[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 95) respecting the Ontario, Hudson's Bay and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment.

Mr.  W. B.@: NORTHRUP (East Hastings) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 96) to amend the Dominion Elections Aot, 1900. He said :	Mr. Speaker, in the election law
as it stands, clause 108, provision is made for the punishment of any person who secures a seat by inducing a candidate to withdraw from the nomination already offered by the promise of an office or employment of any kind. Whether by an oversight. or otherwise, there is no provision in the Act as it stands to prevent the purchase of a seat by inducing a candidate who has already accepted a nomination to withdraw in consideration of a promise of money.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: The object of the Bill is to make the prolusion in regard to bribery the same touching the securing of a seat by inducing a candidate to withdraw as it is defined in regard to other eases. This Bill is merely to amend the law to that effect.


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

[Stage Direction]
List of shareholders of the chartered banks of the Dominion of Canada, to the 31st December, 1900.-Hon. W. S. Fielding.

Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to call the attention of the House to what seems to be the non-compliance with an order of the House, made on the 18th February, respecting the bringing down of all papers, telegrams, Ac., respecting the pay of the men of ' C ' Battery Canadian Artillery, which served in South Africa. On pages 5 and 6 of the return which has been brought down is to be found a report from Col. J. A. G. Hudon, commanding ' C ' Battery, dated 25th January, 1901. The commanding officer in this report goes on to say, that :


General Sir F.: Carrington, commanding the Rhodesian field force, was of the opinion that all corps under his command should receive equal rates of pay, and recommended to the War Office that ' C ' Battery should receive the Rhodesian rates. Early in October I received official information from the paymaster of the Rhodesian force that War Office authority had been received for ' C ' Battery to be paid from the date of their departure from Beira on the 14th of April to the date of disembarkation in Canada. .	.	.
The correspondence on the subject is in the battery store wagon, which has not yet arrived from Halifax.
It is of the utmost importance, Mr. Speaker, that this return should include the correspondence to which the commanding-officer refers. It is important for us to ascertain the nature of the correspondence which took place between the officer commanding the battery and the general officer in command of the force. My motion was wide enough to cover this correspondence, and I ask if it is the intention of the government to have it brought down. The commanding officer wrote on January 25 that the wagon containing the official archives of the battery had not yet arrived from Halifax. and as two months have elapsed since that time, we may reasonably assume that the wagon with the correspondence has reached headquarters. The correspondence referred to by the commanding officer should be laid before the House at the earliest possible moment.


The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am sorry the hon. the

Minister of Militia is not in his seat at this moment, but I will call his attention to the matter as soon as he comes in.



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 maintain that if this system were introduced, it would be a great benefit to the people of Canada, and especially to our farmers. No intelligent man can successfully contravene that proposition. Why, the Prime Minister stated in London, Ont., that it would be a great benefit to Canada, and that if elected he would try to get it. But when lie was elected, he did not try. He got a Cobden medal instead, and that quieted his ambition. I believe that mutual preferential trade would not only be a benefit to the people of Canada, but that it would be a benefit to the empire, because after a while it would cause the empire to be self-supporting within herself. It would stimulate our industries, and the acreage under crop would be increased, because of the better market, so that, in time, the colonies could supply England with nearly all she needs, and relieve her from the necessity of depending on foreign countries. To that extent it would consolidate the colonies in the empire, it would draw the colonies and the mother country more closely together, and it would make the people more loyal in every respect. The last clause of the amendment is in favour of countervailing duties against those countries which unfairly discriminate against us. Are we to sit idly by while Germany one day, and some other country the next, puts tariff barriers against us. and are we not to move hand or foot to help ourselves ? Are we not sent here by our constituents to look after the interests of our own country, and when we find nations raise high tariff walls against us. will we not have countervailing duties against them ? If we fail in this we neglect our duty to our country. I believe the principle enunciated in the latter part of this amendment to be the correct principle, and I suppose it from the bottom of my heart. It only requires a maximum and a minimum tariff, and the minimum tariff we can apply to every country that wishes to have preferential trade with us. I believe. Sir, that there is embodied in this amendment the true economic principle in connection with the ways and means of raising a revenue and conducting government in this country, and in that belief I shall vote for the I amendment with all my heart.\nMr. TURGERON moved the adjournment of the debate.']
Mr. EDWARD HACKETT (West Prince, P.E.I.).: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few observations on the question now being discussed by the House, I desire to say that it is not my intention to speak at any length. I am thankful indeed that the right lion, the leader of the government so kindly consented to the adjournment of the House last night. I think his intention was to go on for some time longer, but he courteously consented to the adjournment, and instead of forcing me to speak last night, gave me an opportunity of addressing the House this afternoon. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the question under discussion now is chiefly : Protection to the industries of Canada. I had the honour of being a member of this House in 1879, when Sir Deonara 'Tilley introduced into the parliament of Canada the national policy. That policy was for the purpose of giving protection to all the industries in Canada ; protection to the farmers, to the fishermen, to the manufacturers, to the miners, to the lumbermen, and to nil classes of our population. I need scarcely say that that policy met strong opposition from the hon. gentlemen who now occupy the Treasury benches, but who were then sitting on this side of the House. We have on record that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) made very strong speeches against the national policy at that date. He said it was blue ruin to the country, and he called it legalized robbery. We find also that his colleague, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies), who comes from the province of Prince Edward Island, said that the system of protection to Canadian industries was accursed of God and man.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh !


Edward Hackett: Yet, Sir, we find that that fiscal system has been supported by the people of Canada from that date to the present, that under that system Canada has gone on and prospered, that her industries have flourished, and that to-day the government of the country, although they pretend to be a free trade or revenue tariff government, are bound to sustain that underlying principle in their tariff of protection to Canadian industries. Sir, if this government had fulfilled their pledges ; if they had repealed
the protective tariff of the Conservatives, they would not be in a position to-day to tell us that Canada was flourishing and prosperous. But, because they retained the principle of protection to the industries of Canada, the Minister of Finance was able to bring down a budget speech congratulating the country on its splendid financial position. Mr. Speaker, there is one thing we want in this country, and that is, honest government. I care not what party be in power, whether it be Liberal or Conservative or Independent, we want that party to be honest, and to carry out, as far as possible, the pledges they made to the people. There are two gentlemen who sit on this side of the House, but who are classed as Independents, and we heard them last night rebuke the government for not carrying out their pledges to the people of the country to reduce the expenditure by several million dollars a year, and to reduce the tariff ; but, still these gentlemen told us that they were going to vote against the amendment of the leader of the opposition. How can we have honest government in this country unless the Independent members, and indeed the supporters of the government themselves, demonstrate that they are opposed to conduct which tends to lower the standard of honesty and integrity in the government of this country. I listened to the hon. gentleman from , Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) with a great deal of pleasure, because he made a very pleasing address, but he told us that while he was opposed to protection, while he believed that this government had not carried out its pledges; while he knew that the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), especially in addressing a meeting in Manitoba, had gone back on his promises and pledges, yet, in face of all that, he announced that ho would vote with the government on this occasion. Sir, it is lowering the tone of public opinion in this country for gentlemen such as the hon. member to .announce their support of a government who have not fulfilled their pledges, and who are masquerading in the stolen clothes of the late Conservative government.
Now, Sir, I want to say a word in reference to the hon. gentleman from King's, P.E.I., (Mr. Hughes), who spoke last night. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) made his debut in parliament, and he acquitted himself in a creditable manner, and comirig from the same province as I do, although we are opposed in politics, I must give my hon. friend credit for delivering a very fail-speech. But, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) was not correct in his facts. His speech sounded all right, but when you came to sift it, you found that he >vas quite astray in his conclusions. He said :
Some members from the great province of Ontario have asked us what this government have done for the farmers: what they have done to find better markets for the products of this

country. Now, Sir, allow me to read some figures which will show what was done for the farmers of this country under the present administration.
Then, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) went on to show that our exports of hutter, cheese, eggs, bacon, ham, animals and their products, apples, fruit, wheat, flour, &c., had increased from $109,915,000 In 1896, to $170,000,000 in 1900. He said that this government have increased those exports. Will the hon. gentleman pretend to say that It was this government that caused this great increase in the exports of the country ? Does he pretend to say that because we had fine weather, because the rain fell and the sun shone and the crops were abundant, this government did it ? Does the hon. gentleman pretend to say that anything that was done by this government in any way assisted the industrious, Intelligent people of Canada thus to increase their products ? Sir, it was due to the energy, the enterprise, the Industry of the people themselves, and not to this government.
I want to refer briefly to the cheese industry of the province of Prince Edward Island, which has grown largely within the last few years. Who established that industry there ? The late Conservative government. They sent Prof. Robertson down there, when there was only one small cheese factory on the island, and encouraged the farmers to start more factories ; but he was very coolly received by gentlemen who are now sitting on the Treasury benches. That industry is now prospering and flourishing to such an extent that in the year 1900 the farmers of Prince Edward Island were able to export $600,000 worth of dairy products, owing to what was done by the Conservative government, while nothing has been done by this government.
We in Prince Edward Island desire to have the means of transporting our products to the markets of the old world. We have been insisting on having cold.storage provided ; but this government has done nothing for us in that direction. A day or two ago I asked the hon. Minister of Agriculture what he was doing in that connection, and he said the matter was now being negotiated. We have had this government in power now four or five years. When these gentlemen were in opposition they promised us cold storage. The system was introduced into this country by Dr. Montague, a late member of this House. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, when canvassing the votes of the people for his candidates in Prince Edward Island, said, Return me to power, and you will have cold storage for the shipment of your products to the markets of the old world. But we have no cold storage. One year a steamer called at Charlottetown. Another year an old hulk called the Gaspesia, which had no oold storage accommodation, called there. For the last two years none have called. We have.


Edward Hackett: been told that in 1899 this was due to the Ameriean-Spanish war, which caused a great demand for steamships, and it was impossible to provide one to carry the products of Prince Edward Island to the markets of Great Britain. We were told last year that it was owing to the great demand for steamships on account of the South African war. This year up to this time the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) says the matter is being negotiated. Sir, I would ask the hon. member for King's, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes), to insist that the minister whom he follows so slavishly shall provide some accommodation for the farmers of Prince Edward Island.
Now, if there is one thing more than another for which the farmers of Prince Edward Island feel aggrieved, it is because this government has allowed American corn to come into the country free of duty. The growers of coarse grains, who have a large quantity for sale each year, find American corn coming in to compete with their products, which they have, in consequence, to sell at reduced prices. This is what this government have done for the people of Canada, especially for the farmers of Prince Edward Island.
Now, having said so much with regard to my hon. friend from King's, I want for one moment to refer to what was said a few nights ago by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). He made a very pleasing address. He discredited Ontario and the eastern provinces. He said, we in the west are the people-it is to the great west we must look for the future of Canada. He said that the exports of this country were largely made up from he products of Manitoba and the North-west Territories. This was a sectional cry. It was only intended for the hon. gentleman's constituents, and was not what ought to have been said in this House. We know that there is in that western country an area of the most fertile and valuable lands in the world : and we know that its immense possibilities remained closed to the people of Canada until the Conservative party built a railway and opened up that great country. If that country has such advantages that it is able to compete with and discount Ontario. Quebec and the maritime provinces, it is because of the action of the late Conservative government led by Sir John Macdonald and having as his Minister of Railways, Sir Charles Tupper.
Another hon. gentleman who delivered a very pleasing address the other evening was the hon. member (Mr. Wade) who comes from the far-famed valley of Annapolis and represents that district. He spoke at great length, and he spoke principally of apples. W~e know that in the Province of Nova Scotia from the far-famed valley of Annapolis and the home of Evangeline, are produced the finest apples to be found in the world. We know that the people there are not afraid
to compete with any other people, not only in Canada, hut in any part of the United States. But what did the hon. gentleman say ? Not satisfied with the advantages of his beautiful valley, which will be blossoming in a few weeks, spreading its fragrance around, he attacked the leader of the opposition, saying : These gentlemen fear Ontario, as they have a right to fear it, because the intelligent people of Ontario are rising in their might against them. The hon. member said to the hon. leader of the opposition that the only way you could protect the farmers of Nova Scotia was to prevent the farmers of Ontario slaughtering their products in the markets of Nova Scotia. I would ask the hon. gentleman if he is now in his seat, what product of Ontario has been slaughtered in the markets of Nova Scotia. The hon. gentleman is not present.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Butter, for one thing, pork for another.


Edward Hackett: With the best grazing lands in the maritime provinces in the district which my hon. friend comes from, need the farmers there be afraid of competition from the farmers of Ontario in the making of butter or beef ? Is that the only article ?
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) No.


Edward Hackett: Th$ hon. member for Victoria says that Ontario butter is forced on the market of Nova Scotia. Well, if so, they get a good article. Such a cry is a sectional one, unworthy of any member of this parliament. We are one people in Canada. Prom the Atlantic to the Pacific we form one people of Canadians, the products of one province are sold in another, and it is a very small and antiquated cry to pretend that the goods of one province are being slaughtered in the markets of another.
I want to say another word with respect to this fruit question. I do not know if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) is in his seat, but let me tell the House that we are able to produce good fruit in Prince Edward Island. We have in that province facilities for growing good apples, pears and small fruits of all kinds. Some years ago an association was formed, composed of men holding different views on politics, called the Fruit Growers' Association of Prince Edward Island. This association was formed particularly to promote the apple industry, and those gentlemen were enabled to send to the markets of Great Britain apples that not only commanded the highest price, but were recommended by the English fruit dealers as very choice fruit. It was supposed that this government, in which the Island is represented by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies), would do something for the promotion of that great industry in that province. It was asked to send down there some one who thoroughly understood
the industry of horticulture, and who would instruct the people in pruning and grafting. It did send a man, concerning whom I asked a question the oilier day. I asked the Minister of Agriculture :
1.	Who recommended a Mr. Kinsman as a scientific horticulturist to work in Prince Edward Island during the summer of 1899?
2.	What amount did his mission cost?
3.	Was the minister satisfied with the result of his work?
The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) replied :
1.	Mr. Kinsman was recommended by gentlemen whose acquaintance with him .was sufficient to justify their recommendation and in whose judgment I have confidence.
2.	His work cost $563.43 for expenses and $304 for salary.
3.	The report which he gave of his work was
satisfactory.
You will notice, Sir, that the expenses are very large in proportion to the salary, and you will notice also that this was a very evasive reply. The minister did not say that he was pleased with the work done by Mr. Kinsman, but that Mr. Kinsman's report was satisfactory. Evidently any report Mr. Kinsman might write out would be satisfactory to the hon. gentleman. But in the annual report of the Fruit Growers' Association of Prince Edward Island for 1899, what do we find ? This Mr. Kinsman, who was a camp follower of the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Mr. Borden), for whom that hon. minister wanted to get a job at the expense of the people, was sent by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to his friend the leader of the government in Prince Edward Island ; instead of sending him to the president and the directors of the Fruit Growers' Association, the hon. minister sent him down to Mr. Farquhar-1 son, the leader of the government, intend! ing thereby to advance not only his own political interests but those of Mr. Far-quharson. Well, what did the Fruit Growers' Association say. They said :
Mr. Kinsman went over the stations several times, without eliciting any interest anywhere. And this was not remarkable; for, on his own admission, he knew little or nothing about grafting and very little about pruning. As might he expected, no enthusiasm at all was aroused in the work, the most important needs, those of pruning and grafting, being entirely abandoned; and the mission which should have benefited the province so considerably, was thus quickly turned into absolute failure by political contact.
I want the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to mark this :
Representing all shades of politics in private life we deprecate as strongly as words can express the mixing up of politics with horticulture in even the remotest degree. As an association the F. CJ. A. knows no party, its aims being wholly and solely to advance the interests of horticulture for this whole province, without regard to any outside concern.

The failure of Mr. Kinsman's mission can therefore in no wise be put upon this association. The F. G. A. could, without doubt, had it been permitted, have turned it to some good account for horticulture, and thus have saved the large amount of money thrown away-money so very much needed for the fostering of horticultural interests in the province.
We feel, however, that at least one>
good end has been served by this complete failure;-politics and politicians can make no capital out of an invasion of the proper rights of agricultural associations.
A large amount of money was thus thrown away which might well have been spent to some good purpose. We can grow fruit in Prince Edward Island just as well as they can in the far-famed Annapolis Valley. All our people require is some instruction with regard to grafting and pruning, but instead of sending a competent man, tbe government send down a camp follower of tbe Minister of Militia to assist in promoting tbe political interests of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and those of his friend Mr. Farquharson.
I desire to turn for a moment to the budget speech made a few days ago. Tbe bon. the Minister of Finance found bis lines cast in very pleasant places, and as he was reading over the yearly surpluses, I could see the Minister of Trade and Commerce turning green with envy. For that hon. gentleman could not but remember that when he was Finance Minister he had no surplus to boast of, although be had increased tbe taxes, and was obliged to tell tbe people that be saw no means of increasing the revenue except by direct taxation. The prosperous condition of the country can, however, be easily accounted for. It is due no doubt to the fact that this government have retained tbe national policy. But the hon. gentleman made-I do not know whether wittingly or not-this statement:
When I remind this House that the increase in the whole eighteen years of the national policy was only $66,000,000, and when I show that in one year only of the present administration the increase was over $59,000,000, and' nearly $60,000,000, hon. gentlemen will be able to measure the vast progress that has been made in tbe trade of the country.
That is an unfair comparison. As my bon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Ross) said the other evening, we have cycles of depression and cycles of prosperity. If hon. gentlemen opposite had looked up the public accounts during the last fifteen years, they would have seen that there have been as great increases in the trade of the country as during the last few years. I find that the total trade of the country in 1873 amounted to $217,104,516. In 1870, it had declined, under the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite, the Finance Minister of that administration being at present hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), from $217,000,000 to $151,000,-Mr. HACKETT.
000. Would hon. gentlemen opposite say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was responsible for that, because he was Finance Minister at the time ? Then it was that the people of the country, feeling that something should be done to restore confidence and to place the business of the country on a sound footing decided, in 1878, to inaugurate the national policy as proposed by Sir John A. Macdonald. Under the national policy, we find that from 1879 to 1882, the trade of the country increased to $224,000,000, an increase of over $70,000,000 during those years. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say that this was owing to the great prosperity of the country, but it was owing also to the national policy stimulating tlie interests of the country, restoring confidence and re-establishing in the minds of our people the belief that we could build up a great nation on this northern half of the North American continent. After that, we had a period of depression. From 1882 to 1S86, trade fell from $221,000,000 to $189,000,000. About 1893, we had a period of prosperity, and our trade rose to $241,000,000. All this shows that we have these cycles, these periods of prosperity and periods of depression. The hon. gentleman who says that under this government the trade increased by $60,00Q,000 owing to.the action of this government is speaking in a manner which is far from justifiable for one addressing an intelligent body of gentlemen such as we have in this House. Why do we have this prosperity ? We have here a great heritage won by the energy of our fathers, and, through the statesmanship of Sir John A. Macdonald, assisted by able lieutenants, means have been afforded for tlie development of our resources. These men built the Canadian Pacific Railway, they built the Intercolonial Railway, they built the Sault Ste. Marie canal, they improved the St. Lawrence canals, and thus and in other ways afforded the people of this great country means to transact their business and enabled us to stand on a par with our neighbours to the south of us. And hon. gentlemen opposite, coming into power, found these great public works completed and all this accommodation provided; and now they find it an easy thing to claim credit for the prosperity which has come to us. I challenge any hon. gentleman on the. other side to show where they ever obtained a market for the people for the sale of a pound of bacon, a pound of butter, or a bushel of wheat, oats or peas. The prosperity of the country is not due to the government but is due to the policy and administration of their predecessors, coupled with the energy and industry of the Canadian people.
Turning from that for a moment, we find that this government, like some other people, use prosperity as an excuse for extravagance. Last year this government collected $51,029,994 of revenue, against
2065 MARCH 26,1901 2066	
$36,618,590 in 1S96, an increase of $14,411,404. And they boast a surplus of $8,000,000. Having this great amount of money at their disposal, what are they doing to reduce the burdens of the people ? The hon. member from King's (Mr. Hughes) last night echoed the Finance Minister, who said that they had reduced the taxes of the people by $2,000,000. The Minister of Finance philosophizing on that subject, but speaking without facts and figures, said that if you apply the old tariff to the present imports, the people would have paid $2,000,000 more than they did. But there are no facts to substantiate this statement, nor is there any fair comparison. But we find, looking at the blue-book compiled under the supervision of the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson)-that is where you find the plain statement of the taxes per head paid by the people. According to that table, we find it plainly stated that the amount of customs duties per head of population in 1896 was $3.94, while the amount collected in 1900 was $5.37-an increase of $1.43. Assuming that each family contains live people-and that is only a moderate family in this country-you will find that the taxes of the average family has increased between $7 and $8 under the. present government. No hon. gentleman can deny it, for there are the figures plainly set forth in the book compiled by themselves. They boast of their surplus, but that surplus they have taken from the pockets of the people. They are taking money from the man who toils from morning till night for his family, in order that they may spend it in extravagance. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) will remember that, in the province of Prince Edward Island before this government came into power he used to talk to the people a great deal about the taxes on cottons and to declare that we were building uj>
monopolies and enriching great cotton lords, and that out of the pockets of the people of that province came much of the money for these wealthy men. But when the hon. gentleman came into power did he reduce the taxation ? I find that the duties paid last year on cotton goods amounted to $1,665,293.38. The people whom the hon. gentleman represents, mostly farmers and fishermen, had to pay a large proportion of those duties. There are no manufacturers of those goods they have to be imported from Great Britain and the United States, or from the older provinces of Canada where those manufactures are established. But, the hon. gentleman has done nothing to relieve the people of that tax. He has increased the tax on brown cotton used mostly by workingmen from 30 per cent to 35 per cent; he has increased the tax on printed cotton from 30 per cent to 35 per cent; he has increased the tax on other grades of those goods by 24 per cent. He has done	this for the purpose, as the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said, of keeping alive the cotton mills of Valleyfield, to protect them to such an extent that they will not have to shut up. Hon. gentlemen opposite speak of a revenue tariff. Where does a revenue tariff come in in respect of these goods ? Have they any desire, as they pretend, to reduce the taxes ? We remember that when Sir Leonard Tilley and the Hon. Geo. E. Foster had surpluses, as these gentlemen now boast of, they commenced to reduce the taxes of the people; they did not take from them millions of money that were not required for carrying on the public service. We were told in those days that a surplus was a very bad thing, that it was wrong, that it showed inefficiency, incompetence, inability on the part of the Finance Minister when he took from the people more money than was required to carry on the affairs of the country. Yet the hon. gentleman boasts of a surplus of $8,000,000. Not one thing has been done to reduce the taxation of the people in connection with cotton goods. I do not know whether my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) is in his seat or not, I believe he is. He spoke to us the other evening about what a great thing it was to have a preferential tariff in favour of silks coming into this country. I presume that hon. gentleman is not a benedict, I take it for granted that he is a married man, because he says there is no greater present you can take home to your wife than a silk dress; therefore, you should be able to buy it cheaply. The hon. gentleman is a man of wealth, I believe he is possessed of considerable means, and there is no doubt that his wife is the possessor of many fine silk dresses. While I approve of his sentiment, while it is quite right for him to buy a silk dress for his wife if he can afford it, what will the poor workingman do who has to pay an increased tax of 5 per cent on the printed cotton that is required to clothe his wife and daughters 1 Sir, the hon. gentleman may be right, let him buy silk dresses for his wife; but let me remind him that the labouring man, the farmer, when he wants to buy a piece of cotton to make a dress for his wife, has to pay an increased tax of 5 per cent; and if he wants to buy a piece of shirting for his sons he is unable to do so without paying this increased tax; and very 'often these men have all or more than they can do to provide their families with food and fuel. Then the hon. gentleman went on to talk about coal oil. When hon. gentlemen opposite were on this side of the House they dwelt at great length on the enormity of the tax on coal oil. They said : Coal oil is used by the workingmen, and you have taxed it 5 cents a gallon for purely protective purposes. Put us in power and we will repeal that tax. Now, Mr. Speaker,

what have they done ? The hou. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), speaking on this subject the other evening, said that the duty on coal oil in 1896 was 7 cents a gallon, and they reduced it to 5 cents. Now that hon. gentleman, with his means of information, ought to have known that he was making a mistake; it was 6 cents a gallon instead of 7 cents. This reminds me of a story that I heard told about two men who went out shooting. When they came back they were giving an account of their afternoon's sport, and one man said he had shot ninety-nine snipe. The other man said : ' Why didn't you say one hundred and make it an even number ? '	' Why,' replied the other, ' 1
did not want to tell a lie for one snipe.' But the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is not so conscientious. He was willing to do the trick for one cent. He said the duty iu 1S96 was 7 cents a gallon, when the fact is that it was only 6 cents a gallon. The present government reduced that duty 1 cent a gallon, and iu doing so, they allowed privileges to the Standard Oil Company, that octopus that is not only bleeding the people of Canada, but has its fangs in the throat of the people of the United States, and is sucking their blood. The government allowed that company the privilege of bringing their oil into this country in tank ships, and as a consequence the Canadian industry became of no importance, and it passed into the hands of Rockefeller and his associates. Whether the duty is 5 cents a gallon or 10 cents, the government have put the Canadian people into the clutches of that monopoly, and the Rockefellers are taking out of this country, through the connivance of the present government, over $2,000,000 a year of the hard earned money of our people.
Now, I want to turn to another question, one that seriously affects the people of Canada. What I am about to say I shall say in all sincerity, because I represent a people who are not a manufacturing people, who have to depend on their farms and on the products of the waters for their living. Those people are great consumers of tobacco. We know that when the workingman comes home at night there is nothing gives him so much pleasure .as to take down his pipe and sit with his family at the fireside and have a smoke. But what have these gentlemen done ? I find that the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) put this question to the government :
1.	What was the total amount of duty collected on tobacco for the year ended June 30, 1900?
2.	How much of this amount was due to the additional duty imposed In the session of 1897?


