PAPERS RESPECTING TELEGRAPH CONSTRUCTION.

Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: I move that the papers brought down to this House under order, 18th February, 1900, respecting telegraph construction, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Now that the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has returned from North Bruce, I would like to call his attention to some papers that have gone astray-many things go astray. By an understanding between him and myself some accounts in connection with this matter were already before the Public Accounts Committee. They were not laid on the Table of the House, that being an unnecessary formality. But one of the officers of the Auditor General's Department, Mr. Reid, was subpoenaed to attend, as he was the auditing officer. Before attending the next meeting of the committee he was desirous of looking over certain books. On inquiry at the Public Works Department, Information was given that these documents had been sent over in compliance with this order of the House, to be brought down. No doubt, they are under the charge of the hon. minister, and I would be very much obliged if he would give immediate orders so that the Auditor's officer may see the books. I do not wish that they be formally laid on the Table, as that is not necessary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have a box full of papers in my room. They will be brought down.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: So far as I am concerned, the original understanding is quite sufficient. I know that the papers are of considerable bulk. If the hon. minister will allow the Auditor's officer to see these books of account, that is all that will be necessary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: With the greatest pleasure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 87) to amalgamate the Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway Company, the Winnipeg Transfer Railway Company (Limited), the Portage and North-western Railway Company, and the Waskada and North-eastern Railway Company, under the name of the Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.
1881	MARCH 22,1901	1882
Bill (No. 88) to incorporate the Canadian Nurses Association.-Mr. Clarke-by Mr. Horsey.
Bill (No. 89) respecting the Grand Falls Water Power and Boom Company.-Mr. Costigan.
Bill (No. 90) respecting the Dominion Burglary Guarantee Company (Limited)- Mr. Bickerdike.

Mr. SPROULE.: I move for leave to introduce a Bill to incorporate the Canadian Order of Nurses.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I may say that a Bill has already been moved to incorporate the Canadian Nurses Association.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 merely raise the question whether the Bill was regular. 1 understand it was only introduced in blank, and consequently was no Bill at all.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I did not see the Bill when it was presented a few moments ago, and I do not have an opportunity of seeing whether Bills are printed or in regular form.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Bill introduced by the hon. member for North Grey is only a blank form, is, consequently, no Bill at all, and I raise the question of his right to introduce a Bill in that form. I understand the rules do not allow it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No doubt the rule does not allow a Bill to be introduced which is not in regular form. But, a few moments ago, a motion was made to the same effect as the one made just now by the hon. member ; that motion was carried, and the Bill was read a first time without any objection being made to it. I did not look to see whether it was printed and otherwise regular ; because the hon. gentleman knows that a Speaker is not always able to see whether a Bill is printed or not. Therefore, a motion having been carried of the same nature as that made by the hon. gentleman, X do not feel that I can admit this motion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rose at the time to take objection to it, but another gentleman was on his feet, and I was obliged to sit down, and could not enter my objection until the motion was carried. Therefore, I had, to wait for another opportunity.



TRANSLATION OF THE DEBATES- QUESTION PUT BY MR. ETIIIER.

[Stage Direction]
Mr* J. A. C. ETHIER (Two Mountains). (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called I rise to call your attention to a matter which concerns me personally and which is in the nature of a matter of privilege. Here are the facts
which I wish to bring to the attention of the House : On Monday, March 18, I as a member of this House and within my right as such, prepared and placed in the hands of the Clerk of this House the following question :-
1.	Is the government aware that, since the beginning of the present session, the translators of the Debates have each day translated into English all the French, and into French all the English by them received for that purpose from the Government Printing Bureau, notwithstanding that the amount of matter for translation is equivalent at times to as much as 128 columns of Hansard, in a single day ?
2.	Is the government aware that since the opening of the present session, the translators of the Debates have also corrected and returned to the Printing Bureau each day, all the proofs sent to them therefrom for that purpose, notwithstanding that such proofs amount at times to as much as 125 columns of Hansard, in a single day ?
3.	Is the government aware that, up to this date (March 18), the Bureau has sent to the translators of the Debates, matter for translation up to the 12th only, and proofs for correction up to the 11th only ; and that of the French version it has paged and published the Debates up to the beginning of the sitting of March 4 only, notwithstanding that the amount of matter for translation in the hands of the printer is sufficient to bring the work up to the 14th at least, and the paging and publishing up to the 11th ?
4.	Is the government aware that the delay in the printing and distributing of the French Hansard is due to the management of the Printing Bureau and not to the translators of the Debates, who labour day by day and even Sundays and holidays, if necessary, in order to translate forthwith as it is received, all matter furnished to them ?
5.	Is the government aware that the delays and tardiness of the Government Printing Office in printing the French edition of. the Hansard, is the means of depriving the representatives of the people, the press and the public in general of the advantages they should derive from the steady labour of the translators ?
6.	Is it the intention of the Government to put a stop to the delay caused by the Printing Bureau and to secure the paging and publishing, in due time, of the French edition of the House of Commons Debates ?
This question was placed on tbe Order paper and it still stands there in my name. It will probably be put on Monday, when comes tbe time for calling it. It seems that, this question has started quite a controversy this week.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: (Translation.) Let me call the attention of tbe bon. gentleman (Mr. J. A. C. Ethier) to the fact that be cannot at this stage go beyond a mere recital of tbe facts alleged. I understood that he is now raising a question of privilege, but cannot go into the discussion of the facts without moving the adjournment of tbe House.


Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER.: (Translation.) I do not intend to provoke a debate on a nues-tion of privilege as I reserve that right for a later stage. Nor is It my intention to go

into a review of the circumstances which gave rise to this question ; but as the public press, and even certain committees of the House have grappled with this question, and as a certain writer in one of those newspapers has thought it proper to anticipate the position of the Debates Committee by misrepresenting the attitude which I had taken, in an editorial which appeared in the columns of that paper yesterday, I deem it my duty to set myself right.
Let me first quote from the last paragraph of an editorial of La Patrie, of March 11th, in reply to two editorials which had appeared in the columns of Le Journal, on the 27tli of February, and on the 8tli instant, respectively. This article, under the heading :	' The Translation of the Debates,'
winds up as follows :-
Le Journal lays the blame on the government and makes it still more responsible for that condition of affairs than the translating staff. The matter ought to be throughly sifted and probed to the bottom once for all, and Justice should be given to whom Justice Is due.
Now, on the 20th instant after this question had been placed on the Order paper and printed, La Patrie, in its daily parliamentary correspondence, struck the right note about the merits of this question.
But on the 21st, that same paper, not in its parliamentary correspondence but in an editorial under the heading :
' The Hansard trouble,' referring to my absence from the House-for, as a matter of fact, ou Monday night I was absent from the House, and in so doing, I have only been using a common privilege to all members of this House, and for which I do not think I am called upon to offer any excuse or explanation. La Patrie, I say, made a statement which was not in accordance with the facts ; and it even contained an insinuation which would show, had it been made with premeditation, that the mind of its author was under a false impression. It reads as follows
Mr. Ethier being absent from the House yesterday, his question in connection with Hansard *was dropped.
Well, Sir, I say without hesitation that the first statement in this paragraph is without any foundation whatsoever, and that the question placed in my name on the Order paper was not dropped. It still remains on the Order paper Just as it stood on Monday, and I say that it is most unfair to put the public mind under such a false impression. Such a way of proceeding would afford me quite sufficient ground for complaint. But the writer goes still further :
Still, it may not - be found without interest to bring together this momentary absence and the action taken yesterday by the Hansard Committee for the purpose of finding out -who supplied the member for Two Mountains with the information on which was based the question placed in his name on the Order papers.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: *
It is stated here that there is a report of the * Hansard ' Committee before the House, and one by which the writer was enabled to write such a paragraph as I have just quoted from the editorial published in La Patrie. I am not aware of any such report having been brought down. As a matter of fact, there is no such report from the ' Hansard ' Committee ; and yet, the writer here seems to insinuate that the member for Two Mountains was afraid of the attitude the [DOT] Hansard ' Committee might take in connection with his question bearing on the translating of the Debates.
Were I called upon to give any explanation as to my absence from the sitting of the House on Monday last, I would say that such absence was not a momentary one, as stated by the writer in the article referred to. but, that having been called away on Monday by my professional duties I went home and returned to the city last night without troubling myself in tlie least about the position the ' Hansard ' Committee might deem it proper to take as to the question placed in my name on the Order paper. The writer says further :
The Debates Committee takes offence at


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: (Translation.) I will ask the hon. gentleman to remember that he is not allowed to refer in this House to what took place before a committee. He cannot avail himself of what is published in newspapers in connection with the proceedings of a committee in order to discuss a report which is not yet before the House.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) It is not my intention, Sir, to refer to any future report either of the ' Hansard Committee or of the Committee on Printing.
I am only dealing with that paragraph of the editorial in which the writer makes the statement that the ' Hansard ' Committee 1 takes offence.' Now, Sir, I think that the writer here makes a gratuitous assertion when stating that the committee ' takes offence.'
Even were this allegation well-founded, at all events, I hold it to be the privilege of any member of this House who does not belong to any committee to obtain from the proper source information about matters which concern the House, the public and the press.
The House will agree with me, I think, that I had a right to offer a personal explanation bearing on statements which I take exception to as imputing to me motives which never existed.
However, I have to offer my congratulations to the writer in La Patrie on the last paragraph of his editorial which reads as follows :

The treatment which the French Canadian nress received at the hands of the Printing Bureau or of the Hansard Committee is one which is no longer tolerable, and it is high time that the responsibilities for such a condition of
affairs were placed on the shoulders of the proper parties.
I hope, Sir, that prompt action will be taken in the matter so as to place the responsibility for such a condition of affairs where it rightly belongs.
I do not believe that the writer in La Patrie meant to be unfair to any one, and I am glad to be able to state here and now that the parliamentary eorresijondence of the 20th puts matters in the proper light and makes up for any inaccuracies that may have crept into the editorial referred to.
When I rose to give a personal explanation to the House, I only wished to rectify the statements contained in the two first paragraphs of the article referred to, and to tell the House and the country that the question put by me on the Order paper was not dropped, by reason of my being absent from the House ; and in the second place, that such absence was not momentary, and that it was not prompted by any fear on my part of the attitude that any committee of the House might think fit to take with regard to this question.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Hon. Mr. Fielding :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
['I dissent.']
Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: Mr. Speaker, as the announcements of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) necessarily cover every department of the fiscal and commercial policy and administration of the country, it is only reasonable that the discussion of these announcements should wander far and wide, a privilege which has been very fully availed of by, I think, most of the hon. members who have taken part in the discussion so far. But, while our discussion may cover a great deal of ground, our vote is narrowed down to the point of whether we shall endorse the policy and administration expressed by these announcements, or whether we shall accept the resolution in amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). In deciding which of these motions we shall support it is not necessary, nor is it possible, that we should all absolutely agree with either the one or the other. In any country, and particularly in a country so widespread as Canada, there must necessarily be many points of view in regard to the policy of taxation, the trade policy and the fiscal policy of the country. I assume that members are elected to parliament for the purpose of representing those several interests and sections, not
by endeavouring to force absolutely their particular views upon the whole House so much as to, as far as possible, find a common ground upon which they can stand to work together for the common good. I hope, then, that in discussing the budget from the point of view of the interests of the locality which I am particularly identified with, I will not be accused of any greater lack of patriotism, or any great sectionalism than any other hon. member, representing other interests, may be accused of. In discussing the question of taxation raised by means of a tariff, we find that the full meaning and purport of the taxation is not represented merely by the rate of duty nor by the average rate of duty. A certain level percentage rate of duty levied on all articles alike would be eminently unfair to those classes of the community who would be affected by the tariff through their purchases of necessities rather than of luxuries. A 10 per cent duty on everything would be a greater burden upon the community at large than a 30 per cent duty might be if applied to certain articles. So, too, on the protective side of the tariff because a tariff, in so far as it is a tariff, must necessarily be that far protective,-or, possibly, destructive-those industries which depend on an export market for their ultimate prosperity cannot by any possibility derive the same advantage from the protective features of the tariff as those industries which depend on the home market. So, there are very wide differences in the point of view both in regard to taxation and in regard to protection. I need not tell the hon. members of this House that in that part of Canada lying west of Lake Superior the purchase of necessities is immeasurably greater than the purchase of luxuries. I need not say that that part of Canada depends on the advantages it receives in the export market rather than on the advantages it receives in the home market for its ultimate success. Therefore, west of Lake Superior, the conditions of the country are favourable to low taxation on necessaries and low protection ; in other words, the country west of Lake Superior is, in its own interest, necessarily a low tariff country. I need not say that the country west of Lake Superior is not the only part of Canada that is so interested. Wherever, in all this broad Dominion, the majority of the people are buying necessaries instead of luxuries, and wherever, in this broad Dominion, the prosperity of the producer depends upon exports rather than upon home sales, their position is necessarily the same as that of the country west of Lake Superior, and their interests are also identified with a low tariff.
In so far as the tariff which has been put in force by the present administration is concerned; in so far as that tariff has given to the consuming and export producing class of this country relief from the burdens

which they formerly bore, in so far it necessarily has our support. In so far as it has not clone that it necessarily must meet with our criticism. There are features of the present tariff which some of us do not consider satisfactory. We believe that there are articles upon which the tariff is unfairly high, and if it were possible for us to secure a reduction in these particulars we would take such means as would be necessary to secure that reduction. Having recognized the advantages which we have derived under the present tariff policy and administration; having stated the points on which we feel inclined to criticise that policy, the question for us to decide is ; Where do we stand or how do we stand in regard to the alternative proposition placed before us by the leader of the opposition ? Is it to that proposition that we are to look for greater advantages than we enjoy under the tariff policy of the present administration ? I will not read the amendment to the House, because the House is no doubt familiar with it. It is divided into three paragraphs, and if I might be allowed to give my poor judgment in regard to the meaning of those paragraphs, I would say that paragraph No. 1 declares for a protective tariff for all industries in Canada ; that paragraph No. 2 declares for trade advantages to be given to all parts of the empire, and that paragraph No. 3 declares for a tariff war against all the rest of the world. For my part I am a protectionist in principle and in practice. I believe that it is the business of auy government to protect the interest of the country over which it is called to govern, and if the leader of the opposition or if his friends behind him can show me a reasonable means whereby he can protect and advantage the labouring, the agricultural, the manufacturing, the mining and other industrial interests in Canada by a tariff adjustment, he can have my vote.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: But judged in the light of past events; judged in the light of the events transpiring in this country since the adoption of the so-called protective tariff in 1878; our experience leads us to believe that so-called national protection means protection for one class and one interest of the community, and the sacrifice of every other.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: It will be for our friends opposite to explain in what way they propose to advance the agricultural and mining interests of the west by changes in the tariff. They have not attempted to do so yet. and we would be glad to hear from them on that point. The so-called protective tariff; the mis-called national policy was framed in 1878. It was framed, we are given to understand, by a master hand and by a master mind; but that policy Mr. OLIVER.
framed by a master mind and administered by a master hand never did give protection to the agricultural and mining interests of Canada any more than it did to any of the other of these interests and industries which depended upon the export market for their success.
As to the policy of mutual trade preference within the empire, I would be glad to know how our friends propose to adequately protect every interest within Canada, and at the same time provide for a trade preference throughout the empire. Do they propose to get something for nothing ? The world has changed, if they can get a preference throughout the empire without giving something in return. And then I ask them : What interest which they have pledged themselves here to absolutely and adequately protect, are they going to sacrifice, and to what measure are they going to sacrifice it, in order to secure this mutual trade preference throughout the empire? I would ask them further : What they propose to do about the trade preference that exists at the present time between Great Britain and Canada. I understand that our friends on the other side are not in favour of that trade preference, although they have not specifically declared themselves against it. We would like them to come off the fence and say just exactly what they are going to do about it, because I would like them to understand that the principle of preferential trade with Britain as it stands at the present time appeals to the views and the interests of that section of the people of Canada who depend upon the export market of Great Britain for their ultimate success. Under the present preference, we who depend for our success upon the export of our products believe that any measure that tends to improve our market in Britain is a benefit to us, and when we secure that preference in the British market, not by giving something, but by taking something-that is, the privilege of buying what we want at a lower rate of duty-I say that preference is good enough for us until we can get something better at any rate, and it has our endorsation not only as a matter of sentiment, but as a matter of practical business. In regard to the third paragraph of the amendment which declares for a tariff war with the world, I would ask again: If we are to regulate our tariff, not as is stated in the first paragraph for the purpose of protecting every interest within our country, but for the purpose of attacking every Interest in every other country. It seems to me that there is as great difficulty in meeting both conditions as between the first and third paragraph as between the first and second. I believe in the principle of regulating our tariff according to our own needs and requirements and in our own interests I do not think it is a principle capable of general application that whenever any other
189(3'
country sees fit to put up a certain tariff against us, we should therefore put up the same tariff against it. For these reasons, while I still criticise the fiscal policy of the government and their administration in any particular wherein I consider they have not done the best that can he done for the well-being of the part of the country in which I am most deeply interested, I am compelled to vote for the resolution of the government instead of that of the opposition.
The amendment of the leader of the opposition is a statement of policy on the part of a great political party, a party which hopes again to rule the destinies of this country ; and I would be glad to understand exactly what is meant by what is said. When the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) was replying to the speech of the Finance Minister, he criticised the fiscal policy of the government, and it seemed to me with fairly good reason. He said that he thought a time when the revenues were swelling was a time when either the taxation should be reduced or the debt decreased. He said that in his speech, but it is not embodied in this resolution. I ask you to reconcile if you can the wording of the first paragraph of the resolution, which declares for pronounced and adequate protection, or in other words high duties, with the statement of the hon. member for West Toronto that a rising revenue should be accompanied by reduced taxation. If hon. gentlemen opposite will give us a policy which will appeal to the interests and provide for the well-being of the great producing industries and the great consuming classes of this country, then they can have the support of the representatives of those classes and those interests. But so long as they see fit to declare in this House, if not in resolution, at any rate in speech, that every interest of this vast country is governed by and involved in the one single and minor interest of manufacturing, just so long must they depend on the manufacturing interest for their support, and just so long will I take the liberty of returning to them the accusation of sectionalism and narrowness which has been levelled on several occasions in this House against the representatives of the western country, because they upheld western interests. I wish it to he always understood that the people of the west have no animosity towards the manufacturing interests. We wish them nothing 'but an abundant success. We are not sectionaliists. , We like to see this eastern Canada built up ; we are proud when we see it prospering. We like to see these tall chimneys rising ; we like to see those thousands of people employed in manufacturing ; we like to see those great pay rolls. That is one side of the question. But we do not like to see gentlemen 00
who represent the manufacturing interest stand up in this House and assume and declare that the manufacturing interest must be protected at all hazards, and that every other interest is secondary to that-thatf the prosperity of this country is dependent on whether those gentlemen get a cent more or a cent less on their cottons and their woollens. So long as we are levying our taxation by means of the tariff, just so long are these gentlemen entitled to all the incidental protection which a revenue tariff will give them. They are more than heartily welcome to it, and any success which they can achieve under these conditions we shall rejoice to see them achieve. There is no sectionalism in that respect. But we are told-I have heard it stated from the front benches of the opposition- that so soon as any manufacturing industry is found to be languishing, then is the time to increase the tariff. The trouble with the manufacturers of Canada-if I may be allowed to be a judge-is that they have been living rather on the strength of the tariff than on the merits of their own case; and it is a happy thing for this country, instead of this being a time when one or more manufacturers can come down here and get another- turn of the tariff screw in order to help them out, the time has come when these gentlemen have to stand on their own feet and fight out their own salvation, just as we in the North-west have to do. If any particular industry cannot maintain itself under the protection accorded to it by a fair revenue tariff, then let the industry be chahged ; just as in the North-west, when wheat raising becomes unprofitable, we are told from every platform, in every newspaper and from every seat in parliament : Go into mixed farming. In the same way, if certain manufacturing industries cannot thrive under a revenue tariff, it is time for them to change to some other line of manufacture, instead of coming down to this House and putting themselves in the position of mendicants on our handis.
I do not want to go into a very extensive discussion of this question ; but one thing has attracted my attention in the plea which has always been put up on behalf of high duties in favour of the manufacturers. Whenever a demand Is made for a high duty in favour of the manufacturers, or whenever an attempt is made to reduce a duty, these gentlemen of the manufacturing industries forthwith barrica&e themselves behind a breastwork of petticoats and pinafores. It is the wives and children of their operatives who are going to be injured by any change in the tariff ; and an appeal is made to humanity when no other ground exists to keep up the tariff. But when the tariff is kept up. when it is thought advisable to form one of these great combines or trusts, when

