian interests. In my humble judgment this is dallying with the intelligence of this House. It is a waste of time for any hon. gentleman to bring before the House a resolution asking us to approve of having duties arranged on the principle of reciprocity in trade conditions in so far as may be consistent with Canadian interests. We might take the scene that was witnessed a short time ago in Montreal at the manufacturer's banquet. We had the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) speaking as an out and out free trader. We had the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) speaking, as he has always been, a consistent protectionist, and we had the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) smiling blandly on both ; yet, all these hon. gentlemen can accept this proposition, and while they would differ entirely as to the working out of the proposition, they could all raise their hands to heaven and sincerely say that they would' subscribe Mr. MACLEAN.
to the principle of reciprocity in trade conditions so far as they were consistent with Canadian interests. When we go on we find that:
A rebate of not less than 40 per cent on the amount of duties imposed should be made upon dutiable imports from nations or countries admitting Canadian natural products into their
market free of duty.
This is a very plain proposition, that if any nation will admit the natural products of Canada into its markets free we will give it a reduction of 40 per cent on manufactured goods. If the manufacturers had no rights in this country, if the desire were to slaughter them and close down their factories, I could understand this proposition but I appeal to any hon. member in this House and even to the hon. member for North Norfolk to say, whether in order to obtain the free introduction of our natural products, or of our agricultural products into the markets of any country we should consent to a reduction of 40 per cent in the duty on manufactured goods is not the height of absurdity. The hon. gentleman goes on to obviate that difficulty by the concluding clause :
And that the scale of Canadian duties should be sufficiently high to avoid inflicting injury upon Canadian interests in cases where a rebate of 40 per cent or more shall be made under the conditions aforesaid.
It may be 40 per cent or 60 per cent or 80 per cent or a hundred fold under this resolution. No matter what reduction you may make Canadian industries are to be protected in the way referred to in this closing part irrespective of protection which these Canadian Industries require. Of that I shall speak presently. You are to have a measure of protection according to the views of the free trader. It is asking for bread and receiving a stone. As far as we know this is the motion made by the hon. member for North Norfolk. Unfortunately that hon. gentleman has expressed himself on the subject of protection and free trade very frequently in this House and it is absolutely necessary to use a glossary to understand what he means by any particular words. In the session of 1876 he addressed the House and no man could have given more thorough going or consistent protectionist utterances than the hon. member for North Norfolk. In 1876 as reported in ' Hansard,' page 312, the hon. gentleman said :
It may be safely assumed that no nation has attained to greatness in commerce or manufactures without having in the course of its history imposed exactions and restrictions. This has been notably the case with Great Britain herself and I think that the assertion of the various industries as necessary to the cultivation of the self defensive power of a nation is incontrovertible
When * industries '
are suited to the land it is the duty of the government to foster them.

These are the protectionist views of the hon. member for North Norfolk in 1876. He went on to say :
I believe that the agricultural interests of the Dominion would be promoted by protection-
Unmistakable words these-