["Th$ hon. member for Victoria says that Ontario butter is forced on the market of Nova Scotia. Well, if so, they get a good article. Such a cry is a sectional one, unworthy of any member of this parliament. We are one people in Canada. Prom the Atlantic to the Pacific we form one people of Canadians, the products of one province are sold in another, and it is a very small and antiquated cry to pretend that the goods of one province are being slaughtered in the markets of another.\nI want to say another word with respect to this fruit question. I do not know if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) is in his seat, but let me tell the House that we are able to produce good fruit in Prince Edward Island. We have in that province facilities for growing good apples, pears and small fruits of all kinds. Some years ago an association was formed, composed of men holding different views on politics, called the Fruit Growers' Association of Prince Edward Island. This association was formed particularly to promote the apple industry, and those gentlemen were enabled to send to the markets of Great Britain apples that not only commanded the highest price, but were recommended by the English fruit dealers as very choice fruit. It was supposed that this government, in which the Island is represented by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies), would do something for the promotion of that great industry in that province. It was asked to send down there some one who thoroughly understood\nthe industry of horticulture, and who would instruct the people in pruning and grafting. It did send a man, concerning whom I asked a question the oilier day. I asked the Minister of Agriculture :\n1.\tWho recommended a Mr. Kinsman as a scientific horticulturist to work in Prince Edward Island during the summer of 1899?\n2.\tWhat amount did his mission cost?\n3.\tWas the minister satisfied with the result of his work?\nThe Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) replied :\n1.\tMr. Kinsman was recommended by gentlemen whose acquaintance with him .was sufficient to justify their recommendation and in whose judgment I have confidence.\n2.\tHis work cost $563.43 for expenses and $304 for salary.\n3.\tThe report which he gave of his work was\nsatisfactory.\nYou will notice, Sir, that the expenses are very large in proportion to the salary, and you will notice also that this was a very evasive reply. The minister did not say that he was pleased with the work done by Mr. Kinsman, but that Mr. Kinsman's report was satisfactory. Evidently any report Mr. Kinsman might write out would be satisfactory to the hon. gentleman. But in the annual report of the Fruit Growers' Association of Prince Edward Island for 1899, what do we find ? This Mr. Kinsman, who was a camp follower of the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Mr. Borden), for whom that hon. minister wanted to get a job at the expense of the people, was sent by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to his friend the leader of the government in Prince Edward Island ; instead of sending him to the president and the directors of the Fruit Growers' Association, the hon. minister sent him down to Mr. Farquhar-1 son, the leader of the government, intend! ing thereby to advance not only his own political interests but those of Mr. Far-quharson. Well, what did the Fruit Growers' Association say. They said :\nMr. Kinsman went over the stations several times, without eliciting any interest anywhere. And this was not remarkable; for, on his own admission, he knew little or nothing about grafting and very little about pruning. As might he expected, no enthusiasm at all was aroused in the work, the most important needs, those of pruning and grafting, being entirely abandoned; and the mission which should have benefited the province so considerably, was thus quickly turned into absolute failure by political contact.\nI want the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to mark this :\nRepresenting all shades of politics in private life we deprecate as strongly as words can express the mixing up of politics with horticulture in even the remotest degree. As an association the F. CJ. A. knows no party, its aims being wholly and solely to advance the interests of horticulture for this whole province, without regard to any outside concern.", "The failure of Mr. Kinsman's mission can therefore in no wise be put upon this association. The F. G. A. could, without doubt, had it been permitted, have turned it to some good account for horticulture, and thus have saved the large amount of money thrown away-money so very much needed for the fostering of horticultural interests in the province.\nWe feel, however, that at least one>\ngood end has been served by this complete failure;-politics and politicians can make no capital out of an invasion of the proper rights of agricultural associations.\nA large amount of money was thus thrown away which might well have been spent to some good purpose. We can grow fruit in Prince Edward Island just as well as they can in the far-famed Annapolis Valley. All our people require is some instruction with regard to grafting and pruning, but instead of sending a competent man, tbe government send down a camp follower of tbe Minister of Militia to assist in promoting tbe political interests of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and those of his friend Mr. Farquharson.\nI desire to turn for a moment to the budget speech made a few days ago. Tbe bon. the Minister of Finance found bis lines cast in very pleasant places, and as he was reading over the yearly surpluses, I could see the Minister of Trade and Commerce turning green with envy. For that hon. gentleman could not but remember that when he was Finance Minister he had no surplus to boast of, although be had increased tbe taxes, and was obliged to tell tbe people that be saw no means of increasing the revenue except by direct taxation. The prosperous condition of the country can, however, be easily accounted for. It is due no doubt to the fact that this government have retained tbe national policy. But the hon. gentleman made-I do not know whether wittingly or not-this statement:\nWhen I remind this House that the increase in the whole eighteen years of the national policy was only $66,000,000, and when I show that in one year only of the present administration the increase was over $59,000,000, and' nearly $60,000,000, hon. gentlemen will be able to measure the vast progress that has been made in tbe trade of the country.\nThat is an unfair comparison. As my bon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Ross) said the other evening, we have cycles of depression and cycles of prosperity. If hon. gentlemen opposite had looked up the public accounts during the last fifteen years, they would have seen that there have been as great increases in the trade of the country as during the last few years. I find that the total trade of the country in 1873 amounted to $217,104,516. In 1870, it had declined, under the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite, the Finance Minister of that administration being at present hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), from $217,000,000 to $151,000,-Mr. HACKETT.\n000. Would hon. gentlemen opposite say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was responsible for that, because he was Finance Minister at the time ? Then it was that the people of the country, feeling that something should be done to restore confidence and to place the business of the country on a sound footing decided, in 1878, to inaugurate the national policy as proposed by Sir John A. Macdonald. Under the national policy, we find that from 1879 to 1882, the trade of the country increased to $224,000,000, an increase of over $70,000,000 during those years. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say that this was owing to the great prosperity of the country, but it was owing also to the national policy stimulating tlie interests of the country, restoring confidence and re-establishing in the minds of our people the belief that we could build up a great nation on this northern half of the North American continent. After that, we had a period of depression. From 1882 to 1S86, trade fell from $221,000,000 to $189,000,000. About 1893, we had a period of prosperity, and our trade rose to $241,000,000. All this shows that we have these cycles, these periods of prosperity and periods of depression. The hon. gentleman who says that under this government the trade increased by $60,00Q,000 owing to.the action of this government is speaking in a manner which is far from justifiable for one addressing an intelligent body of gentlemen such as we have in this House. Why do we have this prosperity ? We have here a great heritage won by the energy of our fathers, and, through the statesmanship of Sir John A. Macdonald, assisted by able lieutenants, means have been afforded for tlie development of our resources. These men built the Canadian Pacific Railway, they built the Intercolonial Railway, they built the Sault Ste. Marie canal, they improved the St. Lawrence canals, and thus and in other ways afforded the people of this great country means to transact their business and enabled us to stand on a par with our neighbours to the south of us. And hon. gentlemen opposite, coming into power, found these great public works completed and all this accommodation provided; and now they find it an easy thing to claim credit for the prosperity which has come to us. I challenge any hon. gentleman on the. other side to show where they ever obtained a market for the people for the sale of a pound of bacon, a pound of butter, or a bushel of wheat, oats or peas. The prosperity of the country is not due to the government but is due to the policy and administration of their predecessors, coupled with the energy and industry of the Canadian people.\nTurning from that for a moment, we find that this government, like some other people, use prosperity as an excuse for extravagance. Last year this government collected $51,029,994 of revenue, against\n2065 MARCH 26,1901 2066\t\n$36,618,590 in 1S96, an increase of $14,411,404. And they boast a surplus of $8,000,000. Having this great amount of money at their disposal, what are they doing to reduce the burdens of the people ? The hon. member from King's (Mr. Hughes) last night echoed the Finance Minister, who said that they had reduced the taxes of the people by $2,000,000. The Minister of Finance philosophizing on that subject, but speaking without facts and figures, said that if you apply the old tariff to the present imports, the people would have paid $2,000,000 more than they did. But there are no facts to substantiate this statement, nor is there any fair comparison. But we find, looking at the blue-book compiled under the supervision of the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson)-that is where you find the plain statement of the taxes per head paid by the people. According to that table, we find it plainly stated that the amount of customs duties per head of population in 1896 was $3.94, while the amount collected in 1900 was $5.37-an increase of $1.43. Assuming that each family contains live people-and that is only a moderate family in this country-you will find that the taxes of the average family has increased between $7 and $8 under the. present government. No hon. gentleman can deny it, for there are the figures plainly set forth in the book compiled by themselves. They boast of their surplus, but that surplus they have taken from the pockets of the people. They are taking money from the man who toils from morning till night for his family, in order that they may spend it in extravagance. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) will remember that, in the province of Prince Edward Island before this government came into power he used to talk to the people a great deal about the taxes on cottons and to declare that we were building uj>\nmonopolies and enriching great cotton lords, and that out of the pockets of the people of that province came much of the money for these wealthy men. But when the hon. gentleman came into power did he reduce the taxation ? I find that the duties paid last year on cotton goods amounted to $1,665,293.38. The people whom the hon. gentleman represents, mostly farmers and fishermen, had to pay a large proportion of those duties. There are no manufacturers of those goods they have to be imported from Great Britain and the United States, or from the older provinces of Canada where those manufactures are established. But, the hon. gentleman has done nothing to relieve the people of that tax. He has increased the tax on brown cotton used mostly by workingmen from 30 per cent to 35 per cent; he has increased the tax on printed cotton from 30 per cent to 35 per cent; he has increased the tax on other grades of those goods by 24 per cent. He has done\tthis for the purpose, as the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said, of keeping alive the cotton mills of Valleyfield, to protect them to such an extent that they will not have to shut up. Hon. gentlemen opposite speak of a revenue tariff. Where does a revenue tariff come in in respect of these goods ? Have they any desire, as they pretend, to reduce the taxes ? We remember that when Sir Leonard Tilley and the Hon. Geo. E. Foster had surpluses, as these gentlemen now boast of, they commenced to reduce the taxes of the people; they did not take from them millions of money that were not required for carrying on the public service. We were told in those days that a surplus was a very bad thing, that it was wrong, that it showed inefficiency, incompetence, inability on the part of the Finance Minister when he took from the people more money than was required to carry on the affairs of the country. Yet the hon. gentleman boasts of a surplus of $8,000,000. Not one thing has been done to reduce the taxation of the people in connection with cotton goods. I do not know whether my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) is in his seat or not, I believe he is. He spoke to us the other evening about what a great thing it was to have a preferential tariff in favour of silks coming into this country. I presume that hon. gentleman is not a benedict, I take it for granted that he is a married man, because he says there is no greater present you can take home to your wife than a silk dress; therefore, you should be able to buy it cheaply. The hon. gentleman is a man of wealth, I believe he is possessed of considerable means, and there is no doubt that his wife is the possessor of many fine silk dresses. While I approve of his sentiment, while it is quite right for him to buy a silk dress for his wife if he can afford it, what will the poor workingman do who has to pay an increased tax of 5 per cent on the printed cotton that is required to clothe his wife and daughters 1 Sir, the hon. gentleman may be right, let him buy silk dresses for his wife; but let me remind him that the labouring man, the farmer, when he wants to buy a piece of cotton to make a dress for his wife, has to pay an increased tax of 5 per cent; and if he wants to buy a piece of shirting for his sons he is unable to do so without paying this increased tax; and very 'often these men have all or more than they can do to provide their families with food and fuel. Then the hon. gentleman went on to talk about coal oil. When hon. gentlemen opposite were on this side of the House they dwelt at great length on the enormity of the tax on coal oil. They said : Coal oil is used by the workingmen, and you have taxed it 5 cents a gallon for purely protective purposes. Put us in power and we will repeal that tax. Now, Mr. Speaker,", "what have they done ? The hou. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), speaking on this subject the other evening, said that the duty on coal oil in 1896 was 7 cents a gallon, and they reduced it to 5 cents. Now that hon. gentleman, with his means of information, ought to have known that he was making a mistake; it was 6 cents a gallon instead of 7 cents. This reminds me of a story that I heard told about two men who went out shooting. When they came back they were giving an account of their afternoon's sport, and one man said he had shot ninety-nine snipe. The other man said : ' Why didn't you say one hundred and make it an even number ? '\t' Why,' replied the other, ' 1\ndid not want to tell a lie for one snipe.' But the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is not so conscientious. He was willing to do the trick for one cent. He said the duty iu 1S96 was 7 cents a gallon, when the fact is that it was only 6 cents a gallon. The present government reduced that duty 1 cent a gallon, and iu doing so, they allowed privileges to the Standard Oil Company, that octopus that is not only bleeding the people of Canada, but has its fangs in the throat of the people of the United States, and is sucking their blood. The government allowed that company the privilege of bringing their oil into this country in tank ships, and as a consequence the Canadian industry became of no importance, and it passed into the hands of Rockefeller and his associates. Whether the duty is 5 cents a gallon or 10 cents, the government have put the Canadian people into the clutches of that monopoly, and the Rockefellers are taking out of this country, through the connivance of the present government, over $2,000,000 a year of the hard earned money of our people.\nNow, I want to turn to another question, one that seriously affects the people of Canada. What I am about to say I shall say in all sincerity, because I represent a people who are not a manufacturing people, who have to depend on their farms and on the products of the waters for their living. Those people are great consumers of tobacco. We know that when the workingman comes home at night there is nothing gives him so much pleasure .as to take down his pipe and sit with his family at the fireside and have a smoke. But what have these gentlemen done ? I find that the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) put this question to the government :\n1.\tWhat was the total amount of duty collected on tobacco for the year ended June 30, 1900?\n2.\tHow much of this amount was due to the additional duty imposed In the session of 1897?"]
Edward Hackett: Here we have this government, who are posing as friends of the poor man, and who are taxing that poor man's pipe to the extent of a million dollars a year. They may boast of their surplus, but we have here the undoubted testimony of their Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) that last year the consumers of tobacco in Canada paid $1,000,000 extra on account of the tax imposed by these gentlemen. But why have they done it ? Have they done it for the purposes of revenue ? They pretend to be free traders, and yet I believe that they imposed this tax for the purposes of protection. It was not done for revenue. These gentlemen have got to get back into their boots, they have got to show that this taxation imposed on the country is either for a revenue or for protective purposes; and I am willing to stake my reputation here on the statement that this $1,000,000 is taken out of the consumers of tobacco in this country to protect the tobacco growers in the province of Quebec and up in the Ontario peninsula; and these hon. gentlemen cannot deny it.
Another question I want to refer to, and I wish the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) were here to hear me. But it seems the air was getting too hot for him, and he had to leave the Chamber. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries used to dwell on the iniquitous tax on flour. Down in the province of Prince Edward Island we do not produce sufficient flour for our population, we have to import. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) used to tell the people : When we come to power you are going to be relieved of this tax on flour, it is a duty that is going into, the pockets of the farmers of Ontario and of the North-west. Now, what do we find in regard to flour ? Last year the amount of duty paid on flour was $145,-70i .18. Now that the hon. gentleman is on the Treasury benches, he is quite satisfied that the consumers in the maritime provinces should pay this duty on flour. But, there was another article, including breadstuff's, with which hon. gentlemen opposite used to find great fault in connection with the late tariff and that was the article of rice. We collected in duties, last, year, on rice $180,000,1 regret that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) is not here because I want to refer to an extract from a speech he delivered in this House in connection with this very article of rices. He said :
Rice is one of a class of articles which should be first removed from the.taxable list. Further, this is an article not raised in the country, the duty is not required for protection purposes! and therefore the tax is highly indefensible.
It was an indefensible tax in 1890. but the hon. gentleman sits there and defends it in 1900, because he is drawing his salary as Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Now, having said so much in connection with this matter, I will turn to the question of the debt. The debt of Canada is a very important question. The hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson), who represents, as he says, the largest body of farmers in Canada, will remember that any increase in the debt of the country will have to be paid by the farmers of the country, because they are the people who have their homes here, who are not birds of passage, but who intend to remain here. The hon. gentleman will agree with me in that respect. It is their contributions that must go to decrease the public debt. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) also referred to that. We find fault with the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) because, in bringing down to this House a statement he did not state the facts fairly, justly and honestly. We find that he said here that the total increase in four years was $6,996,373, that the average increase per year for four years was $1,749,993, and that the average increase for eighteen years, under the Conservatives, was $6,563,075. That is not a fair comparison to make. You cannot take the last four years and compare them with the preceding eighteen years and make a fair comparison. During these eighteen years hon. gentlemen will remember that the Conservative party took up the great public works of Canada, and that they had to go to the markets of the world and borrow money to pay for these great public works. What have hon. gentlemen opposite done ? The flow's Nest Railway and the Drummond County line are all that they have added to the assets of the country, while they have for these services increased the debt nearly $2,000,000 a year during their term of office. A fair way of putting the case would be to take the increase in the public debt of the last four years of Conservative rule and compare it with the four years of Liberal rule. When I do that I find that during the last four years of Conservative rule the public debt was increased between $3,500,000 and $3,750,000. It should be remembered that during this time Mr. Foster had no surpluses. It was a period of depression, one of those cycles of hard times to which the hon. gentleman has referred. During that period he had no surpluses to apply to the redemption of the debt, but we find that he so economically managed the affairs of the country that he was enabled to show that the public debt had increased only about $3,500,000 a year. On the other hand these hon. gentlemen opposite, with their large surpluses, and having no large public works to construct, have increased the public debt by nearly $2,000,000 a year. That is the comparison, and it is unworthy of the hon. Minister of Finance to compare the four years of his administration with the eighteen years of the late administration.
I want to say a word about the expenditure. We find, as I said at the outset, that when you have money at your disposal coming in easily you are likely to have extravagance. Now is the time for the hon. Minister of Finance to husband the resources of the country to save the taxes of the people, because, as he says, we are on the crest of the wave, for the future we will go downward, and he should have something put by for a rainy day and to meet emergencies. He is not doing that. We find that under his management he has allowed the expenditure of the country, in four years, to increase by $6,000,000. This is reckless extravagance. If he had conducted the affairs of the country in an economical way and husbanded the taxes of the people, he would be able to make a better showing than he is doing to-day. He has added to the public debt, he has increased the public expenditure, and no one could make a worse showing before the people than that of the present administration. We were asked : Where has the money gone ? Why do you not vote against it ? What is the use of hon. gentlemen oh this side of the House opposing votes brought down by hon. gentlemen opposite ? They will carry them through with their majority, large as it is. What do we find in the Department of Justice ? I will again appeal to the hon. member for West Elgin, because, if there was any one plank in the platform of the body that he represents that was emphasized, it was against the increase of judicial expenditure in this country. They believe that they have been taxed too heavily for the maintenance of judges and high-salaried officials. We find that during the last four years this government have increased the expenditure on the judiciary nearly $100,000 a year. Why was that done ? It was done to find places for hon. gentlemen who occupied seats in this House, and who, like rats deserting a sinking ship, got away before the storm came on. These men have been provided with soft seats, and it has cost the people of the country $100,000 more than in 1896. Then, we find an increase in the controllable expenditure in connection with immigration. We find that the expenditure has increased from 1896 to 1900, four years, by $314,363.61. Here is an increase beyond all proportion, an increase that cannot be approved by the people of Canada. These hon. gentlemen may say : We have brought in immigrants, we have sent our agents to the confines of civilization, and a certain Mr. Preston, that I read about a day or two ago said that he had gone to some unknown people and was going to bring them to Canada. We have had enough of these people brought to Canada. The hon. member for Lisgar, who is fresh from that country, and knows the conditions there, rebuked the hon. Minister - of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) for bringing in this class

race and religion. To-day you are filling the same place with dignity and honour, and why should these gentlemen at this time raise this question of race and creed ? I will tell you why ; because the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) in his paper, La Patrie, is fomenting it and stirring it up. What did we find in the province of Prince Edward Island ? We found one of his satellites going among the intelligent French voters of my district, stirring them up, and saying to them : You must vote for Laurier and Tarte because they are Frenchmen. This man remained there more than two months, going around and holding meetings in out-of-the-way places, and circulating his stories amongst the intelligent Frenchmen of West Prince ; but I am glad to say that they were too honest and intelligent to be seduced by him. Although they were Frenchmen, and proud of their compatriot, the leader of the government, and proud of the stand the French Canadians were taking In the province of Quebec, yet they stood true to their political principles. As I said, this emissary remained there from July to November, and when a ballot box containing a majority of votes for me at a certain polling district was stolen from a train and never turned up at Summerslde, tills man was on the train. I do not believe we have a man in Prince Edward Island base enough to steal that ballot box. I attribute it to the work of this man who was sent down by the Minister of Public Works.
Sir, I have occupied more time than I intended at the outset


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Edward Hackett: I am flattered. My hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson), the premier and myself are the only members who have been asked to go on. We in Canada own a noble heritage left to us by our fathers. Whether we are of French, English, Scotch, Irish or German origin, let us unite and work shoulder to shoulder to develop our country and maintain it, what it is at present, the brightest jewel in the crown of the empire.


Hon. R. R. DOBELL (Quebec West).: Mr. Speaker, I need hardly say that it is not with any very great desire that I rise to prolong this debate, nor is it that I expect, as my hon. colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) said, to have the last word. But I am very pleased to have the opportunity of expressing to this House what I believe to be the universal feeling with regard to the speech made by my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance. I believe it will be hailed throughout the country with the greatest satisfaction. For myself, I regard that speech as unique. As I think the hon. leader of the opposition said, it had the characteristic of being short, and I wish all the members on both sides of the House Mr. HACKETT.
had tried to follow my hon. friend's example in that respect. I shall do my best, however I fail in other respects, to earn the thanks of the House for making a short speech ; also do my best to lay a few facts before the House. W.e have all listened with great patience to the various statistics that have been given us during the last two or three days, and for my part I do not intend to add one figure to those given. I do not believe in this metnod of piling up figures and then using them to arrive at wrong conclusions, nor do I believe in compiling vast quantities of words and delivering them without wisdom. I think, on the contrary, that when one rises to speak in this House he should weigh very carefully what he has to say.
The speech delivered by my colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), I look upon as exceedingly exhilarating. Its keynote might be epitomized under these three headings : That never was Canada so prosperous ; that never were her people so contented ; and that never was her future so promising. With that speech I would be content to face the country, confident that it would be endorsed by the vast majority of the people.
My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden), claimed that while the Minister of Finance was warning us that we had reached the full springtide of prosperity, he used the simile of a skater who continued at a rapid pace while the ice was marked dangerous. The Finance Minister, he said, admitted he was skating on very thin ice and yet kept on at full speed. But the hon. gentleman forgot that our Finance Minister was careful to look ahead and had provided for another twelve months with a surplus of $6,000,000. I do not think that many of us would desire that provision should be made for a longer period than twelve months, nor would it be wise to prognosticate what might happen in years to come. If the hon. minister gave reasons- and in my opinion he gave sound reasons- for calculating on another surplus during the next year, it seems to me it would be unreasonable to expect any prediction further.
The first criticism on the budget speech from the opposition side came from the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier). The remarks that hon. gentleman made at the outset, namely :
I must congratulate the Finance Minister and the government, as I congratulate the country, upon the statement of prosperity which the hon. gentleman has been enabled to show to Canada-a prosperity which we one and ail delight
Is one we can all cordially endorse, and if some one had then whispered to the hon. gentleman : ' Least said soonest mended ; go no further,' and the hon. gentleman had followed the old maxim and stopped there, he would have given a lead to that side of
the House which would have been very-creditable to him. But he did not stop there. He went on further to remark that we were only trustees for the development of this country, in which remark I entirely agree. And what a country, what a heritage of boundless wealth, Mr. Speaker, we have in our trust. We admit, Mr. Speaker, that we are only trustees, having full responsibility for the development of an estate with its boundless possibilities of future wealth, which really is beyond the dream of avarice.
But, my hon. friend unfortunately just then ran off the track and came to grief, and I am sure his remarks will disappoint his friends, north, south, east and west. He claimed that the time had come when it is no longer necessary to bonus railways.
Well, I ask, is there an hon. gentleman in this House who can support that contention. The hon. gentleman tried to support his view by drawing a comparison between this country and the states of New York, Minnesota and Illinois. But is the comparison at all a fair one ? I And that the population of those three states amounts to 14,000,000, covering an area of 198,000 square miles. Surely there can be no comparison between these three thickly inhabited states, the greater part of which is under close cultivation, and such a country as Canada, the population of which is about five and a half millions, and the area 3,318,000 square miles. In the three states mentioned by the hon. gentleman there are seventy inhabitants to every mile, whereas in Canada there is but 1*6 to every mile.
I think it would have been wise if the hon. gentleman had gone a little more into detail before making such a sweeping statement. I would like to ask him why he did not particularize some other of our extravagances. I would like to know whether he would take exception to the bonusing of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, which, I believe, has repaid this country fifty-fold by the opening up of coal lands and the development of the Kootenay country. I would like to know whether he thinks we are wrong in carrying out the pledges which were made by the Conservative government many years ago and repeated every time when they were asking for the support of the people of Canada. For instance, would he repudiate the pledge by the late government to build the Quebec bridge ? Would he also condemn the opening up of the Rainy River district, and what is known as New Ontario, and which is likely to repay us for pur expenditure a hundred-fold. It would be interesting also to learn whether the hon. gentleman approves of the loss of revenue we sustained by reducing the rate of postage to one-penny. Also whether he approves of the deepening of the St. Lawrence canals. Would he also begrudge the contribution required for the Pacific cable and for sending the contingents to South Africa. These are the chief items which have swelled the expenditure during the past twelve months.
Then take the iron industry, which is looming up, and which will possibly grow to be the largest iron and steel enterprise in the world. Evidently already hon. gentlemen opposite are greatly exercised over the extent to which the bounty given this industry may draw upon the resources of Canada. But the larger the call may be the greater will be tlie prosperity of that industry. Once established, that industry will be permanent, and who can tell what the result will be. The fact that the calls will be heavy the next two or three years will ensure the success of #he enterprise. If they do not go to work and produce a large quantity, we will have a very small bonus to pay, but on the other hand, we will not have so flourishing an industry as we anticipated.
It would be like the other industry at Londonderry-it would survive for a few years, as long as it was drinking the pap, and would then die. But we hope for different results in this case. The expenditure that is being made there will ensure for us the future development of that iron industry ; and it does not much matter what it costs for a year or two, for our Minister of Finance has wisely provided that the bonusing should gradualy die out. I believe that that industry will be firmly established and will remain, and not only that, but that it will lead to ship-building and bridge-building, and will give us the iron for our railways and all the girders and other parts for structural work. All these works I have referred to are completed or are being completed, the future will lead to new calls upon us. Shall we shirk those new calls ? Shall we, as trustees, put the property that is entrusted to us in a napkin and bury it in the ground in order that we may have it for future generations ? No, I speak my own mind when I say that the only complaint that I feel can be justly made against us, is that we have not done nearly enough, that there are calls upon us throughout the length and breadth of this land to which we have not replied as promptly as we should have done. I believe that the navigation from Belle Isle to Montreal ought to have a great deal spent upon it, and I believe it should be so placed that no one could point a finger and say : This ought to be done, or that ought to be done. It would be money well expended. It would net us a very high return before long. Don't you think we have been supine in not opening that immense inland lake, Hudson Bay, with its 4,000 miles of coast line, with its inlets, like Chesterfield Inlet running into it, and also such harbours as the mouth of the Churchill river, which would give us easy access to the extreme North-west ? Another complaint, that if I were in opposition, I would make against the

[DOT]2080
government is because of tbe little effort we have made to win the trade from South Africa and Australia. I maintain that it is the duty of the government, as trustees, to open up every avenue of trade that we can and make us independent of other countries. That is the very first principle of free trade. What protection does for us is to give us pampered industries, industries that cannot live by themselves, industries that will want a fresh bonus or fresh protection every year-you never quite reach the point where they have enough. But, if our manufacturers are treated like men, they soon learn that they must look around them and find fresh markets for their products ; and they will be able to do jt if they only try. 1 remember that some years ago the locomotive builders of England were crying out for some kind of protection. But the government did not listen to them. I was surprised to hear the bon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) say that he found in England a great desire to introduce protection. I have not seen it in any single paper of any reliability. I find, on the contrary, that a certain member of parliament did bring up something of that kind, but he did not secure a following. The close of the hon. gentleman's speech redeemed the middle portion and he finished with this proposition. That it would be desirable to see if Quebec would not give far greater advantages to the country at much less cost than the very expensive work of deepening the river from Quebec to Montreal ; and this should be taken up and fully considered before any more expensive work is done. If Montreal is considered the best place to make a national port why we, must all cordially join in carrying it out ; but I do not think the enterprise should be gone on with, without due consideration whether Quebec should be the best port for transporting the produce not only of our own Northwest, but for the produce of the larger T>ortion of the grain and corn producing states of the American union. Now, I would like to say a word or two about the amendment which has been presented to this House by the leader of the opposition. I would like to read it, and, with permission, I will read the second clause first: That, in the opinion of this House, the adoption of a policy of mutual trade preference within the empire would prove of great benefit to the mother country and to the colonies, and would greatly promote the prosperity, unity and progress of the empire as a whole, and that the present time, when the Commonwealth of Australia is laying the foundation of its fiscal system, is particularly opportune for taking prompt and energetic steps towards the furtherance of this object.
I would follow that anywhere, and I am sure that any hon. member would do the same. But let me read to you what this is preceded by. These two clauses remind me very much of the action of a twin-screw steamer under certain circumstances.