lb 91

business gets a little slack, or when somebody is making a big donation for a public library or something of the kind, and a cut -is made in wages, we do not then hear ^anything about the suffering of the workmen or operatives in the factories.
Might I give a suggestion to these philanthropists who are so very anxious about their labouring men. Labouring men depend upon the necessaries of life the same as everybody else, and have less money with which to buy them. We have all heard about the iniquity with regard to coal oil, about the high duties on coal oil, and a good many of us believe that they are altogether too high. W coal oil is an article which absorbs a large part of the wages of these unfortunate operatives, but I have never yet seen or heard of a manufacturing association of Canada, or any representative of such associations, getting up in parliament and advocating a reduction of the duty on that article. No danger of their doing that, because that would be attacking the sacred principle of protection. It is with them a case of hang together, for if they do not hang together they will hang separately, and they support the duty on coal oil and every other high duty simply on the principle that the duties must be kept up, although it takes money out of the pockets of the operatives, which these operatives need so much.
The claim is made that the present tariff is the same as the old one. that the tariff policy of the present government is the same old national*policy of the late government. If it is, why move this resolution ? Why not endorse the policy of the government by accepting the motion of the lion. Minister of Finance ? I assume that in moving tiiis motion, lion, gentlemen opposite acknowledge that there is not only a radical difference between the tariff policy of the present government and that of the late government, but that the tariff policy of the present opposition differs from that of the present government, and differs because it does not give higher protection to manufacturing industries. If the resolution does not mean that, then it does not mean anything. [DOT]
Another side of the question I would like to touch, and one I have not heard dealt with yet. is with regard to the great prosperity which has flowed over this country during the past four or five years. I read from the speech of the hon. the Finance Minister :
But In summing up the affairs of the country, we are able to describe it as one of unexampled prosperity. Prosperity in trade and manufactures has brought prosperity to our national finances, and enables me at the close of the year to announce results which, it is not too much to say, form the most satisfactory financial statement that ever fell to the lot of a Minister of Finance to make in the Dominion of Canada. At a time of very considerable Mr. OLIVER.
financial stringency, at a time, too, when our expenditures were being conducted on a very liberal scale, we found our revenues so generous that we were able to provide for all our needs without having to resort to fresh loans, or even to an issue of treasury bills.
I want to call the attention of the House to the statement, which has not been challenged, that we are to-day financially and commercially in a most exceptionally prosperous condition, and the question arises, is that condition likely to continue ? If it is, we are to be congratulated. If it is not, we are to some extent to be deplored. The hon. the Finance Minister deals with that question as follows :
I think we have probably now reached about the crest of the wave of prosperity. I do not expect that we shall have any serious reverses.
think the business of Canada has been developed during the past four or five years upon very safe and sound lines. I think there has been, to a very large extent, an absence of that inflation which is so apt to mark a period of good times. I am of opinion that the business of the country as a whole has been so carefully conducted and is on such a sound basis that we are not likely to suffer any serious reverse, but I do not think it is reasonable to expect that we can go on increasing our business as rapidly as we have during the past few years. What may happen is that we might suffer a check.
I would be very sorry, Mr. Speaker, to hold out false liopes with regard to the future prosperity of our country. If we are liable to suffer a check, it is desirable that we should know it beforenand and prepare for it. and certainly the Minister of Finance is entitled to every credit for his prudence in calling attention to that unfortunate possibility. That point I propose to discuss in a few minutes, but the question I propose to consider now is, whence comes this great prosperity, because upon the source of that prosperity depends its continuance. That is a point which has not been fully brought out in this debate. Our prosperity comes not from the fact that we have been doing business, but from the fact that we have been doing an increased business. It is In the fact of the increase that our prosperity lies, and it is on the question as to whether that increase will continue or not. that the continuance of our prosperity depends. Where did this increase in trade come from ? Did it come by accident ? Did it drop from the clouds ? Where did it come from ? Have the farmers of Ontario produced so very much more crops during the past four years than during the preceding four years as to account for our increased export trade to the amount. I think, of $155,500,000 ? Is it due to the increase in our lumbering industry ? Is it due to the increase in our fisheries and our manufactures? No doubt there has been an increase, and a very satisfactory and desirable increase, in those lines. There is no doubt that the sound administration of the Finance Minister, and his
sound policy, have aided In increasing the general trade of the country a very considerable number of millions of dollars. But, I submit, not to the extent of $155,500,000 in the period of four years. Where does that increase come from ? X claim that the increase of trade within the past four or five years is due to the development of the country west of Lake Superior. From there and only from there could that stupendous increase come, and from there and from there only did it come. I feel constrained to dwell upon this point particularly, because of certain slurs which I have heard cast in this House as to the propriety of certain acts and policy respecting that western country-not so much, 1 admit, in recent years as in former years. It was the accepted idea in the public life of Canada not so many years ago, that the development of the western country was a mill-stone around the neck of eastern Canada. And that idea, I am sorry to say, is held yet in a good many of the back townships of this eastern country. I draw attention to the fact that we are enjoying unexampled trade prosperity in Canada ; and I draw attention to the fact that the only possible source from which that unexampled trade prosperity could come was the development of the country west of Lake Superior.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) if it was from there that the large increase or exportation ;n hams and bacon came, and also the increase in our export of wheat ?


Frank Oliver: Not the hams and bacon, but certainly the wheat.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the cheese ?


Frank Oliver: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the butter ?


Frank Oliver: Partly, but not altogether. I said that the improvement of conditions in eastern Canada did account for millions of dollars, under the wise administration and policy of the present government. I acknowledge that ; but, I ask, and I challenge the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule), did the increase in the exports of cheese and hams and bacon account for this increase of over $155,000,000 in our exports ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A share of it.


Frank Oliver: Undoubtedly, but only a share of it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The larger part of it.


Frank Oliver: Well, we will see about that later-for that is the very point. We do not wish, remember, to set up as sec-tionalists ; but, we will not accept the position that the country which is-I will not say the hope, it has been the hope for many years-the foundation of the prosperity that I Canada is enj'oying, prosperity that is keep-604
ing the factories of eastern Canada busy, and is causing this House to discuss day after day questions of transportation and terminal facilities-I say we will not accept the position that that country is a drawback or in any way a detriment to the welfare of Canada at large, or that any policy which tends toward the development of that country is not a good policy and a sound policy for the Dominion at large.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Nobody disputes that; there is no need to argue it.


Frank Oliver: I am glad to have the support of the hon. member (Mr. Sproule). I hope I shall be as successful with his colleagues on that side. Prosperity has come because of this increase, and the increase has come because of the western development-that is, the larger part of it. It is the exports that pay for the imports, and, when we find out where the exports come from, we know where our prosperity comes from. I find, on looking over the Finance Minister's statement, that our exports increased from 1899 to 1900 to the extent of about $32,000,000. I find that of that increase of $32,000,000, the increase in the products of the mine represented about $11,000,000. How much of that came from Madoc or Marmora ? I find that the increase in the export of animals and their products amounted to about $9,500,000. I find that the increase in the export of agricultural products amounted to about $4,500,000. That is to say, out of this total of $32,000,000, the increase in these three items represented $25,000,000 ; and I submit that of the increase in these three items the greater part necessarily and actually came from the country west of Lake Superior. No man can argue that the mining industries of the eastern country produced $11,000,000 more for export last year than in the preceding year. No man can argue that there was $9,500,000 more of animals and their products exported from eastern Canada than there was in the year previous. No man can argue that there was $4,500,000 more of agricultural products exported from eastern Canada than there was in the year previous. The greater part of this increase, necessarily and as a matter of fact, came from west of Lake Superior, and it was this increase of exports from that western country that, as I say. kept your factories going and your wholesale houses busy. This is the secret of your prosperity : and, inasmuch as the development of that western country is not ended, is only beginning, I believe that we are not necessarily at the end of an era of prosperity, but that, if a wise and careful policy is pursued, we shall find that we are but at the beginning of an era of prosperity which will grow greater even than the present.
I have given the increase of exports in three great lines. Now let us see the other side. I find that our exports of manufactures

1S96
increased about $2,500,000-a very desirable increase, an increase that we are pleased to see and that we are proud of, but an increase that was a result of the prosperity of the country rather than the cause of it. Our fishery exports increased by about $1,250,000. Our exports of the products of the forests increased uDout $1,500,000. These are interests and industries particularly connected with eastern Canada. We find that in these items our exports have been increased to the extent of about $5,250,000, as against an increase of about $25.000,000 in the products of the mine and the farm. Had we been depending, then, upon the pleasing and satisfactory increase which has taken place in these lines, while we should have had fairly good times, we should not have had the unexampled prosperity which the Minister of Finance speaks of so fully in his opening remarks, and which is beyond challenge or question. Not only lias there been an increase in our exports as between last year and the year before, but, taking the figures given us by the Finance Minister, we find that there has been an increase very much in the same proportion, in the period of four years from 1896 to 1900, as compared with the period from 1893 to 1896. As between these two periods the total increase of exports was $155,500,000. Of these exports $37,500,000 were of mines, and $83,750,000 were of farm and animal products, or a total of $125,250,000, of the products of the mine and of the farm. Manufactures increased $13,500,000, the products of the forest, $12,000,000, and the fisheries, $750,000. On the one side of the slate you have $121,250,000, and on the other side $26,250,000.
I claim that there is something more required in the administration of the public affairs of this country than mere tinkering with the tariff. The tariff is not everything, though I admit that the tariff is important, inasmuch as it touches every one in the matter of taxation. It affects, or Can be made to affect, every current of trade. I do not wish to minimize the importance of the tariff, but I do think its importance has been greatly exaggerated in discussions of this subject. From the figures! I have placed before this House, I think it is clear that a policy that will tend to the still greater development of the mining and agricultural interests of this country, which particularly belong to the country west of Lake Superior, is the policy which will maintain and increase our prosperity.
Now, as to whether this increase did come from west of Lake Superior or not, is a question I will briefly consider. Of course, we cannot separate, in the trade returns, that which came from one part of the country and that which came from another. It all goes out and all comes in through our great ports and our great wholesale centres, and everything coming in through these Mr. OLIVER.
ports is credited to such ports and to the provinces in which they are found. Therefore, we have to go to other sources for our information as to the increased production of the western country. I find from the speech of the Finance Minister that from 1897 to 1900 the government collected a royalty of $2,000,000 upon the gold output of the Yukon. That royalty was levied, supposedly, at a rate of 10 per cent on all the gold mined over, I think, $2,500 to each mine. Now, I do not throw any aspersion upon the honesty of the people of the Yukon, nor upon the ability of the officials there ; but I think if you will deduct the $2,500 exemptions, and if you will make a reasonable allowance for the dislike of people to pay royalty unless they are obliged to, and for the facility which the handling of gold allows to parties to escape the royalty, you will agree that $2,000,000 does not represent by any means 10 per cent of the total output of gold of the Yukon. Indeed, I think it does not represent more than 5 per cent of the actual output. There must have been not less than $40,000,000 of gold mined in the Yukon territory from 1897 to 1900, judging by the returns of the royalty collected. On that point I desire to say a word. I have heard it argued that because it did not cost $40,000,000 to mine the gold, that therefore the country did not profit to the amount of the gold mined. I can only say, as one who has some little knowledge of mining conditions, that the idea is a fallacy, and that the mining of $40,000,000 worth of gold in the Yukon territory does mean a transaction of not less than $40,000,000 worth of business in connection with the mining of that gold. It is an accepted principle that it costs a dollar to take out a dollar's worth of gold from the ground, and some think more than a dollar. If it were not so, gold would sometime become cheap ; but it is so, and any tnan who has gone into gold mining as a speculation-and I think some of my hon. friends opposite will bear me out in the statement-is aware that it often costs more to take out gold than the value of the gold itself. The way it works is this : The richer the mine the greater the rush of people to it, and therefore the greater the waste of money by those who have joined in the rush; and of this waste of money the country gets the benefit in trade. So that although it did not cost $40,000,000 to mine that $40.000,000 of gold that was taken out of the ground, there was $40,000,000 expended, because of that $40,000,000 taken out. and the trade of this country or of some other country benefited to that extent because of that gold being mined.
It has been said that the United States has benefited entirely by the trade of the Yukon, that Canada has only benefited by the royalty that has been levied. I find from the speech of the minister that the customs duties levied on goods entering the Yukon in those four years, is about $1,000,-
OOO. Now, that $1,000,000 of duty levied on goods brought into the Yukon is not the trade that Canada got-is not the benefit that Canada got. It is the trade which Canada did not get. Taking a 334 per cent duty, $1,000,000 of duty collected would mean $3,000,000 of outside trade, and the balance was Canadian trade, representing the turnover of our merchants, our manufacturers and our dealers in this country, and particularly in the eastern country. Because of those articles which paid the $1,000,000 duty I think I am safe in saying the greater part consisted of agricultural products from the western states. The manufactured articles which went into the Yukon in recent years, at any rate, have been essentially Canadian goods, and Canadian trade has benefited therefrom.
I find from the report of the Minister of Mines of British Columbia, dated June 30th, 1899, that the production of the mines has increased between 1895 and 1899 from $5,500,000 to $12,250,000. Now, just as in the jcase of the Yukon, so in the case of the mines of British Columbia. My hon. friends from British Columbia will pardon me for alluding to their province, but I think they will bear me out in saying that the rule which I have stated in regard to the Yukon holds good in a large measure in regard to the mines of British Columbia, and that for the $12,250,000 taken out in 1899 not less than $10,000,000 of trade was necessarily done in connection with the mining of that amount. 1 will not put it any higher. It may have been a great deal more, but it certainly was not any less.
Then, we come further east, and I find it difficult to get returns that will answer the questions raised by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), but, on looking into the Statistical Year-Book for 1899,1 find the increase of crop in the province of Manitoba therein stated, and I find that there is a difference between the crop yield of 1890 and the crop yield of 1899 as between 32,000.000 bushels, and 59,000,000 bushels, a difference of 27,000.000 bushels, almost double in three years. I think my hon. friends from Manitoba and the North-west Territories will bear me out when I say that, although the production in the Territories is not yet as large, the proportionate increase is very much greater. So, the crop of Manitoba and the west has absolutely and actually doubled in the three years from 1890 to 1890. and that doubling has meant an increase in the crop of between thirty and forty million bushels of grain which is worth just that much money. Now, I ask you. whether, in this eastern country, it is "possible for such an increase to be shown. It is not that this eastern country is not a good country, that it is not one of the fairest countries that the sun shines on, that it is not one of the finest countries in the world, but the opportunity for expansion is not here that is there. There can not be the increase where there is not the opportunity, and if Canada is to increase in her prosperity as she has done, then we must look to the development of the country west of Lake Superior, on the prairies and in the mountains for the future great prosperity and development of Canada, and we must be prepared to support a policy designed to promote the development of the country. Allow me to say that I am not one of those who are always calling for government expenditures in order to secure development.
I believe that Wise expenditures are ofttimes necessary, but wise and judicious administration is just as necessary as any possible expenditure of actual money. We had large expenditures in the period from 1882 until 1896, we had liberal expenditures, but we did not have results because we did not have wise administration, and it is greatly because of the wiser administration in regard to that country that we have enjoyed since 1896 that this prosperity has come about. With a continuation of a wise policy -1 do not say that we have reached perfection by any means-with a continuation of an improved policy, we will have still greater prosperity, in that country and in this eastern country, from whence you must look to the west for your ultimate and final greatness and prosperity.
As other hon. members nave wandered far afield from the letter of the resolution, so, I may add a word which I do not consider afield at all, but, as a final conclusion to what I have already said in regard to this eastern and western question. It was a principle held by the late government that it was not good policy to aid the movement of people from one part of Canada to another, as they put it. That it was not good policy to aid the movement of people from eastern Canada to western Canada. And we find to some extent, in fact, to a large extent, that idea is followed by the present administration as well as by the present opposition. It is against that idea that I wish to argue upon the present occasion. I say that if you are to have development, you must have opportunity. If you are to have development, you must give opportunity. You cannot make bricks without straw, you cannot expect a man in eastern Canada who is confined to the limits of a fifty, sixty or a hundred acre farm, or who is trying to wring a living out of soil that will not and cannot be made to produce to add largely if at all to the wealth of the country. That man, let him be the best man there ever was in the world, cannot produce the results that will be of general benefit to this country, that he could produce were he to transfer his energies to a wider and better opportunity. There is, and has been the idea that the progress of the west meant the injury of the east. I have read to the House to-day and have shown on the authority of the hon. Minister of Finance that it is upon the progress of the west that the