and that the manufacturer, being brought to the door of the farmer, would afford a market for a great many articles of produce that would not be saleable if the market were 3,000 miles away.	[DOT]
These were his views in 1870. In 1895 again, the hon. gentleman addressed the House. It is true there was a change in the conditions; in the first instance he being on the government side of the House, and in the second place he being on the opposition side of the House. But when he came to express himself on the subject of protection, he was just as unequivocal, just as clear, and distinct as he had been years before. He spoke of protection to the various industries of the land, and he spoke of protection to the farmers. This is his idea in 1895, and that date you will notice is a great deal less remote than 1873. As reported in ' Hansard,' 1895, page 1189, he said :
I deny in toto that the farmer requires protection or that he has received protection, or that he has anything to thank the government for in connection with its fiscal policy.
At page 1109 he said :
He is in the highest and noblest sense a manufacturer, and he depends not upon man's legislation, but he depends for the outcome of his labour upon the blessings of a kind Providence.
Now, Sir, looking at this resolution framed by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and presented to this House by him, asking us to agree that we should adopt the principle of reciprocity so far as may be consistent) with Canadian interests, I must read in with that, the glossary of his language which is given in his speech of 1895, and I find that it means that the farmer does not require protection. Therefore, I know that in his judgment the farmer would be injured by protection. In this speech of 1895, further on he spoke of the manufacturers. He discussed exhaustively the question of protection to the farmers, and then he said :
I proceed next to consider the assertion that our manufacturers depend for prosperity upon protection, and I think that I shall be able to show that protection, even in the case of the manufacturers, has not exerted the beneficial influence which is claimed for it.
Further on in the same debate (pages 1200 and 1201 of ' Hansard ') he spoke of protection to the mining industries, to the lumbering industries and to several other industries. I will not quote the hon. gentleman at length, but he practically mentioned the whole list of Canadian industries and proved
to his own satisfaction conclusively that protection was of no conceivable use to these Canadian industries. Now, then, I am asked, representing a constituency which is not exclusively agricultural but having large manufacturing industries; I am asked to subscribe to this proposition drawn by the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), that I should vote for protection so far as may be consistent with Canadian interests-which means in his mind, no protection to the farmer, no protection to the mining industry, no protection to the manufacturer. I venture to say that with that explanation of the true views of the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), no hon. gentleman in this House would be justified in supporting such a proposition.
I must confess that I was rather surprised at the view expressed by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) in regard to the speech and motion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton). Judging from some of the utterances given expression to by the hon. gentleman from South Brant (Mr. Heyd), he so absolutely fails to conceive the faintest idea of the underlying principle on which this motion is based, that he may be excused for almost any statement he would make in this connection. He referred to the woollen industry more than once, and he expressed the opinion that the government that he faithfully supported had not done justice to the woollen industry, and he hoped that ere long they would rectify the injustice they had done and give additional protection to it. I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. member was sincere in what he said. I have not the slightest doubt that he hoped from the bottom of his heart that the government would give protection to the woollen industry. But time passed on; changes came; new conditions arose; two minutes had rolled by into eternity, and the hon. gentleman then informed the House that he was opposed to the granting of protection to any industry which was confined mainly to the manufacture of goods not made from raw material produced in Canada. Yet, we know that the woollen industry imports the greatest part of the wool, the raw material under which the business is carried on. If the hon. gentleman meant what he said-and I assume he did-if he understood what he meant-and I am bound to think he did-then in one breath he said that there should be protection to the woollen industry and in the next breath he said he was opposed to any protection being granted to an industry situated precisely as the woollen industry is. The hon. gentleman from Brant (Mr. Heyd) went on to speak of the sacrifices that had been made on our market by American manufacturers, and he referred to the question of retaliation, as did the mover of the motion. I venture to say that when these hon. gentlemen spoke on the subject of retaliation they displayed a want of acquaintance with the

first principle of the doctrine of protection. One would think that every man in the country knew by this time what the doctrine of protection means, and yet these hon. gentlemen failed to recognize what protection means, or else they wilfully perverted its meaning. Protection means protecting some one from impending ill. It may be that at one time a duty of 25 per cent would be ample protection, and it may be that at another time a duty of 50 per cent would be required. But nobody will dispute that the harder the times the greater the danger of an inflow of goods from foreign countries; the more necessity there is for protection and the greater the protection must be in order to be effectual. Now, Sir, if I went on to discuss the question of free trade and protection 1 would be doing what I promised at the outset not to do. I will content myself by saying that I am unable to support the motion of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), firstly, because it is so ambiguous that no meaning can be attributed to it, and secondly, because I believe that a motion of this kind, committing the House to the most important question that can come before us, should be so clear-cut, that every voter in the Dominion of Canada might know where his representatives stood on that question. I believe that it will be a happy day for Canada-whichever the party to occupy one position and which ever the party to occupy the other-when the people of this country will be able to go to the polls and intelligently vote for a party, knowing that party has understood the promises it has made and is prepared to carry them out when placed in power.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). I do not imagine from what I have heard from hon. members of both sides of the House, that there is a desire to have a division taken on this interesting and important resolution. In fact, the hon. gentleman who seconded the motion intimated that while he did so he was somewhat in doubt as to whether ultimately it would commend itself to his judgment. I take it that the object was to invite discussion on what is a very important question, and then have the debate on the motion adjourned, if the motion be not withdrawn. However that may be, so far as the government is concerned, I am sure the House will anticipate what I am about to say, namely, that the general practice in matters of this sort is that the government shall declare its intention in connection with the tariff when the budget speech is made, and it is not usually deemed wise to forestall any action in that direction by making announcements in advance. Adopting that view, which has always been adopted by Ministers of Finance in the past, I desire to say that while I agree with somethings that have been said and while I dissent from others, I do not think it would be expedient to enlarge on the subject Mr. NORTHRUP.
now, though. I have no desire now to preclude any gentleman who wishes to address the House. Therefore, I beg, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Might I ask, if the suggestion of the minister is that this debate shall be resumed after the budget speech has been delivered ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would almost suppose that the debate could be merged into the budget debate as it is on a cognate subject.


Robert Laird Borden: This debate
will be left over for the present.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of course, the motion remains on the Order paper.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask
the minister if he proposes to name the date on which the budget speech will be delivered. We would like to have the customary notice.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As usual a few days notice will be given.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Prime Minister, the House adjourned at 10.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 25th, 1902.