Richard Reid Dobell: If the captain wishes to turn the steamer, he orders one screw full speed ahead and the other screw full speed astern. What I have read you was the full speed ahead. I am sure that there is not a member of this government or this parliament who would not support that loyally and do everything possible to carry it out. But, here comes the full speed astern :
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 industrial linterests of Canada.
Now, I contend that that is the very way to destroy the energy and enterprise of this country. As I have said, with one screw full speed ahead, and one full speed astern, the steamer turns around and makes no progress, and that is exactly what would come to this country if we listened to that resolution. And that is quite reason enough for us to oppose it to the utmost of our power.
Now, reference has been made by several members of the House to what our premier said in England almost directly he arrived. If ever 1 listened to words almost prophetic and inspiring they are those words of our premier. I will read them because they are well worthy of being repeated. He said :
I claim for the present government of Canada that they have passed a resolution by which the products of Great Britain are admitted in the rate of their tariff at 12J per cent, and next year at 25 per cent reduction. This we have done, not asking any compensation. There is a class of our fellow-citizens who ask that all such concessions should be made for a quid pro quo. The Canadian government has ignored such sentiments. We have done it because we owe a debt of gratitude to Great Britain. We have done it because it is no intention of ours to disturb in any way the system of free trade which has done so much for England.
Now that, I think, should be the aim and object of every member of this House. I heard one of my hon. friends on this side tell what England had done for Canada, and he told of some of the very important advantages which England had given to us and we now enjoy-the advantages of her power of defence, the advantage of her consular service, the advantage of the mother country as a great market for our products. But these are all minor things to the great benefit we have derived from Great Britain. Is there any example in history of any country doing what Great Britain did for Canada, and since then has done for others of her dependencies ? A few years ago, she gave to the people of Western Australia-and I believe that at that time they numbered something less than 250,000 souls-that whole territory of Western Australia, and the means of establishing a government in it, without exacting one shilling for the transfer of the property. Recently, as we all know, Western Australia, Victoria, New

South Wales and Queensland have, been welded together in one great commonwealth.
For Canada, she gave us her counsel and her help to form a Dominion which would rival the mother country in the freedom of her constitution and in independence. And what did she exact from us in return ? She has not exacted from us one iota in return for all the mineral wealth of this country, for all the forests, for all the public works which had been built at her expense. She did not charge us even the cost of the parchment by which she transferred this great territory to us ; she handed it over to us with her blessing and the prayer that we would become prosperous and strong. Search through the history of 2,000 years and you will not find anything to compare with that. And yet we hear some hon. gentlemen talking of the duty of England to give us a quid pro quo amounting to a few thousand pounds, probably, a year, or we will say a few thousands of pounds. But nothing in the world that Canada can give to Great Britain would recompense in the slightest degree the debt that we owe her for the freedom and blessings which she has established for us and has ever helped us to maintain. Now, let us go on and see how much further we can reduce our preferential tariff on British goods next year. I see my colleague the Minister of Finance is watching me closely, he is afraid I am going to develop what may happen at the next session of parliament, but I will not do so.


Mr. WALLACE.: Go on, don't let anybody shut you off like that.


Richard Reid Dobell: There is one other point


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We were getting quite interested.


Richard Reid Dobell: I am pleased to hear that from such an expert. Now, there is one difficulty in carrying out that part of the amendment calling for closer trade with Great Britain and her dependencies. Great Britain has told us distinctly and clearly that she cannot entertain any proposition for inter-imperial preferential trade that is not based on free trade. I think that is perfectly reasonable. I think our premier was perfectly right in saying that he had no wish to interfere with the fiscal policy of Great Britain. How can we desire to interfere when Great Britain has placed us here and said to us :	Adopt your own
policy, we give you full leave to do as you like. We have done as we liked, and Great Britain has never shown the slightest feeling or irritation because we tax her goods while she lets ours in free. Id closing I would like to read to the House a statement of my own views made fifteen years ago as to the best policy for this country. I do not place those views before you as voicing the views of my colleagues. I think 0G
this cabinet is very happily constituted in that, while we hold different views, we adopt the same policy of hastening slowly and working towards the goal that we hope to reach eventually. It may take a long time, but I think in twenty-five years more we will have a good chance of getting there. If the country will only be patient and give us twenty-five years more of power, you will see, I think, that we will reach a free trade level. Now, this is what I said : Incidental protection is all that this country requires. I mean by incidental protection the collection of such an amount of revenue at the ports of the Dominion as will enable the government to pay the ordinary expenses of administration, but not duties levied as a pure and simple protection. I believe the best, the simplest and most economical way of collecting our revenue, if it were practicable, would be by 'per capita,' and not import duty at all ; that the country would thrive better, that it would be a cheaper land to live in, and that people would throng to it from all countries where distress prevailed.
I know perfectly well when I enunciate this view that free trade is not practicable. We have got to protect vested interests, and we know how largely those interests are wrapped up in the welfare of the country. I see the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is smiling, but I say in perfect candour and frankness that we cannot make any sudden change. I think, Mr. Speaker, I have said all that is necessary for me to say on this occasion, and I will close with an expression of the hope that hon. gentlemen opposite will help us in working out the fullest possible measure of inter-imperial trade.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: It seems to me as this debate proceeds that it becomes more and more difficult to express any view which is absolutely novel on the question under discussion. But certainly there is one feature of the debate which deserves to be noticed, and that is the extraordinary divergence of views which the debate has revealed on the part of hon. gentlemen who sit on the government side of this House. We have on the one hand many strong supporters of the government who openly complain of the present fiscal policy, and declare that the duties are a great deal too high. We have my hon. friend the member for Russell (Mr. Edwards), who only a few days ago, though he sits at the present moment side by side with a protectionist Prime Minister, declared that this tariff was one he did not approve of, and that it should be reduced. Then there are other hon. members coming from the west who have expressed the same view very strongly, and the hope that before long a reduction will be made in the present rate of duty. That is one school that exists on the other side of the House. On the other hand we have heard hon. members contending that the tariff which we have is in reality a protective tariff, that in its



essence, in its main features, it is tlie same tariff policy that held force in this country previous to the advent of tlie present administration. I listened with the greatest of attention to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), and I was considerably surprised at his arguments. He says that we are living under a revenue tariff, and that that is really the character of the present tariff. Well, Sir, believing as I do with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) and with all eminent writers on political economy, that any tariff which exceeds 17 per cent, and which brings into the public exchequer a larger amount than is absolutely necessary to carry on the public affairs of the country, must be a protective tariff, I was surprised to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce maintain that opinion. X had expected that in presence of these three schools and with such divergent views, the hon. minister without portfolio (Hon. Mr. Dobell) was going to elucidate and explain these differences.
Far from it. I find that, for my part, I totally fail to apprehend the distinction he made, although he is, as we all know, a practical steamship man. He has shown it in	the	way	in which he has	managed	this	fast	Atlantic business.	Thisidea, which he expressed, of a twin-screw steamer, with one screw propelling forward and the other backwards, I do not understand	at	all.	He, himself, has	grave
doubts as to the adaptability of that simile, and as evidence of that, he said that the only way to levy money for the administration of public affairs was by a per capita tax. Under these circumstances, I say that it is not surprising that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he delivered his speech upon the budget, asked us, implored us, as an opposition, to formulate some policy, and to express, as a united party, what our policy was. I take exception to that demand, and I say that in the mouth of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce that demand sounds like something strange and pathetic. I deem it that an opposition, fresh from the polls, a party recently defeated by the vote of the people, have some other duty extended to them than to bob up in parliament and formulate a policy. We have had a policy ; that policy, I take it, has not met with the approval of the people, and under these circumstances, I think our duty is rather to ask these hon. gentlemen to unite upon a policy, to express a policy in order that we shall be in a position to criticise its application to the wants of the country, instead of asking us to formulate a policy at the present moment. I question very much, if. in the whole annals of British parliamentary history, in a country which has some knowledge. I take it. of the administration of popular institutions, whether we will find in any one single instance the spectacle of a Mr. MONK.
party recently defeated at the polls presenting itself in parliament and formulating a policy. Is it in order that we should choose a policy for hon. gentlemen opposite to take from us and administer in a way in which we do not want it to be administered ? No, Sir. I deem that it is our duty to sit here as critics, to see in what manner the government propose to apply the policy which they have, and in what manner that policy is going to benefit the country. But, there is something more. There is a lesson in this demand made of the opposition by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, in this sighing which he seems to have for the expression of a policy on our behalf. I would be reluctant, after the example he himself presents to us, to formulate a policy. Why ? What benefit has it been to that hon. gentleman himself to formulate a policy in the past ? Has it received any execution, has it brought him to any other place than to the place he occupies, to-day, himself, than this, to see a man of his known ability and experience occupying a position in this cabinet which he, himself, on many previous occasions, declared to be a useless one, and one that should be done away with ? He had a policy ; he preached strongly the policy of free trade. Have we got free trade ? He is obliged to admit that the policy of which he was such an ardent pursuer, such a devoted defender, has been replaced by the policy of a revenue tariff. If hon. members will take the trouble to read the speech made by the right hon. Prime Minister, they will find that he is completely contradicted, that the right hon. Prime Minister maintains that our policy at the present moment is a protective policy that has as its ultimate object free trade. Did not the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce advocate strongly, in many different forms, closer commercial relations with the United States ? What has become of that ? Did not he advocate that point at one time, and in strong language, in language which, I am told, was most forcible, but which I never had the occasion myself to hear in this House, because I was not here when the hon. gentleman sat in the place which we occupy to-day ? Did not he strongly advocate and declare necessary, because it had become a source of danger, a reduction in the public debt ? Was not that one of his strongest policies at one time ? Where are we to-day in that regard ? We have increased the public debt by many millions since the hon. gentleman has had it in his power to control the policy of the country. The hon. gentleman had a policy also, and he expressed it freely, and that was a policy in which, as has been stated on this side of the House, many Conservatives throughout the country coincided. That policy was, that our yearly expenditure was too great. The hon. gentleman, and some of his colleagues, declared that the expenditure might be reduced by
many millions. Has that declaration been of any use to him ? Has the party of which he is a member been guided by it since they came into power ? We know that it is absolutely the opposite of that policy that has prevailed, and we heard how the hon. gentleman has endeavoured to explain away the increase of $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 in the yearly expenditure of the government. My hon. friend who was so anxious and who thinks it so very necessary and indispen-sible that we should go forward and formulate a policy, was in favour of a reduction in the number of cabinet ministers. One might really say that the expenditure of the country in that regard has increased instead of diminished. My hon. friend subscribed at one time, in a solemn conclave of his party, to the proposition that the time had come to totally abolish railway subsidies. That was his policy, not only in this House, but, I think, he addressed public meetings throughout the country upon this point during the period when he sat on these benches. He also formulated that policy known as the policy of the Patrons of Industry. He formulated that policy in so many words, over his own signature. What has come of it ? We never have had such immense expenditures under that head as since the hon. gentleman has been in control of the administration of this country. My hon. friend will recognize, I am sure, that at one time his policy was the total and complete independence of parliament. Has that policy been carried out ? We all know that these hon. gentlemen have violated their professions in that regard, that they have placed a larger number of their supporters in office during the few years that they have been in power than was ever placed before they assumed the reins of office during the same period of time. But, I would proceed with an endless enumeration. Was not my hon. friend a strong supporter of the principle that public works should be executed by public tender ? What has he to say to the words which fell from the mouth of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries the other day, who, in his own dulcet tones, said to us : You cannot expect us to depart from the principle that we must help our friends when we are in office ? What has he to say of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte), who has made it a principle to depart entirely from the rule that public contracts ought to be given by tender ? On' the contrary, I maintain, and we had proof of it the other day, that public contracts are reserved for party friends. Under these circumstances, I think that the claim of my hon. friend, that we should formulate a policy, ought to be accepted with a great deal of diffidence on this side of the House, and with a great deal of doubt. Why, my hon. friend even went so far as to subscribe to the principle, that the important question of prohibition should be 66J
submitted to the vote of the whole electors of Canada, and that the government, who had an affirmative vote on that point, should accede to the will of the people. He believed that we should do as they do in Switzerland, and some other states, and proceed on these important points by a regular submission of the question to the votes of the individual electors, and be governed thereby. What has come of that policy ? It has been thrown to the winds, like every other principle or policy declared by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Under these circumstances, for my part, I feel great confidence in the principle of lying low, of waiting, and not of enunciating great theories and principles which I never intend carrying into practice ; but, taking my true position as a member of the opposition, waiting and seeing how these gentlemen intend carrying out the policy which they set forth, in such magnificent language, when they sat on this side of the House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as to the amendment which is now under discussion, I wish to be as brief as possible, and I lay before you this proposition : That by the preference which we are granting to Great Britain we lose in this country a sum stated in round figures to be $2,000,000 a year. I say we are losing that sum, because I defy hon. gentlemen opposite to prove to us that upon the articles exported from England and which reach here under the British preference, the consumer really gets the benefit of that preference. It goes as we all know -and hon. gentlemen opposite cannot establish the contrary-it goes to enrich the British manufacturer. It goes practically as a bounty to the manufacturers of Sheffield and Manchester and Bradford, as against our own Canadian manufacturers, and we consumers in Canada do not derive the benefit which we ought to derive from that preference. Under these circumstances the question arises : Whether this lavishness, this immense degree of favour extended to a class of people who extend no favour toi us is justified in the present state of this young country. Is our financial position such that we can afford to make this distribution of wealth in England where it is not required, to the detriment of our own people ? Sir, we were told by the Finance Minister that we have a great surplus, and I would ask this House how it is that the announcement of such a large surplus as the sum of $8,000,000 should have left the people so entirely unaffected. The reason is that the people take very little stock in surpluses. They have very little belief in the reality of the existence of such a thing as a surplus, and I believe that the common sense of the people which considers rather what is the state of the public debt; what is the amount which we expend annually ; I believe that is a sounder theory than the theory of book-keeping by which the Minister of Finance arrives at the

208S
conclusion which he was so proud to announce to the House. That is the reason that when the announcement was made by the Finance Minister, the people were found indifferent to it. Why, Sir, the day after the Minister of Finance had made his speech I found myself in Montreal. I met a number of people, and nobody, either Liberal or Conservative, seemed to attach any importance to the fact that the Minister of Finance had made that announcement. In fact, the only joyful people I saw were the little boys selling the Montreal Herald at the street corners, who were announcing in loud tones : We give away with each copy of the Herald a picture of the Hon. Mr. Fielding. And when I recall the fact that that newspaper received some $20,000 or $25,000 from the government last year, and when I saw that each one of these boys had received instructions to give away a picture of the Minister of Finance, I asked myself : Is this a pure unalloyed case of gratitude, or else is it, as the cynic says, a keen appreciation of favours to come.
Now, Sir, I said a moment ago that I believe the people of this country are not led astray by this announcement of a surplus ; that what they consider is the increase of the public debt and the amount of the annual expenditure, and the per capita increase of the rate of taxation upon the people. Taking these two points into consideration we have as a result incontrovertible, that during the administration of this government the public debt has been increased by over $7,000,000, and that in face of the fact that during the years which preceded their advent to power they declared that the increase of the public debt had become a great danger and that the first thing they would do would be to reduce it. We have had also, as a matter of fact, during the past fiscal year an increase in the per capita taxation (the amount of burden which weighs upon the people of Canada) of over $1.63 per head. That is iwhat the people consider. And why is it that they pay so little attention to the announcement that we have a surplus ? It is because they know perfectly well, as we all know, that these surpluses are in reality not in the public chest, not as a rule invested In real capital-that is to say, in capital which directly or indirectly produces some revenue to the state-but that that surplus, to a very large extent, has been devoted to special expenditure from which under no circumstances whatever can the country expect any return. If you take the statement of the Finance Minister himself, we find that he gives the total revenue received during the past year at about $51,000,000, and if we add what he calls the ordinary expenditure of $44,002,323.56 to the special expenditure which he states we have to meet before the end of the year, and as- these special expenditures amount to $9,742,187.33, then we find that wre have spent during the year a


Frederick Debartzch Monk: sum of no less than $53,S44,510.39. And the best proof of that expenditure is that in order to complete the amount required for the financial year of 1900, we will have to pass an additional money vote in this House. We cannot take that sum out of the surplus indicated by the Finance Minister ; we will require a special vote of the House for it, because we have more than exhausted the total revenue of the country. I will not go so far as to say that out of that capital expenditure there are not some amounts from which we can expect a return, but I say that if hon. members will take the trouble to carefully scan each item of capital expenditure in the Auditor General's Report they will find a vast amount of expenditure which properly ought to fall under the annual expenditure of the country, and not be charged to capital account.. I believe, Sir, that until we have some authoritative definition by parliament or by some officer independent of parliament, or by some commission which will settle in a permanent manner what is strictly to be called capital expenditure, this confusion of the account will always exist, and the people will never be absolutely certain as to the exact state of the finances of this country.
Now, Sir, without taking up too much of the time of the House or going into too many details, if hon. members will take the trouble to turn to these items which the lion. Minister of Finance indicated to us as being capital expenditure-if they will look at the expenditure of some $200,000 in connection with Dominioin lands, they will see numberless items which ought properly be entered under the annual expenditure ; if they will turn to the militia expenditure, they will find that ammunition itself is classed as capital expenditure ; if they will look at the extraordinary transaction called the Yukon telegraph extension, which has been perpetrated by the Minister of Public Works, and examine one by one the items connected with the execution of that work- a work which was undertaken without tender, without any fixing of the prices beforehand, to my mind a scandalous transaction- they will find under the head of capital expenditure, drinking cups, pistols, ammunition, eiderdown quilts, tobacco. In fact, if I did not fear to trespass on the attention of the House, I would quote some of those items, and It would become evident that to call that capital expenditure is not only contrary to every sound business principle and principle of book-keeping, but contrary to every tenet of common sense. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) made the statement with the utmost complacency that it was very strange that people on this side of the House should find fault, because the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) had expended some $4,000,000 on the Intercolonial Railway, and had succeeded in deriving from

that enterprise a revenue of $4,000,000 also. AVe all know that the Intercolonial Railway Is In pretty much the same position to-day in which it has always been, and in which it will ever be, until the management of that road is taken completely out of the control of political influences. If members of this House will take the trouble to examine the capital expenditure incurred on the Intercolonial Railway last year, a work which has already cost us something like $60,000,000, they will find that in some $1,700,000 there are a number of items which no railway man of experience would class under the head of capital expenditure. Take, for instance, the construction of the elevators at St. John and Halifax, if you wish to apply the principle of capital expenditure producing some revenue. Are these works, which have cost something over $200,000, to be placed in the category of works producing a revenue for this country ? I venture to say that if we had the total amount spent on maintenance of these elevators and the total amount of grain handled by them, you would find that it has cost about as much to move the grain that has come to these elevators as it would cost to move it with a teaspoon. Under these circumstances, I venture to say that the placing under the head of capital expenditure of at least two-thirds of the amounts mentioned by the Minister of Finance is an error, according to the principles of sound book-keeping.
It is a mistake, I think, to say that the public, or even the press, which under ordinary circumstances is favourable to my hon. friends, has been totally gratified at their administration of the finances of the country. On the day after the day on which the hon. Minister of Finance delivered his budget speech, an article appeared in the Montreal Witness, a paper by no means unfavourable to the present government, which expressed, to my mind, the views of a very large number of people on the financial administration of the present government. I have not the quotation here, but the sense of it ds that there is great dissatisfaction throughout the country at the failure of the Liberal party to carry out the pledges which they made so formally to the country before they assumed the reins of office, and that that dissatisfaction will go on increasing until practical measures are taken to reduce the public debt and the annual expenditure. The same view is expressed by the Huntingdon Gleaner, a paper of wide circulation published in the eastern townships, favourable to the present government, and one which on more than one occasion has expressed its dissatisfaction at the failure of the government to carry out its pledges. There is no doubt that this government has been above all things a fortunate government. We have had a run of extraordinary prosperity, for which the Minister of Finance takes credit. But if we look at what has been actually carried out in the way of improvement during that period of prosperity, what do we find ?
If you will take the extreme western limit of the country, the Yukon territory, where, according to a report which was laid before parliament several years ago, we had the authoritative declaration of Mr. Ogilvie that there were $100,000,000 of gold in sight, has the government actually derived every possible benefit which we had a right to expect from the discovery of that rich gold-bearing country ? The Minister of Trade and Commerce seems to be superabundantly satisfied from the fact that we have been able to derive from that country sufficient revenue to meet its expenses. But is that all we had a right to expect V
In 1897, when that impossible scheme, which the Minister of Railways then submitted to this parliament, was under discussion, when we had submitted to us the project of important concessions to certain railway contractors who were to build a line of communication with the Yukon, the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) threatened the members who sat to your left, Mr. Speaker, with dire regrets in the future for venturing to oppose that scheme. Upon that occasion, I remember quoting from an English paper to the effect that we were pursuing in Canada a policy which had brought untold misfortune to other gdld-bearing countries, namely, the policy of opening up that country to all strangers, of delivering over the richest gold finds in newly discovered regions to manipulators and speculators, and I ventured to prophesy then that the people of Canada as a whole, and the individual members of this community, would derive very little benefit from the Yukon. It seems to me that that prediction has to a very large extent been verified. The Dominion itself, under the showing of the Minister of Finance, has not realized anything like a sufficient amount to meet the expenditure of that section, and where do we meet individual Canadians who have derived great benefit from the Yukon ? They are very few in number. Speaking for my own province, I venture to say that you can count on the fingers of one hand the individuals who have enriched themselves in that land which, it was claimed at that time, belonged to us and to us alone.
Then -with respect to agriculture, have we made any great reforms ? With the immense revenues at the disposal of this government, has the Minister of Agriculture succeeded in making any great innovations? Has he done anything in the province of Quebec to advance the cause of agriculture? The agricultural classes of that province, Mr. Speaker, have by their own individual efforts made immense strides of late years, and since this government has come into power they have appealed for the establishment of model farming schools in that province. One at least would be of some use