progress of the east has depended, is depending and must necessarily depend. Then, I say, instead of standing by this idea that we must keep our people at home, that we must keep them fenced up in little, confined, rocky fields, in poor parts of the country, it is the interest of every man to induce people so circumstanced to change their situation and to fake advantage of the wider opportunities offered by the western country. We have looked in the past to outsiders to develop our western country. We have, under the late government and under the present government, expended large amounts of money and we have advocated large policies for the purpose of settling that western country from the outside. Let me, in this House, say that what that country is from Lake Superior to the Alaskan boundary, it is, principally because of the exertions, the abilities and energies of the people of eastern Canada who have gone there to make their homes and to build up a new and greater Canada. It is because of what has been done, by the people who have gone out there from your midst, here, and who, because of the wider opportunities, have achieved greater successes. It is because of their abilities and energies that this addition has been made to our finances and to our prosperity. You have not lost by their going, but you have gained and you will not lose by the further going of such people to that country and building up there a market for your manufacturers, building up a market for your wholesale dealers, and providing traffic for your lines of transportation and great ocean ports, as they cannot cooped up as they are in many parts of this eastern country wearing out their lives in trying to wring a living out of the soil under circumstances that cannot yield them, one. It is to our own people that we owe the development of our western country as far as it has gone, and now, when we see as we do see, the benefit that accrues to us from the development of that country, it is for us to unite and consider it, not as an outside place, but as part of a great Canada. It is our common interest to build up a country that will be great in the west and so be great in the east.
You may ask : What would you wish to have done in order to bring this about. I would wish to have a change in sentiment; I would wish to have our public men look at this matter in the light I have viewed it to-day. Instead of men of light and leading in this eastern country holding to the idea that they must keep their people at home in eastern Canada-keep them settled on some rocky strip of land in New Ontario or some such region, I would ask them to realize that our manufacturers require a market, that our wholesale dealers require a market, that our railways and our ports require traffic. And how can we get that traffic so well as by transplanting our people from insurmountable difficulties here, to Mr. OLIVER.
illimitable opportunities there. If we adopt such a policy, then, I say, we need not look for that check to our prosperity which the Minister of Finance has foreshadowed. There will we find a solution for the financial problems of this country ; there will we find a means to maintain and increase the prosperity which has so astonished us within the last four years. That prosperity did not come by accident. It came by hard toil, it came by enterprise, it came by sound judgment, it came by men who took risks, and it came from the efforts of men of our own blood and our own name who transferred their energies from this country in the east to that country in the west; the men who have built up our western country as far as it has gone, but who have only touched the fringe of that vast empire that lies between Lake Superior and the Pacific coast.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: in this country, that a preference should he given in our markets to the products of the mother country on condition of getting some advantage in the markets of Great Britain. There is a little paragraph following what I have read, which, perhaps, I might read for the edification of the right hon. leader of the House (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier). This is said by the Secretary of State for the Colonies :
The right hon. gentleman suggests that we should treat them differently. No ! If we are willing to accept this favour and to thank Canada for it, and to give a gold medal to her Prime Minister for having proposed it, then, I think that the next thing is for the Cobden Club to give a gold medal to Mr. Rhodes.
This aroused the ire of Hr. Courtney, Hr. Horley and others. Hr. Courtney gets out of the difficulty by saying that the right hon. gentleman who leads the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is something of an orator, but that he does not understand the principles of political economy :
What my right hon. friend says is this: that as between different divisions of the same political organization-the British Empire

This, it will be seen, is the interpretation that Mr. Courtney puts upon the words of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
-there is no departure from free trade, although there is differential treatment of one part of it as against the outside public. That is his point.
And here is Hr. Courtney's reply to the taunt flung at him that the Cobden Club had abandoned the principles, and had gone in favour of protection by honouring the right hon. leader of this government by giving him a gold medal :
My right hon. friend has referred to the presentation by the Cobden Club of a gold medal to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, adding he was thus recognized by the highest authority as an eminent free trader. I am an honorary member of that club, but I have never been an ordinary member, and I have never associated myself with any of its actions; and when I read that a gold medal had been presented to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I could not but think that the Cobden Club had committed a betise. Sir Wilfrid Laurier is a person of eminence and of great standing and a man who possesses line rhetorical powers; but whether he is a master of political economy or of the principles of free trade, I do not know. But I am certain that his action in proposing to reduce the duties on British produce imported into the Dominion of Canada was not of a character which should .have Recommended itself to Mr. Cobden. I think that he would not have accepted it. Mr. Cobden would have known a good deal better than that, and he Would have been the last to approve of it.
Now, the only argument of hon. gentlemen on the government side against the principles embodied in the second part of the resolutions at present before the House is that the English people will not entertain it, that the English people cannot do it. But these hon. gentlemen have never tried,


John Graham Haggart: they have never made application to Great Britain for a preference. How is there to be a closer union between the different parts of the empire unless it is based upon the principle proposed by Hr. Chamberlain, the only principle he entertained-a zoll-verein of tariffs ? We must make the material interests of the mother country and of the colonies identical. Of course, we are not going to part with any portion of the right of self government, even to the Imperial authorities. We have the right to govern ourselves, as have other colonies of the empire. There is no proposition for Imperial federation or for closer union of interests as between the different parts of the empire, but the proposition of Mr. Chamberlain of a zollverein of tariffs between the different parts of the empire. That is the goal which the Conservative party are approaching. The right lion, leader of the government and the Minister of Finance, in discussing the subject the other day asked this side of the House :	If you are opposed to the preferential tariff, why do you not move to strike it out ? It never struck the hon. gentlemen that there was another way out of the difficulty. We can give protection against the manufactures of Great Britain coming into this country, and at the same time give preferential treatment to British goods. We do not abandon our protectionist principles, nor are we flying in the face of the preferential tariff. We can cany out the principle embodied in tbe second part of tbe resolutions without the abandonment of the preferential treatment of Great Britain. On the two parts of the resolution introduced by my hon. friend tbe leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), I am in complete accord with him; and I believe that the universal sentiment of the people of this country is in favour of carrying out the principle of political economy as laid down by all the great men of the present day, and in every civilized country of the world, with the single exception of Great Britain.
If at any time the industries and manufactures of the mother country were being swept out of existence by foreign competition, you would think she would protect her own industries. A few years ago she stood at the head of the manufacturing industries. She had cheap labour, skilled labour, any ^amount of capital for the purpose of distributing her products to every part of the world. If rival enterprises were started in any part of the world, she was able to send her goods into that country so cheap that she could undersell them and stifle their industries, and keep the market for herself. The ultimate goal of every country in this world, as plainly laid down by Mr. De Witte, is to have industrial and manufacturing centres surrounded by an agricultural population which will fur-
nisli the food products for the purpose of keeping up those industries. That doctrine is the fundamental doctrine of the Conservative platform. As I have already said, it may be that for a time the purchaser will suffer ; but the result is always beneficial ; and, as Mr. De Witte has pointed out, the people who adopt that policy always become the wealthiest and most intellectual.
Now, as to the remaining clause of the resolution introduced by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition :
The House is further of opinion that equivalent or adequate duties should be imposed by Canada upon the products and manufactures of countries not within the empire in all cases where, such countries fail to admit Canadian products and manufactures upon fair terms.
That opens a very wide field, it touches upon our relations with every other country in the world in respect of which Great Britain has bound us by the most-favoured-nation clause. It must apply to all, because no nation which has a most-favoured-nation clause with Great Britain could apply exceptional tariffs against this country, they would be void. They are similarly bound in their contracts with the empire to afford the same treatment to the colonies as to the empire. There are perhaps only three countries in the world to which we could apply that principle, namely, the zollverein of Germany, Belgium and the United States. Those treaties were denounced, and concerning the denunciation of those treaties I have some very interesting correspondence between the Colonial Secretary and the government of this country. It is in reference to the proposition that was introduced by the Finance Minister, offering most favourable terms not only to Great Britain but to any other country in the world that fulfilled the conditions. On this side of the House we pointed out the impossibility of anything of that kind being done. I remember the Minister of Marine and Fisheries getting up and, with that style of his which seemed to say that after he had opened his mouth nothing further could be said, he stated in the most positive manner that he had read carefully the most-favoured-nation clause of Great Britain, and that the argument of the opposition was groundless. I was wondering why the government dropped that particular clause in their tariff arrangements, and I find the reason in a despatch from the Colonial Office which completely upsets the ideas those gentlemen had when they first introduced their resolution, and brought them back to the position where they now stand :
But I should add that there is another question which is still more difficult, but about which I only wish to offer a word of warning to the representatives present. Besides these two treaties which are very special in their terms and which prevent the preferential arrangement, or which appear to prevent the preferential arrangement

Because the Colonial Secretary was very careful not to bind himself by saying that it did prevent the preferential arrangement; he wanted to leave a way of escape.
-we have a most-favoured-nation clause in all our treaties to which most of the colonies are I parties. I may explain that under the terms of the Canadian resolution, if any foreign nation were to offer to Canada beneficial terms as defined in the resolution, Canada would then be bound to give to that country the same preferences as offered to Great Britain. Let me suppose, for instance, that it was a minor country like Holland, and assuming for the sake of argument that Holland offered these conditions, thereupon Canada will be compelled to give the same terms to Holland that she now offers to the mother country. She would then be bound by the most-favoured-nation treaties to give the same terms to practically every commercial country in the world.
Repeating tbe words of the Colonial Secretary, nearly the ipsissima verba used by the leader of the opposition when he pointed out to the Finance Minister what would be the result of the proposition he made.
It would be, I think, a matter of impossibility to denounce those treaties because that involves the whole trade of the empire. In some cases there is no term of denunciation in the treaties. But, of course, the whole difficulty can be avoided by any colony which desires to make preferential arrangements with the mother country, if that colony will confine its offer nominatim to the mother country, and not make it to a foreign country.
That suggestion was made to the Finance Minister. He found out the solution of the difficulty that he was in, and that is the [DOT]cause of the change that he made in the resolutions after they were first introduced. But it never was the intention in this House, when those resolutions were introduced, to give virtually a 25 per cent tariff to the countries whose treaties we had denounced, to Germany, Belgium, and the rest of Europe. The result of the reduction in favour of Great Britain is virtually a reduction of nearly that amount in favour of the whole of Europe. Great Britain had practically the commerce of Europe at her disposition, and could carry her trade to all parts of the world, and could send even the products of Holland, Belgium, France and Germany into every part of the world.
What are these hon. gentlemen requiring under this preferential tariff ? Is it that 25 per cent of the original value of the article shall be finished in England ? I do not clearly understand the words of the order in council. I may be mistaken in that particular. Or, is it 25 per cent of the value of the article as it leaves the British shore? If it is the first proposition, suppose that an article costs $80 in Germany, and if 25 per cent of the finish is to be added in England, that would be only 20 per cent of the value of the article, and then you could add the cost of the package, the commission and

all these amounts to the value of the article sent to this country and you will find that the amount of the finish, or the expenditure to be made on the article in Great Britain, itself, will not amount to more than 20 per cent, or 15 per cent of the value of the article. That, as I understand it is the practice of the custom-house. Then, virtually, nearly every country in Europe is at the present time entering into competition with the manufacturers of this country on terms nearly equal to those accorded to the British people. That is what the people of this country will not permit. Germany has a hostile tariff against the people of this country, other countries have hostile tariffs against us, notably Germany, but, notwithstanding this fact, the policy which we adopted, not only in favour of the empire itself, but in favour of the different colonies, has been availed of to the fullest extent by Germany and there is an increased importation of German goods into this country under this preferential arrangement. What is the result of the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite ?-a prohibition, nearly, or at all events, a reduction to a large amount of the trade that we formerly did with the German people. Then, it is asked how the policy which we propose can he carried out. I heard the hon. Minister of Customs, the other day, ask the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean):	Would you
have a reciprocal arrangement with Great Britain ? Who ever contemplated such a thing ? There is no duty upon our goods going into that country and reciprocal treatment would he the taking off of the duty altogether on the goods coming into this country. We never contemplated any such absurdity as that, and the Conservative party have not fallen to such a depth of ignorance as to be propounding propositions the absurdity of which strikes the hon. Minister of Customs. What we propose to do is this: we know the difficulties In reference to the treaty arrangements by which we are bound to different countries in , the world. Surely we can make such a tariff arrangement as Germany and France have, that is. a maximum and a minimum tariff. Why should we not apply that principle to our own country ? It may be mechanical and self-working, so that, under certain circumstances and rules, as a result of the tariff which any country may adopt in reference to our trade, our tariff would go mechanically into force. That is one way of getting over the difficulties, and I would like the hon. Minister of Customs, when he is answering, to express his opinion in reference to it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: Would the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) answer one question ? When he says ' we ' does he mean himself, or does he mean the hon. member for East Tork (Mr. Maclean) ?


John Graham Haggart: 


John Graham Haggart: I am speaking metaphorically for the people of this country. The Tooley street argument in reference to the tailors may apply, but it is the habit and custom of this House to speak of ' we,' and when I speak of ' we ' I speak as if I am here representing the people of tne country. I speak for my country and I am voicing the opinions of my country.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Mr. Paterson).: The impressions left on my mind by the speech of the hon. member for East York and the speech of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) are entirely different, and, therefore, I wanted to know which view was the view of the party ?


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) makes a statement of fact which I controvert entirely. My views and the statement, as I heard it, of the hon. member for East York are quite consonant. He has an intelligent view of these matters and I, following in the wake of the hon. gentleman who spoke here the other day, am perhaps voicing in the concrete his opinions. These are the opinions that we hold in reference to this resolution. The hon. Minister of Customs, if he has any fault to find with them, or if he can find anything wrong with our principles, will be at liberty, in a short time, in discussing the matter, to show their fallacy, or falseness. Then, what is, after all, the resolution ? The resolution is an affirmation of tlie principles which, as I have said, since 1874 have bound the Conservative party. We state further that these principles have been departed from by tlie present government in order to make a revenue showing to the people, and that the present government are neglecting the manufacturing interests of the country. The right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in his argument, says that the people of this country' are sick of changes in the tariff. In order, under the protective system, to afford sufficient protection to- home industries, or to encourage the development of home industries, the tariff must of necessity be a changing one. Whenever we can manufacture articles cheaper in this country the tariff must be lowered a little to raise revenue and to afford competition which is a necessity in the interests of the manufacturers themselves. There is no fixed rate to be maintained. We will vary the tariff when we get in in order to carry out the system as we believe it should be carried out, to produce revenue in the country and to carry on, in accordance with the underlying principles of the Conservative party, the building up of the country, the building-up of industries which can be in no way done but by the adoption of the principles which this party have advocated from 1874, down to the present day. We further contend that the first duty of the people is to the country itself. For that reason we are
opposed to tlie one-sided arrangement which the right hon. gentleman made with the empire. There was no necessity for it. He, himself, made a statement before he went over to the old country entirely at variance with the policy which was adopted. His pre-election pledges to the people were in line with the second part of the resolution and the only way he gets out of his promise to the people is by presenting the argument, which was repeated by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell), that the British government will not entertain a proposition of that kind and that no proposition of that kind will be entertained by any colony. They are making such propositions in Australia, and perhaps, before a couple of years have passed over the doctrine which the right hon. Secretary of State for the Colonies has laid down as the doctrine which will bind him in reference to the dealings between the different parts of the empire is that free trade principles shall not apply as between them. We have had statements made publicly in the House of Commons in England going to show that the Australian colonies are marching in that direction. Why is it that the man who made the nation, or woke up one morning and found that Canada was a nation, is not advancing the interests of the people by urging upon the Imperial government that free trade principles do not apply between the different parts of the empire and that they should ' give us something in return for our abandonment of the open door, and for our abandonment of every principle which the Cobden Club, and every free trader throughout the country has advocated for a number of years. I know that the conditions are altered, and that there is now no such limitations as there formerly was upon the assent to be given by the Governor General to tariff Bills. But, before that change was made, if you discriminated in favour of any country, the Bill would be retained, and you would not be allowed to do so. In some of the constitutions given to the different colonies, they are restricted in that sense. But, the information given to the people of this country through the Colonial Secretary was, that we should not discriminate even in favour of England. The Imperial government of the present day have abandoned that policy, and have come more than half way to meet the right hon. gentleman. Wliy is it he cannot see the signs of the times V Why is it he cannot see the Imperial spirit which pervades the empire from one end to the other, and which can only be voiced in a zollverein of tariffs, as Mr. Chamberlain says, because England will insist upon the freest government in her colonies, and the only advantage must be an Imperial one. they giving us a preference in their markets in return for the preference we are giving them. For these reasons. Mr. Speaker, I shall have great
pleasure in supporting the resolution which was introduced by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 35) respecting the Mather Bridge and Power Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 36) respecting the Great Northwest Central Railway Company.-Mr. LaRiviere.
Bill (No. 42) respecting the Klondike Mines Railway Company-Mr. Fraser.
Bill (No. 48) respecting the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Oliver.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 23) respecting the Guelph Junction Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
On section 2,
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Shall this clause be adopted ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Yeas and nays.