to the people, but I venture to say that the Minister of Agriculture is not able to point out, in spite of the great revenue which this country has enjoyed since he has occupied his position, any one thing of consequence which he has done to promote that interest which he ought to have so much at heart.
As regards immigration, I venture to say that the system which has been followed is one which ought not to prevail. I think there is a great deal of truth in the observation made by my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), and the same opinion prevails in my own province, that we should now begin to consider the necessity of reserving the lands of the North-west for our own people or else select for those lands the very best class of immigrants that can be found on the other side of the Atlantic. Those who are familiar with the system of immigration in my own province maintain that it is better to spend .$3,000 in bringing out five or six or eight or ten good immigrants to the country and in looking after them from the time they leave Europe until they are well settled, than in spending one-half the money in bringing out a horde of people whose habits and education are alien to our institutions. And in bringing out good settlers, we must not forget that they will not only themselves become a valuable addition to our population, but will be the most profitable immigration agents you could possibly have. Is that the policy followed out by this government ? No, Sir, we are spending over half a million dollars a year on immigration, and that expenditure lias become an immense engine of patronage. We have a number of agents scouring European countries to bring out immigrants whom it would be better to leave at home. Have we the splendid results pointed out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), when he said it was surprising to hear any expressions of discontent on this side, in view of the fact that 30,000 or 40,000 farms had been settled during the past year by the proper kind of immigrants. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that statement is not correct. I say that the policy of importing Doukho-bors, people from eastern Europe, about whom we know little and of whom what little we do know is unfavourable, is a mistaken policy, and I think that the sooner Mr. Preston is called down from the position he occupies, the better it will be for the country. At present this gentleman is travelling through Europe at a salary of $4,COO a year and expenses. The other day he gave an interview to a Montreal paper in which he stated he was about to travel in eastern Asia and to visit the Moloccan race and expected to secure there a very large number of immigrants for this country. But who knows whether this race, which Mr. Preston intends bringing out, is more or less acceptable than the Doukliobors. We have already some idea of what that kind Mr. MONK.
of importation means, and of what kind of ideas such people entertain. We had the other day a manifesto in which these Douk-hobors complained of the laws of this country and declared that they believed in free love and other things of that kind. We all know that these men have most extraordinary ideas about the organization of society, and I consider them a great danger for this country. That is the opinion which prevails in the province of Quebec with regard to bringing out such a large number of these immigrants when we do not know, from our own experience, what kind of settlers they will make. The other day, in answer to a question from this side of the House, we had the Minister of the Interior repudiating the profession of faith made on behalf of the Doukhobor population and declaring that it was made by one whom he termed a Russian and not a Doukhobor. Well, I find in last Saturday's Witness an address to the Doukhobor population of Canada by one of their own race, one who signs himself their loving brother, and one who evidently is a leader among them-Mr. Leo Tolstoi. And if hon. members will take the trouble to look through that address they will find there an absolute confession of communism as an article of faith among that population. Mr. Tolstoi, after addressing these people as dear brethren and sisters, says to them :
We do not fail against the teachings of Jesus, but confirm ourselves in it; to our own we provide food and a life without care, and we can assist the poorest when they are at the point of starvation. That is fundamentally wrong, my beloved. What one calls his property he will not only not let another have, but even defend it against him with all his might. And he who wishes to defend anything by force must be prepared to quarrel, and, in extreme cases, even to commit murder. Without force, without homicide, no property can be maintained. That we get along without violence and manslaughter, we thank those whose calling it is to guard and secure our property. Every proprietor needs soldiers and policemen; will you be proprietors, then your refusal was worthless to serve as soldiers and policemen; then you w.ould have done better to perform such service instead of to covet only the enjoyment of the acquired goods.
And he goes on in this strain, but I will not read the whole quotation. As the Witness remarks in an editorial, this is neither more nor less than a profession of communism. Are we to be told that in the whole continent of Europe, with Great Britain, France, Belgium and Germany to select from, we cannot possibly find better settlers for this country than these men who profess communism and who declare, and who come here and are even imported, on the understanding that they will not bear arms for the defence of this country ? I venture to say that the whole immigration system of this country ought to be remodelled, ought to be improved, and that we should bring to our shores only the very best that can be found in Europe, and
under the best supervision. On this point, as upon many others, I do not think that, with the vast resources at the command of the government, they have done what might properly be expected of them. I do not think that, considering the wants of this country, we are in a position to make the sacrifice we are making, and which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the sacrifice of about ,$2,000,000 a year under circumstances which seem to me totally unwarrantable.
Now, I do not think that, in the matter of bonusing railways, the government, having fallen from the high principles which they professed when they sat on the opposition benches, has proceeded with the greatest wisdom. We have at the present moment in Montreal a proof of my statement. We have there a railway which we purchased at a price which no man from Quebec will deny was a very exorbitant price. I speak of the Drummond County Railway. And we have gratified the Grand Trunk with an immense sum for the improvement of the bridge, and we are paying them an immense sum annually as rent. And what is the consequence ? We find that the Grand Trunk, after this immense sacrifice made by the country, is actually working to build up the port of Portland instead of maintaining the valuable port of Montreal. And what is the cause ? One of the principal causes is the failure of the government to insert in the agreement, at the time when these arrangements with the Grand Trunk were made, a clause which would protect the city of Montreal and protect that port upon which we have spent, are spending, and intend to spend, such large sums of money. With the resources which prosperity has brought to the government, have we really availed ourselves of every opportunity in the matter of expenditure ? We find every year in the estimates submitted to us large amounts for wharfs and public buildings. There does not seem to be a member on the other side who does not seem desirous of perpetuating his own memory by erecting within the limits of his constituency either a public building or a wharf. But, Sir, even with these immense resources, has this government solved, has it even attempted to solve in a manner beneficial to this country the great question of transportation ? I submit to this House that that problem, that difficult problem, which we are now called upon to deal with has been dealt with in a most inefficient manner by this government. We have to the south of us a people armed with immense resources. They are bent on securing the carrying trade of the west. They have money galore, they have brains and, so far, in that struggle to secure for our own country at least a fair proportion of the traffic of the west. I submit we have utterly failed. Divide, Mr. Speaker, into two parts the
route which we must consider in dealing with this question of transportation. From Montreal to the west what have we ? We have not those improvements in the canal system which will become necessary if we are to rival to any successful degree our American neighbours. There is not at the present moment any possibility for a boat drawing fourteen feet of water to pass through the canals of Canada. In La Patrie, the day before yesterday, we find a letter from the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) admitting that it is impossible for a boat drawing fourteen feet of water to pass through the canals-and this in spite of the statement which was made here by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair). And, Sir, I venture to say, without claiming any special knowledge of that subject, that, until we have free canals in this country it will be very difficult for us to meet the Americans on the question of transportation. But, once you are in Montreal the errors committed by this government are still more flagrant. Very far from having made of the port of Montreal a national port, that port is a disgrace to that city. We have no elevator. That is the crying need of the city of Montreal. And how have these hon. gentlemen met the call, which, more than once, has been made by the city of Montreal for the erection of proper elevators in that place ? They have committed the greatest possible mistake. They made a contract for the erection of elevators with Mr. Conners. Anybody might have known that any contract having in view the erection of elevators in Montreal which depends for its success on American capital is bound to fail. It did fail. And we have no elevators at the present moment, in spite of the claims urged time and again by all the commercial bodies of that city. I tell hon. gentlemen opposite-and I believe they will come to the same conclusion before long-that the only way in which they can secure that portion of the trade of the west to which we are entitled is by making an arrangement with the carriers of the lakes to interest them in the port of Montreal. They are able, if they are interested in a proper way and without undue sacrifice of money by this government, to erect the elevators where required -not where Mr. Conner's elevator was erected, but at the place where the business men of Montreal required these elevators. What is required is an elevator situated in the middle of the port, available for the Intercolonial Railway, available for water-borne and railway-borne grain, and which can distribute to the ships about the centre of the port, without undue expense, the grain received there. Until we have these elevators, the system is incomplete. And unless the port of Montreal is provided, and provided very soon, with the wharfs which we require there, I venture

to say that every effort we may make to secure the commerce of the west will prove unavailing. And, what is the condition when you leave Montreal and proceed to the ocean ? Have lion, gentlemen who sit in this House taken the trouble to read the report of the inquiry held by the business men of Montreal into the condition of the shipping between Montreal and the ocean? Why, Sir, the underwriters' rates we have to pay are absolutely prohibitive and must favour the American channels of commerce to the detriment of Montreal.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When you left the Chair. Mr. Speaker, I was endeavouring to establish that with the immense resources which a period of great inflation and prosperity had placed at the disposal of the government, the government had failed to grapple successfully with some of the most vital problems that concern the future of this country. I gave as an instance the transportation question, showing that in my opinion the transportation question, so far as it is connected with the canal system, had not been dealt with vigorously, had not been dealt with by the government as it should have been, in view of the immense rivalry which we have to contend with from the other side of the line. I had spoken of Montreal. The condition of the port of Montreal at the present time, I said, was disgraceful ; and that in the interest of a proper solution of that question the government should devote its energies, its attention, and perhaps some of its immense surplus, .to placing that port in a position to compete successfully with the ports of the United States, which are drawing away the great commerce of the west. Well, Sir, I do believe that if the Minister of Public Works had had a free hand to place that port upon a proper footing, possibly things might be in a better condition than they are to-day.
But the trouble is that the transportation question interests too many authorities, there are too many who have to deal with the solution of that question to make a prompt and perfect solution of it. When you come to deal with the canal system, you have the policy, you have the ideas of the Minister of Railways and Canals ; when you come to deal with the ports, the landing places on the upper lakes, you have to deal with the Minister of Public Works ; when you come to the port of Montreal, things are still more complicated. You have the Minister of Public Works, you have the Minister of Customs, you have a body there called the Montreal Harbour Board ; and when you leave Montreal, and even before leaving Montreal for the high seas, you have the authority, you have the policy, you have Mr. MONK.
the ideas of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It is my conviction that until that transportation question, so important to us, is confined either to the final decision of one man or of one body, there will be conflicts. Conflicts have arisen in the past, divergence of views, and the consequence will be that the trade and commerce of this country will greatly suffer. Once you leave the port of Montreal and go towards the ocean, members of this House who will take the trouble to scan the report of the shipping inquiry held in Montreal, the resolutions passed by the Board of Underwriters, the testimony of pilots, of disinterested men such as captains who come to our shores from Europe, you will find that from Montreal to the sea the system of lights is entirely inadequate. It is surprising to think that during these four years of plenty no improvement has been made In our signal service. The system of fog signals is condemned unanimously both by pilots and by the captains, and when you come to the channel there are defects at every step. So that between the port of Montreal and the ocean there is no reason for surprise whatever that the rates charged upon shipping, 'upon hulls as well as cargoes, are absolutely prohibitive, and militate naturally in favour of American enterprise.
As to the question of elevators, for my own part I do not believe that in Montreal the interests of our trade would be enhanced by the government building an elevator ; neither do I believe, we have proof of it in the past, that the building of an elevator by an American capitalist depending upon American capital, upon the assistance which he may receive at Buffalo or elsewhere in the United States, can possibly have any but disastrous results. My own conviction is that we should interest in the shipping in Montreal the carriers on the great lakes. They could build a suitable elevator there with reasonable assistance from the government. They would be interested in supplying that elevator with grain and without the expense of too large a sum of money. By enlisting the interests of the carriers on our lakes, we would succeed in bringing to Montreal a very large proportion of the grain that finds its outlet through American ports. But even if we brought to Montreal the whole grain of the North-west, as things are in Montreal at present, we could not deal with that grain once it reached that port.
In connection with what might have been done during this era of prosperity, I think it is not improper to refer to the utter failure of the government to give us that service which, to my mind, is a necessary complement of the transportation question, which is its final solution, that is to say, the fast Atlantic service. It is a well known fact that when this government came into power in 1896, arrangements had been completed for a fast Atlantic service. There

[DOT]2098
remained merely tlie question of formality to fulfil. The arrangements were binding between the Allans and the government, and the only thing the government had to do was to put the contract into shape and to have it approved by the Governor in Council. Well, Sir, what spectacle have we had ? 1 do not see here the minister (Mr. Dobell) who more particularly was charged with carrying out the pledge given, I think, in the speech from the Throne in 1896, that we would have a fast Atlantic service ; but the results which have been obtained are absolutely nil. The minister without portfolio has made many voyages to Europe, he has crossed the Atlantic many times, he has lured us like a mermaid with bottlenecked ships and plans of all kinds, but as a matter of fact the results obtained are absolutely nil ; and if he were not such an amiable man one would be inclined to say that he deserved himself to be taken upon some desert island in the Pacific ocean and there marooned for his negligence to carry out the scheme for which the government gave us such high hopes. But, Sir, during this period of inflation, when the commerce of the whole world has received such a great impetus, these gentlemen who have had the government of this country in their hands for several years, have made no serious effort to extend our trade relations with other countries. They have done nothing whatever to extend our trade relations with the sister colonies, with the great dependencies of Britain throughout the world. In that respect, as in many others, we are forced' to the conclusion that they have failed to fulfil the promises which they made to the people of Canada. Take the United States. You know, Mr. Speaker, perhaps better than many of us, that in the province of Quebec in 1896, and ever since then, it has been stated that very soon we would have commercial arrangements concluded with the United States. It was the great boast of our hon. friends opposite when they were in opposition that if they could have the reins of power for a short time, we would very soon see improved trade relations with the United States. We have spent a great deal of money in connection with that commission, and that commission has sat very often. Have our trade relations with the United States been improved in any manner, or is it not the case that we have sacrificed our own interests to those of the Americans without any return whatever ? What is the positon today ? We are discussing a question of very great importance. If the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is so anxious to know w?hat our policy is he will find occasion in this resolution which is under discussion to discover what we think in regard to this feature of our trade relations. Italy shut us out practically from trade with that country when we had an incipient trade of great hope. We are shut out from the
United States, aud we are shut out from Germany. All the nations of the world, practically, are in a position of hostility in respect to ourselves. Hon. gentlemen opposite think that they have effaced all that by giving a preference to Great Britain, which has had for effect, to my mind, the placing of Canada in a position most unfavourable with other. countries, and in not giving to our agricultural and other products a position of favour of any kind whatever on the British market. Let me point out that with that great reason and sense which are distinctive traits of the English race, such a concession has never been asked from us by them. But, we find that almost every session since this preference has existed, the hon. Minister of Finance looks to this side of the House, and seems to dare anybody to call in question the advisability of our giving a preference to England without receiving anything in return. We heard him the other day, when he looked to this side of the House and asked if there was any man who was unfavourably disposed towards that preference, and when he heard ' hear, hear ' from this side of the House, he seemed ready to brand this expression of view as traitorous. All I can say is. that my notions of loyalty and the notions which seem to prevail with the hon. Min- ' ister of Finance are greatly at variance. When England granted, as she so generously did, an absolute and entire measure of self government to her great dependencies. she gave us a mission, and that mission was to do all that in our power lay for the proper development of our own country. Taking that view. I deem it that when we are making a fiscal policy for this country, we ought to have regard in the very first instance to what is best and most suitable for our own country, irrespective of what the interests of England may be. That is my contention, because I belieVe that everything that will go to build up trade and develop this country, will on to the advancement and aggrandizement of the British Empire at large. In reality. Sir, the policy of these hon. gentlemen, in so far as preferential trade is concerned, seems to be a policy of despair and inaction. They say : We have taken a step, we have granted a preference to England, but, when we invoke the necessity of putting in force the other side of the question, the side which interests us as Canadians, they tell us that there is no hope or expectation. The hon. Minister of Finance told us, in Montreal, not long ago, that a hope of that kind must necessarily be ephemeral, and that those who advocated mutual inter-imperial preferential trade could be nothing else than humbugs. This is a proposition from which I entirely dissent. I said a moment ago that the policy of hon. gentlemen was one of inaction. Surely no honourable man who has at heart the interests of the British Empire, and who lives under the flag which

waves over us, would be prepared to say that he is disposed to deal harshly with England, but are we not going to move public opinion in England in the direction of our own interests ? What, 1 say, have this government done in that direction ? Absolutely nothing. We have communicated with England in the past. Those who read the constitutional history of this country will find that time and again we have made representations to the home authorities. We have made representations, for instance, on the instructions that were given under letters patent to the Governors General sent out to this country, we have made representations in reference to home rule, we have passed a resolution in respect to the Transvaal war, and not long ago we adopted a resolution in respect to a matter concerning, if I may use the expression, the internal economy of the British government, in connection with the coronation oath. But, when it comes to making representations to the home government in respect to the necessity and the sheer justice of giving us a more advantageous position in the home market, this government have done absolutely nothing. They have never taken a single step. I defy these hon. gentlemen to show us one single communication they have made to the home government in respect to what I consider to be the just demands of Canadians in regard to our position upon the British market. They have never moved one step in that direction. Well, this is a strange position for these hon. gentlemen to occupy. A couple of days ago, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, I believe it was, told us that, perhaps, in thirty or forty years, we might expect the realization of our hopes, but, we all know, that in England there is no better way of awakening public opinion than by just such representations as I say this government have failed to make. What did Lord Salisbury say after the convention which took place in Ottawa in 1894 ? I believe the resolutions of that convention were conveyed to him. He stated that the idea of mutual preferential trade was a grand idea, that it was a just idea in so far as we were concerned, but, he said, we are living in a country where popular government prevails: public opinion has not yet moved in that direction, go out and preach the gospel of mutual preferential trade, and when the public of Great Britain will have become aware of the justness of your demands, of the fairness of your proposals, I have no doubt this idea will then be realized. What have, these hon. gentlemen done to move public opinion in England ? Oh, we have commissions to sit upon poor civil servants and employees, commissions that cost thousands of dollars, most of which money has been uselessly spent: but, why have we not a commission, which would cost very little in comparison with the results to be attained, to inquire into this question of vital Mr. MONK.
importance to us, a commission that would sit and do just such a work as was done by that gentleman from Nova Scotia who obtained the thousand guinea prize for an essay on fair trade. I forget his name, but he is well known in public life. Why have we not a commission to study the question, and bring the results of its studies both before the British public and the public of our own country ? I say that this inaction is guilty, and that it indicates that the government are not alive to the importance of our demand in that regard. Have we found any of the members of the government taking an active interest, a live interest, in the congresses of the boards of trade which have taken place since they occupied the Treasury benches, and endeavouring, through these congresses, to move public opinion in the proper direction ? It has been a policy of absolute inaction. We have a High Commissioner in England, we pay a considerable salary to that gentleman, and it is proper that we should have near the home government, a man in that position. It is, I take it, his chief mission to represent to the home government what our interests are, particularly in commercial matters. Has he received any instructions? Has he been requested to make this a cardinal question during his mission in Great Britain, and to endeavour to move public opinion there in the right direction. I defy the government to give us any proof that they communicated with our High Commissioner, asking him to interest the government of England on our behalf and to move public opinion in so far as he could in a direction which is favourable to our interests. The government have not sent representatives to the chief centres of England to test public opinion and to suggest to us the best means of directing it in our favour. And when we come to the press which supports the present government, we find throughout its writings the same policy of despair, and of flippant contempt for every effort made to secure the inestimable boon of mutual preferential trade. We find the Liberal press stating that any person who moves in that direction does not know what he is talking about, and that there is no hope that the present condition of things will change. If we are to believe these gentlemen opposite we are to remain exactly as we are. We are to have no favoured consideration in any of the great markets of Europe in which we might trade, while upon the British market itself we are to be placed absolutely on a par with every foreign nation which raises up a high tariff wall against British goods. Well, Sir, to my mind that position is one that cannot last for a very long time. Have this government invited the consideration of the other colonies to this important question which interests every one of the great dependencies of Great Britain ? No, Sir, they have not sought the support of one of
the great colonies to lielp ns towards the achievement of mutual preferential trade. Their policy is one of absolute inactivity. And as regards personal efforts of the ministers, I think the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) was perfectly right in saying that the government had absolutely stumbled into this policy. We who sat in the last parliament know that when the preference was first proposed the responsible representatives of the government stated that the preference was to be extended to every country in the world, and when they did restrict the preference to Great Britain they never endeavoured to attract the attention of the English government to what I consider a most legitimate demand on our part. When the right hon. the Prime Minister went to England he was the first to declare that we had no desire for mutual preferential trade, but that on the contrary we offered the preference as a free gift and we did not expect anything in return. Since then other ministers have crossed the ocean and what have they done in the way of obtaining this, to us admittedly inestimable advantage of mutual preferential trade. East summer four of our ministers went to England, but they did nothing in this matter. Why, if we are to believe what the gossips tell us, three of those ministers wTent over on the war path. They went to France for the purpose of returning with the scalp of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and they were busy with very different things than the securing of a proper market for Canadian products in England. And, Sir, they failed even in the object for which they crossed the ocean. The three ministers who are known in Quebec as ' the Three Musketeers ' returned in one ship, and the Minister of Public Works apprised that there was some conspiracy directed against him returned in another ship. It reads almost like one of Marryat's novels or a chapter from Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island. and what is strange, the Minister of Public Works got here before them, because while they were on the high seas shooting the sun and trying to find out where Labrador was, he had arrived in Quebec and had maintained the position which he thought -and probably properly thought-he was entitled to in this government.
When the British government concluded this modus vivendi with Germany, a modus vivendi under the terms of which we in Canada are sacrificed, did the Canadian government intervene to obtain for our products in Germany at least an equivalent position with that of British goods ? No, Sir, they never moved. They never made any effort in that direction either before or since, and to-day we are in the unfortunate position in the German market, which was pointed out by my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) who replied to the Minister of Finance, and no steps have been taken to rectify that situation. I believe that the sentiment prevails
through Canada as it prevails in my own province, that in giving a preference to England we are entitled in return to a preference in the British market. Last year when we discussed this question I communicated to the House a very able report adopted by the Chambre du Commerce, of Montreal, which is composed of men who belong to all political parties, businessmen and bankers, and they were unanimously of opinion that the present situation is one which can only be of a most transitory nature, and that we must have such a zollverein between the British dependencies and the mother country, as will secure for Canada a favoured position for her products in every portion of the British Empire. In supporting the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition, I am perfectly sure I am voicing the opinion of the people of the province of Quebec. [DOT]
Before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to make an allusion to some remarks which fell from my hon. friend from Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil). The hon. gentleman (Mr. Marcil) deemed it necessary to apologize for the vote of the province of Quebec in the last election, a proceeding which to my mind was absolutely uncalled for. I am not aware that any member of this House has made any reflection or any complaint as to the verdict given by the province of Quebec. 1 am pleased to say that even outside of this House I have not heard from any member of my own party any word of reproach. X have heard nothing but the kindest observations so far as the province of Quebec is concerned.


Mr. BOURASSA.: What about the letter of the member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, what about it ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Did you read it ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) read it ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, what is his opinion V


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: He says the vote in Quebec was entirely due to racial feeling.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not read that ; but I must confess that if that is what the hon. member for Pictou stated, he is not a resident of the province of Quebec, and in that regard I think he is mistaken.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr.   MONIC@: The fact is, Sir, we on this side of the House are in favour of freedom of elections, and we consider that the province of Quebec was free to vote as it liked. That great province during a long time supported the Conservative party- gave a most generous support to that party. Upon the question of the national policy, which is so derided by hon. gentlemen op-



[Stage Direction]
jjosite, 1 do not think the province of Quebec has any reason to be ashamed of its record, because it supported that policy -.for many years. Speaking as a member of the Conservative party, I do not consider the province of Quebec as estranged entirely from us and our policy-by no means. In fact, I must state frankly that I believe elections in the province of Quebec are carried on pretty much as they are anywhere else. Public questions are studied and examined and judged by our people with great accuracy. That is my own personal opinion. In fact, 1 would go the length of saying very frankly that 1 do not believe there is any province In this Dominion where such a keen interest is taken in the great public questions, such as the one now under discussion, as in the province of Quebec ; and the great issues before the country were certainly amply discussed in that province during the last election. Of *course, any man who would say boldly that considerations of race, so far, at any rate, as the right lion. Prime Minister being of the nationality of the majority of that province was concerned, were absolutely not considered by the electorate, would, I think be considerably mistaken. But in that, as lion, gentlemen will admit, there are limits, which it is easy for any man of judgment to establish in his own mind. But other questions were discussed, and to my mind it would certainly be unfair to that great province to say that in the verdict which it gave in the last election it was led purely and simply by racial considerations. The fact is there were other causes affecting the result of the elections in that province and it would be most unfair to say that that cause alone operated. Of course, hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House know that not only in the province of Quebec, but everywhere else, in the heat and struggle which accompanies an electoral contest, parties who are not very responsible sometimes give utterance to sentiments which savour of violence and perhaps appeals to prejudice. But I say truthfully that I am not aware that in that respect the province of Quebec is any worse than any other province. I will give you an instance. Any one who would calmly and coolly sit down and group together and print in a pamphlet, opinions which might hurt the members from the province of Ontario- any one who would cull articles taken from the Quebec press, supposing such articles existed, and group them in a pamphlet, and coolly circulate that pamphlet through the province of Ontario, would be considered as acting unpatriotically and without judgment. Hon. members know that in the heat of the last election there was issued a pamphlet which did ns on this side of the House a great deal of harm. That pamphlet purported to contain -I never myself had time to verify it- articles from certain newspapers, purported , Mr. MONK.
to give chapter and verse for those articles; and it was circulated just before the election. I speak of it with some knowledge, because when I saw that pamphlet, I confess to you frankly, I thought I was a goner.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: When you had your friends' literature ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We had our press literature, but we had not a red pamphlet. We know that in England, where elections are properly carried on, as far as they can be, things of that kind are sometimes resorted to. But that red pamphlet, I tell yon frankly, I believe accounted for the defeat of some of us.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: Does the hon. gentleman allude to pamphlet No. 6 ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Oh, no ; it was a far more deadly pamphlet than that. At that moment, when I deemed that everything was lost, the man who came to my rescue was a gentleman who sits on the front row of government benches ; I speak of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) ; and I for one felt like crossing the floor of the House and giving him my thanks for the service lie had rendered me. I do not know how he would take it, so I prefer giving him my thanks from this distance. When we got the manifesto of the hon. member for North Norfolk, in which he proposed over his own signature that a British corps should be sent to garrison Quebec, I thought he had rendered me a great service ; and I must confess to you, if it was raising the race cry, that I made good use of that manifesto. After I had used it several times, I thought the red pamphlet had lost a good deal of its virtue.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Will the hon. gentleman add that in consequence of that manifesto the hon. member for North Norfolk was chosen by the Conservative party as their candidate in Ontario ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not know that, and I am not aware of It yet.