Mr. H. GUTHRIE (South Wellington).: I think that, perhaps, a little further explanation upon this clause might be well before we are asked to pass an opinion upon it There was not a very full meeting of the committee, so that the explanations which I made then may be quite new to many who are now present in the House. The Guelph Junction Railway is a road extending sixteen miles from the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway to the city of Guelph. Power is now asked to continue that road seventy miles further to Goderich. The road is practically the property of the city of Guelph. Its capital stock is $30,000. of which the city owns $20,000, fully paid up, the remaining $10,000 being in the hands of ten individuals, who are each entitled to $1,000, upon which each has paid 10 per cent, or $100. When the road was originally constructed in 1888, these ten men were active as directors. They were prominent business men and shippers in Guelph, all or nearly all large manufacturers, for whose benefit chiefly the road was built, because they wanted competition with the Grand Trunk Railway in freight rates. They were consequently the most active people in getting the road, and when the matter was submitted to the citizens, the citizens ratified it. When these men

tried to sell tlie bonds of the road, no one would buy them, and they were taken over by_ the city of Guelph, which invested $173,000 in them, making a total investment by the city, in bonds and stocks, of $193,000, whereas the private shareholders had invested only $1,000 in paid-up stock. These private shareholders have changed considerably since the road was constructed. Three of the most prominent are dead, and two of the shares are now held in the United States ; but the board has never changed. While the mayor of the city of Guelph, representing the $20,000 of stock, has the controlling vote for the board, he can only vote for five of these ten individuals who held the stock, as there were no other shareholders. The city of Guelph has taken the matter up. The board of trade of the city first passed upon it, then the city council passed upon it, both to the effect that the city should be given a larger selection-that as every ratepayer of Guelph was just as much interested in the road in reality as the stockholders, it would be reasonable to permit any bona fide ratepayer of the city of Guelph to be eligible as a director. A request was made before the Railway Committee that the Bill be amended in that way. Now, since the matter was first talked of in Guelph, the directors of the company have become active, and have complained that it is not fair to displace them now, after they have given their service freely for a number of years. That is true, but the service has been a very slight one, involving only the receiving of a cheque each year, and the handing of it over to the city. The road, as soon as it was constructed, was leased for 999 years to the Canadian Pacific Railway, the rental being 40 per cent of the gross earnings. Each year the Canadian Pacific Railway Company sends to the directors a cheque representing 40 per cent of the gross earnings, and the directors hand it over to the city. The bonds held by the city bear 5 per cent. The road has never paid any interest on the bonds, and there is a default in that respect amounting to about $10,000. If the city were disposed to be vindictive. it could apply to the courts and have a receiver appointed to collect this overdue interest but there is no intention of going to that extreme, and when this Bill to permit further time was coming before the House, the board of trade and the city council both thought that the cheapest and most expeditious way of obtaining the result would be to ask for the amendments which the Railway Committee have placed in the Bill. No real injury is being done to anybody ; no one is to be deprived of any property. The stock now held by the directors is to remain their stock ; they are still all to be eligible as directors ; but the anomaly of the present position is very apparent. By the original Act the city council is allowed three representatives on the Mr. GUTHRIE.
board, the mayor and two others ; the stockholders have five representatives on the board ; and the anomaly of the situation is that two-thirds of the stock has a minority on the board, and one-third of the stock, of which only 10 per cent has been paid, has a majority on the board. It would cure that anomaly to permit this amendment to pass. However, I understand that the city council would be quite willing to allow the stockholders a proportionate representation on the board, giving the city six representatives and the stockholders three. That would be a representation on the board according to the stock. All the city council desire is to appoint more active men as directors. If an amendment to that effect would be satisfactory, I think that would meet, probably, the views of both the citizens and the directors themselves, if their views are at all reasonable.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In that case, you had better move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Hugh Guthrie: Therefore, I would move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


David Henderson: Before the motion is put, I desire to say a few words on this Bill. The offer made by the promoter of the Bill may appear to be a very generous one ; but, to my mind, it will not lneet the views of the railway company which is interested, nor the views of the best business men of the city of Guelph. To give the directors only three on the board, while the city council has the privilege of naming six. of whom one will be the mayor, two aldermen, and the other three ordinary ratepayers. I do not think will be acceptable. The ratepayers selected by the mayor may be men of very small financial interest iii the city, and very little interest in the success of the road. The present mayor will not always be the mayor of the city of Guelph, and while the rights of the railway company may be safeguarded at the present time, there is no guarantee that the same safeguards would surround the future board. I look upon the treatment which these ten shareholders are to receive as altogether unprecedented in the history of legislation in this House.
Here are ten men who made themselves liable to the extent of $1,000 each, on the distinct understanding that they were not expected to pay more than $100 or 10 per cent on their stock. These men had given their services to the railway company, and practically to the city of Guelph, for some twelve or fifteen years. They have never exacted one cent as compensation ; they have given their services freely in the interests of the city and the people generally, and now this amendment seeks to place them in such a position that they will be
liable at once, if called upon by a majority of tbis board, for tbe full amount, and only three of them can now be on the board. Even if the amendment suggested by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) be carried, they will be entirely powerless to protect themselves, and will be liable for the entire amount of their stock, which it was distinctly understood they never should be called on to pay. That would leave them in a very unfair position, and unless the promoter of the Bill will grant these ten directors absolute relief from the payment of the remainder of their stock, as well as recoup them the amount of money they put into the railway with reasonable interest for the past ten years, I fail to see how this House can pass the proposed legislation. I trust the House will deal fairly with these ten enterprising men, leading citizens of Guelph. It is true that three of them have passed away, but one of them, the late J. D. Armstrong, well known to many members of this House, is succeeded by a young man of enterprise, ability and means, Mr. Lindsay Torrence, who represents his stock. Another succeeds his father-I refer to Col. Davidson of Guelph. So that there are not three men who can not act on the board. I believe that one of the shareholders sold the stock to a person who since moved to the United States, and I am also informed that it is his intention to get back the stock, so that as a matter of fact most of these enterprising business men of the city of Guelph are still shareholders of the company, and still available to be elected directors on this board. No better material could be found for a board than the very men who at present hold the stock of the company, and to displace these men, or displace even all but three of them, and place citizens upon the board, who may have no direct interest in the railway and little or none in tbe welfare of the city, is a step we should pause before taking. How are you going to expect men of enterprise and means to put their money into any investment in this country, if, after they have done so and rendered themselves liable for a considerable sum. this House is going to legislate away all the rights and safeguards with which they were surrounded and treat them in a way they never expected to be treated by the city of Guelph. I can scarcely believe that the citizens of Guelph, if their sentiments could be voiced to-night, would agree to the legislation proposed. Therefore, I cannot agree to the motion that the committee rise, with the intention of changing the directors so as to give the shareholders three seats on the board instead of the six they have now. I hold that until refunded their money and released from all liability, they ought to control the board.


Hon. DAYID TISDALE (South Norfolk).: It would be very unfair to pass this amendment, of which no notice has been given at all. The understanding was that these men, who took the risk, should control the board, and now it is proposed, without any notice, to make a change. If the city of Guelph thinks it in its interest to take over the road, these gentlemen should be first relieved of their liability and refunded the money they have paid with interest. I hope my hon. friend will not press this motion.


Mr. JOHN McGOWAN (Centre Wellington).: I am thoroughly in sympathy with the opposition to this motion. These directors paid 10 per cent each on their $1,000, and the understanding was that they should have one paid up share and be relieved from all further liability, but under this amendment they will be still liable for the balance of their stock. These men should be paid back their money with a reasonable amount of interest.


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND (North Oxford).: I *can hardly agree with my hon. friends who have spoken on the other side. As I understand it, this scheme was really a municipal one, one that was promoted and encouraged and all the expenses paid by the city of Guelph. It is true that some residents of the city, in whose interests, especially this scheme was being promoted, became shareholders and! paid into the treasury of the county $100 each.


Mr. COCHRANE.: And did the work.


James Sutherland: No doubt they did a great deal of good work at the time, as was explained on a previous occasion. But many of these men have now passed away from this world, or for some other reason have lost all personal interest in this enterprise. Here is where I think a great injustice is done-these men contributed nothing except $100 each in connection with this matter ; but. as I understand it, the city of Guelph and the district are anxious that this railway should be extended ; and it may be quite possible that these men, not being represented on the board, may not have the same interest as the 'enterprising inhabitants of that city, or they may have some views with regard to this matter different from those of the people, and, by a majority vote, though they have but a small holding, they can override the wishes of the municipality which, as I understand it, holds a large majority of the stock in this enterprise and has contributed all the money to defray expenses. Any person with municipal experience knows that it is a common thing for men in large manufacturing or other businesses to contribute something in a small way, -as was done in this case, to some important enterprise. The hon. gentleman from Centre. Wellington (Mr. McGowan) refers to my hon. friend from South Wellington as pressing this matter. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) is

simply acting upon a petition under the seal of the municipal council of the city of Guelph, expressing the wishes of the council, and, I suppose, of the people of the city. I quite agree with my hon. friend that it should be made clear that the gentlemen now living or their heirs, or assigns should be relieved of any future responsibility. I thought that was the understanding. And I believe my hon. friend from South Wellington is quite prepared to ask an amendment to this clause so that there can be no doubt about these persons being relieved of future liability on account of their subscription.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland, Oxford) allow me a word ? I do not know much about this particular case, but a very simple way to achieve -what he speaks of would be for these gentlemen to transfer their stock to the city in consideration of the amount that has been paid upon it.


Mr. SEYMOUR E. GOURLEY (Colchester).: May I ask one question ? Why should a man who holds stock in a company be compelled to accept for it any amount that the city of Guelph may offer ? If he took it and became responsible for the balance, why should he be compelled to accept for it an amount fixed by another ? Take the case of the Bank of Montreal whose stock stands at $290 per share.
If I held a share of that stock for which I had paid $100, would it be fair to compel me to give it up on payment of $100 ? If we want to do that kind of thing in this case, there should be some way to assess the value, and, if you compel the holders to give up their shares, you should pay them what the shares are worth on the market to-day.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).: The hon. gentleman propounds a theoretical question, but I will tell him the exact state of affairs and will then ask him what he would do. He wants to know why a man should be forced to accept a low price for a valuable share. Of course, any legislation of that kind would be wrong. But, in this case, it is well known in this House or out of it that there is no value in these shares.
Mi'. GOURLEY. I do not know it. There is no evidence to that effect.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There is plenty of evidence to show that there is no value in this stock. But, even if there were value in it, why should a few men or their representatives be able to block the will of a municipality, and the surrounding district, by stopping a public enterprise ?
I do not know that that is the case there, but I do know that the representatives of the people have petitioned the government to grant this amendment and have given the reasons for it. I think we should be Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).
perfectly right, even if the principle which the hon. gentleman states were being violated, if we provided that the municipality that granted this large bonus and held the principal amount of stock should be tree to carry out their enterprise in the direction indicated by the petition of the municipal council. As I understand it, a good many of these men are dead and the holdings have gone into the hands of other people. And if, owing to some arrangement made fifteen or twenty years ago, the enterprise has drifted into such an unfortunate position as indicated, it is the duty of parliament, on the petition of a municipality to place them in a position to get the benefit they should have.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What unfortunate position have they drifted into ? I am a member of the committee and I have heard nothing of it.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: In such an unfortunate position that a small minority of the stock can control the whole-enterprise as against the vast majority of those interested as represented by the municipal council.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: But they have done the business thoroughly well.


David Tisdale: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland, Oxford) has not answered my point. Perhaps I did not state it cleanly. As I understand it, when the bargain was made and all these risks were taken, they were willing to trust these gentlemen to control the board. Now, they say -and this is why I cannot see my way- we want parliament to change that without recouping these gentlemen. I would be perfectly willing to carry out this, if that difficulty were removed

pay these gentlemen their $100 and interest and take over their stock.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: As 1 understand it, my hon. friend from South Wellington was ready to move this subsection :
The directors of the said company may and shall, upon the request of the present shareholders of the company upon whose shares 10 per cent only have been paid, issue a fully paid-up share or shares to such person or persons in exchange for and to the extent of the aggregate amount paid by him or them upon his or their present shares.


David Tisdale: That does not cover the other point.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It does not cover the $100. But my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) will see that there is nothing in that point, because the most of those for whom it is proposed are dead and gone.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: No.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There are some who are alive. But I understand
that in the committee tihe statement was made and not disputed that many of them were dead and their stock assigned to those who did not take a personal interest in the enterprise. I am informed that three of the directors are dead and gone. One hon. gentleman suggested that there was no notice. I think parties interested had notice, for the simple reason that they were present here and were able to state their case before the committee. But the majority of the committee thought that the Bill should be reported in its present form.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I am sure there is no disposition on the part of this committee to take up a great deal of time on tills matter.
We are all interested in pushing the work as rapidly as we can, and I suggest that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and that then a motion be made that the Bill be referred back to the Railway Committee. It is clear that some new proposals are intended to be made, the hon. member who is moving in the matter desires to amend the Bill as it passed the Railway Committee. The terms of that amendment, before agreed upon, will likely require to be thoroughly looked into. I think the Railway Committee would be the proper place to do so ; it would facilitate 'matters to send it back there and let us have the question settled there. I second the motion of my hon. friend that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, with the understanding that when the Speaker is in the Chair a motion may be made referring the whole matter back to the Railway Committee.


David Henderson: I am willing to accept the proposition of the Minister of Railways, but I think it should be accompanied with a promise on the part of the promoter of the Bill, or a statement of how far he will go in the amendment which he is about to propose. If he will say to-night that he will submit an amendment authorizing the city of Guelph to pay these men back their hundred dollars and interest on the money from the time they invested it, and indemnify them against any further claim, I have no hesitation in saying that the Bill will go through ; but it is only on fair terms of that kind that I think this House should permit that Bill to go through. I believe that will be satisfactory to the railway company, they will then step out of the matter altogether, they will have no further liabilities, their money will be returned to them, and it will be to a certain extent a matter of fairness to all concerned. Now, with regard to that petition, I am going to venture a statement which came to me pretty directly, that even the city council of Guelph was taken by surprise when this petition was presented to the council and approved of ; that the members of the coun-01
cil were not aware that such a petition was coming before them, they had no notice of it, and they were rather taken by surprise. I say that subject to correcttion, but the information I have is obtained from one of the directors of this road, so that we should not lay too much stress on the fact that the city of Guelph had petitioned for this change. I am willing that the committee should rise, and give the hon. gentleman time to prepare his amendment, either in this committee or in the Railway Committee, perhaps better in the Railway Committee ; but I wish to say before doing so that I expect he will go as far as I have stated, that he will be willing that these men should be recouped their hundred dollars and interest, and be relieved from any further liability.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would be difficult at present I think to come to any understanding as to the terms of settlement. The hon. gentleman would have to confer with these people. It must always be in the power of the Railway Committee to pass a Bill in such shape as will be found just and fair all round. We are not going to be precluded from freedom of action in the Railway Committee by consents which may be arrived at. Let us see that justice is done in the legislation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we should go further than that. Before we refer this Bill back we ought to see that certain instructions accompany it to the Railway Committee to amend it in that direction.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We do not know what we will decide upon in the Railway Committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then I want to say a word with regard to this Bill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My suggestion was to save time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the Bill is referred back with the understanding or instructions that it is done for a certain purpose, it would be easier to change it in the Railway Committee. In the first place, this Bill proposes what we have never done before, that is to allow the appointment of a director that is not worth a dollar. The Railway Act provides what is the qualification of a director. He shall own so much stock, he shall have an interest in the road, so that he shall be something more than a man of straw. But this amendment provides that a man may be appointed a director who is only a tool or a catspaw of the mayor : he may not be worth a dollar, and not a dollar's worth of property in the world, so long as he is a citizen of Guelph. That looks suspicious on the face of it.


T9 2 3 COMMONS
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He may be entitled to represent the town in its minor interests.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no provision that a director should be worth a dollar.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He is qualified to be an aider-man.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no qualification in this amendment for a director. The Railway Act provides that no person shall be a director unless he is a shareholder holding stock absolutely in his own right and qualified to vote for directors at the election at which he is chosen. But this does not provide that he shall own a dollar's worth of stock ; but any one may be picked up off the street to suit the mayor's purpose. Now, it must not be forgotten that the parties who are being crowded off the board to-day are the parties that took hold of the scheme when it was of no value, either to the corporation or to anybody else, they are the parties who engineered it, and financed it, and built the railway and gave the city of Guelph all the advantages it is receiving from the railway to-day. The parties who now desire this scheme were quite content to let the company go on and do the work and raise the money when it seemed to be impossible to raise the money to build a railway. But they succeeded in doing that, and putting it on a good financial basis, until the railway is a paying concern to-day, and now' an effort is being made to force these men out wrho paid up all that was necessary for their stock, to force them out without giving them a cent for that stock or relieving them from the liabilities which they are under to pay the balance of that stock if they are called on. Now. the proposal made by Colonel McRae, I think, was a reasonable one. He said : If these parties want to get our stock, let them pay us back our money, take the stock from us and release us from any further liability. But they did not choose to do that ; and will this House pass a law to compel men to abandon their rights and to give up their property without any consideration after they have made it valuable, when they are the only parties that have made a reasonable endeavour to give the city of Guelph the advantages of a railway that to-day is on a workable basis ?
Progress reported.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved that the said Bill be referred back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That can only be done at this stage w'ith the unanimous consent of the House.


David Henderson: I dissent.


SECOND READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 7S) to incorporate the Union Railway Company.-Mr. Demers (St. Johns and Iberville).

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on proposed motion of Hon. Mr. Fielding :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
['order to encourage the beet-root sugar industry and so to benefit the farmers, the government have decided, as the only change that they will make in the tariff since 1897, that they will allow machinery to come in free for the period of one year. I congratulate, as congratulations are the order of the day, the farmers upon the magnificent treatment they have received from the present administration.\nNow, I want to refer to some of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken, but, as the hour is getting late, and as these hon. gentlemen have all absented themselves, I am not going into it as extensively as I intended to. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who is a very eloquent speaker, made some remarks that I think deserves a passing reference. He compared the resolutions brought in by the Conservative opposition to \' the emergency rations.\' I want to tell that hon. gentleman, and I want to tell those who cheered the allusion, that whatever divergence of opinion we may have as regards the difficulty that arose over the emergency rations to South Africa, it does not come well from that side of the House to refer to that question in this way. I cannot say whether, in the inception of that matter the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence was to blame. That is a debatable question. But, I am here to say, and I say it with a feeling ol\' the full responsibility, that the government cannot be acquitted of blame in this, that when the difficulty had been shown to them, when the wrong had been shown to have been perpetrated, when it had been shown that a crime, than which it would be difficult to find one more dastardly, had been committed with reference to our brave soldier boys in South Africa, there was a duty cast upon the government and that duty has not been discharged. Therefore, I say, it does not become the hon. member for South Wellington or "any other hon. gentleman on that side of the House to say any more about emergency rations than they cau help. Now, these hon. gentlemen differ so much amongst themselves as to what the policy of the government is that it is probably better to let them fight it out amongst themselves. For instance, the hon. member for South Wellington is in favour of bounties, and there is no more definite or distinct system of protection than bounties. 1-Ie says he is for bounties up to the hilt. Then he proceeds to struggle with the questions of the surplus and to point out, or to try to show, that a surplus is not inconsistent with a policy of 1 a tariff for revenue only.\' He struggled with a ghost, because there is no surplus and he met ghosts because the ghost of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) and the ghosts of many other hon. members confronted him in that regard. I will read just a line in reference to the question of bounties from a statement by\nthe hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies). He was making a tour of the maritime provinces and say in regard to bounties :\nThis country cannot he made poor; it must continue in wealth and prosperity. But he was not satisfied to be contented with a mere existence, but desired to see Canada take the fullest advantage of its great resources. This could only be accomplished in one way, by means of free trade. This was the key with which they would unlock the golden door of prosperity. . . The Liberals maintained that any trade which required subventions to keep them alive, not only do not contribute to the natural wealth, but actually hinder the prosperity of a country. This is pretty clear upon the question of bounties. I leave my hon. friend from South Wellington to tight it out with the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, although perhaps, it may very well be that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has varied his opinion very much since that time. We had a very eloquent speech from the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), and I must say that after the eloquent manner in which he seconded the address it was unfortunate indeed that he should be the first, and I am glad to say, the only hon. gentleman,who introduced the race and religious cry in this House. I followed the hon. gentleman through his somewhat labourious argument designed to show that certain constituencies in Quebec with an admittedly Roman Catholic majority had sent hon. gentlemen of another religion to represent them on the floor of this House. X did not know until then, living in the province of Ontario, and I regret it if it obtains in Quebec, that these questions are taken into account in the matter of elections. I have always found, in the province in which 1 live, that whatever a man\'s religion may be, or whatever his nationality may be, it cuts no figure in the question as to whether he should or should not represent a certain electorate in the Dominion, or any legislature, and I regret exceedingly to find that we should have an argument to show that in any province of this country, or in any part of this country, another state of things prevails.\nWe had a speech from the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) which certainly had no very direct bearing on the question before the House. It was a speech which should not be lost sight of, because it was unique. The hon. gentleman congratulated us on this side upon the research and deep study which we have evidently given to the financial questions which are being discussed. I can endorse his remark there. We on this side of the House have brought to the consideration of public questions an honest determination to sift them to the bottom, to get facts and figures to support our arguments, and to submit them in a fair and honourable way. Having paid us this compliment, it 62\nwould seem that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) must have dived into the coal mines of his imagination, because he brought up a considerable amount of that material by which he tried to blacken the position taken by hon. members on this side. However, we must to some extent forgive him for he concluded by whitewashing us again. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) stated that the third paragraph of the resolution introduced by the hon. leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Borden), is a distinct declaration of a tariff war against the world. Do hon. gentlemen upon the other side of the House concur in that statement ? Surely any one who brings a fair mind to bear upon the question must recognize that the principle we enunciate is that we shall expect the same treatment from other nations that we are prepared to extend to them. There is no declaration of war there. Did not the hon. gentleman from Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), when he spoke on Mr. Bennett\'s motion, tell us that if we wanted to be respected by the people of the United States we must assert our rights and show that we are ready to maintain them. That is the principle of the amendment which the Conservative party have enunciated in parliament, and that is the principle which the people of Canada are prepared to maintain.\nI had not the pleasure of hearing the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), although he is the gentleman above all others whom I particularly desired to hear, because I believed it would be more difficult for that gentleman than for any other to deal with these financial questions. He is upon record on all the questions that enter into this discussion. Beginning his life with associations better than the associations which surround him now, beginning his life as a staunch Conservative, and having the variegated history that he has had since, if there is a pathetic picture upon the floor of the House of Commons to-day it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Trace him through the unfortunate circumstances which have compelled him to take the position he now occupies. See him leave the old Conservative party without a cause. See him next, as he was represented here the other evening, a believer in protection, but an enforced advocate of free trade. See him go through this country from one end to the other denouncing the policy that he loved and upholding the policy of free trade which was perforce to be his road to the portfolio of finance. And in the end see that hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) whom I certainly very much admire ; see him in the end landed not in the position he naturally expected, but stranded and relegated to a position which he did not covet. He has told more than one audience in this eoun-', "\n\ntry exactly what he thinks of his present portfolio of Trade and Commerce. He has told them that it is a perfectly useless portfolio, that it should never have been created, that it is a department in which a man cannot earn one dollar of the salary which is paid him. See him occupying that position now, compelled, reluctantly, I hope to draw the emolument which is attached to that office, and no matter what our political opinions may be, it must be a pathetic picture to us to see him as he is. It is pathetic to see him obliged to stand up and state that the expenditure of this government is right, that the policy of this government is a free trade policy, in a word swallowing all that he has said, feeding as he does on husks ; feeding on the light literature he has spread broadcast through this country in his various speeches, and swallowing his record whole. I sincerely sympathize with the hon. gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the House-but the apology will only extend to a small portion of it in view of the emptiness of the Liberal benches. I do feel as a new member that though I have had a splendid subject and a magnificent opportunity, I have not availed myself of it, not from want or will, but because of want of ability to deal with these questions as efficiently as I would desire. In conclusion let me point to what I think is a fortunate thing in the midst of that which to some extent is a misfortune. I recognize that it is a very serious misfortune for this country that by a side issue, and by nothing else, that by a side issue and by a fluke this government came into power. But, while it is a great misfortune, a misfortune which I believe the people of this country recognize to-day, there is one thing upon which we should congratulate ourselves, and this is that we have just come to that stage in our political history when the people of Canada know exactly where we stand. For eighteen years, while the Conservatives were in pow-er, and while the Conservative policy was calculated to work great good for Canada, there was still the great disadvantage that the members of the Liberal party, great and small, went up and down the country decrying our policy and thereby preventing it from having that full beneficial effect that it otherwise would. But that is not all. They not only did that, but by telling the people -and there were some people foolish enough to believe them sincere- that they were coming into power, and that when they came into power they would remove every vestige of protection and revert to the old free trade, which had ruined this country before. By doing so they retarded the prosperity of the country and prevented the building up of its industries to the extent to which they would otherwise have been built up under the Conservative policy. They told the people that they were Mr. LENNOX.\ncoming into power, and would put into force one or other of the five or six policies which they had propounded, and that protection would be set aside. As me Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) said so eloquently on many occasions-referring to the Conservative policy of protection-this accursed system, a system accursed by God and man, and it was going to be wiped out.' So that people stood hesitating and doubting, and doubt means distrust, <md distrust in commercial matters means ultimate bankruptcy. While a great many people did not believe them, yet it did, to a certain extent, retard the onward march of the national policy during those eighteen years. But, when they came into power, it was found that they had not the courage to inaugurate any of the policies they had been preaching. I ask the hon. members of the government, will they tell me which of the policies they advocated they have adopted ? Is it continental free trade V I know they will say it is not. Is it commercial union with the United States ? I know they will say it is not. Is it unrestricted reciprocity ? I know they will say it is not. Is it free trade? That is the only one they can escape on. They will not say that it is. Is it a tariff for revenue only ? The Minister of Finance came down here the other day and said this : A year ago I told the people of this country that we would reach the fifty-million mark in revenue. The revenue required is for an expenditure of $42,000,000. On a tariff for revenue only the hon. gentleman takes from the pockets of the people of this country $8,000,000 in excess of what he says is required for the expenditure of the country. How can he say, under these circumstances, that it is a tariff for revenue only ? Is it free trade as they have it in England ? No. And so it comes to this, that take it whatever way you will, these hon. gentlemen were never able, during the eighteen years that they were out of power, to devise a policy which was workable in the interest of this Dominion ; and when they came into power they were in this position, that they had to send a commission out to try by questions, such as they fling across the House to try to draw our hands, to devise a policy which they were not able to devise for themselves. The result was that when they got the report of that commission, they had to adopt in effect the old policy of the Conservative party, and they have attached to it a clause with reference to preferential trade, which has had no effect except to make it more difficult for the industries of this country to prosper. In the cotton industry alone we find that the stock has dropped to-day seventeen points. So that the result which is going to follow from this preferential tariff is making its appearance already.\nI feel that I have already spoken longer than probably I ought as a new member ; but you will recognize that it is much more\n\ndifficult for us new members to speak than the old and hardened gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House, yes and some of whom sit on this side, but to our left. I would not for a moment say anything disrespectful of the members of the government. I think the time has come when we have it, as a firmly established idea, that protection shall be the main policy of this country. Good men are wanted now, and this is about all we want to have assured prosperity in this country. I say nothing disrespectful of the administration of this country, only I think they could be improved upon, some of them perhaps a great deal. I was walking the other day along Sparks street, when I saw an advertisement in a window. There was in the window a lot of fabrics of different colours, some of them gaudy in their appearance, and this legend was on them : * They'll all stand washing,' and I may add, and watching.\nMr. SCOTT moved the adjournment of the debate."]
Mr. F. B. WADE (Annapolis).: If 1 had consulted my own feelings vipon this occasion, I may say that I would have retained my seat, but, as a resolution is before the House, as an amendment lias been moved and as a debate has taken place which has brought up certain questions of supreme importance, not only to the county which I have the honour to represent, but also to the province of Nova Scotia, as well as to the rest of the Dominion, I feel that 1 would not be properly discharging my duty did 1 not rise to say a few words. It. is not my intention to delay the House for any great length of time. My purpose in rising is to address myself exclusively to two or three subjects which have been presented to our consideration during the course of the debate. The question which is raised by the first clause ot the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is the old question of protection, the old question of the national policy. That national policy was before the people for a number of years, it was tried, it was weighed in the balance, it was found wanting and the people pronounced against it upon two separate occasions with no uncertain voice. The tariff which was framed after that by the present hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has been before the people and has been endorsed by such an overwhelming majority of the electors as should satisfy that hon. gentleman. It was said, however, after the introduction of the tariff of 1897, that the people had been deceived by the Liberal party, that they went to the country in 1896, not upon the tariff which was framed by the hon. Minister of Finance, but on a free trade tariff as opposed to protection. Now, it does seem strange to me that hon. gentlemen will, at this late day, repeat that contention when it has been falsified over and over again. Every one knows-and there cannot be found an utterance of a solitary man who stood in the position of a leader of the Liberal party to the contrary-every one knows that the tariff which the Liberal party promised previously to 1896 was a revenue tariff, or as we call it a free trade revenue tariff, as opposed to the protective revenue tariff which was in force under Mr. SPROULE.

Conservative rule. The distinction between these two tariffs is so evident, that I feel like apologizing for referring to it on this occasion. The Conservative tariff was designed for the purpose of protecting certain selected industries, whether it protected the other industries or not. It has been stated in this House that the Conservative tariff protected the manufacturers, but that it did not protect the natural industries of the country, and revenue was only an incident of that tariff. Now, the Liberal tariff is exactly the reverse of that. It is framed for the purpose of producing revenue, and if it incidentally gives protection to certain industries so much the better. That is the distinction between the two tariffs. We stood by this tariff, and on it we went to the country. But, as I have said, our opponents in the last election went before the people and told them they had been deceived by us. Our opponents said-it was pretty hard to follow their meaning too- they said in the first place to us : You promised the people free trade and you did not give them free trade; what you did give them is our old national policy. Well, we felt like saying to these gentlemen:	If we
have given the country your old national policy, what are you growling about, you should be satisfied; if we have put on your garments you should feel flattered, but you certainly have nothing to complain of; if we have made these promises the only people who can complain are the people we made them to and surely you should be the last to complain because you always said that you never would believe a word we uttered or credit a promise we made.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that we made no promise of free trade, but that the promise we did make was simply the promise of a revenue tariff. When this tariff whicli was introduced by the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in 1897. was placed before the House, the first authoritative utterance we had upon it from the Conservative ranks was the speech made by the then leader of the opposition (Sir Charles Tupper). It is a very lengthy speech. I have read it all with great care as it appears in ' Hansard,' and I shall quote one passage from it to show what Sir Charles Tupper's idea was of the Liberal tariff introduced in 1897. He said :
The result is that this tariff goes into operation, and the hon. gentleman (referring to the Hon. Mr. Fielding) knows that the industries of this country are already paralyzed in consequence, while hon. members opposite gloat over the destruction of Canadian industries. I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, of those industries in the Montreal Gazette, where one manufacturer after another declared that those industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House, was in charge of the fiscal policy of the country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.
That was the first utterance from the Conservative party with reference to the tariff of the Liberal government. Well, the wail did not materialize. The industries of Canada were not destroyed. On the contrary, tlie country became very prosperous under this new tariff, and the hon. gentleman (Sir Charles Tupper) who was responsible for the words I have quoted attempted on various occasions afterwards to explain away how he came to make that statement. He and Ills friends said that the tariff was altered after the speech was made. It is true that the tariff was altered slightly. There were some necessary changes in the tariff the total effect of which upon the whole revenue collected during the next year was less than half a million dollars, and the hon. gentleman (Sir Charles Tupper) and his friends told us that was the excuse for saying :	1 Oh, this tariff as introduced was
a thing that was going to destroy all the industries of the country, but with these slight changes it becomes the old national policy.' Now, Sir, I wish to assert in this House, and I think I have evidence before me to bear out the assertion, that the people of Canada previously to the election of 1896, were displeased and dissatisfied with this national policy. It was a disappointment to them. I do not know that I can prove this In any better way than by quoting the words of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell). Every one knows that he had been a strong admirer and supporter of the national policy, but he in common with thousands of others throughout the Dominion became disappointed and discouraged and disgusted, and in 1891, Mr. Bell delivered a most excellent lecture I am told in the city of New Glasgow where he resides, and he spoke these very forcible words on that occasion-because he is always forcible in his language as we all know. He said :
I consider the argument of the free trade as unanswerable. I believe that this moment if Canada took a liberal step in the direction of free trade it would go a long way to place her upon the road to the greatest prosperity.
Now, that has the true ring about it. Well, Canada did take a step in that direction. We are told by the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) that the effect of the tariff he introduced has been to reduce the taxes that would have been collected under the Conservative tariff by one-eighth or by about 12i per cent. But the hon. gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Bell) on that occasion proceeded [DOT]to give his reasons for the faith that was in him and his reasons were, most cogent, and they were reasons which must carry a great deal of weight. He said :
The reasons why I consider Canada should turn about and adopt a free trade policy are :
(a)	that we might free ourselves of the dominating influence of the United States.
But, to-day my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) tells us that the only way by which we can free ourselves from the dominating influence of


the United States is by adopting protection; protection pure and simple. The question therefore is: whether he was right in 1891, or whether he is right in this present year, ten years afterwards. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) gives another reason. He says :
(b)	On account of the failure of the national policy.
Mow, Mr. Speaker, that is a terrible heresy coming from the gentleman who stood up here the other night to laud and defend the national policy.
(c)	Because of the startling revelations of the census.
You see, Mr. Speaker, he voices the very arguments that we Liberals made use of, and he gives the very reasons that we assigned. We said the national policy was a disappointment ; we said the country did not prosper under it; we said the population had not increased as it should have increased, and we said that the national policy was not doing anything to remove us from the dominating influence of the United States. And so the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belli was on our side of the argument in 1S91, and I only quote his words as an authority for saying that there was dissatisfaction in 1896 against the protective tariff policy, or the national policy as it was styled.
But there was a new feature introduced in the tariff proposed by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in 1897. You know, Sir, that during all these years in which we wandered in the wilderness of opposition the Conservatives monopolized almost entirely the loyalty of all Canada. They appropriated the old flag and they would scarcely allow us to have a bit of it. They were very loyal in speech, but they never had done anything to prove their loyalty. But, when the Finance Minister brought down this preferential feature of his tariff by which he allowed goods from the mother country to be brought in at a lower rate of duty than goods from other countries which did not treat us as the mother land did, what did these hon. gentlemen opposite say ? In the first place their statement was : Oh, you have made a vast mistake, you never can work this out because of the German and Belgian treaties. In the next place, they said it would amount to nothing anyhow; it made no difference. Well, this Belgian and German treaty bugbear was removed, and ultimately they had to face the situation; ultimately they had to take a stand and say whether they were in favour of this preference to the mother country or not. They were driven to that; and what position did they assume ? They assumed the position of talking against it, but they never challenged it by a vote or a motion, and I doubt if they will do so, no matter how valiantly they may talk.
Now, I submit to all reasonable parties, that the granting of a preference to the