Hon. Mr. TISDAEE.: I can only say that ' the hon. member for North Norfolk is paired with a good Conservative this session on all .party questions.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He was not opposed by them.
Mi'. MONK. I would not like the House to suppose that the election in the province of Quebec turned on these questions. I mention them simply as incidents. After we got that manifesto, the people in my county at any rate thought things were pretty well squared up, and they came to the conclusion that if, as alleged, the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) breakfasted off a Catholic every morning, then that the hon. member for North Nor. folk dined off a Frenchman.


Mr. SPROULE.: The diet seems to have agreed with them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I could give numberless instances in which the population of that province was by no means governed by mere sentimentality. Hon. members from that province will bear me out when I say that there probably never was or will be a man who was a greater popular idol than the late Honors Mercier. In 1890 he was in the zenith of his power, in 1892, as far as I could judge, the affection of the people for his person had not in any way changed, but on account of the acts of his government-acts for which probably he himself was not responsible-there was a vote which swept him and his friends from power. That with other incidents which I could quote prove that the people of the province of Quebec, when it comes to an election, exercise their better judgment and are not, as is believed in some quarters, entirely governed by feelings or prejudice of race and religion.


Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).: Are we to infer that there is a sweep coming soon now ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I believe there is, but if I entettained the idea that that population was governed solely by feelings of that kind, I would despair almost of the advancement of this country. I would despair of an element which allowed itself to be governed entirely by such feelings ; and if I remain in public life, and give, such as they may be worth, my services to that province, it is because I entertain the conviction that (such is not the case. I entertain a firm abiding hope in that population. Hon. members who are perhaps strangers to that province will believe me when I say that it is almost incredible the progress which the French Canadian population of Quebec have made within the last quarter of a century. Within the time I have attained the years of manhood, their progress in elementary education, in the higher education, in science, arts and literature, and in agriculture, has not been excelled, if equalled, by any other population in this Dominion. Their progress in agriculture alone is something which does them infinite honour. In every calling of life, banking, business, there has been progress ; they are a population gifted in an extraordinary degree by Providence-a population that has realized that there is no bar to their progress, and that is the greatest hope I have in them. They desire to go forward, they have no other home but this country, no other desire but to build up this country in common with other nationalities. Some people would perhaps say that they entertain the expectation of establishing here a dependency of France, but those who know the people of Quebec know that that idea never had any existence in their minds. The people of Quebec know as well as I do what
the colonial rule of continental nations is, and I venture to say that they would not for a moment think of accepting the colonial rule of France, though attached, as they are, to that country, by tradition. They could not stand it for six weeks. And the annexation sentiment, which has existed in some part or other of this country at times, does not exist in the province of Quebec today. Our people have only one desire-this is essentially their home, their country-and that desire is to build up this country and to act in that respect in conjunction with other nationalities. This is calculated to give every man who has the future of this country at heart great hope, because these people are an important element, an element that must be counted with, and I believe that when important crisises come upon this country, when we require to stand together, whatever may be the reason, when we require to put our shoulders to the wheel in order to make this great inheritance which Providence has given us a grand and powerful country, they will not be found behind any other nationality.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: The debate, Mr. Speaker, which has gone on for many days, has been interesting and brought out many subjects which I would like to discuss, but I recognize the fact that there are others who desire to address this House on the policy of the government and that proposed by the opposition, and that it is desirable a vote should soon be taken, and therefore I shall endeavour to make the few remarks 1 have to offer on this occasion as brief as possible. I may say at the outset that, in my opinion, the concluding remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken are of a character which meets with my approval, and which I think will tend to the benefit of the country. With the tone of the hon. gentleman's speech I have no fault to find, but when he endeavoured to point out that on this side of the House it was difficult to ascertain what particular views we held with regard to tariff matters, it seemed to me that the hon. gentleman's remarks would have been more apt if applied to his own side. After stating that we on this side did not all hold the same views, as might be expected from a party supposed to act together, he very frankly told us that he had his own views peculiar to himself, and that while the opposition held certain views, it was no part of their plan or policy to let the country know what these were. We all believe, the hon. gentleman said, in lying low. Our policy, I understood him to say, is to let the government go on and not interfere, and if we have any plan that we think would be better for governing the country, if we have any policy that would conduce more to its best interests, it is no part of our duty to give the country the benefit of it. but we will content ourselves with just playing the part of critics on any course pursued by the party

In power. Tlien I would ask the hon. gentleman, it that be the policy of liis party- and he, as first lieutenant ought to be able to speak for it-how comes it that this amendment was brought in by his leader. The hon. gentleman is second only to his leader, he is the first lieutenant of his party, but did not happen to be In the House at time the resolution was introduced. That resolution was therefore seconded by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) and by it we are given the declared policy of the Conservative party. These hon. gentlemen then did not follow my hon. friend's advice, they did not lie low. But the hon. gentleman happened to be absent at the time, and in his absence that policy which he advocates was lost sight of, and we have now a declaration of what the policy of the opposition is. If the hon. gentleman desired that the course he advocates should be followed, he should not have left his seat.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Perhaps the hon. minister will allow me to say that I was here all the time.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Then I have done the hon. gentleman unintentionally an injustice, for I did not suppose, judging by the policy of lying low which he had advocated, that he could have been present when the policy of his party was being crystallized into a resolution.


James Joseph Hughes: Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Customs, as usual, was absent.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think that the Minister of Customs is generally found in his seat. If then there is a differ-lence on the other side with regard to the policy to be followed by the opposition, how can these hon. gentlemen expect that on this side of the House we should be perfectly agreed concerning every individual item in the tariff. Surely, it is not to be expected that any political party can be one in opinion on every one of the three hundred or four hundred dutiable articles in the tariff. Nor can it be expected from hon. gentlemen on the other side. I have not the slightest doubt that some gentlemen on that side believe that the duty on kerosene should be removed, that others think it should only be reduced, and that still others are opposed to any reduction, but believe, being true protectionists at heart, in making the duty high enough to enable the article to be produced in this country. Mr. Speaker, we have to act on general principles, and when these gentlemen ask what is our policy they ought to know it. It is the same policy which has prevailed during the past three years-the same policy which was in operation when parliament last dissolved and we went to the country.
What is the policy they offer ? We were told that the amendment declared it, and that thus declared it was to be accepted.


Mr. PATERSON.: When it was offered, it was interpreted by the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite to be the same old policy that was adopted in 1876-twenty-five years ago. Here is a party, in this progressive country, this country that is going forward by leaps and bounds, that finds the height of its ambition, finds its course for the future in a policy that was adopted twenty-five years ago, but was since discarded and cast out by the people. I am glad they brought it forward. During the last election contest, I was on many platforms. The ablest financial exponent on the opposition side, Hon. George E. Foster declared their policy to be what the hon. gentlemen have formulated in the first part of their resolution-a reversion to the old policy- the national policy, and the old condition of things that existed in 1878. He gloried in the position. To illustrate it he told a story -he told it on platform after platform- about how the Conservative wigwam stood where it had always stood ; the same winds sighed around it, and the same tunes were played in it as long ago ; and he declared in the fulness of his heart, that he had come out into the country to take the Liberals who, he said, had been deserted by those who formulated the Liberal policy, to take them by the hand and lead them into the old Tory wigwam that had never changed. For my part, I asked every Liberal in this country who, for any cause, felt dissatisfied with his party and its conduct in the past, if he wished to march back into the old Tory wigwam of 1878. No. The Liberal party have moved forward, and the country has moved forward with them. Let these gentlemen who wish to go into their old wigwam go back twenty-five years and dwell there. This country will not go with them, nor will this government or party. Our motto is ' Onward.' Progress is what is wanted in this country. The hon. gentleman taunts us because we on this side of the House do not agree. He longs to see his party in power, that there may be unanimity of sentiment in tne government. We have had some indications of the harmony that prevails, so far as views of public questions are concerned, among hon. gentlemen opposite in their speeches. Their chief financial critic, whose task it was to reply to the Finance Minister, and whose words, therefore, are considered as carrying great weight, made part of his utterance on that occasion-and words spoken on such an occasion are likely to be spoken with care-to the effect that the policy of the party opposite was, that these bonuses to railway lines should cease. But, we have heard from one or two hon. gentlemen opposite-yes, and from more-a most excited declaration, that it was this government's bounden duty to go on bonusing railways- especially in the province of Nova Scotia, said one hon. gentleman from that province. Here is harmony. Where are they in re-

ference to this question ? Where are they in reference to the preferential tariff ? Are they not at sixes and sevens in this respect ?


Mr. TAYLOR.: No.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman cannot have heard the speech of the leader of the opposition, when he declared he was not prepared to declare for the repeal of the preference, that it was an ungracious thing to do, and Conservatives were not hound to do so. Yet the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) declared that he is in favour of repealing it. And I take it that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) who has just addressed the House, and whose policy is to lie low, comes sufficiently out of his cover to indicate, especially by the sentences in which he speaks of our losing $2,000,000 through the preference, that he is prepared to do away with the preferential tariff. But, they have not the courage to declare themselves. They do not take a stand which is worthy of a great Canadian party, that as a party they are in favour of the repeal of the preference. They ask what our policy is. Our policy is a revenue tariff policy, and coupled with that is a preference to Great Britain. And where do they stand in reference to these matters ? They dare not tell us. And, that being the case, they might well be excused from taunting members on this side of the House because on every little item of the tariff they do not happen to hold views absolutely alike. Let us contrast the two policies. We are happily in a position where we can institute comparisons. For eighteen years we had their policy, this policy they have laid down as a policy for the future. And we know its results. And you have had the policy of the Liberal party, as plainly declared, and as maintained in practice under this government, a policy of a revenue tariff, with a preference for Great Britain. You have had that policy for four years, and the people and parliament of Canada are in excellent position to say which policy they should choose. What have been the results of our policy ? The foreign trade of the country in four years increased $140,000,000. That is, our foreign trade increased in these four years by $30,000,000 more than it increased in all the years from confederation down to 1890. Last year alone, the increase in the foreign trade was within a few millions of being as great as in the whole eighteen years of their policy. In these whole eighteen years the trade only increased $60,000,000, while in one year, last year, it increased by $59.000.000. The exports of Canadian products, from 1898 to 1900, exceeded the exports for the previous four years by $155,000,000. The exports of the produce of the farm, from 1896 to 1900, exceeded the exports for the previous four years by $83,000,000. And these hon. gentlemen opposite wish to tui'n back the hand upon the dial of time, to go
back to a policy that was tried for eighteen years, and the result of which was almost complete stagnation in this country, and ask the people of this country to approve that policy. One hon. gentleman asked me, what had the government to do with all this. I reply that the Liberal party have never claimed, nor have the government in any way claimed, that this government was entitled to the credit. These hon. gentlemen say : You may thank Providence for that, and not the government.
Humbly and reverently we recognize the hand of Providence in our national affairs and in blessing this country as it has blessed it among the nations of the earth, and we ask not that credit shall be given to us for the benefits conferred upon us by Providence. But I ask the gentleman who interrupted me by saying, What have you to do with that?-I ask if, during the eighteen years when they bore rule in this country, they were all years of stringency and of famine ? Was that the result of Tory rule in this country for eighteen years ? Will you take that position ? Did not Providence smile on this land ? You j know it smiled upon it under Conservative rule as it does under Liberal rule. Did not I the sun shine and the rain fall then just as it does under the present administration ? What, then, makes the difference ?
1 Surely the conclusion is inevitable that the men and the party who are controlling affairs now know better how to use the blessings that Providence confers upon this country, and in a manner better fitted to the interests of this country. That is what i we claim for the government, we claim nothing more. What means this great increase of exports of farm produce ? The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) gave 1 us one of the reasons, namely, that under this progressive government steps have been taken for filling up the North-west Territories. During the four years the Liberals have been in power that country has been filling up to a greater extent than during the eighteen years the Conservatives were in power. And you are finding the benefits. Mining regulations, liberal in their nature, facilities given for developing that portion of the wealth of this country, the Minister of Agriculture coming to this House and boldly asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars to perfect a cold storage system by which the products of this country are carried to the old country and there marketed at higher prices than they were under hon. gentlemen-these things account in part for it. and all other measures that have been taken by a government and a party alive to the interests of this country have contributed to these results. The member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), in the course of his speech, said :
While a great deal of time is taken up both in the House and in the country discussing the

extent of our foreign trade, little or nothing is said with regard to our interprovincial trade, and I think the Minister of Finance might very well have dealt with that feature of our commerce in his budget speech. I speak of our interprovincial trade which moves from east to west and vice versa, which our railways and transportation companies are designed to accommodate, and which is the chief reason for the existence of our manufacturing industries. That interprovincial trade has been built up enormously within the last twenty-five years, and in connection with it I would quote to the House an extract from a speech delivered by the Hon. George Brown.
And lie quoted from a speech of the Hon. George Brown, remarking upon the great increase In iaterpro vinci al trade after confederation, and laying down the rule that where you have a large interprovincial trade you have a large export trade. The hon. member for Bast Toronto, whom X recognize as an authority on commercial matters, commented upon it in this way :
The Hon. George Brown in these words refers to the importance of our interprovincial traffic, and he also indicates that when we have prosperous interprovincial traffic we have also large exports and imports. This much we may be sure of, namely, that if we are prosperous within ourselves, we will also be prosperous in our trade to and from foreign countries.
That is the sentiment of the hon. member for East Toronto. Now I am going to reason backwards, and by a parity of reasoning. He says when you have good trade at home, interprovincial trade and domestic trade flourishing, you will have large exports and imports, you will have a large foreign trade. We have not the means of measuring our home and domestic trade, the advances it has made. But I apply the test the member for East Toronto gave us himself to ascertain how we are in that respect, and when I say that there has been an increase in foreign trade of .$140,000,000 in four years, the logical conclusion follows, according to that hon. gentleman's reasoning, that if an enormous increase took place in our foreign trade, how great must have been the increase that took place in our domestic trade. Now, I put this argument to that hon. gentleman, who is recognized as an authority on commercial matters. Reasoning backwards, I think every one will admit that what I have said bears out the conclusion that I have arrived at, that instead of the industries of this country being languishing and dying, while this foreign trade was going on by leaps and bounds as shown in the figures I have given you, the factories and machine shops throughout the towns and cities of this Dominion were working many of them long through the hours of the night, with double staffs in order to keep up with the orders that were lying upon their desks ; and I am gazing into the countenance of a member of the oppo-


William Paterson: sition who knows that what I am saying is true, as they do all.
The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), whom it is always a pleasure to hear, who lays down propositions with great force, said that he could not find out exactly where we stood on the tariff question, because, he said, some of the members declared that we had a protective tariff, others declared that it was a free trade tariff, and he was at a loss to describe what kind of a tariff it was. Some hon. gentlemen on the other side declare that we have kept their old national policy, and that it has given the prosperity we enjoy to-day. Others tell us that we have destroyed that tariff, and that we are ruining the industries of the country ; and so the hon, member for East York, listening to the utterances of those around him, became bewildered and unable to decide what our policy was. He told this House what statesmanship was :
Now, in what does statesmanship consist? X wish to direct the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to this matter.
He was directing attention to this side of the House.
Statesmanship consists in compromising in some way antagonistic principles. There is a principle of free trade, and there is a principle of protection, and each is advocated by certain doctrinaires. But the statesman finds some way of compromising these principles and of doing something for his country by that compromise.
And I expected him to add : When some of my friends tell me that this is a protective tariff the Liberals have, and others tell me it is a free trade tariff, I am forced to the conclusion that it is one of those happy compromises that may be described as statesmanship. Our friends opposite say, when you quote the figures of the exports :	Well, that is very true,
there has been a great increase in the foreign commerce of Canada, but that is world-wide, it exists in the United States as well as in Canada. I admit that the United States is a mighty country, but when we institute comparisons between this land and the United States we institute a comparison with a country which, perhaps, taken all in all, has the greatest natural facilities and riches of any country in the world. But we do not shrink from the comparison. If you look up the figures you will find that the exports of domestic produce from the United States, exclusive of coin and bullion, increased last year over the previous year by 14 per cent. Similar exports from Canada increased at the rate of 23 per cent. That is comparing Canada with the United States greatly to [DOT]the advantage of Canada. The grand aggregate trade of the United States for last year increased over the previous year by 13* percent. The same trade in Canada increased by 19 per cent. On the basis of a population of 76,000.000 the foreign trade of the United
States last year was $32 per head, while for Canada on the basis of a population of 6,000,000 it was $63 per head. The grand aggregate trade of Canada increased in 1900 oyer 1896 by 60 per cent, while that of the United States for the same period increased by only 2S per cent. So, I give that as an answer to hon. gentlemen opposite when they think that they can wipe away the effect and force of these figures by declaring that the United States have equally prospered. If the two countries were equal it would be a grand thing for us to be able to say, which we were not able to say, under hon. gentlemen opposite, but, when we have passed them as we have, then, I am glad that we have had pointed to us that country so that we might institute the comparison that we have done.
Now let us look at the preference tariff and ascertain whether it is any benefit to us. Mr. Clancy, or the hon. member for Bothwell-I beg his pardon, for I desire to speak with respect of him as he endeavours to discuss a question of this kind on its merits-in discussing this matter made a statement, which, unfortunately, in the way in which it is phrased in the ' Hansard,' leaves an impression that I am sure, the hon. gentleman does not wish it should leave at all. Speaking of the increased trade with Great Britain under the preference tariff, he proceeded by making a comparison of the increase of our foreign trade with different countries, testing it by percentages and making out that the percentage of increased trade with Great Britain was much less than the percentage of increase with other countries, showing, that, therefore, we had not done so very much in the way of increasing our trade with Great Britain. I might point out that percentages are valuable as means of comparison when circumstances are somewhat nearly similar, while at other times you may institute percentage comparisons that are absolutely misleading and are of no value at all. If the hon. gentleman will pardon me, I am forced to say that I consider this one of the cases in which the remark I last made will apply. He quotes the increase of our foreign trade with Belgium, Italy, Australia, Portugal, France, Germany, other countries not classified, Great Britain, United States, South America, Holland and Newfoundland. He says that our trade increased with these countries to the following extent :
Per cent.
Belgium	1,121
Italy	 359
Australia	    214
Portugal	 176
France	  136
Germany	 126
Other countries not classified...	71
Great Britain	 61


United States ....: [DOT]	 54
South America	 43
Holland	 34
Newfoundland	 20
He comments upon that in the following words :
That shows conclusively that the sentiment in our favour, of which these hon. gentlemen are boasting

That is the sentiment in our favour as a result of the preferential tariff granted by Canada to Great Britain.
-has had such little effect that Great Britain, as a consumer of Canadian products, stands only eighth upon the list.
I am sure the hon. gentleman did not want the country to infer that in the consumption of goods exported by this country, Great Britain stood eighth on the list of all other countries. That would be too patent a mistake for any one to make. He says that the percentage-he does not say that, but I suppose that is what he means-is eighth on the list. What are the facts, and you cannot go into that question of percentages without seeing that they are utterly valueless.


Mr. CLANCY.: Are they not quite as apt and valuable as the percentages the hon. gentleman states himself in regard to the United States ? While the percentage is low in the United States, the hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that the quantity exported is vastly greater than the quantity exported from Canada.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, I think the hon. gentleman's point is not well taken, when there is the enormous trade that there is between Canada and Great Britain and the United States and Great Britain. While the aggregate trade of Canada is more nearly double per head of what it is in the United States, then, the percentage being applied, is a fair test and in fact it would be against Canada if it were anything, but when you take a case like this in which the hon. gentleman says that we increased our trade with Belgium by 1,121 per cent, and with Great Britain only 61 per cent, the comparison is utterly valueless, because the fact is that the total increase of trade with Belgium of 1,121 per cent was $764,387, while the increase of trade with Great Britain, with this less percentage, was $33,843,000. So, these figures are not to be used to establish the contention of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Will the hon. Minister of Customs give us the figures of the increased imports from the United States and from Great Britain along with the percentages ? Just give us the figures of the increased trade with each country.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have not that with me, but the hon. gentleman will be able to get it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think it would be opportune just now.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think the hon. gentleman will find that when he



gets these figures that the increase has been most satisfactory as far as Canada is concerned, and that they will bear out what 1 have said in relation to it. X have pointed out that these figures which have been quoted by the hon. member for Bothwell do not give a correct idea of the facts. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem now to be getting a little bolder in their attacks upon this preference. They will not say that they are in favour of repealing it. They fear the force of public opinion against them, but they seek to minimize the benefits that flow to us from it. An hon. gentleman the other night, while making a long speech, enumerated a great many articles in regard to which he said the preference was of no use to us at all, that we got no benefit from it, that there was no advantage even on goods coming from Great Britain, because the duties in some cases were made higher than they had been before in the general tariff and that, therefore, any benefit there was had been neutralized. In illustrating that a personal allusion was made to the Minister of Customs. I do not allude to it for that reason, because an insinuation cast out against any hon. gentlemen in this House is something that can be accomplished by anybody whose tastes run in that direction, and who are not too careful as to whether the statements they make are accurate or not. I simply use it for the purposes of illustration. That hon. gentleman said :
Let us take the item ol biscuits, $19,781. The duty was raised by 2J per cent. I do not know whether it was done in the interest of the Minister of Customs, who has a large biscuit manufactory in Brantford, but certainly in that respect we do not get any benefit from the preferential tariff.
1	leave the personal matter alone, but I use this as an illustration of inaccurate statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite. He says that we raised the duty on biscuits- he apparently means sweetened biscuits-to 274 per cent under the general tariff, adding 21 per cent to the duty which he says was done in my interests. If he will get an hon. gentleman who sits near him to figure it out for him, and it is a very simple problem, if he will take the total amount of duty paid on sweetened biscuits last year and divide it by the value that was entered, he will find the duty actually paid on these sweetened biscuits was 254 per cent, instead of 274 per cent, as it was under the old tariff of the national policy. There was
2	per cent less actual duty paid than there would have been paid under the old tariff in force.
But the point I want to make is : that it was not only biscuits that came from Great Britain, but there was a large quantity , coming from the United States and other j places, as well, and the whole quantity coming in under the higher rate from countries not under the operation of a preferen-Mr. PATERSON.
tial tariff, was reduced 2 per cent. If that is a sample of how gentlemen opposite make statements that are absolutely devoid of fact, and if these are to be read by the people and not inquired into, no wonder that certain sections of the people may sometimes be misled. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) made a speech in this debate, and we find that he does not take the same view as some of his political friends, who say that the preferential tariff has not reduced the cost of goods to the people of Canada. I may state here that when we introduced the preferential tariff it was not entirely out of love to Great Britain, and losing sight of every other consideration, because one of the main reasons why we proposed it was that it would lessen the taxation of the people. Now, while some of the gentlemen opposite say the preferential tariff has not reduced the cost of certain articles which you get from Great Britain, the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart) told us that woollen goods were coming in from England to such an extent that there is danger that the large woollen industry of Canada will be wiped out of existence. I am bound to say that I have great sympathy with every legitimate industry in this country. I would be very sorry indeed if the effect of the preferential tariff would be the cause of gentlemen who have their money invested in the woollen industry having their fears realized in that respect ; but I hope and trust, and I have reason to believe, that with the energies of the people engaged in that industry, and with the capital at their command, they will rise to the occasion and fully maintain their position. I may say that one of the benefits that was derived by the reduction of the tariff by this government to a revenue basis in many lines of industry, was what it must inevitably always be, that it stimulated the energies of those who are engaged in different industries so that they brought their best brains to bear on their work ; bought the very best machinery to be obtained, and notably in this woollen industry they produced an article that is a credit to Canada. I know there is a feeling in the breast of some people that goods that come from a distant place must be better than those we get at home, but I hope the time will come that when Canadians go to purchase clothes they will ask to be shown Canadian manufactured goods, and I think they will admit with me that we have arrived at a point of perfection in this product which is a credit to the men who are engaged in the industry. In view of the energy and enterprise which the woollen manufacturers of Canada have displayed in their industry, I do not believe that it will be crushed out. It is certainly not the desire of any Liberal that a single one of the great industries of this country shall come to loss or suffer harm. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart), I think, grossly exaggerated
the extent of the Imports of woollens from the old country. There is no doubt that in this line Great Britain benefited by the preferential tariff, and perhaps to a greater extent than in many other lines, but while they have benefited in Great Britain, it, of course, has caused a reduction in the taxes paid by the people of Canada. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) said :
What we contend is that the policy of the present government, by raising so large a revenue from customs duties, is having the effect of shutting up the factories of this country, notably the woollen factories. Look at the great increase in the importations of woollen goods, $13,000,000 worth, or more than double what was imported in 1897.	.
The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is wrong in these figures. I have the Trade and Commerce figures here, and the Imports in 1S97 of dutiable woollens-and that is all we are concerned with-amounted to $7,125,748, while last year the amount was $9,801,565. There is an increase since 1897, but in 1896, under the old policy, the dutiable woollens imported amounted to $8,670,691. I grant there has been an increase, but it is an increase not as great in. proportion as the increase in the total imports of goods from foreign countries. If there are gentlemen present who are interested in the woollen industry by having invested in it, I would ask them not to be too hopeless in the matter, not to be discouraged, but to continue to display the energy they have shown in the past and I have no doubt that with the excellence of their goods they will find that the preferential tariff-which 1 grant presses more closely on them than on others-they will find that it is to the general benefit of the people of Canada, and that it has not been to their detriment either.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What did the minister say the woollen imports for last year were ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: According to the Trade and Commerce table, the value of dutiable goods for 1900 was $9,801,565.	[DOT]


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: It is more than that in your own report.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This is the table of the trade and commerce, in which it is more condensed, but it will agree, I think, with the Trade and Navigation Returns.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The Trade and Navigation Returns give more than that.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken, but I will not speak positively on that point. They should agree, because the trade and commerce is a compilation of the trade and navigation returns, and although not made in my department, I have no doubt they are made correctly. Now, Mr. Speaker, allusion 674
has been made to the iron bounties and we have been taunted by gentlemen opposite that we have carried out in this what they say is the very essence of protection. That was a policy adopted by the late government and maintained by the present government, the distinction being that while almost no progress was made under the old government, great strides have taken place under the system that was adopted by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) when he brought in his bounty resolutions in 1897. In the course of his speech he (Hon. Mr. Fielding) alluded to the fact that in the payment of these bounties, after the 1st of July, he intended to make them a charge upon capital account or on a special account which will go to capital account, thus placing these bounties in the same category as subsidies to railways, and should not be charged against the revenue of any one particular year, for the reason that you should not charge a railway subsidy to ordinary expenditure, because that railway subsidy once paid you get the benefit of it for all time to come without further payment. So with the iron bounties. For five years, under a diminishing sliding scale, you are paying out moneys in order to develop an enterprise. At the end of five years you have the interest developed, and you have the resulting benefit for all time to come, without anything more being paid by the country. Therefore, it is not fair to charge against any one year the expenditure for a benefit which you are to have during all future years. I think, therefore, the proposition of the Finance Minister is one that will commend itself to the House. Under the system pursued by hon. gentlemen opposite-and it is a system we have followed in the department over which I have the honour to preside for the time being-these bounties have been paid out of customs revenue. That is, the customs revenue has been diminished by the amount of the bounty we paid to the iron manufacturers, which should never have come out of the customs revenue. We pay refunds out of the customs revenue ; that is, we have taken into the revenue moneys which we have afterwards discovered should not have been paid, and we have refunded them. That is right enough. But, these bounties are paid out of money that never came into the customs or consolidated revenue at all. They are absolutely grants out of the public treasury, and, therefore, should not form part of the current expenditure. What the Finance Minister proposes is, that these iron bounties shall appear in the open light of day ; that men shall not have to take up the Auditor General's Report and search through the revenue and refunds to find out what bounties have been paid; but, that they will appear in one sum, so that, whether they amount to millions or hundreds of thousands, the people of this country will know what they have paid. This

government does not seek to hide any of its transactions, but wants them all to appear in tiie open light of day.
I want to speak briefly about the average rate of duty, and the percentage of reduction made by this tariff. I will not argue the question ; it is not necessary to argue with bon. gentlemen opposite ; the time is lost in doing so. You can take the Trade and Navigation Returns, and find out for yourself. It is figured out in one of the tables on one of the early pages of the report, by clerks who have no object in making it appear other than it should be. If you take the total imports of dutiable and free goods, and divide them by the total amount of duty paid, you will find that in 1900 the percentage of duty was less than 16 per cent on the average on all the goods, dutiable and free, which came into this country, while, under the old tariff, in 1896, the percentage was 18'28 per cent. That is a reduction of about 2j per cent, not from 100, but from 18i, which is equal to 12J per cent reduction in the tariff. I give this as a rough test. I do not mean to say that it is an exact test. You may import more of one class of goods in one year than in another ; and if these goods have a higher rate of duty, your calculation may be somewhat upset; but, as a rough test, this is of value. But, hon. gentlemen opposite, in criticising the tariff, say : Now that you have made corn free, there are some millions of bushels of corn brought in, and they are in the consumption column, while they have gone out to foreign countries ; you should take out these. In some cases they say, you should also take out coin and bullion. Well, that is fairly to be argued ; but, I must tell these hon. gentlemen that when millions of bushels of corn come into this country, to pass through our highways of commerce, enriching our shippers and railways, giving employment to the men handling it, I hold that they are valuable to this country. What are we sinking canals and building railways for ? Not only to carry the goods of our own country, but in the expectation of carrying a great portion of the traffic of the north-western states. Then, my hon. friend from Both-well (Mr. Clancy) wanted to know why the Finance Minister did not take out coin and bullion. Well, if you 1a><e out coin and bullion, there is shown to be between three and four million dollars of reduced taxation after these have been taken out. The hon. member for Bothwell shakes his head ; he thinks that is not correct : but. I can assure him that if he looks into it. he will admit that it is correct. The hon. gentleman said, alluding to the Finance Minister:
In making his comparison this year he includes coin and bullion for all the years covered by his comparison. And why does he do so? Because to do so tells in favour of his own position, for the quantity of coin and bullion imported into Canada in 1900 was larger than in Mr. PATERSON.
any previous year, and the effect of including them is to show a reduced percentage of taxation.
The hon. gentleman had not the proper faith in the honesty and fairness of the Finance Minister, or he would not have made that statement. The hon. member fell into this mistake. He looked hurriedly at the statement, and he saw that there was more coin and bullion imported this year than usual, and the Finance Minister, not having taken that out, he jumped to the conclusion that it should be out ; but, if the hon. gentleman will work out the proposition for himself, he will find that if coin and bullion had been omitted by the Finance Minister, the reduction would have been greater by TO of 1 per cent. The hon. member for Bothwell lost sight of the fact that the other goods which were included increased far more in proportion than the coin and bullion, and if you put them together, and make the reduction, the reduction would have- been greater with the coin and bullion out than it was with it in. The hon. gentleman still shakes his head. I want to prove it to him, and I am going to give himself as an authority ; he will not deny that. To prove the accuracy of his calculation, I will quote the hon. member for Bothwell. In the statement made by him on page 1562, unrevised ' Hansard,' he gives the rates for 1893 and 1900. exclusive of coin and bullion, and Indian corn not remaining in the country, as 19-19 for 1896, and 17.-21 for 1900. The Minister of Finance took credit for a saving of duty amounting to $3,292,230, after making due allowance for Indian corn. If he had deducted coin and bullion in making his calculations, he could have shown a saving of $3,300,977. Now, I think I have convinced the hon. member for Bothwell, for I have given himself as an authority on this matter, and he can work it out for himself.
If the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) were here, I would just like to make one observation by way of answer to an argument which is unworthy of the intelligence of hon. gentlemen opposite. But, time and again it is used. They say : You took $23,000,000 in your custom-houses last year, whereas we took only $19,000,000 when we were in ; so. you have wrung nine or ten million dollars more taxation out of the people than we did.
Hon. gentlemen opposite know that governments do not make the prices of goods in foreign countries. If the opposition got into power they could not rule the prices of yarn in the United States, or woollen goods in England, or wines in France or Germany. The law of supply and demand is what" governs this matter. Should these hon. gentlemen get into power, they could not compel any man or woman in this country to go into a store and buy a dollar's worth or $10 worth of goods. People go into stores to buy goods to satisfy them-
selves and not to carry out any government policy. Therefore, what blame can be attached to the government If $28,000,000 went into the treasury this last year as compared with $19,000,000 the previous year. There is only one thing for which the government can be held responsible and that is the imposing of customs duties. And according as the government lower or raise the duties, they may be blamed or praised by the people. And I have pointed out that we have lowered the duties, and that if we have received a revenue this year of $28,000,000 instead of $19,000,000, we have received it under a reduced rate of taxation.
On page 1520 of the ' Hansard,' I find that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) is reported as having said :
Sir Leonard Tilley in 1882 reduced taxation by one and a quarter million dollars, and in 1883 by a like amount.
That is correct. But turn back to these years, and you will find that Sir Leonard Tilley also reduced the rate of taxation, but that while the average rate of duty was slightly decreased, the revenue increased. In 1882 the revenue exceeded that of 1881 by over $3,000,000. Will these hon. gentlemen opposite then say that Sir Leonard Tilley wrung $3,000,000 of taxation out of the people ?
The hon. member for Pictou says that Sir Leonard Tilley reduced the taxation. So he did, but none the less he collected $3,000.000 more revenue in 1882 as compared with 1881, and in 1883 there was an excess of revenue over 1882 of nearly one million and a half dollars. Will hon. gentlemen opposite argue that in those two years Sir Leonard Tilley wrung four and a half million dollars of taxes more out of the people because that much more went into the treasury, and that despite the fact that he had reduced the rate of taxation ? If they will not, then they have no right to bring a similar charge against this government. We have reduced the rate of taxation, but still the revenue has increased by millions of dollars, and that increase was not wrung out of the people, but was the free will gift of a prosperous commun-'ity, augmenting in numbers as in wealth.
The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden), of whom I desire to speak with the greatest respect, for I think it will be admitted on all hands that he has imparted added dignity into the conduct of public affairs-that hon. gentleman, in introducing his resolution, spoke of the duty upon tobacco and the duty on sugar. With reference to the duty on tobacco, I need only point to the speech made by the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Cowan) last year, and also to that made by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) this session, in which are pointed out the great progress
made by this industry under the present tariff.
With reference to sugar, I think the hon. the leader of the opposition fell into a mistake. Of course he cannot be expected, owing to the multiplicity of his duties, to make a very close study of all these matters, but he made the statement that we had greatly increased the duty on sugar. Let me point out the mistake into which he fell, and into which he was led to some extent by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace), who ought to have known better. The hon. the leader of the opposition made this remark :
I desire, in passing, to mention to the Minister of Finance that his taxes on sugar were considerably increased in 1898. In that year he took from the people $1,324,329, and in 1900 $2,286,123.
That statement would lead one to believe that we had taken nearly a million dollars more out of the pockets of the people by the tax on sugar, and my hon. friend was rather led to that conclusion by the hon. member for West York. Now, there was in 1900 more duty to the extent of $961,724 paid on sugar, raw and refined, than in 1898. That is quite true. But we only imported 239,127,300 pounds in 1898, while in 1900 we imported 304,460,448 pounds, and you could not have an increase of 64,000,000 pounds of imports without getting more money into the treasury. But that does not mean that the increased revenue was due to any increase in the taxation.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman pretend to say that there is not a higher rate paid now than in 1896 1


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I will not hesitate to say that. If the hon. gen-teman had not asked the question and had waited a moment longer, he would have seen that, with my usual frankness, I would have done that without the question being asked. But I am leading up to this and am pointing out what was done in the matter of sugar. When the government came into power they found that the sugar duties stood in this position. They had previously varied in degree. They had been high. These hon. gentlemen talk of having put sugar on the free list in 1891-2. But all sugars were never put on the free list. What they did was to put all raw sugar under No. 14-sugars that are not fit to go on the table and be used in the family at all, but are only fit for the refiner and only bought by him-they put those absolutely on the free list, and on the refined sugar made out of these, they put 80 cents on the 100 pounds. In other words, while nothing went into the revenue at all from the raw sugar, of which hundred of millions of pounds were imported by the refiner, the refined sugar,

which is the only sugar used by the people, was taxed SO cents per 100 pounds. And if the protection theory that the duty aids the manufacturer holds good, that meant that the 80 cents, less the loss in refining, went into the pockets of the men engaged in that industry. That went on for a time. It was then pointed out that the duty was too high and the late government reduced it, still leaving raw sugar on the free list, to 64 cents per 100 pounds. They took off 16 cents. Well, if the refiner could live with 16 cents less protection, he could have lived on that reduced rate from the beginning. And if you apply 16 cents per 100 pounds to
250.000.	000 pounds of raw sugar, you will find it amounts to some hundreds of thousands of dollars, which the people paid, under the 80 cents duty, over and above what the Conservatives themselves thought was necessary in order to keep the sugar refiners in existence. Before they left office, these hon. gentlemen re-introduced a measure putting a duty on raw sugar. They put a duty of one-half cent per pound on raw sugar, such as the refiner uses, and made the duty on refined sugar $1.14, leaving the refiner a margin of 64 cents as before. As the refiner paid 50 cents on the raw sugar, they gave him 50 cents extra on the refined, making it $1.14. The present Finance Minister left the same duty of 50 cents on the raw sugar, but instead of imposing a duty of $1.14 on the refined, he reduced it to the even dollar, thus giving the refiner a net protection of 50 cents per 100 pounds instead of 64 cents. Take that 14 cents per 100 pounds and multiply it by
250.000.	000 pounds and figure out the saving for yourself. That makes a matter of some hundreds of thousands of dollars less paid by the people.
Now I come to answer my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). A year or two ago the Finance Minister, desiring to help the West India trade, introduced what was in force under the late government for a time prior to 1895, the polariscopic test. That is the test you make by the polariscope as to the saccharine strength of the sugar, in which a low grade saccharine sugar does not pay as high a duty as a high grade, but pays in proportion to its saccharine strength. And the Finance Minister of that time, so far as he could forecast it, tried to maintain the same rates of duty prevail. By this polariscopic test some of the sugars went below 50 cents a hundred pounds, and some Went above it, but the design was to have it run about as it had-50 cents on the raw sugar and $1 on the refined. In the operation of this polariscopic test it has turned out, as the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) has asked me, that there was last year a difference in favour of the refined of 56 cents, instead of 50 cents per hundred pounds. But we are still 8 cents per hundred pounds lower than they were. The Mr. PATERSON.
difference is accounted for in part by this- that the tariff was changed in an effort to secure better trade relations with other British colonies; sugar from British colonies being admitted under a preference; and one of the Australian colonies is sending large quantities of sugar into the British Columbia market, which the people there benefit, by and, as these come in under the preferential rate, the average has gone down. But let me point this out to the hon. member for Bothwell-that, under the actual operation, coming as near to it as we can, there is still 8 cents per 100 pounds less protection to the refiner than there was ; and 8 cents per 100 pounds on 250,000,000 pounds, he will find, will amount to quite a snug sum.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Does the government get more or less revenue per 100 pounds under the new tariff than under the old ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Under the present tariff we get more.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Under the preference we get less.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: On the whole, we get more. That is what we want-we want money to go into the treasury, not into the pockets of individuals. Last year, the average rates were-refined, $1.24 per 100 pounds, and raw 68 cents per 100 pounds-that is, we are putting 18 cents per 100 pounds more into the treasury on raw sugars than they were.
But I pass on, for I did not intend to speak so long on this subject. I come now to consider the question whether the opposition are prepared to say whether they wilt remove this preferential tariff or not. We have different opinions expressed by different hon. members opposite. The leader of the opposition said :
The hon. the Minister of Finance is very ready to fling across the floor of this House the question whether or not we are prepared to repudiate the policy of British preference. Well, it is very difficult sometimes, and might be regarded as very offensive, to ask or to take back that which has been given away.
The Liberal-Conservative party have never said that they proposed to repeal that preference; but they have said that they would never rest satisfied until, in addition to that and as compensation for that, we had attained a preference in British markets.
The hon. gentleman will not say that they wish to do away with it. But the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), when I asked him across the floor of the House, said that he would do away with it. And the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) who has just addressed the House, indicated that he was about ready to go that length. But the leader of the opposition would not go so far. In fact, he was afraid that what he had said might be interpreted to mean that they were not so much in favour of the old land
and the old flag as they were. So he strengthened himself in this way :
Now, I do not want any misunderstanding so far as the opposition or the party I have the honour to lead in this House is concerned. I am prepared to stand for the unity of the empire as strongly as any member of this House.
1 am prepared, for that purpose, to advocate and support the claims of any government that will spend its last dollar and send its last man in support of the integrity of the empire against any foe that may threaten disruption.
But the hou. member for East York said in effect:	Do not send any British goods
here, because we do not want them; we will send our last man and our last dollar to preserve the integrity of the empire, but do not send your woollen goods here, for our loyalty won't stand that.


Mr. BROCK.: Does the hon. minister mean to say that doing away with the preference would do away with the importation of British goods altogether ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, I do not think it would. But I do think this -and I would say it in answer to the hou. gentleman (Mr. Brock)-that their policy, if carried out on the only basis on which Mr. Chamberlain said it could be carried out, and woollen goods were admitted free, that would close the woollen factories; and, for that reason, while we are prepared to accept a preference in the British market when Britain is able to give it to us, the distinction is that we say that this is a matter for the British parliament to consider-this parliament cannot legislate for the British people. And therefore we come to consider the question whether, until the British people adopt, if they ever do, this policy of preference for preference Canada shall continue to give them what we have given. So far as this party is concerned, we say we will continue to give it. That is plain. But what do hon. gentlemen opposite say ? That is what we want to know and what we have a right to know. What does the first lieutenant (Mr. Monk) of the leader of the opposition say ? I have made a fair statement, will he make one as fair ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, I would drop it right off.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Now we have it. And the statement was applauded and cheered. Here is another illustration of the beautiful harmony that exists in that party. The hon. leader of the party says: No, it would be an ungracious thing, and the Liberal-Conservative party never said that it should be done. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) coming out from lying low, declared for dropping it. We do not find unanimity even in the applause that greeted the remark of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk). I am glad that we know where hon. gentlemen stand on the question. They
are opposed to the preferential tariff, but afraid to present a resolution calling for its repeal. Sir, we are in favour of it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) will understand me. I said I was opposed to it as it is now, but not opposed to a mutual preference.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I understand perfectly. But we say we are in favour of it as it is now. We take the ground that when we took that step and gave that preference, we benefited ourselves. We left the general tariff high, too high for some people, but we carried out our policy as announced by giving a preference to Great Britain. And, by doing that-hon. gentlemen opposite may smile-we believe that we touched the British heart. You cannot convince intelligent people who read the comments of the English press when that was done, nor can you convince those who have been to the old land and he'ard the expressions of opinion by people over there, that the preference did not touch a sympathetic chord in the British heart and so became a means of opening the doors of the march of commerce to our products. A large part of the increase of your exports and the extra price you have got for them are due to that feeling that was aroused in Canada's favour by the preferential tariff.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him in what respect does that tariff preference benefit us ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If he will ask the hon. member who sits beside him, the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), he will get the answer that it has benefited the people of this country because they are buying their woollens cheaper than many of the mills could make them, and if it be considered an advantage to have a lower rate of duty, as the hon. gentleman has been blaming us for not having in view of the surplus, then it must be a benefit to us that we have this reduced rate of taxation. I say when you bring the question up as to whether Canadians will accept a preference in British markets, the Canadian people, the Canadian government, the Canadian parliament, will of course accept a preference if Britain sees fit to give it to us. But that is a question for the British people to decide, and we say that if ever the British people come to that determination, the strongest and most effectual step that ever could be taken to secure that preference will be found to have been the action of Canada in first giving a preference to the mother land and in maintaining it. I venture to say that if the time ever does come-and these gentlemen say it is coming fast, I shall not enter on the prophetic role, I know that things move fast in these days, I am not going to say the British people will never reverse their trade

member for East Toronto in this House. It is in 'Hansard.' The last man in a position of authority who ever tried to interview British statesmen in reference to the matter was that hon. gentleman.
I must not detain the House any longer. The question of expenditures have been dealt with, and charges of recklessness have been made. One hon. gentleman says that we have increased the expenditure by $33,000,000 in five years. These statements are so extreme that the people themselves would be prepared to discredit them upon investigation. But, let me just show how it was that instead of $33,000,000 of an increase in the expenditure, the increase has been much less. I have a statement of the four years from 1S97 to 1900, as compared with the four years from 1893 to 1896, and it shows that on consolidated fund account we increased the expenditure a little over $12.-
500,000,	and that on capital account there was an increased expenditure of $4,000,000, making a total increase in expenditure in the period of four years from 1897 to 1900 as compared with the previous four years, of something like $16,000,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite hide from you the fact that the revenue that is derived from some sources does not mean taxation out of the pockets of the people to the extent they are speaking of. They do not point out the fact that while you have an expenditure of a million and a half extra on the Intercolonial Railway, not a cent of it came out of the pockets of the people hy way of taxation, but out of the increased earnings of that road, and that while you have had an expenditure during these years of some $4,000,000 in the Yukon, it did not come out of you in the way of taxation, but out of the receipts of the Yukon. Hon. gentlemen do not point these things out to you. It is the taxation that is taken out of the pockets of the people of the country that they are interested in, and the rate of taxation, as I pointed out before, has been materially lowered by this government since we came into power. [DOT] I just want to say a word more, because we are charged with extravagance in our expenditures of public money. Allusion was made to-day by one of the speakers, or perhaps the other night, to the charge that we had multiplied public officials, and it was asserted that we had run up the cost of the collection of revenue. That is true, to a certain extent, as far as the Department of Customs is concerned.
I am prepared to admit that there has been an increase in expenditure. But, you cannot collect $28,000,000 of the money for the goods that represents at the reduced rate of taxation without adding to the customs staff, to say nothing of the improvements we have made by way of statistics, the prevention of smuggling, &c. For every additional bill of goods that may come into tiie country you have additional work for clerks, landing waiters and appraisers.


William Paterson: You cannot bring the Intercolonial Railway from Point Levis to Montreal and operate it without having some extra train hands. You cannot enlarge your postal service, and give facilities to different parts of the country without paying for it. There has been an increase, but people such as dwell in Canada will endorse an increase in the public expenditure for the collection of revenue, provided the public revenue has so increaseed as to warrant it. Turn to the Public Accounts, where it gives the cost of collection of revenue in the excise, the customs, the railways, the canals, the weights and measures, the post office, and in 1894-5, which. was the last fair year's
expenditure of the Conservative party

for their accounts in 1896, in my judgment, were not fair accounts-and you will find in the last year's fair expenditure of the Conservative government, that the charges under consolidated expenditure for the collection of revenue amounted to $9,129,416, while the total revenue collected that year was $33,978,129. The cost of collection was therefore 27 per cent. Now, in 1900 the total charge for collection of revenue amounted to $11,044,526, but the total revenue collected was $51,029,994, the cost of collection being 22 per cent, or 5 per cent less than it was under the Conservative government in 1894-5. If the cost of collecting revenue in 1900 had been at the same rate as in 1894-5, the expenditure would have been in round figures $2,750,000 more than it was, and I think that is an answer to the gentleman who charges us with having increased the expenditure.
Before concluding, Sir, I wish to allude to the subject with which the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) closed his remarks in which he entered into the question as to whether there had been in the province whence he comes questions of race and creed introduced at the last election. I was glad to hear the words he spoke. They were a rebuke to men-I will not say in this House-but at all events they were a rebuke to a portion of the press which supports the Conservative party in the province of Ontario, and to a portion of the people there. I am glad he uttered these words. I re-echo the sentiment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) given utterance to in this House on more than one occasion, and I cannot forbear quoting those words of his, which ought to find an echo in the breast of every man who is a lover of his country :
As has been well said by the right hon. gentleman, this is a matter into which party consideration should not enter. This is a 'matter which should be above all party considerations, and I, for one, as long as I have any voice in this House or in this country shall protest against any question of race or creed being introduced into the party politics of Canada. Grand sentiments these. In this debate that hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) dealt
*with this question again, and he used this language :
I think that to stand for the unity ol the people of this country and to suppress any cry of race or creed that may be raised, is a matter of greater importance to any political party in Canada than is the effort to obtain or retain power.
Grand sentiments. He recognizes the fact that ought to he recognized by all : That you may hold to a high tariff or to a low tariff, but that you should strive for a united people ; a people animated with if common desire to advance the welfare of their country, and to promote its progress in every portion of it. Why should these race and religious cries be introduced in a grand country like this ? Why should an attempt be made to separate the people and to obliterate that united feeling which is absolutely necessary : I will not say to the existence of confederation, but to the progress of Canada under confederation. I wish, Sir, it might be said that gentlemen on the other side, each in his place endeavoured to give effect to the noble sentiments uttered by the leader of their party. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) said in his speech the other day :
In the debate in this House the other day it was stated that race issues were being raised in North Bruce. I do not know whether 'they have been or not; but North Bruce has evidently remained, according to last reports, true to its old policy. I hope the electors of North Bruce did not vote on racial lines. If they voted on party lines, they had a right to vote as they did, it is a free country.
And here the hon. gentleman from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) arose in his place and said ;