Fletcher Bath Wade: mother country was a most wise step. I believe that plank in the platform of the Liberal party contributed most largely to the success of the Liberal party in the last election ; and for this reason. I believe there is abroad throughout the Dominion of Canada a sentiment of attachment to the empire, and I believe this-and I would be ashamed to believe anything different- that there exists in the breast of every honest Canadian, no matter what his race may be, a sense of gratitude towards the mother country for what she is doing for us. We are living here to-day under the protection of the British flag ; we have British guns at Esquimalt and at Halifax ; we have the British navy ready to defend us on all occasions ; we have the full use of British diplomacy and the British consular corps all over the world, so that no matter how humble the Canadian may be, no matter in what part of the world he may be found, if the government of the country in which he finds himself does not do him ample justice, or if it inflicts an injury upon him, the whole force and power of the British Empire is brought to bear to defend him. And who has paid for all this ? The British taxpayer. Have we ever paid one dollar ? Have we ever been asked to contribute one cent ? Never. And yet, Sir, when we have given to the mother country simply this reduction in the tariff which we raise against other nations which have tariffs against us, we are condemned. All our manufactures, all our foodstuffs, everything we have to sell in the markets of the world, are admitted into Great Britain free of duty. But when England sends her wares to us, we meet them with a tariff, and we have been condemned solely because we have given her a preference. Do any of these gentlemen ever pause to consider what would be the effect upon Canada if England treated us exactly as we treat her -if she raised the same tariff wall against us that we have against her ? It seems to me that some of the gentlemen who have spoken with regard to the industries of Canada have not paid any attention to that part of the question.
Now, I wish to address myself for a few moments to the terms of this resolution, in order to come to the matters which I have to bring to the special consideration of the House. The first paragraph of the resolution is this :
That in the opinion of this House the welfare of this country requires a pronounced policy of adequate protection and encouragement at all times to the labour, agricultural, manufacturing, mining and other industries of Canada.
I have listened for days with the greatest attention to' almost everything that has fallen from the lips of hon. gentlemen opposite ; I have read, I think, most that has been said by the leading men on that side since the inauguration of the national policy ; and I have yet to discover where
agriculture has been protected by the national policy. Perhaps X had better speak of the farmer of Nova Scotia, with whom I am most familiar, and I would like any lion, gentleman to tell me how the farmer was protected by the national policy, or how he proposes to protect the farmer, if he were allowed to put his policy into force. Is he going to do it by putting a duty on apples or meat or potatoes, or anything else the farmer produces V There is only one way he can protect the farmers of Nova Scotia, that is, by preventing the farmers of Ontario coming down there and making use of that market as a slaughter market. But. that cannot be done, for we are a part of confederation, and we must take the bitter with the sweet. Is it not folly to speak of protecting the farmer when it is impossible to do so ? Then, how are lion, gentlemen opposite going to protect the miner-the gold miner, for instance '! How did they protect him when they had the opportunity to do so ? They protected him by increasing the prices of the things he had to consume, and that is the only thing they could do for him. The same remark applies to the fisheries, and the other industries of the provinces down by the sea.
This brings me to the consideration of one of the matters which I ruse to speak ubout ; that is, the question of transportation. The hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith), speaking here the other night, brought up the question of the transportation of fruit. It is a very important question, and. to a certain extent. I agree with some of the statements he made and some of the deductions he drew : but I entirely disagree with him as to others. In the first place, he told us, and in a complaining manner, that the great apple industry of this Dominion was going to the dogs because of the neglect of the government. He told us that the orchards of Ontario were going to waste, that apples were allowed to rot on the ground, and all that sort of thing. Well. I knew that his remarks with regard to the fruit industry of Nova Scotia were wrong : but I had no means of saying that his remarks with re, gard to Ontario were also wrong : but. having some curiosity on the subiect. I went to the Trade and Navigation Returns, and I find that the hon. gentleman was entirely in error. I have made up a short statement from those returns, and. starting with the year 1891. I find that the exports of apples were as follows :
Barrels.
1891		  450,836
1892		 690,951
1893		 1,187,665
1894		 278,23S
1895		 853,268
1896		:	 567,182
Or an average of 671,000 barrels per year. Then. I take the years following, aud I find the exports were as follows :
Barrels.
1897		 1,668,470
1898		 439,418
1899		  1,075,068
1900		 956,458
Or an average of 1,034,000 barrels per year. Therefore, instead of there having been a decrease, as the hon. gentleman told us, there had been this large increase.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: I wish to correct the hon. gentleman. I did not say there was a decrease.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Well, I have his words here:
It is not only the immediate loss, but the prospective loss, that has to be considered. The farmers became discouraged because of the low price they received for their apples in consequence of the bad condition in which they arrived in England. Some years the apples rotted on the ground; some years they sold for 40 and 50 cents a barrel in the orchard, when, if they could be properly exported to Great Britain, they would have brought from 75 cents to $1 a barrel.
I would like to draw tlie attention of the House to one other fact in connection with this matter, and that is the large quantity of fruit taken by England. I find that in the year 1891, out of 415,000 barrels of fruit shipped, Great Britain took 390,000. In the year 1892, out of 090,000 barrels shipped, Great Britain took 608,000. And In 1893, out of 1,187,000 barrels, Great Britain took 946,000. I would like to ask what would be the effect on this Industry, if Great Britain were to impose a tariff against those apples similar to the tariff we now exact on her goods.
Bbls.	Bbls.
In 1894	 184,956 out of 278,238
" 1895	
756.232	"	853,268" 1896	
504,680	"	567.1S2*[DOT] 1S97	1,579,272	"	1,668,470'* 1898	
414,181	"	439,418" 1899	
972.125	"	1,075,068" 1900	
896,935	"	956,458
These figures in each case represent the crop of the preceding year.
The hon. gentleman from Wentworth (Mr. Smith), speaking of the transportation of these apples, said that only a small portion of the loss in shipping arose from the bad packing. I think that he is in error, if we are to take the report of the gentlemen who were appointed to examine into that matter. According to them, in the case of apples coming from the province of Ontario, the disaster to the business results largely from had packing. I am not In a position to speak of the facilities of shipping by rail from Ontario to Montreal, but there is a report which shows the condition of the apples at Montreal and their condition when they got to the other side. In the great Annapolis valley, where the good apples are grown, the people are dependent for shipment upon one railway, the Dominion and Atlantic Railway Company, which car-

to be most essential to the successful transportation of the fruit of this country. If they do that, and, at the same time, so far as the farmers and shippers of Nova Scotia are concerned, if they have any intention of removing this subsidy from the steamship line running now, or they carry this Bill and at the same time either remove the subsidies to steamships, or if the subsidies be continued in making the contract they will introduce a clause requiring that these things be done, they will have gone a long way to satisfy the shippers of fruit in this country. At any rate, they will satisfy the present demand and do all that is believed to be necessary in order to accomplish the purpose sought.
Now, there is just one other matter I wish to refer to and that is the question of railway subsidies, because it is interwoven with this question of free transportation, as I have stated. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) solemnly declared- forcmiy declared I should say-on behalf of the opposition, I assume, for he was sitting- next to the leader of the opposition at the time, and that lion, gentleman seemed to be well pleased with his remarks and, though he and other lion, gentlemen have spoken since then, not a word of discredit has been thrown on his utterance, that it was time for the government to call a halt. It makes the hon. senior member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hib-bert Tupper) smile. I do not wonder, when the hon. member for West Toronto was the one put up to say that thing. In Nova Scotia we commenced early to agitate for railways-away back in the fifties. If my memory serves me right the first legislation in that direction was passed in 1854. It was the policy of the government in that day to build and own the railway. In this they were strongly denounced by the opposition. But they went on with their scheme and, in 1858 they had a railway completed and in operation from Halifax to Truro and from Halifax to Windsor. And, when the government railway building was interrupted by confederation in 1867, we had completed the line from Truro to Pictou; and I have not the slightest doubt that had we not gone into confederation, the government policy would have been pursued, and every part of Nova Scotia, which, to-day is clamouring for railway communication would have had it years ago. But we came into confederation, and. necessarily, a different policy was adopted.


Mr. WALLACE.: Why did not you secede with the Finance Minister ?


Mr. KENDALL.: We might have done so if we had not got the railway extended into Cape Breton.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The Finance Minister does not seem to have seceded very materially.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The complaint that was made the other night by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) was that the Finance Minister is a gentleman who sticks to office, and I believe he does. He is not a seceder. When the hon. gentleman opposite talks about secession, I think he is ill advised on the subject. If he had been down in Nova Scotia and heard the discussion that took place on the question of secession, or rather on tile question of better terms and the question of revising the union, he would be in a better position to talk upon the subject than he is now. If he wishes to know what the Nova Scotians said on that occasion, I do not hesitate to tell him, but that is beside my argument now.
When we entered confederation we had a certain quantity of railway built. The policy of the government was to keep on building railways, and I believe that if they had not been interrupted we would have had all the railroads we are now clamouring for. After we entered confederation a bargain was made with British Columbia by which this country undertook tlie burden of building the Canadian Pacific Railway. Then another condition of affairs existed, and we had to wait and take bur chances to get our roads built. We are not complaining of that. I am not complaining to-night because the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, I am not complaining because we had to wait to get our roads. What I am complaining of is that after we have waited for roads which are in the interest of the country and should have been built long ago, we should now be met with the statement that there should be no more subsidies granted to railways, and that from a gentleman coming from the place he does, and representing the company he does. Now, let us inquire for a moment what has been expended on works of this description. I find that since confederation we have given in cash bonuses the sum of $48,130,000, in addition to some other things. We have given 39.725,000 acres of land for railroads, that is outside of the Intercolonial Railway. On canals there was spent before confederation over $20,000,000, and since confederation we have spent over $58,000,000. The construction of the Intercolonial Railway, including the purchase of the Drummond County Railway, has cost the country upward of $60,000,000. In addition to that, we have expended immense sums upon river and harbour improvements and upon canal improvements in order to build up the country and make it more prosperous. I was pleased the other night to hear the Minister of Public Works declare that he was going on with this policy of public improvements. I submit that it is the duty of the government to go on. They can get cheap money, they can get money today for a trifle over 2i per cent interest,
where a private individual has to pay double that amount. Then is it not their duty to go on with these public works until every want of the country is satisfied ? Is not this a fair proposition, that a section of country which to-day demands and requires a railway, fifteen years ago did not require it ? And would it be honest or fair towards those sections which have contributed towards opening up other sections of country by railways, to be told now : We are going to call a halt, we are going to give no more subsidies to railways, we are going to have no more public works. We have gone far enough in our public works, we have * our railways constructed, now we are satisfied, and you have got to be satisfied. Now, where does this statement come from ? It comes from the province of Ontario, a province which is grid-ironed with Government aided railways. It comes from a province where the bulk of the money for canals has been expended ; it comes from the city of Toronto which has been made what it is by these great transportation systems which have been brought into existence by the liberal use of public money ; it comes from a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway, nearly every spike of which has been paid for by the Dominion of Canada. That is the position.
Now, I protest against that, I protest against it in the interest of the province that I come from, I protest against that policy in the interests of the county that I represent. The people of Annapolis county are clamouring for the construction of a railway from Victoria Beach to meet the Central, to connect with the Dominion and Atlantic Railway at Middleton. The people on the south shore of Nova Scotia are clamouring for a railway to be finished from Halifax to Yarmouth. A portion of that subsidy has been granted to the shore road, a portion of the subsidy has been granted by this government to the Victoria Beach road as far as Bridgetown and it only requires the granting of the additional subsidy upon the remaining 14 miles between Bridgetown and Middleton. Now, some hon. gentlemen, when I mentioned the South Shore road, said, hear, hear. Am I to understand that there are gentlemen opposite who claim that the South Shore road should be subsidized and completed ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Yes.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Well, I am glad to hear him say so, I am glad he has got the courage of his convictions. But what does the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Kaul-bach) say ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He will say the same.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: We want 2,000 miles of railway in Nova Scotia the next two years.


Mr. KAULBACH.: The county of Lunenburg wants all the railways it can get.


Fletcher Bath Wade: What about the South Shore Railway ? Does the member for Lunenburg favour the granting of a subsidy for the South Shore Railway ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: If they will give us the Central road and that also, I will be greatly pleased.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The Dominion government does not own the Central road. I know where his interest lies, I know where his inclination would be, hut he does not like to go against his leader.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I am in favour of railways.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Are you in favour of the Dominion government granting a railway subsidy to the South Shore road from Halifax to Yarmouth 7


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I am uot going to be catechised now.


Fletcher Bath Wade: That is all right, that is perfectly legitimate. Now, I regret that the horn leader of the opposition is not in his place, because I was going to ask him the same question, and I wanted to bring to his attention the fact that the Board of Trade of Halifax the other day sent an influential delegation to the premier of the province of Nova Scotia urging him not to grant the ordinary subsidy that is usually granted to railroads in the province of Nova Scotia, but to grant extraordinary assistance to this South Shore railway. And who was the spokesman of that delegation? The same Mr. Campbell that the leader of the opposition so strongly eulogized here the other day, and from which eulogy I do not wish to detract in the slightest degree. Now, it seems to me that these gentlemen find themselves in the position that they must get upon one horn of the dilemma or the other. I am certain of this, however, that if the Conservative party had come to the conclusion that there should be no more railway subsidies, then it would only have been fair and honest on their part to have announced that policy before they went to the country last year ; and I think I am safe in saying that if they had announced that policy they would have had to search somewhere else for a leader. I submit we have a right to have these roads built: at any rate, we have the right to come to parliament whenever we want a public work in any part of this Dominion, and if we can show parliament that it is a work which is entitled to the assistance of the government, then I say in all honesty we should receive that assistance. It would not be just, it would be most selfish if any other system were to prevail. I regret very much that the hon. leader

of the opposition did not define h:s position in this regard, but, perhaps somebody else will be good enough to do so before the debate closes. Now, I have only one other remark to make in closing. I listened some time ago to the very forcible speech delivered by the hon. junior member for Pictou (Mr. Bell). I think he had one well-grounded cause for complaint, and that was when he complained of the manner in which the hon. Minister of Finance always clings to office. It is true that that hon. gentleman went into the government of Nova Scotia in 1882 and stuck there until 1890. During part of that time the hon. member for Pictou was the leader of the opposition, which, under that leadership, grew most beautifully less. There was one peculiarity about his leadership of the opposition in the provincial legislature, and it was that he always spoke against every measure that the then premier of Nova Scotia introduced ; but, he never voted against one, as far as I recollect. The hon. gentleman and his friends tried all these years to turn the hon. Minister of Finance out of that office, but he remained there until a friendly voice called him up to a higher sphere of operations, to a higher sphere of usefulness, and, judging from the temper of the country, from the high esteem in which that hon. gentleman is held, the high esteem in which his colleagues are held, and the high esteem in which his leader is hold. I can give the hon. member for Pictou not the slightest reason to hope but that the hon. Minister of Finance will cling to office here until another friendly voice calls him to a higher sphere.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) who has just taken his seat, is, in some respects, to be congratulated, and I am glad that I can join with the trend of congratulations that have been extended from the other side of the House, during the course of this debate. Rather, I may say, that the riding of Annapolis is to be congratulated upon having as its representative a gentleman, who, for probably the course of half an hour or more, has. i will not say delighted the House, but, has endeavoured to entertain the House with subjects, which. I venture to say. have no more relation to the subjects we are debating to-night than they have to South Africa. The hon. gentleman, however, realizes, perhaps, that it is important to let his constituents know that he is pleading their case before this parliament, and whether the time is opportune or not. in season or out of season, he has decided to enter upon his pleading. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman belongs to the legal profession or not. I am inclined to think, that, probably, he may. The manner in which he advanced his special pleading, the manner in which he endeavoured to conduct a cross-examination, which is not usual in
this House, the manner in which he multiplied eases, almost suggested to me that he must belong to the legal profession. I, myself being more in the nature of a farmer, know hardly how to grapple with the arguments put forward by the hon. gentleman. He made a difficulty between himself and the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). The hon. member for Alberta asked :	' Why do you bring in these
resolutions '! ' He said : ' If it is because of the old national policy principle that you desire to reaffirm, then there can be no sense in bringing in these resolutions.' On the other hand, the hon. member who has just spoken says, that beyond all question these resolutions mean tin reaffirmation of tlie principle of the old national policy and nothing more, and I think I may say, speaking for myself, that I am quite prepared to agree with him. I understand that these resolutions aim at enunciating the grand principles that were inaugurated in 1878, adapting them to the circumstances which have since arisen, and bringing forward to the present day the principles of the policy then introduced, and which, for eighteen years, were so successfully carried out by the late administration. Circumstances have changed. The new administration have been in power for about five years, they have tinkered with the policy, they have introduced some innovations, and the circumstances of the country have so materially altered that it is necessary perhaps to add an additional statement to the old principles inaugurated in 1878, namely, that we recognize the fact that it is necessary for us to stand upon even terms with other countries, and to say that we shall not give a preference unless a preference is given In return. Now, the next case that the hon. member for Annapolis makes is the case of Nova Scotia against Ontario. We are not very much concerned with that. It is another of those ' apples of discord ' that are sometimes thrown into the discussion. He shows ns that the apples in Nova Scotia are ten times better than the apples of Ontario. I am not much concerned about that, nor is the House. Then, he comes to case number three. This is an old sore, I believe. He comes to the case of Nova Scotia against confederation. This is a matter of more serious import. It either means something, or it does not mean anything. It either means a complaint, or it means no complaint. Does the hon. gentleman wish the House to understand that Nova Scotia is complaining at the present time ? It is not a matter with which we are concerned in the present debate, but he tells us that it is not secession. He mentions secession, and he says it is not secession. We are not concerned, I think now, when the present state of harmony is maintained, in knowing whether it was secession or what was the cause of the difficulty. It is sufficient, that.