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to tell the hon. gentleman, as one who was there, that the racial question was never mentioned, so far as I know, either on the platform or off the platform.
I am bound to take the word of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), but not long before he uttered that statement he had a copy of this paper which I hold in my hand in his possession, and he brought up in the House as a matter of privilege, a statement contained in that paper, and when the Speaker ruled him out on that point he brought up, on going into Supply, an article headed ' Shameful Tactics,' which alleged that two mail clerks who had been sent, it was alleged, out of Wiarton to Owen Sound, so that they would not be present at the election. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) therefore had this paper in his possession. It is the Wiarton Canadian and Liberal-Conservative Banner of North Bruce. He read this extract from the paper :
The Grit machine has commenced its work in connection with the North Bruce by-election, and the act which has been perpetrated this
week by the Tarte-Laurier combination is one of the most shameful.
That alone ought be sufficient to indicate to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) that there was an attempt to raise the race and religious cry. We who went through the contest in Ontario know how a sneer accompanied the utterance of these words on more than one occasion. But, if the hon. member for East Grey did not detect it from that, he might have turned to the editorial page and read this :
Who raised the race and religious cry in reference to the coronation oath ? Who but John Costigan, a member of the present Reform government.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: It is pretty near.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. member for West York says pretty near. He does not wholly repudiate that reference, you see, as a man with a proper sense ought to, when a deliberately penned lie is read to him.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I said a little premature. We are looking for his advent day by day.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Again, perhaps the hon. member for West York will say this is not so far out :
Look at the construction of the present Grit government. Is it not nearly all French? Its majority is made up of French members, elected on the race and religion cry, and the cabinet is composed of a majority of representatives of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Shame, shame.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I wanted the hon. leader of the opposition to be in his place to-night, because he said that so long as he had a voice left, he would protest against this kind of thing. I wanted him to be in this House to raise his voice in protest and to denounce the utterance of his banner sheet in this riding. As he truly said, it is important above any party consideration to preserve the unity of the people of this country; it is away above any party question as to whether you will have a 20 per cent tariff or a 25 per cent tariff. This paper goes on :
And yet they ask you to send a representative from North Bruce to assist this French majority in voting away Ontario's money for the benefit of Quebec, and have the effrontery to tell you that Conservatives raised the race and religion cry.
I am glad the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) never heard the thing mentioned on the platform or off it, when he had this paper in his hand at the time, and could read about shameful tactics; and 1 hope that when the hon. gentleman rises, as I believe he is to follow me, he will express himself as his leader did, for I take it that he is opposed to such utterances as this. When he rose to assure the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) that

lie had never heard the race and religion question mentioned, he left the Impression that if any one had dared to mention it in his presence, he would have stamped it out. Now, they have formed a company in Wiarton to start a beet sugar factory. The people are interested in it, and anxious that this government should give it a bonus; and this paper says :
The beet sugar factory agitators support the Conservative candidate in North Bruce. In parliament the French members and government opposed the granting of the bounty, and secured a postponement of the discussion. We cannot have the bounty unless the Dominion assumes the provincial debt of French Quebec, which only amounts to $32,000,000, and with their majority they can succeed in that outrageous demand. Will the electors of North Bruce sanction this by sending to Ottawa a man to swell this French majority? We trow not.
I read this with pain. The general elections were over, and this election in North Bruce was not a matter of life or death to the Conservative party; but this is printed in this organ which was supporting hon. gentlemen who were battling in that contest. I hold with the hon. leader of the opposition that above any question of obtaining or regaining power it is important to frofwn down this sowing of the seeds of dissention among the people of Canada who, differ as they may in their origin, have equal rights and equal liberties. To seek to raise a prejudice against any portion of our people because of their origin or their faith, is something that should be frowned down by every man who is a lover of his country; and when it comes to the penning of deliberate lies, which gentlemen opposite know to be lies, to the effect that a majority of this government are French members, when hon. gentlemen know that of the sixteen members of the cabinet with portfolios, only three are of French origin, then the ungenerous nature of such statements is apparent.
Sir, if they would give honour where honour is due, as honour might be given to that element in this House which is accused of seeking domination or undue influence, they should know that when the cabinet of the right hon. leader of the government was formed, himself a leading French Canadian, he had, I think, one colleague of the same faith and religion as himself, with portfolio, and one without portfolio; and besides, from his province, which sent a large majority of its representatives to support him, he had an English-speaking Protestant without portfolio, and an English-speaking Protestant with portfolio, and a Protestant of French origin with another portfolio. That was the composition of it; and when unfortunately, and to the regret of the people of this country, that French representative in the cabinet without portfolio was taken away, instead of filling the vacancy, as he was entitled in justice and fair-play to his Mr. PATERSON.
own province to do, if it were disposed to take a narrow view of the matter, with one of the same origin and faith as the gentleman who died, he gave it to the province of Ontario and to a Scotch Presbyterian. And yet papers will be found to publish what I have read in your hearing against men who have acted in that noble way; and they venture to sneer at the names of Laurier and Tarte, as if there was something wrong and wicked about them, trying to sneer away men's reputatiofts. Men in public positions have feelings like other men; and if they have done wrong, accuse them of the wrong and prove it against them; but do not sneer away a man's reputation because he happens to differ from you. I am one of the few members left in this House who took part in the selection of the leader of the Liberal party who is now Prime Minister of this Dominion, and I can tell you that when Mr. Blake left this country and it became necessary for the Liberal party to select another leader, the minds of the party representatives turned instinctively towards one of their colleagues, and unanimously asked him to take the leadership. He declined; he asked us not to press it upon him; he fairly besought that we should give it to some one else. He even then intimated that it was possible that he might not be as strong as some others might be, because he was not of the origin or the faith of the majority of the people of this country. Instantly every Liberal replied: We are not asking you to take the leadership of the Liberal party because you are of French origin or because you are of the faith of the minority; we are not asking you from motives of policy; we are asking you because we believe you are the one amongst us all who is fitted to be the leader; and the Liberal party, when they find the man best fitted for the position, ask his services without caring what his race or religion may be, and that is why we want you to lead us. And he assented to it. It is possible that he may be stung by these insinuations thrown out at times. It is possible that a man of high feeling must feel once in a while the Injustice of such appeals. But I can only tell the right hon. gentleman that the right-thinking people of this country, whether Liberals or Conservatives, recognize in him the foremost man in Canada. I tell him that he has entrenched himself in the affections not alone of the French people-I am not speaking of them-but of the people of my own province. I give it as my unhesitating belief that he has entrenched, himself in the affections of the people of Ontario as securely as in those of his own province. When I think of the services he has rendered to this Dominion, when I picture the honour he reflected on his country among that galaxy of statesmen gathered in the streets of London from every centre of the world-encircling British Empire, when
I hear the shouts acclaiming him as he passed through the streets of that great metropolis, when I think of the standing which he gave Canada among the nations of the world such as she never had before,
I cannot but feel humiliated that any paper in the province of Ontario should publish such an ungenerous attack, should use such unworthy language as I have read, should strive to stir up the most ignoble prejudices against the leader of this government, and all to gain a temporary party advantage in a by-election. I am glad that the hon. gentleman who leads the opposition took the manly stand he did. I was delighted to hear his first lieutenant (Mr. Monk) tell us that in the province of Quebec political questions are not decided on lines of race and creed, but on lines of public policy. That is the way these questions should be decided, and we on this side reciprocate and re-echo the opinion expressed by the leader of the opposition, that questions such as I have referred to should never be raised in this country. As far as it lies in our power, we will abstain from using them, and our best exertions will be made to show that appeals such as 1 have read are unworthy of any people who pretend to the privilege of Canadian citizenship in this fair Dominion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The tragic display, Mr. Speaker, to which the hon. gentleman who has .just spoken worked himself up in his beautiful peroration, and the righteous indignation which he introduced into that fulsome eulogy that he expended on his leader, suggested to me that there was a little something indelicate about it. What it had to do with the financial policy of the government or the great questions of the day, I am unable to see. All through the hon. gentleman's speech, or at different times through it, the conviction was forced on >my mind that the hon, gentleman imagined that noise was strength of argument, or that his argument was strong in proportion to its noise. If it was, he certainly treated the House to a very strong argument. But a careful analysis, I am afraid, would lead to another conclusion. The hon. gentleman, in his peroration, selected a subject that he thought would be attractive from its sympathetic na- j ture, and one admirably suited to the occasion, and that was the race and religious cry, and in so doing he referred to some remarks made by the hon. member for East Grey a few days ago when the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mar-cil) referred to the race and religious cry raised in North Bruce. I replied then that although I had taken part in that campaign,
I had never heard race and religion mentioned on the platform or off it, and I repeat that statement here to-night. The hon. member the Minister of Customs took that as his text, and took up the Wiarton Canadian, and read the heading of an article that
I brought to the attention of the House-an article complaining that the mail carriers in North Bruce had been taken away from home to prevent their voting in the by-election then going on. I read that article from first to last, and the hon. gentleman, holding it up, exclaimed in his righteous indignation with that fervour so peculiar to himself, and asked in thundering tones : Was there any race and religion cry in that, when 1 you talk about the Tarte-Laurier combine ? Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a very common form of expression. We speak of the Ross-Hardy combine and the Mowat-Hardy combine. And our Reform friends used to speak of the Macdonald-Langevin and the Macdonald-Cartier combine. Therefore, there was nothing in that, in my opinion, disrespectful or severe from the race or religion standpoint. Why then should the hon. gentleman have worked himself up to such a righteous indignation over something that had not a solitary word of race and religion in it from first to last. The hon. gentleman did not dare to read it all, because if he had the House would have seen that all his indignation went for nothing, because there was not a word about race or religion in the whole article.
He then selected another- article treating of French domination. Well, I would like to ask him if he could not have taken up many French papers in the province of Quebec during the last campaign and read articles that savoured very much more of race and religious cries than were contained in the one he quoted ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have seen many of them quoted and can assure you the language was much stronger and the spirit of the articles much more intensely imbued with the race and religious cry than any the hon. gentleman has read.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can tell the hon. gentleman that it is not so. I would like him to quote any such papers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not the papers, but have seen them quoted over and over again in other papers, and never saw them repudiated. Speaking of the race and religious cry, I passed through that campaign in Ontario last September, and I say, and say it frankly and in justice, not only to our own party, but to the French people of this country, that although I spoke in various ridings and on many platforms, I never heard the word Frenchman oi-| Catholic mentioned on any platform in that campaign. The conduct of the government was discussed, their management or mismanagement of our affairs. their carrying out or failure to carry out the promises they had made, their

extravagance, their unbusinesslike policy- but not a word about race or religious questions. And X should have considered myself beneath contempt if I had used such arguments or even allowed them to be used in my presence without rebuke. So far as I know, and I think I am in a position to know, such a cry was not raised in Ontario, no such argument influenced the election. I wish to say that in justice to the Frenchspeaking people and to the English-speaking people. The English-speaking people would not want to win an election on such a cry. I am surprised that the memories of hon. gentlemen opposite are so short that they cannot remember how we were obliged to meet that same cry of French domination every year from 1878 to 1887. I have stood on platform after platform and have had to defend the Conservative party against the cry of French domination. I thought it an unworthy cry, and I met and fought it as best I could. The hon. Minister of Customs should not think that the memory of the people of Ontario is so short that they cannot remember when the cry of French domination was one of the most successful raised in the interest of the Liberal party.
Now, I wish to refer to some arguments that the hon. member used, before I speak on this question generally. The hon. Minister of Customs said that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) says that it is no part of our duty to give parliament and the country the benefit of our views of policy, and he criticised him adversely, because he did not do it. Does he forget that he sat behind his own leader for years when that gentleman was intrenched, as he said, behind the lines of torres vedras, and declared on platform after platform that it was the duty of an opposition to criticise the government, not to furnish them with a policy. To-night he sings another song-as an hon. gentleman beside me remarks, he cannot sing the old song. The hon. gentleman tells us that there are three or four hundred items in the tariff and that we must not expect the supporters of the government to agree upon them. We have had ample proof that they do not agree. During this debate, member after member on that side has arisen and declared that he favoured protection, or incidental protection, or bounties on iron, or bonuses, or some other of the various plans embodied in a protective tariff, while all the time admitting that they were prepared to vote against these things in support of the government. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) was in favour of protection. We remember that in 1879 his father was in this House declaiming against protection. I could not help thinking, when the hon. gentleman was speaking, of the adage about the boy being the' father of the man. I do not think yon could find half a dozen men among Mr. SPROULE.
the government supporters who are in exact agreement as to the proper tariff for this country or whether the present tariff is a proper one or not. The hon. minister refers to the fact that the government is taunted with the imperfections of the tariff, but he asks us if we forget that the country has endorsed them and their tariff. I would remind the hon. gentleman that the great province of Ontario before which he laid that tariff so eloquently, both he and his friends, declared against them by a majority of eighteen or nineteen. He went to the country with a majority of twelve from Ontario and, after doing his best to convince the people that the tariff was right, he comes back with a minority of eighteen from that province. As he is one of the leaders of that party in Ontario, the fact that his own province lias declared against him, notwithstanding his efforts to win it over to favouring his argument, should cause him to be less vigorous in his claim that the country has supported him. The hon. minister went on to speak of the development of our trade and to say that this was a justification of our tariff. He noticed the fact that the government were reminded that the increase in our exports was due to the beneficence of Providence and not to anything the government had done. He says they acknowledge all that Providence has done, but, if there had not been a wiser, businesslike government in control of affairs, that development could not have taken place to the same extent. But I have figures here to show that that development in the export trade was no greater than that which has taken place in similar trade in the United States, and that country did not have this wise and beneficent government to direct its affairs. It had the advantages of Providence the same as the hon. gentlemen over there had. But I only give this as an evidence that the expansion of our trade was not due to any business management of the government of the day. but was rather due to the fact that we had good crops, we had bountiful harvests, we had comparatively good prices for what we had to sell, and there was a revival of trade all over the world after the stagnation that had prevailed for several years in manufactures and industrial pursuits. Good times prevailed all over the world, and as a result we enjoyed an expansion of trade during that time.
Then he goes on to say that it was largely due to the Minister of Agriculture's cold storage. Now, how much had it to do with it, it would be interesting to inquire. I heard a statement made in this House the other night that amused me. An hon. gentleman, speaking on the other side, said : Do you suppose that the development of the butter trade, of the cheese trade, of the fruit trade, would have been so great but for the admirable cold storage system introduced by the Minister of Agriculture?
I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture thinks he was responsible for that development by his cold storage. I have no doubt that he endeavours to make the people of the country believe it, and his friends behind him try to make us believe it, when they resort to arguments like that. Now, in view of this contention, let me refer to the report of the Minister of Agriculture himself, where he gives a comparison of the exports of the country in cold storage for the last three years :
Of butter, while there were 209,175 packages sent out in cold storage in 1898, and 429,734 in 1899, in 1900 there were only 227,863. Of cheese, while there were 5,000 packages sent out in 1898, there were only 1,000 sent out in 1899, and not a single package in 1900. Of fruit, there were sent out 25,564 packages in 1898, 16,381 in 1899 and only 8,785 in 1900.
The cold storage had been responsible, as the hon. gentleman behind him said, for the great development in the cheese trade when there was an export of $19,000,000 worth. What, then, about this cold storage now ? Would the hon. gentleman not like to take that argument back and revise it ? Will he not refrain from addressing such an argument to the House, when the Minister of Agriculture's own report is so readily at hand ? Now, take fruit. In 1898, they sent out 25,000 packages ; in 1899, only 16,000 packages ; in 1900, only 8,000, one-third as much as they sent out in 1898. I give that as an answer to the argument of the hon. Minister of Customs, who attributes the great development in the exports of these lines to the admirable cold storage arrangements of the Minister of Agriculture.
Then, the hon. gentleman went on to tell us what statesmanship was, and lie referred to some definition of it from this side of the House. He gave his own definition, and said that statesmanship consisted in compromising and harmonizing what was otherwise antagonistic. He read from a carefully-made statement of what statemanship is. I suppose he went into the library and culled out from standard authors his argument.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: No, I was reading an extract from the speech of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman went on to define what he regarded as statemanship. His explanation of it reminded me of the story of a professor who was demonstrating to his class what chemistry was. He said : You will take an effervescent, you will add a deliquescent, there will be a precipitation, that is a conglomeration, that is a demonstration, and that is chemistry. That is about as intelligible a definition of chemistry as the hon. gentleman's definition of statemanship, and about as convincing. Then, the hon. gentleman spoke about the preferential tariff. It is true, he said, that it
struck one or two lines, it is true that it has struck the woollen trade of this country. He says: I sympathize with the woollen industry, I am sorry if they stand to lose by it; but, I believe that by applying themselves with energy to the situation, and employing all the resources of their enterprise and their intelligence, they will be able to overcome these difficulties after awhile. Does not that savour a little of the answer given by the hou. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) to the manufacturers in 1878, when he told them that all they had to do was to work harder and eat less? It is practically the same answer. That is the solution he offers to the woollen trade.
Then, the hon. member went on to give us a dissertation with regard to book-keeping, why you should charge a certain item to capital account and another to current account. He selected the iron bounties as an example, and said the iron bounties was a permanent improvement in the country, because it developed the mines, and should, therefore, be charged to capital account. It was exactly the same, he said, as if you were to put money into a railway which would run on indefinitely in the future for the benefit of the country. Does he forget that when that bounty is paid on iron a large percentage of the article goes out of the country, and is of no further use to the country ? The only benefit it is to the country is the employment it affords to men in mining the raw material, and in manufacturing it, but after it goes out it is of no permanent benefit to Canada ; therefore, I say it should not be charged to capital account. There is no comparison between charging an item of that nature to capital account and an item that goes into the construction of a public building, or a railway, or something that must remain in perpetuity an asset of the country.
The hon. gentleman went on to tell us that the average rate of duty, from 1896, as compared with 1900, was much higher in the former period. He said it was 24 per cent higher in 1896 than in 1900. Now, I would not like to apply to the hon. gentleman what I once heard a speaker say on a public platform with regard to another, who had given a lot of figures to strengthen his case, and who had tried to clinch his argument by reminding his audience that figures will not lie. 'No,' replied his opponent, ' figures won't lie, but sometimes liars will figure.' I do not wish to apply that saying to the hon. gentleman, because I would be sorry to believe that he deliberately tried to misrepresent figures. But, I want to say that if he had wished to be fair, he would not have taken those periods. He took the very best year for showing a low percentage of duty in imports during the whole time his party was in power, in 1900. Does he not know that the larger importations of free goods would

have reduced the rate of duty ? Does he not know that the larger importations of certain lines would do it ? He took the very worst year of the Conservative government to make that comparison. If he had desired to be fair he would have taken the four years of the Conservative administration and the subsequent four years of the Liberal administration. Had he done so, it would have shown him that during the four years his party was in power, the average rate of duty was 17'.125 for the whole four years. Now, take the previous four years, and we find it was 17'445, or a difference of exactly 32-100ths of 1 per cent. Now, does not the Minister of Customs think he would have been much fairer if he had used the argument in that way, and given these figures to the House ? To fake the very best year under their regime and the very worst under his, misleads the people and the country.
Then the hon. gentleman went on to speak of the efforts made by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) and some of his associates in England to discuss the question of mutual preferential trade with Lord Salisbury, and he very properly said that Lord Salisbury said that it was not an opportune time to discuss that question. He gave his reasons. In the first place, the Australian colonies are endeavouring to confederate, and therefore they cannot join in the request made by Canada. In the second place, we have the South African war on our hands and this is monopolizing the attention of the British Empire as of the rest of the world. We have an election coming on in the near future, we desire to appeal to the country, and therefore it is not an opportune time. Was that not a reasonable and correct reply ? Certainly it was a correct reply. Lord Salisbury's aim was to appeal to the people of England upon the policy that was carried out In South Africa and he did not want to have it mixed up with anything else. He said that it was not an opportune time because he did not want to mix up these other questions which were comparatively irrelevant to the situation as it then existed. The vital question was whether the government were carrying out a proper policy in South Africa or not. That is the reason he gave, and a proper one it was, why he did not wish to grant an interview to the deputation. I wish to touch upon that afterwards, and I will say no more about it at the present time.
The hon. gentleman went on and gave us another evidence of the way in which they are conducting the affairs of the country. He said : We are told that the management of the affairs of this country is extravagant because we have appointed dozens and dozens of officers more than are needed, and the argument he adopts to prove this is by showing that it cost 5 per cent less to collect the revenue last year than in 1896. On its face it would appear prima Mr. SPROULE.
facie to be a good argument along that line, but the hon. gentleman would be the last man not to see where the fallacy of that argument comes in. Does he not know that the larger the revenue is, the lower is the cost of collecting it ? A hundred customs officers could collect a revenue of $10,000,000, but if you require to collect a revenue of $20,000,000 it would not necessarily follow that you would have to employ 200 officers. The same men will do the same duty and collect the double amount just as easily as the smaller amount. So, the argument of the hon. gentleman is very unfair. Then, he took a year when the collections were very large, when the importations were large and when there was comparatively no increased cost in the collection of the revenue, compared it with the year in which a smaller amount of revenue was collected, divided it by the number of collectors, or struck the percentage, and in that way made a favourable showing. I will give the hon. gentleman another illustration: Go down to the station and you will find a conductor, an engineer and a brake-man, who are to have charge of a train carrying one hundred passengers. You will have the same number of men if that train carries two hundred passengers, and it will not cost a cent more to do it. If the hon. gentleman's argument is correct, it would cost twice as much to carry two hundred passengers as it would cost to carry one hundred. I do not propose to touch any more upon the hon. gentleman's arguments at the present. I may refer to some other portions of his remarks later on.
I wish to say a few words in regard to the speech that we were pleased to hear from the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), who said that the country as a whole was in a prosperous condition, and that the people were amply employed at remunerative wages. This affords us quite as much pleasure as it does hon. gentlemen opposite, but, it was unnecessary to tell us that, because we all knew it. The people of the country knew it quite as well as the hon. Minister of Finance did. But we differ from the hon. Minister of Finance and his friends in their contention that this prosperity is brought about by their wise management of public affairs. We claim that it is not brought about by their wise management of public affairs, and it is proper to analyse and ascertain how far, if in any degree, they were responsible for bringing about these good times. The good times which we enjoy is the result of the cycle of good times coming after hard times. The whole world is enjoying better times. The surplus productions of the looms and factories had been used up after many years during which there was a larger output, leaving us with increased demands for these lines, and when the good times started the looms started again, the factories extended their business, the workmen were employed
214o

at larger wages, values were higher, aud we had good times. In addition to that a bountiful Providence gave us good crops for several years. Does the hon, gentleman forget that the worst years for failure of crops we ever saw in the last quarter of a century were the few years preceding 1896 ? In our section of the country we never saw the like of them since I was a boy eight or nine years of age. One of the chief factors in bringing about good times is that the people are being employed at remunerative wages, and it is not the result of the management of the country by the government or anything of that kind. In what way do hon. gentlemen claim that they have brought about these good times ? Will they tell us in what way ? We have asked the question over and over again and have not received an answer. We asked them to give us the particulars, to specify what way they have brought about good times. Have they given the people employment at higher wages or have they done anything else to bring about this result ? If they can say that they have done so, we will be inclined to believe that they are entitled to some credit for the good times. Good times are the result of ample employment for the people at remunerative wages, bountiful crops and a good market in which to sell. What have lion, gentlemen had to do in regard to making the crops bountiful ? Sunshine, rain and atmosphere have accomplished that and they had nothing to do with it. What did they do towards getting us better markets ? They have not got us a new market in any part of the world other than the markets we had when they came into power. How have they increased the value of the product of the people of this country where employed industrially ? Did they increase the value of the product of the farmer? No, not by a single fraction of a cent. They cannot successfully claim that they are responsible for the good times by anything they have done in their management of public affairs. What have the government had to do with bringing about this development ? Nothing, except so far as their additional expenditure of public money gave employment to the people. I admit that they have spent money a little more extravagantly than their predecessors, and that in that way they may have helped to give employment to the people. Their management of public affairs might be very well criticised at the present time, may properly be adversely criticised in many lines, but I do not deem it proper to detain the House for that purpose to-night, because this debate has been prolonged to such an extent that it would only be using time that I believe I can put to a better purpose in other lines.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Are you through with me ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Certainly, in respect to the hon. gentleman. I thank the hon. gentleman for his courtesy because he has shown a good deal more than is sometimes exhibited by some hon. gentlemen on that side of the House when we endeavour to answer them. The government claim that their system of revenue tariff based on free trade lines, has produced an overflowing revenue, and has given them ample means for the needs of the country. Well, their tariff system has resulted in one thing, and that is that it gives them lots of money to spend. But, if the hon. member for South Oxford (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) were in opposition to a government which pursued the policy which they are pursuing, he would no doubt apply the same argument that he did to the Conservative government when they had a surplus of $6,000,000, and when he said that every dollar that you take out of the people of the country more than is absolutely needed is a dollar that goes to impoverish the people, and a dollar of taxation based upon unsound economic principles. Therefore, according to the opinion of the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) in the past, the present Liberal tariff is all wrong in principle. These gentlemen opposite tell us that theirs is a revenue tariff approximating as closely as possible to free trade, but let us analyse that a little; let us ask ourselves: what is a revenue tariff and how should a tariff be framed for the sole purpose of getting revenue. When you impose a tariff solely for the purpose of getting revenue you impose it upon the necessaries of life which the people must purchase, and which the country does not produce. Therefore, a duty on tea, sugar, coffee, and such articles would be in the line of a revenue tariff. Nor does it necessarily follow in this, that you must impose a high tariff. I quote from Perry, a free trade writer who is one of the ablest authorities on this tariff question, and he says :
While revenue taxes select by preference things wholly Imported, protectionist taxes are placed of course on such foreign goods as are also and especially made or grown at home.
A revenue tariff taxes imported goods alone, but a protectionist tariff aims at shutting out foreign importations and, therefore, keeping the home market for the people of the country.
Otherwise their plain and sole purpose would be thwarted, which completes the contrast between the two kinds of tariffs. For illustration, tea and coffee are the best things to tax under a revenue tariff.
Did this government tax tea and coffee ? They did not. The hon. member (Sir Richard Cartwright) taxed them in 1876 when he was adhering to the principle of a revenue tariff, but his experience in that line did not cause him to repeat the experiment. He taxed tea and coffee two cents more in 1877, but he found still he could not raise sufficient revenue owing to hard times, and consequently greatly reduced importations. Then he acted on the correct prin-



ciple of a revenue tariff, but this time he left tea and coffee aloue, because the people had checked him severely for his policy in that direction before. Although he declared before the last elections that he wanted a revenue tariff, he did not put a tax upon those articles which can only be selected to produce a revenue tariff. Tea and coffee are lit subjects to produce a revenue tariff, because they are in universal consumption and are wholly imported, and taxes upon them do not raise the price of anything else in the country. Again, Perry in his ' Principles of Political Economy,' says :
There is a tariff for revenue. The sole purpose of the tariff, as such, is to get money by this mode of indirect taxation out of the pockets of the people for the coffers of the government, in order to be then expended. ... As the sole object is to get money for the national treasury, and as money can only be gotten as the foreign goods taxed are allowed to come in. such taxes must be levied at a low rate.
Now, a 17 per cent tariff is uot a low rate, and a 20 per cent and a 30 per cent tariff is not a low rate. I quote this to show that when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) declared that he was imposing a tax for revenue purposes only, he wandered very far astray from the principle upon which a revenue tariff can only be imposed :
Such taxes must be levied at a low rate on each article taxed, so as not to interfere essentially with the bringing in of that class of goods with a proiit to the importers, and not at all to encourage the smuggling of them in.
Perry goes on to say that when England raised taxes on a revenue basis she placed a tax on coffee, tea, chicory, chocolate, fruit, malt, pickles, tobacco, &c. She placed a customs duty upon these because they were necessaries of life which must be imported and on which the people could not get out Sf paying the tax. Therefore, according to one of the very best authorities on this question, the policy of this government cannot in any sense be called a revenue tariff. Now, as to the ways and means by which they are raising that revenue. In what respect does the principle of taxation adopted by this government materially differ from that adopted by the Conservatives '! These gentlemen tell us that they impose a tariff for revenue, but so adjusted and so imposed as to give us as nearly as possible free trade. The Conservative policy was, to distribute these customs duties and excise' taxes so that they not only raised a revenue, but protected the interests of the people against foreign competition. That is the principle of political economy that divides the two political parties to-day more than any other. The member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) asked a very pertinent question when he said :
Do these gentlemen opposite charge that the government in its past management of the financial affairs of this country, or in its proposals