Fletcher Bath Wade: at tlie present time, this province is living in harmony with the rest of the confederation. Now. he also speaks in complaining terms of what the city of Toronto has got at the expense of his province and at the expense of the Dominion. He speaks of the province of Ontario. Has the hon. gentleman studied the railway history of Ontario ? Does he know that throughout the Dom'nion there is no province that has, to the same extent, contributed to railway building as the province of Ontario, and, therefore, if Ontario has paid out its good money for the development of railways for its own benefit, and, incidentally, for the benefit of the rest of the Dominion, what right has the hon. gentleman, or any other province, to complain ? X notice that my hon. friend says that he has devoted a large portion of his time to the study of the financial history of this country, and of the financial depressions that are incident to it. He could not very well get better reading. He tells us that he has studied also the speeches made on the Conservative side of the House. If he had studied them with an open mind. I venture to .say that he would not only have gained valuable information, but would have been able better to understand the financial questions that are involved in the history of this country than he appears to be to-night. I think he must have gone in a dreamy state to the study of the trade questions of this country when he tells us that to-day we have nothing but a revenue tariff. Why, Sir, on every page of the tariff of this Liberal government there are evidences-I admit they tinkered and spoiled to some extent the tariff of the Conservatives-but on every page of the existing tariff there are evidences to a large extent of the principles of protection as opposed to the principles of a free trade or revenue tariff. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) * wants to know ; ' and in that respect he is much like greater men ; he is very much like the First Minister and almost every cabinet minister on the other side of the House. They all want to know, and God knows if they knew more about the correct principles of governing this country and put their knowledge into effect. Canada although prosperous to-day. would be abundantly more prosperous still. However, I like an inquiring mind, and I will give my hon. friend (Mr. Wade) the information which he seeks. He asks : ' Has agriculture ever been the subject of protection under any tariff policy in this country,' and he exclaims : ' How can you protect the agricultural interests of a country; how can you protect apples and potatoes and grain, and things of that kind.' Let me give him a little of that reading which, in tiie pursuit of knowledge, he has overlooked. Here is the tariff, and on page 9 of the tariff I read :
Animals (living), 20 per cent ; mutton and lamb (fresh), 35 per cent; tallow and stearic acid, 20 per cent ad valorem; candles, 25 per cent; pearline, 30 per cent; feathers, 30 per cent.
Feathers are an agricultural product to some extent.
Apples, including the duty on the barrel, 40 cents a barrel.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) was very much troubled about apples, and here he sees that there is a duty upon apples. And let me tell the hon. gentleman and his friends that about the time of the elections last year, apples were only worth 50 cents a barrel in the orchards in Ontario, and probably in other provinces as well ; and 40 cents a barrel is a pretty good protection on an article of that value.
Buckwheat, 10 cents a bushel; potatoes, 15 cents a bushel.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) was troubled about the potato, and the potato has often given trouble, and potatoes have a duty of 15 cents a bushel. Now, let me give the hon. gentleman oats.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. IjENNOX. Oats is another thing which sometimes we are greatly troubled about. The American oats comes into sharp competition with our oats, and we have a duty of 10 cents a bushel on oats, and a duty of 12 cents a bushel on wheat. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) not see now that agriculture is protected ? Does he want to have that changed ? After all the reading and all the deep study which he has brought to bear on the question, does he fail to recognize now that agriculture is protected ? Well, as long as the lamp holds out to burn, you may turn from the error of your ways, and I ask the hon. gentleman if he recognizes even now that this government has allowed to remain in force some measure of protection to the farmer-but as I claim not enough protection for the honest agriculturists of this country. The hon. gentleman understands, and many of his friends opposite seem to understand it in the same way, that we are not at present in any degree working under anything but simply a revenue tariff. That has been announced by several prominent gentlemen opposite, and so 1 shall refer them to a few items of the tariff :
Locomotives for railways, 35 per cent; iron and steel bridges, 35 per cent; spring axles, 35 per cent; wrought iron or steel tubing, 35 per cent; iron or steel shoe tacks, 35 per cent ; screws, commonly called wood screws, 35 per cent; gas meters, 35 per cent: shovels and spades, 35 per cent; skates of all kinds, 35 per cent.
And so you could go on and multiply them ad infinitum. It may be said that these are but instances, but the very gist of the

argument of the hon. gentlemen opposite is that you are protecting and building up one industry at the expense of another, and so they can take whichever horn of the dilemma they like in that regard. Now, Sir, I think I have pretty clearly shown that we can protect agriculture, and that the Conservative party by the policy they inaugurated in 1878 did protect agriculture. And, Sir, one and all of us on this side of the House stand for the protective .policy of the Conservative party, and the country stands behind that policy, and when I say this. I do not mean only those who voted for the Conservative members last election, but X mean that practically all the people of the Dominion are for adequate and reasonable protection for the various industries of this country.
Now, Sir. I wish to say a few words with regard to the question of preferential trade. Let me interject here, that I regret to notice that members of the House of Commons upon the Liberal side do not show a very keen interest in the affairs of this country when they follow the rule (which has been but too noticeable within the last few days) of staying in the House to applaud when Liberal members are speaking, and of gracefully retiring whenever a Conservative member rises. If we had a photograph for the people of Canada to-night of the empty seats of the ministers of the Crown, and if we had a general photograph of the empty benches opposite, there are those who would say that it would better become the members of the government and their followers to be here to listen to what is said in parliament. Whether the remarks made are feeble or not, it would be well for these hon. gentlemen opposite to listen to them, and weigh them with an honest mind ; to take their medicine if need be, and stand up like men-not run away. Now, Sir, in reference to this preferential tariff. The arguments which have been put forward are these : First, in reference to retaliation ; that if we repeal this one-sided preferential tariff, Britain may retaliate.
Does any hon. member of this House believe that ? If lie does, he is more simple than I take him to be. If he does, it is not what the intelligent people of this country believe. The hon. member who has just spoken has said : England allows our goods to go in free, and is it fair that we should build up a tariff against her ? Does not the hon. gentleman know that England allows the goods of all nations to go in upon the same terms as the goods of Canada ? And will the mother land deny to her children that right which site accords to all mankind ? I do not think that argument is very well taken. Does he not know also that Britain continues to trade with the United States and other countries which build up hostile tariffs, and far higher tariffs Mr. LENNOX.
against her than does the Dominion of Canada ? Therefore, the idea of retaliation is about ns weak an argument as can be advanced by a gentleman of the ability of the hon. gentleman who just sat down.
But, the hon. gentleman made, as many others have done, a strong appeal, if you measure it by words, upon the question of loyalty to Britain : Do something for Britain, and never mind other lands. It comes a little late in the day, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker. When these gentlemen were preaching continental free trade with the United States,-not with Britain ; commercial union with the United States,-not with Britain ; unrestricted reciprocity with the United States,-not with Britain ; that was the time for them to wave the flag. But what did they do ? They went on and on, from one state to a worse state of political economy, from day to day, until the public sentiment of this country became aroused, and they had to find something that would give a colour of patriotism to their policy; and then, for the first time, we heard these gentlemen preaching loyalty to Britain in commercial matters. I do not think that Britain wants-and when I say this I want to be perfectly fair to both parties-from either the Liberals or the Conservatives of this great Dominion any certificate of loyalty. Britain knows from many a day gone by, and she knows emphatically from the history of recent times in South Africa, that Canadians, whatever may be their politics. will unite at any moment to help the mother laud. Whenever the empire is assailed. whenever the principles which underlie the empire are in danger, then all Canada will be a stepping stone and the ocean the bridge over which the people of Canada will go to help the mother land. Oh, let us talk sense ; is this not a very different thing from talking on a business matter ? If we are sending a gift to Britain, let it be a gift through and through ; but when we are talking of business, as a member of the government has said, ' business is business.' I am sorry he is not in his place, but he is no worse than many of the others in that regard. When you are talking of a policy in reference to trade, I want these gentlemen to understand and take it as a warning, that business interests, like the wasp, have a business end. and they had better be very careful how they fool with it; because, if they go on playing with the trade of this country, bringing our expenditure up to the enormous figure at which it stands to-day, disregarding the lessons of the past, they will find that the sting of depression, failure and commercial bankruptcy will follow very soon.
Another argument is that of cheap goods for Canada ; but I will leave this, because it has probably been answered, and it will
be answered later on by an bon. gentleman who is to speak. I merely say in passing that I do not understand that the prefer-tial tariff gives cheaper goods to tjuuada, and I pass to an argument which has not been much made use of.
Members of the cabinet nave asserted in this debate that it is impossible to secure a fair trade with Britain on any other terms than the terms they have-in other words, that mutual concessions between Britain and Canada are absolutely impossible. But, let us remember that the gentlemen who are saying this are led by the right lion. First Minister, who when he went to Britain gave away all we had to give ; and it is not until after he has done this and had said ' Canada wants nothing in return,' that they come and tell us that the grand advantage which would result from an arrangement of mutual trade preferences between Britain and all her colonies cannot possibly be obtained. This is of a piece with the action of these gentlemen in other commercial matters. It is of a piece with their action on the Joint High Commission which went to Washington. Did they go like business men ? No. What they did was to give corn and wire fencing, and several other things, free to the United States ; and then they wanted the United States to give them concessions, and of course they got no concessions.
Now, the resolution before the House has been read more than once. I want to ask the members of the government and their supporters : Do you object to the whole of it ? If not, what part of it do you object to ? We ask for adequate protection and encouragement to the agricultural, manufacturing and other interests of the country. Do hon. gentlemen object to this ? If they do, we want them to put themselves plainly upon record in that regard, because the people of Canada want to know just where they stand. Then, the resolution says that the time has come when, in the opinion of this House, the adoption of a policy of mutual trade preferences within the empire would prove of great benefit. Do the hon. gentlemen object to this ? If they do not, we will expect them to vote for it. Again it is said that the time is opportune. Is there a doubt about that ? It is opportune, not only in view of the inauguration of the Australian commonwealth, but also because the policy upon which the rebellious states in South Africa are to be governed has not yet been settled. There is going to be an enormous trade in that part of the world. It is important that Canada should secure a measure, and a large measure, of that trade. It is within the competence of Great Britain, without disturbing her present fiscal policy at all, to give us a preference in these markets, and, therefore, emphatically, taking into account the situation in Australia and South Africa, this is a most opportune time for a movement in this direction.
Do hon. gentlemen opposite claim that they have reverted to the policy which obtained prior to 1878, when the Mackenzie administration was in power. I do not think that any of them will be quite daring enough to do that. The disastrous and ruinous conditions which then prevailed were so startling that it would be dangerous for these hon. gentlemen to announce that they had reverted to the policy of those days, which was a policy of tariff for revenue only. At that time our trade fell steadily, year by year, from $210,000,000 to $170,000,000 or an average of $30,000,000 a year, or 14 per cent during every year the reform party was in power. What is required now is not a one-sided preferential tariff, but a firm, well defined, protective policy, whicli will develop, upon the old lines, the various industrial interests of this country.
Let me read you a few figures which will dispose of the claim of hon. gentlemen opposite that the preferential tariff has been the means of increasing the trade of Canada with Great Britain. In 1897 our aggregate trade with Great Britain was $100,000,000 in round numbers. In 1900, it had increased to $152,000,000, or a gain of 43'21 per cent. That, you will say, was a substantial gain, and I began with 1S97, because that was the year in which the government announced its policy. Until then they were hedging, ana inquiring, and issuing commissions. Well, our trade with Great Britain increased 43 per cent in that period, but let us see how that increase compares with the increase in the aggregate trade of Canada with the whole world. If we find that the trade with Great Britain advanced much more rapidly than our trade with the rest of the world, then of course that would be an argument in favour of the preferential rate, but the facts show that from 1897 to 1900, our trade with the rest of the world shows an increase, not of 43 per cent, but of 49 per cent. So that although we did a fairly good trade with Great Britain, it did not keep pace with our trade with the rest of the world.
Then, how does our trade with Great Britain compare with our trade with other countries ? We have no preferential tariff with Germany, at least no direct preferential tariff. But, we have an indirect and unjust preferential tariff with that country, by way of England, and also with a great many other foreign countries, who send their goods to England, whence they are shipped to us and get the advantage of the rebate. Well, our trade with Germany from 1897 to 1900 increased 33 per cent. Our trade with the United States, with which we have no preferential tariff, increased from 1897 to 1900, not 43 per cent, but 60 74 per cent-an increase far greater than that with Great Britain. Then take France, with which we have no preferential treaty, but we have a commercial arrangement ; and if hon. gentlemen like to advance that argument, I would ask

tlieru do they pretend that France obtained a preference in Canada by reason of this commercial arrangement. But our trade with France increased 74 47 during the period I have referred to and our trade with Portugal increased 128T0. There are many other figures which go to show that our trade with Great Britain, under the preferential tariff, has not increased in the same ratio as our trade with many foreign countries with which we have no preferential arrangement at all.
Coming for a moment to the budget, the keynote of the budget speech is : ' We are having a good time.' The hon. gentleman who last spoke says that the Finance Minister will cling to his position. I think he will ns long as he possibly can, and that is just in harmony with the keynote:	We
are having a good time, and as long as it lasts we will cling to the position. But the budget speech is notable for what it omits rather than for what it contains. Look through it for a financial policy, search from the first to the last page, and you cannot find any policy defined. It is simply a collection of figures, a blue-book coloured by the somewhat picturesque language of the Finance Minister.
But when we come to examine the figures, we find that they have been juggled with and not placed honestly before the people, so that the people may clearly understand our financial condition. Take the question of the surplus, and we find that, according to the hon. minister's statement, we have a surplus of $S,000,000. How does he show that surplus ? Why, he says, that we are prosperous. That I do not admit, in the sense in which the hon. gentleman states the opinion : I do admit that our trade is large, but there is a great deal of difference between a large trade and prosperity. But the bon. gentleman says that we have a surplus of $8,000,000. I deny that. The net result of the financial year ending 30th June, 1900, does not put one dollar of surplus in the coffers of the Dominion. The hon. gentleman tells us that the amount chargeable to consolidated fund for the year is $42,975,279.51. We have expended on railways, &c., as stated by the minister, $7,408,843.24; subsidies, including Crow's Nest Pass, $725,720,35; South African contingent. $1,547,023.74. This_ makes a total of $52,713,400.84. The admitted revenue from all sources is $51,029,944.02, leaving a deficit instead of a surplus, leaving us worse off than we were at the beginning of the year, to the extent of $1.0S7,472.82.
I do not care about the argument that some of these are unusual expenditures. I say that the time has come for honest, straight book-keeping in the affairs of this Dominion. And whether you like it or whether you do not like it, whether one party is in power or whether another party is in power, the people of this coun-Mr. LENNOX.
try have come to the position where they demand aid will have a straight statement of t'leir affairs, such a straight statement as a business man would give. We have taken in a little over fifty-one millions, and we have expended a good deal more than fifty two millions, leaving us nearly two millions behind. Hon. gentlemen opposite say : Oh, when in power, you kept the books in much the same style. I do not care, I say again, for the traditions of the days gone by where they were wrong. I think tiie time has come when men should say : If we have been wrong in the past, now is the time to be right. We live in the present, and the history of the past can only be usefully resurrected in order to teach us to do better things in the future. In the present we are preparing for the future-the past can take care of itself. Now, whether the administration like it or not, the people are taking stock of the financial situation, the state of the accounts between the administration and the commonwealth. And what is that situation ? We have admittedly an exceptional revenue, due largely to exceptional circumstances and exceptional values ; mining has been booming ; we are on the crest of the wave, as the minister says. And on the other hand we are face to face with new problems in relation to transportation, involving, if we are to retain our trade instead of letting it be diverted to foreign ports, very large expenditures in the future. We are confronted with enormous expenditures. by reason of iron bounties. We are confronted with the fact that, as stated by the hon. member (Mr. Wade) who spoke last, the province of Nova Scotia is clamouring for more money for the building of railways, while a minister of the Crown lends a wiling ear to the claim. And we are confronted with the fact which is, perhaps, worse than all, that we have a Minister of Public Works who advocates freely the expenditure of money, and a Minister of Railways who has demonstrated that he also will spend largely. The people are asking how it comes that if we are on the crest of the wave of prosperity, every dollar, and more than every dollar of our revenue has been spent, and this in the face of the professions of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies), that the expenditures, that years ago stood at $38,000,000, were too great. The people demand a halt and they demand of the government a more rigid economy in the expenditure of public money. Now, that the country is taking stock of the situation is emphasized by a little incident which was brought to the mind of the ministry last night, to them not a pleasurable incident-the news from North Bruce. I do not know whether the hon. Minister of Public Works succeeded in getting into North Bruce and delivering
orations in the interests of this government or not ; but I do know that there was a desire on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to do all that could be done in North Bruce, and to present the policy of the government to the farmers of North Bruce in the best possible light. But I want to say-and the government and their following will do well to take note of it-that the people of North Bruce have been following the history of this administration, and following perhaps this very account that I have been referring to. Whether the Minister of Public Works spoke in North Bruce or not, a greater orator than he spoke on that occasion. The people of this country have spoken through the ballot box, and they will continue to speak until they have an administration which will administer the affairs of this country upon the principles laid down in the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) What about Prince Edward Island ?