Thomas Simpson Sproule: for the future, has violated some economic principle? If so, what is it?
My answer is in the affirmative. The Liberal government violated that economic principle of tariff, when they told the people of the country that they were imposing a tariff for revenue purposes, and when they framed their tariff on exactly the same lines as their Conservative predecessors who had a tariff for protective purposes. The Liberal party always held that a revenue tariff based upon free trade lines as nearly as possible, is the correct principle, and they say that they are pursuing that policy now.
Their contention is that their tariff is a tariff for revenue only, while it is to a great extent the same tariff as that imposed by their predecessors. Let us analyse it a little further. I may say in passing that a tariff may be at once a protective tariff and a revenue tariff. That was the kind of tariff which we had under the Conservative government from 1879 to 1896 ; but a tariff cannot be at once a free trade tariff and a revenue tariff, because they are entirely inconsistent with each other. Hon. gentlemen opposite have always claimed that the national policy was a protective tariff, while their tariff is a revenue tariff, on free trade lines. Let us suppose that the Finance Minister is talking in that way to an audience of farmers. I would answer him by saying, how can you say that when two cents a pound was imposed on pork coming into the country under the tariff of 1896 that it is a high protective tariff, and the same duty is levied still, when you now call it a revenue tariff. How could it be a protective tariff in 1896 and a revenue tariff in 1900 ? It was a protective tariff in 1S96, is it not the same to-day, when you have exactly the same duty ? I would like him to explain that to the farmers of the country. Then, I would take some of the other lines. He would say to the farmers :	We have changed the principle of taxation ; we have given you a revenue tariff based on free trade lines as nearly as possible. Then I would say to the farmers, ask the Finance Minister this question. There was 20 per cent imposed on agricultural implements in 1896, and it was declared year after year by the Liberal party that that was a high protective duty and that the farmers should have it reduced so as to enable them to get cheaper implements ; but the hon. gentleman has been in power for four years, and the duty on these implements to-day is 20 per cent, exactly the same duty that existed in 1896. If it was a protective duty in 1896, how can it be otherwise in 1900 ? On live hogs coming into the country in 1896 there was a duty of 14 cents a pound. There is the same duty to-day. It was a protection to the farmers in 1896; will the hon. gentleman say that, although the duty


MAECI-I 26,1901
[Stage Direction]
is tlie same to-day, it is no longer a protective tariff, but a revenue tariff on free trade lines ? On meats brought into the country in 1896 there was a duty of 2 cents a pound, and it was declared to be a protective duty in the interests of the farmers. When the hon. gentleman went to his own province, he asked the people there. Are you going to stand a duty of 75 cents a barrel on flour that comes from Ontario, and 15 cents a bushel on wheat ? He said it was the most odious tax that could be imposed, and declared that the principle of it was wrong. But he came into power and introduced his own tariff, and continued these duties. If it was a protective tariff levied on the protective principle in 1896, it cannot be otherwise to-day ; it is exactly the same. On fresh meats there was a duty of 3 cents a pound in 1896, and there is the same duty to-day. If it was a high protective duty in 1896, it must be a high protective duty to-day. I take canned meats ; there was 25 per cent on them, and there is 25 per cent to-day. I take condensed milk : there was 3 cents a pound duty in 1896; there is 3 cents a pound today. If it was a protective tariff then, it is to the same extent to-day. On apples there was a duty of 40 cents a barrel then, Imposed in the interests of the farmers, and it is 40 cents a barrel to-day. Therefore, I say that if the tariff was a high protective tariff in 1896, it is the same in 1900. Take hay, on which a duty of $2 a ton was imposed in 1896 ; the same duty exists to-day. On potatoes there was a duty of 15 cents a bushel then and there is the same to-day. On butter there was 4 cents a pound then, and there is 4 cents a pound to-day. On cheese there was 3 cents a pound then, and there is 3 cents a pound to-day. I merely cite these articles, because the farmer will be familiar with the argument and can analyse it for himself. It will enable him to see how he is deceived by the Finance Minister, who says to-day, our tariff is not levied on the same principle as the tariff levied by our predecessors ; it is levied as a revenue tariff on free trade lines, while our predecessors' levied their tariff for the purposes of protection. But I say that on every one of these articles the tariff that was a protective tariff in 1896 cannot be a free trade or a revenue tariff to-day. To that extent the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite are entirely fallacious. When they say that their tariff is a revenue tariff based on free trade lines, I ask, what do you think of the bounty system ? The father of the hon. gentleman who represents South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), when in this House in 1879, as the member for that riding, said that the bounty system was one of the most odious and extreme forms of protection that any government or any country could apply. But I was amused to hear his son, twenty-two years afterwards, 68}
get up and say : ' We do not object to these systems of protection, but we do object to those who use them to delude the people.' He said he did not object to the bounty system, although it is a system of protection, so long as it is kept within reasonable bounds; and he went on to defend the bounty on iron. I thought how time brings about changes, because the father took the very opposite ground to that taken by the son. The rebate is another system of protection ; but this government are giving rebates just as their predecessors did. Drawbacks are also a protective principle. I remember very distinctly the father of the present member for South Wellington saying that drawbacks could be defended on no grounds. He was speaking of the drawback given to the millers who ground wheat being sent out of the country. Then he went on to try and get a little sympathy from the people of the maritime provinces by saying that the millers of Ontario are allowed to get a drawback on what they sent out of the country.
The millers of Ontario are allowed a drawback on what they send out of the country, but you are obliged to pay a duty of 75 cents per barrel on that flour when it goes down to you, and, therefore, it is wrong. I say that we do not object to the system of protection which these hon. gentlemen have adopted so much as we do to the fact that they have endeavoured to delude the people by telling them that the system is not what it is in reality-by pretending that they have adopted a free trade policy, or something very much nearer it than the policy of their predecessors, and that the taxes are not imposed on protective but on free trade lines as near as possible. What we on this side claim is, that in this tariff system which they have adopted, and which is to some extent protective-and to that extent we do not object to it-the protective element is very much impaired by the way it is carried out. How is it impaired ? In the first place, by the preferential rate. By that rate they have struck at one of the most important industries in the country. The Minister of Customs said that the woollen men had his sympathy, and that he was confident they would devise a means, with their energy and enterprise, of protecting themselves, and he hoped sincerely they would succeed in maintaining their status. The hon. member for South Oxford (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), in 1877-8, was just as sincere in his regard for the manufacturers who were going to the wall at that time, but, like the present hon. minister, he did not raise a hand to relieve them from their difficulties. I say that the protective system of our tariff is very much impaired by the reduction on British goods. I have cited one line, but could easily cite others, which would furnish an argument quite as strong, to show the importance of the woollen industry. I need only refer to the
[Stage Direction]
fact that there is a capital of about $25,030,000 invested in plant and machinery, and the requirements necessary to keep this machinery in operation. About one-half of that is a turn over every year. That industry employs about 50,000 workingmen, to whom very good wages have been paid, until lately, when the establishments had to reduce the wages on account of their present condition. The output every year represents a value of about $30,000,030, but, at present, in ail human probability, it will be reduced to about one-half on account of this preferential tariff. Will it be any satisfaction to the labouring men and others engaged in that industry to know that we have given a preference to England, when it is this preference which tnrows them out of employment ? Will it he any consolation to them to know that in our generosity we have thrown off one-third of the duties imposed on British goods, when our generosity has prevented them earning bread for themselves and families ? I do not think it will. Let me give the figures for one mouth to show what the preference is doing to these men. Take the importations of worsted fabrics in January, 1900, compared with January, 1901. In January, 1900, we imported worsted fabrics to the value of £82,871 sterling, and in January, 1901, the importations had increased to the extent of £105,440 sterling. Woollen fabrics, we imported in January, 1900. to the extent of £36,168 sterling, and in January, 1901, that import had increased to the extent of £50,871 sterling. Is it any wonder that the men interested in this industry are beseeching the government to protect them against this condition of affairs ? Is it any wonder that they are imploring the government to give that great industry a chance to live, and not sacrifice it to their desire to show generosity to the old country. 1 have in my hand a copy of a letter addressed to the Finance Minister, and which shows the condition of that great industry to-day. When I read it, then the House will see that there is a strong reason why the government should not disregard with callous indifference the appeals made to them to save that1 great industry, and keep employed the workingmen engaged in it :
I beg to inclose herewith a paragraph taken from last week's Journal of Fabrics, showing the imports of woollen and worsted fabrics as compared with last year. You will notice a startling increase for the month of January, nearly 40 per cent, in woollen fabrics, and over 35 per cent in worsted fabrics. You will note also that there Is a falling off in all other textile exports from Great Britain to Canada, except carpct3, which is slightly increased, about 10 per cent.
When we interviewed you in Ottawa we told you that the 33J preferential rate had not fully gotten into operation, and that we should feel It when the spring imports were received. Our worst fears are more than realized. Our future looks desperate. Surely there is some way in which you can afford relief. There were
Thomas Simpson Sproule: over fifty employees discharged at the Auburn mills, Peterborough, last week. Fifty more will be laid off this week, as the orders are being completed, and no new orders coming in. During the past month we have discharged over 200 employees at Hespeler alone. Lomas's mill at Almonte has completely closed down, and other mills are running on short time. The repeat orders for spring are of such a small character, and coming in so slowly that it looks as though there would not be in six months from now 25 per cent of the woollen-machinery in operation that there was in July of last year. I cannot think that you will allow that condition of affairs to continue. It is a case of life and death with us, and matters should not be allowed to drift along until next year. Our help will be scattered. I am informed by Mr. Brodie that forty-seven men left Hespeler last week for the United States.
Yet, these lion, gentlemen say that their policy is giving employment to people and keeping them in the country. Forty-seven operatives, men who have learned their trade, who are valuable as consumers, who are good citizens, and who have been producing wealth every day, have gone across the line to enrich Uncle Sam, but to impoverish us to the same extent.
They left their families behind until they obtained work, when they propose to send for them. Our machinery will he lying idle and getting out of condition. Fixed charges will be running on, and there will be a very ruinous loss of capital before the end of this year. Our general manager informs us that owing to the state of his orders he will be obliged to discharge over 200 more persons by the 10 th April

Within three weeks two hundred in addition to the number already discharged, and yet the Finance Minister sits by and allows this to take place-does not move a hand to prevent it.
-which will* leave only 400 at the mill, where we employed up to quite recently, 800. I fear you do not realize the serious condition of the woollen industry, and the danger it is in of being completely extinguished.
Woollen machinery is only fit for making woollen goods, and buildings are erected especially for the convenience of manufacturing woollens. It is all very well for people who have no practical knowledge of these things to say with a light heart

as many members of parliament do in their speeches-' why not turn your attention to something else?' Well, when everything one has got is invested in an enterprise, what can he turn his attention to? It requires capital and experience to embark in any manufacturing enterprise. Our capital Is Invested in the woollen industry, and our experience is in the manufacturing of woollen goods. I venture to say that you do realize that the woollen industry is the only one that has been hit and hit hard, and I may say, without the slightest exaggeration, is on the brink of ruin by the operation of the preferential tariff.
We do not object to the preference to Great Britain, we are prepared to support it, but the tariff should be so arranged that we should be put on an equality with the Lancashire manufacturer.
I can assure you that the situation is really serious, and the financial institutions who are

supporting the various large woollen industries -what I mean by supporting is discounting their paper and making them advances-are becoming seriously alarmed. If they withdraw their confidence and refuse to continue to make advances, the mills will have to close down, and that is just what is in sight, I fear.
It looks to us, and to a great many of the members of the House, that the woollen industry has been singled out for the severest competition, not only by reason of the extent to which German goods are smuggled into Canada through Great Britain under pretense of partial manufacture in England. You will note that the several departments of the textile trade are relatively untouched by the preferential tariff. The silk trade, the linen trade, the jute trade, and the cotton trade all appear to be exempt from severe competition suffered by the woollen mills.
I greatly regret to say that many of the members of the House I have spoken with do not vote as they talk, as I have been assured by many of them, including some jnembers of the cabinet

Do not forget that.
*-that they were protectionists, and that we ought to have some relief; but they vote the other way when relief is asked for. I hate to put it in that way, but it is a true statement of the case.
In making this appeal I do so in the hope that the facts already before you, and the additional information contained herein will be fully and fairly considered by the government, and that something will be done for us this session.
Now, is it any wonder that the men engaged in this trade have been almost on their bended knees beseeching the Minister of Finauee for relief from their present conditions.


Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule), who is the author of that letter ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is uo name on it. It is a copy of a letter sent to the Minister of Finance, but there is no signature on this copy. But the hon. minister knows who is the writer, and he will be able to give the name.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If 1 were reading the letter I should do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And if I had the name I would gladly give it, because it would strengthen my argument by showing that it comes from a reliable and intelligent source.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is from a gentleman engaged in the woollen trade, and the name is no secret, I take it. The writer is Mr. Millichamp, of Toronto.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose so, because it is on paper headed ' Millichamp, Coyle & Co., manufacturers' agents, woollens, &c.' In the face of all this, will hon. gentlemen opposite stand up and defend the beautiful
preference they have given to England ? Will they defend it to the poor operatives who are out of work and starving ? Will they defend it to the men who are going across to the United States to find employment which, under the beautiful revenue tariff is denied them here ? Would they defend it if it came home to themselves, if starvation was brought to their own door by the unwise policy carried out by the Minister of Finance and his friends which they now laud to the sky ? I claim that this tariff is injurious, because, though somewhat protective, the protective element is very much impaired by the preference given to British woollen goods. We contend that it is further impaired by a strong bias towards free trade. It prevents the government extending protection to new lines which might be easily called into existence by a little aid. I will give you one instance. We have had before this House the question of the beet-root sugar industry. We know, from the information collected by the Ontario government and by this government and by the experiments that have been carried on for the last ten or fifteen years, that we have a country admirably adapted for beet-root sugar. All that is required is to have the same principle extended to that industry that has been extended to the iron industry. If this were done, we should have an industry that would give employment to thousands, that would bring in capital from abroad, and that would greatly benefit the farming community. Yet these hon. gentlemen are so wedded to free trade principles and to a revenue tariff that they will not lend a helping hand to assist these industries. I have do doubt whatever that if they would agree to give a bounty of one cent a pound on beet-root sugar for four or five years, inside of a few years we should have a large industry of this kind established in the Dominion.
The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce told us to-night that last year there were over 330,000,000 pounds imported into this country. To manufacture that 330,000,000 pounds would require between thirty and forty factories, and every pound of it could be made here in Canada. These factories would require an expenditure of $15,000,000 of money to build and to supply with machinery and plant. These thirty factories would employ over 10,000 operatives, directly and indirectly. These thirty factories would consume beets raised by thousands and tens of thousands of farmers, and the farmers would be engaged in a line of industry that would give them four times the profit they now get out of any line of industry that they are engaged in at present. I have complete figures in regard to this, but I will not detain the House by reading them. I only wish that the government would extend their principle of protection as disclosed in the bounty system ; they would thereby

do great good to the farmers, and would start an industry here out of which the farmers would get 60 per cent of all the money expended. The farmers are an important class, their profits are small to-day, and I say the government could well afford to do something in their interests. But with that callousness that has characterized their conduct in connection with the woollen industry, they will do nothing in this respect either. They have introduced a tariff which they say is framed on a revenue basis, and they want to prove to the people that they are carrying out the principle of a free trade tariff.
We contend further that the government is doing harm by inspiring the manufacturers with dou'bt. I believe to-day the manufacturers are becoming frightened. They remember that the Minister of Finance said that the aim of this government is to follow the same principles of trade as prevail in England, that they cannot get down to free trade in a day. The farmers remind the government that they promised to give them a free trade tariff. So we did, reply the government, but it requires time, and we are working towards that end. Therefore, I say the manufacturers are becoming timid, they are not launching out to the same extent as they would do if they had confidence in the principles of the tariff. The government are wedded to their free trade ideas and will not readjust the tariff. From time to time we hear of industries struggling to maintain themselves, and I have given you an example in the woollen trade. I could give you examples in some other lines where competition is becoming so great under the changed conditions and changed values that employers are obliged to cut down the wages of their hands. I have in my possession a letter from Brantford from a gentleman saying a strike is going on in his business because they had to cut down the wages of their operatives. Why did they have to cut down the wages ? Because the competition from abroad is so keen that they cannot hold their own, because there is not sufficient tariff to keep these imported goods out. Therefore these men say they are obliged to cut down wages, and this is from the town from which the Minister of Customs himself comes. The labouring men in his own town are fighting the fight of death.


An hon, MEMBER.: What is the nature of the business ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The windmill business, carried on by Gould, Shapely & Muir. That is the reason they give. I say the government are so wedded to their free trade theories that although they see one line after another suffering, owing to changed conditions and changed values, they will not readjust their tariff. They say : We do not want any tariff tinkering, we are Mr. SPROULE.
going to let it go on, we are going to show you that stability is one of the important features in our tariff. Now, Sir, I come to the amendment that is before the House, which I wish to deal with very briefly. The first clause reads :
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 industrial Interests of the country.
This clause aims at reassuring the people of our continued belief in the value of protection to labouring men, to manufacturers, to miners, to farmers, and to the artisans of this country. We believe in the principle of a protective tariff which will keep Canada for the Canadians. We reassert that principle as a good one, we are not ashamed of it. The second clause in the amendment states that we are in favour of mutual preferential trade. But they say : That is folly, because you cannot get it. I ask them, Have you tried to get it ? The First Minister read the other night several extracts from resolutions passed and speeches made in England when a discussion was carried on with the object in view of getting mutual preferential trade. He said these efforts did not eventuate in anything, and that we can never get it. Does he forget that the very same arguments were used with reference to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway ? We were told then: You can never build a railway, or if you do it will never pay, it won't pay for the grease of the wheels. Although the hon. gentlemen were in power, they would not try to do anything, and the people turned them out and put in another set of men who went to work, and the result has been a magnificent success. And so with mutual preferential trade, if these gentlemen won't try to get it, if they won't make any reasonable effort, then let them get out and give their places to men who will make an effort to get it. They say they believe it is right, then why do they not make an effort to get it. Ah, but they tell us, you cannot get it, the English people are not ready for it. When the hon. member for East Toronto went over to England and with others saw Lord Salisbury, Lord Salisbury would not even discuss it because the time was not opportune. Why would he not discuss it ? Because the Australasian colonies were about banding themselves into a confederation. They have done so now, and they will soon be framing their tariff. So I say the present is an opportune time above all times in the history of Canada for these hon. gentlemen to make an effort. We have reason to believe that Australia desires the same principle of trade as we do, and that she will go in with us and with the other colonies. Then, I say it would be strengthening the hands of the

mother country, it would have great influence upon the English people, if we were to make a move now. I believe it would produce a change in their mind which would eventuate in great benefit for us. But we are told that because the conditions were so and so two years ago, we can never get it. They tell us that the people of Great Britain will never consent to have their breadstuffs taxed. I have here a special despatch to the Globe, dated March 25, which says :
It is reported in many quarters that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to find such a huge sum of money In his budget that foreign grain coming into this country may bear some of the burden of the extra taxation. It is almost impossible to further increase the amount levied on many articles that now provide the national revenue, but with a strong and well-led opposition the taxation of imported bread-stuffs would be a difficult question.
He says it is rumoured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be obliged to put a duty on wheat. Does not that show that there is a change coming over the spirit of the dream that they have remained under so long in England ?


An hon. MEMBER.: It is only a rumour.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is only a rumour, but I take it that the correspondent of the Globe newspaper, if it were only an idle rumour, would not consider it worth his while to send it. He sends this as an important item of news as forecasting what is likely to occur, to the Globe newspaper. I believe that if we join with the Australian colonies and with the other colonies of the empire in an agitation, we will be successful. I feel as surely convinced as I am standing here addressing this House tonight that it will come in the near future. We may sit here until doomsday ; as long as hon. gentlemen do not ask it they will not get it. They say it is not our business, but it is the business of the empire. What does Scripture say ? ' Ask and ye shall receive.' Hon. gentlemen are not following out first principles. The hon. Minister of Customs may not have gone to Sunday school for a long time, nor the hon. Minister of Finance, and they may not recall this passage of Scripture.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Hon. gentlemen ask and do not receive. I am afraid they do not have the scriptural spirit.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have reasonable hopes that it will come if we try to get it, and we would have got it, I have no doubt, had our party remained in power. Hon. gentlemen say that it is only the concern of the empire. It is our concern as well as theirs, and, in proportion as we develop the outlying portions of the empire, we develop the empire itself ; we strengthen and consolidate the empire and strengthen the loyalty of the colonies to the empire. It has been said here that the two principles of protection and mutual preference trade are antagonistic to each other. Not by any means. Cannot we put one duty on goods coming from the United States and another duty on goods coming from Great Britain? Cannot we give England a preference over the United States, and still have a duty on English goods and protect our manufacturers here ? All that is required is to adopt the principle of a maximum and minimum tariff which is being adopted by many countries in the world to-day, which desire to protect their own trade. They are not antagonistic, they are compatible and they are obtainable. I would remind hon. gentlemen that the world moves, that nations change their policy, that England has changed very much in her feelings during the last few years, and is likely to change more in future. What would it mean to the Canadian farmer if we got mutual preferential trade ? I shall take a few items from the report of the hon. Minister of Agriculture. If we had 5 per cent on the wheat that we send to England let us see what the result would be as compared with the wheat of the United States farmers. The farmers of Canada would have, on the basis of their exports this year, more than the American farmers, assuming that they exported the same amount, $599,774. They would have that much more than the American farmer because of the advantage which the 5 per cent preference would give them. That must be of some advantage to the Canadian farmer. It does not necessarily follow that because that duty would be on the Yankee wheat it would raise the price of breadstuffs in Great Britain. Suppose there was a 5 per cent duty on pork, and bacon ; if the Canadian farmer sent the same amount of pork that he sent last year and the American farmer sent over the same quantity of pork, the Canadian farmer would have $640,151 more for his pork than the American farmer would receive. Would that not be of advantage to the Canadian farmer ? Then, I take cheese ; if the Canadian farmer had 5 per cent preference on his cheese, and if the American farmer sent the same amount as the Canadian farmer did last year, the Canadian farmer would have $992,810 over the American farmer. Then I take butter ; if the Americans sent to Great Britain the same quantity as the Canadian farmer sent, the Canadian farmer would have upon that butter $256,107 more than the American farmer would have.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And more than the Canadian farmer had this year ?
2159	COMMONS	2160


Thomas Simpson Sproule: More than the Canadian farmer would have this year on the same quantity.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Would it give the Canadian farmer an increased price ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would give the Canadian farmer that much of an increased price over the American farmer.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then, it would give the Canadian farmer an increased price ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If we had that we would not have Canadians going to the United States to engage in farming, but, that movement would be reversed if by engaging in farming in Canada they could get 5 per cent more than the farmers pursuing their calling in the United States.


The MINISTER OF AGRICUTURE.: Do they go there now. My hon. friend is not aware that our butter sells in England for a good deal higher price than American butter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it would sell for 5 per cent more.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then, somebody must pay it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be one of the most valuable aids to the immigration policy of the hon. gentlemen, who have 273 immigration agents, most of them in the United States, trying to persuade people to come to Canada.


Mr. McCREARY.: There are more people coming in from the United States than there are going out. There are three special trains a week running from Calgary to Edmonton at the present time, carrying emigrants from Dakota, as I have official information to-night.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not increase the number ? Do you object to increasing the number ? If your immigration agents can go over to the United States and tell the people that if a man comes to Canada he will have 5 per cent more for his produce than those who remain in the United States, it will be one of the strongest arguments that they could preach to them.


Mr. TALBOT.: The hon. gentleman says that if butter, exported from the United States, was taxed in the English market 5 per cent, it would be a large benefit to the Canadian producer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say that the Canadian farmer would have that much advantage over tiie American farmer.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: If the American butter is taxed in the English market, it would be an Mr. FIELDING.
American producer who would lose it, and the Canadian producer would not get any benefit at all.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: If the Englishman did not have to pay the duty, he would have no objection.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I maintain that if this system were introduced, it would be a great benefit to the people of Canada, and especially to our farmers. No intelligent man can successfully contravene that proposition. Why, the Prime Minister stated in London, Ont., that it would be a great benefit to Canada, and that if elected he would try to get it. But when lie was elected, he did not try. He got a Cobden medal instead, and that quieted his ambition. I believe that mutual preferential trade would not only be a benefit to the people of Canada, but that it would be a benefit to the empire, because after a while it would cause the empire to be self-supporting within herself. It would stimulate our industries, and the acreage under crop would be increased, because of the better market, so that, in time, the colonies could supply England with nearly all she needs, and relieve her from the necessity of depending on foreign countries. To that extent it would consolidate the colonies in the empire, it would draw the colonies and the mother country more closely together, and it would make the people more loyal in every respect. The last clause of the amendment is in favour of countervailing duties against those countries which unfairly discriminate against us. Are we to sit idly by while Germany one day, and some other country the next, puts tariff barriers against us. and are we not to move hand or foot to help ourselves ? Are we not sent here by our constituents to look after the interests of our own country, and when we find nations raise high tariff walls against us. will we not have countervailing duties against them ? If we fail in this we neglect our duty to our country. I believe the principle enunciated in the latter part of this amendment to be the correct principle, and I suppose it from the bottom of my heart. It only requires a maximum and a minimum tariff, and the minimum tariff we can apply to every country that wishes to have preferential trade with us. I believe. Sir, that there is embodied in this amendment the true economic principle in connection with the ways and means of raising a revenue and conducting government in this country, and in that belief I shall vote for the I amendment with all my heart.
Mr. TURGERON moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. Wednesday.

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 27, 1901.