Haughton Lennox: I will tell the hon. gentleman about Prince Edward Island. The hon. gentleman who spoke to-night showed us a contract between Nova Scotia and Ontario. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that I come from a riding, old South Simcoe, which I regard as the Garden of Eden. It is in the province of Ontario. I think it is quite right that the hon. gentlemen from Prince Edward Island should appreciate that tidy little island. Yet, from my point of view, the vote of Prince Edward Island does not speak so loudly for the intelligence of the people of Prince Edward Island, as does the vote of the people of North Bruce for the intelligence of the people of Ontario.
I was going to refer to the fact that the government took an undue amount of credit for what they termed. the prosperity of this country. Now, I want to ask those who are yet to speak, to explain to this House how that prosperity has been brought about. Was the foundation of that prosperity laid by the Reform party or by the Conservative party ? Whether the government admit it or not. the people of this country, many Liberals as well as Conservatives, know and declare that the reason why Canada is prosperous is not because of anything done by the present administration, but in spite of the present administration ; it is because the present government have not dared to put in practice any of the theories they advocated while out of power ; for had they done so, disaster would inevitably have supervened. Canada is prosperous because the foundations of prosperity were laid by the Conservative party when the policy of protection was inaugurated. That policy was faithfully administered while the Conservative party was in power, and although the present government have rather weakened that policy than adhered to it in its entirety.
the prosperity of the country lias still flowed on. Why should these gentlemen take credit for what the Conservatives have achieved ?
I am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture in his place, and I will illustrate my argument by a reference to that hon. gentleman, who represents the agriculturists of this country. We will suppose that the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) lias two farms, botli good, but one a little better than the other. The Minister of Agriculture comes along about harvest time, when ail the work of preparation lias been done, when the crop is about ready to be harvested. He gets possession of one of the farms, honestly, I will say, though I cannot say that the present administration honestly got possession of power in JS9t>. But the Minister of Agriculture gets possession of the better farm belonging to the hon. member for West Elgin. After the crops have been harvested the Minister of Agriculture comes along, ana in that bland happy manner of his says : Why, my good friend, I am a better farmer than you are. Look at these crops on my farm, and look at your crops, and deny if you can that I am the better farmer. That is just what these gentlemen opposite are doing. They have been taking off the crops that have been sowed on ground prepared and cultivated by the Conservative party. They are enjoying a prosperity which has resulted from the magnificent public enterprises that the former Conservative administration inaugurated. I want to say to these hon. gentlemen that it is not all honour that they bring upon themselves when they stand here committed to the policy of protection, with a large revenue flowing in in consequence of a measure of protection. If our industries have not languished it is because the hon. gentlemen opposite have not kept the promises they made to the electors, and have broken all their pledges.
Now, I said that the budget speech was, perhaps, more notable for what it omitted than for what it contained. Of course, in speaking upon the budget I do so witli deference. although I have, like my hon. friend who spoke last (Mr. Wade), endeavoured to familiarize myself with budget speeches. But, I understand that a budget is intended to outline the commercial and financial policy of the government, that in it we are to find great schemes suggested and great measures proposed by the administration. The hon. gentleman who last spoke dealt with the question of subsidies. Now, subsidies have been a burning question in this country for a long time, but the budget speech does not give us the slightest idea of the policy of the government in regard to that question. The subject of opening up new markets for the produce of the country, of developing the trade of this country and turning it into new and better channels, is not treated
1951	COMMONS	1952
in the budget speech. The labour questions are not dealt with by it, although, to some extent, they have been dealt with by the House. But the encouragement of labour too is one of those matters which might well form the subject of discussion in a budget speech, and I venture to say that if the Minister of Finance had had the courage to tackle the question he would have dealt with it. But, there is one great question which is going to require more thought at the hands of the honest representatives of the people of this country in the near future than any other, and that is, the best way of bringing to market the great resources of this country from the west. A comprehensive policy upon this question is what the people require, and what an administration that is powerful enough and wise enough should outline at this time. Bead the budget speech from end to end, and where do you get one idea, one indication of what the policy of this government is to be as regards the carrying trade ? We are developing mines, the products of which have helped to swell the coffers of the Dominion treasury. But, although this is the case, and although the farmers are putting forth every effort to develop new lines of industry, and looking to the best means of getting their produce to the markets of the world, the administration seem to have given the subject no attention.
Where a multiplicity of routes is suggested and with routes in almost every direction, with railway -schemes looming up from almost every township, it is of the utmost importance that we should give our attention to this question and it was the duty of the government to consider this question well so as to be able to outline a plan clearly before the people, in order that those who want to invest money in future in commercial enterprises will know exactly by what means the products of this country will be carried to the ports of shipment. Coming from an agricultural district, there is one question that interests me still more immediately and it is as regards what is to be done for the people who seem to me-and probably I differ from some hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House in this regard-the backbone and stay of the Dominion of Canada. The class to which I refer are the farmers. What, in the budget speech is done for the farmer, what is done to give recognition and encouragement to the efforts which the farmers are putting forth for the development of the country ? There is not one step taken to benefit the farmer or to give him any encouragement. Oh, but, I am wrong ! There is something. Why, the farmer is allowed a benefit, percolating through the men who will build a factory to grind up the sugar beet. The farmer has received a concession at the hands of the present administration and the farmer should ask no more, but should be grateful accordingly. In


Haughton Lennox: order to encourage the beet-root sugar industry and so to benefit the farmers, the government have decided, as the only change that they will make in the tariff since 1897, that they will allow machinery to come in free for the period of one year. I congratulate, as congratulations are the order of the day, the farmers upon the magnificent treatment they have received from the present administration.
Now, I want to refer to some of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken, but, as the hour is getting late, and as these hon. gentlemen have all absented themselves, I am not going into it as extensively as I intended to. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who is a very eloquent speaker, made some remarks that I think deserves a passing reference. He compared the resolutions brought in by the Conservative opposition to ' the emergency rations.' I want to tell that hon. gentleman, and I want to tell those who cheered the allusion, that whatever divergence of opinion we may have as regards the difficulty that arose over the emergency rations to South Africa, it does not come well from that side of the House to refer to that question in this way. I cannot say whether, in the inception of that matter the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence was to blame. That is a debatable question. But, I am here to say, and I say it with a feeling ol' the full responsibility, that the government cannot be acquitted of blame in this, that when the difficulty had been shown to them, when the wrong had been shown to have been perpetrated, when it had been shown that a crime, than which it would be difficult to find one more dastardly, had been committed with reference to our brave soldier boys in South Africa, there was a duty cast upon the government and that duty has not been discharged. Therefore, I say, it does not become the hon. member for South Wellington or "any other hon. gentleman on that side of the House to say any more about emergency rations than they cau help. Now, these hon. gentlemen differ so much amongst themselves as to what the policy of the government is that it is probably better to let them fight it out amongst themselves. For instance, the hon. member for South Wellington is in favour of bounties, and there is no more definite or distinct system of protection than bounties. 1-Ie says he is for bounties up to the hilt. Then he proceeds to struggle with the questions of the surplus and to point out, or to try to show, that a surplus is not inconsistent with a policy of 1 a tariff for revenue only.' He struggled with a ghost, because there is no surplus and he met ghosts because the ghost of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) and the ghosts of many other hon. members confronted him in that regard. I will read just a line in reference to the question of bounties from a statement by
the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies). He was making a tour of the maritime provinces and say in regard to bounties :
This country cannot he made poor; it must continue in wealth and prosperity. But he was not satisfied to be contented with a mere existence, but desired to see Canada take the fullest advantage of its great resources. This could only be accomplished in one way, by means of free trade. This was the key with which they would unlock the golden door of prosperity. . . The Liberals maintained that any trade which required subventions to keep them alive, not only do not contribute to the natural wealth, but actually hinder the prosperity of a country. This is pretty clear upon the question of bounties. I leave my hon. friend from South Wellington to tight it out with the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, although perhaps, it may very well be that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has varied his opinion very much since that time. We had a very eloquent speech from the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), and I must say that after the eloquent manner in which he seconded the address it was unfortunate indeed that he should be the first, and I am glad to say, the only hon. gentleman,who introduced the race and religious cry in this House. I followed the hon. gentleman through his somewhat labourious argument designed to show that certain constituencies in Quebec with an admittedly Roman Catholic majority had sent hon. gentlemen of another religion to represent them on the floor of this House. X did not know until then, living in the province of Ontario, and I regret it if it obtains in Quebec, that these questions are taken into account in the matter of elections. I have always found, in the province in which 1 live, that whatever a man's religion may be, or whatever his nationality may be, it cuts no figure in the question as to whether he should or should not represent a certain electorate in the Dominion, or any legislature, and I regret exceedingly to find that we should have an argument to show that in any province of this country, or in any part of this country, another state of things prevails.
We had a speech from the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) which certainly had no very direct bearing on the question before the House. It was a speech which should not be lost sight of, because it was unique. The hon. gentleman congratulated us on this side upon the research and deep study which we have evidently given to the financial questions which are being discussed. I can endorse his remark there. We on this side of the House have brought to the consideration of public questions an honest determination to sift them to the bottom, to get facts and figures to support our arguments, and to submit them in a fair and honourable way. Having paid us this compliment, it 62
would seem that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) must have dived into the coal mines of his imagination, because he brought up a considerable amount of that material by which he tried to blacken the position taken by hon. members on this side. However, we must to some extent forgive him for he concluded by whitewashing us again. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) stated that the third paragraph of the resolution introduced by the hon. leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Borden), is a distinct declaration of a tariff war against the world. Do hon. gentlemen upon the other side of the House concur in that statement ? Surely any one who brings a fair mind to bear upon the question must recognize that the principle we enunciate is that we shall expect the same treatment from other nations that we are prepared to extend to them. There is no declaration of war there. Did not the hon. gentleman from Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), when he spoke on Mr. Bennett's motion, tell us that if we wanted to be respected by the people of the United States we must assert our rights and show that we are ready to maintain them. That is the principle of the amendment which the Conservative party have enunciated in parliament, and that is the principle which the people of Canada are prepared to maintain.
I had not the pleasure of hearing the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), although he is the gentleman above all others whom I particularly desired to hear, because I believed it would be more difficult for that gentleman than for any other to deal with these financial questions. He is upon record on all the questions that enter into this discussion. Beginning his life with associations better than the associations which surround him now, beginning his life as a staunch Conservative, and having the variegated history that he has had since, if there is a pathetic picture upon the floor of the House of Commons to-day it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Trace him through the unfortunate circumstances which have compelled him to take the position he now occupies. See him leave the old Conservative party without a cause. See him next, as he was represented here the other evening, a believer in protection, but an enforced advocate of free trade. See him go through this country from one end to the other denouncing the policy that he loved and upholding the policy of free trade which was perforce to be his road to the portfolio of finance. And in the end see that hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) whom I certainly very much admire ; see him in the end landed not in the position he naturally expected, but stranded and relegated to a position which he did not covet. He has told more than one audience in this eoun-



try exactly what he thinks of his present portfolio of Trade and Commerce. He has told them that it is a perfectly useless portfolio, that it should never have been created, that it is a department in which a man cannot earn one dollar of the salary which is paid him. See him occupying that position now, compelled, reluctantly, I hope to draw the emolument which is attached to that office, and no matter what our political opinions may be, it must be a pathetic picture to us to see him as he is. It is pathetic to see him obliged to stand up and state that the expenditure of this government is right, that the policy of this government is a free trade policy, in a word swallowing all that he has said, feeding as he does on husks ; feeding on the light literature he has spread broadcast through this country in his various speeches, and swallowing his record whole. I sincerely sympathize with the hon. gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the House-but the apology will only extend to a small portion of it in view of the emptiness of the Liberal benches. I do feel as a new member that though I have had a splendid subject and a magnificent opportunity, I have not availed myself of it, not from want or will, but because of want of ability to deal with these questions as efficiently as I would desire. In conclusion let me point to what I think is a fortunate thing in the midst of that which to some extent is a misfortune. I recognize that it is a very serious misfortune for this country that by a side issue, and by nothing else, that by a side issue and by a fluke this government came into power. But, while it is a great misfortune, a misfortune which I believe the people of this country recognize to-day, there is one thing upon which we should congratulate ourselves, and this is that we have just come to that stage in our political history when the people of Canada know exactly where we stand. For eighteen years, while the Conservatives were in pow-er, and while the Conservative policy was calculated to work great good for Canada, there was still the great disadvantage that the members of the Liberal party, great and small, went up and down the country decrying our policy and thereby preventing it from having that full beneficial effect that it otherwise would. But that is not all. They not only did that, but by telling the people -and there were some people foolish enough to believe them sincere- that they were coming into power, and that when they came into power they would remove every vestige of protection and revert to the old free trade, which had ruined this country before. By doing so they retarded the prosperity of the country and prevented the building up of its industries to the extent to which they would otherwise have been built up under the Conservative policy. They told the people that they were Mr. LENNOX.
coming into power, and would put into force one or other of the five or six policies which they had propounded, and that protection would be set aside. As me Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) said so eloquently on many occasions-referring to the Conservative policy of protection-this accursed system, a system accursed by God and man, and it was going to be wiped out.' So that people stood hesitating and doubting, and doubt means distrust, <md distrust in commercial matters means ultimate bankruptcy. While a great many people did not believe them, yet it did, to a certain extent, retard the onward march of the national policy during those eighteen years. But, when they came into power, it was found that they had not the courage to inaugurate any of the policies they had been preaching. I ask the hon. members of the government, will they tell me which of the policies they advocated they have adopted ? Is it continental free trade V I know they will say it is not. Is it commercial union with the United States ? I know they will say it is not. Is it unrestricted reciprocity ? I know they will say it is not. Is it free trade? That is the only one they can escape on. They will not say that it is. Is it a tariff for revenue only ? The Minister of Finance came down here the other day and said this : A year ago I told the people of this country that we would reach the fifty-million mark in revenue. The revenue required is for an expenditure of $42,000,000. On a tariff for revenue only the hon. gentleman takes from the pockets of the people of this country $8,000,000 in excess of what he says is required for the expenditure of the country. How can he say, under these circumstances, that it is a tariff for revenue only ? Is it free trade as they have it in England ? No. And so it comes to this, that take it whatever way you will, these hon. gentlemen were never able, during the eighteen years that they were out of power, to devise a policy which was workable in the interest of this Dominion ; and when they came into power they were in this position, that they had to send a commission out to try by questions, such as they fling across the House to try to draw our hands, to devise a policy which they were not able to devise for themselves. The result was that when they got the report of that commission, they had to adopt in effect the old policy of the Conservative party, and they have attached to it a clause with reference to preferential trade, which has had no effect except to make it more difficult for the industries of this country to prosper. In the cotton industry alone we find that the stock has dropped to-day seventeen points. So that the result which is going to follow from this preferential tariff is making its appearance already.
I feel that I have already spoken longer than probably I ought as a new member ; but you will recognize that it is much more

difficult for us new members to speak than the old and hardened gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House, yes and some of whom sit on this side, but to our left. I would not for a moment say anything disrespectful of the members of the government. I think the time has come when we have it, as a firmly established idea, that protection shall be the main policy of this country. Good men are wanted now, and this is about all we want to have assured prosperity in this country. I say nothing disrespectful of the administration of this country, only I think they could be improved upon, some of them perhaps a great deal. I was walking the other day along Sparks street, when I saw an advertisement in a window. There was in the window a lot of fabrics of different colours, some of them gaudy in their appearance, and this legend was on them : * They'll all stand washing,' and I may add, and watching.
Mr. SCOTT moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Finance Minister, House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 25, 1901.