[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 68) respecting the McClary Manufacturing Company.-Mr. Hyman.
Bill (No. 69) to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Company.-Mr. Logan.
Bill (No. 70) respecting the E. B. Eddy Company.-Mr. Champagne-by Mr. Monet.
Bill (No. 71) respecting the Hudson Bay and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver -by Mr. Douglas.
Bill (No. 72) respecting the Kettle River
Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher-by Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 73) respecting the Vancouver, Westminster, Northern and Yukon Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher-by Mr. Davis.

Mr. WILLIAM  J.@: ROCHE (Marquette) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 74) respecting representation in the North-west Territories. He said :	Mr. Speaker, I
would ask leave to change the title of this Bill from one to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900. to a Bill to amend the Act respecting representation in the North-west Territories.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Explain.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: This Bill refers solely to the North-west Territories, and it
is meant to correct certain abuses which crept in during the last election. For instance, the lists in the North-west Territories are supposed to be completed and posted up eight (Jays prior to election day, and to be finally revised two days prior to election day. The enumerators who prepare the lists also revise them and it has occurred that political opponents, desiring to obtain certificates for voters to poll their votes outside of their own polling subdivisions, have been unable to do so until within two days of an election day, whereas political friends have been enabled to obtain certificates any time within eight days. The Bill contains a clause to correct this abuse and to allow the issue of certificates any time during the eight days and also to provide a penalty for issuing blank certificates. Blank certificates have been issued to friends, whereas they have been refused to opponents, and a clause has been introduced to correct that. Then, again, the enumerator who would not give any certificates to his political opponents until within two days of the election would conveniently make himself scarce during these two days, and our friends were not able to obtain certificates at all. A clause has been introduced into the Bill settling the place, or office, where this enumerator may be found in order to secure certificates and to have placed on the list names that are entitled to be there. It also provides penalties for the wilful infraction of any of these provisions. These, in short, are the amendments proposed, which will be explained more in detail upon the second reading of the Bill.	.


Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche, Marquette) if that can be made applicable to, say, the province of Manitoba, particularly in regard to requiring that the returning officer should have an office in which he may be found before the election ? I was utterly unable to get any certificates because he absented himself for four days.


William James Roche: That can be provided for, but it is not included in this Bill, which applies only to the North-west Territories.


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

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That, during the remainder of the session, Government Orders shall have precedence on Mondays, after ' Questions to he put by members.'


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I do not intend to oppose the motion, but, I suppose the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has taken into consideration the amount of
time which will be required for the private Bill legislation before the House. It is a matter that I have not given very much consideration to.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think that we have made sufficient progress now to justify the government in taking this day.
I have not been forgetting private legislation, but I see no reason why we should not go on with the government business and have the private legislation disposed of also.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. EDWARD HACKETT (West Prince, P.E.I.) Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of tlie Day are entered into, I desire to bring to the notice of the government a very urgent matter affecting the people of Canada. It especially affects the people of Prince Edward Island, and when I say the people of Prince Edward Island I mean the people of Canada. I regret that I am unable to give notice of this question, but I want to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) : How are the trains down in Prince Edward Island moving ? What means has he taken to see that the people there are supplied with train accommodation that they should be supplied with ?
Mr. SPEAKER.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett) wants to enter into a discussion he will have to move the adjournment of the House. If it is only to ask a question upon an urgent matter


Mr. HACKETT.: I do not wish to go into a discussion.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would ask the hon. gentleman simply to put his question without engaging in a debate.


Edward Hackett: I move that the House do now adjourn in order to put myself in order. The people of Prince Edward Island paid for that railway. It cost them $3,250,000. At the time of confederation that railway became the property of Canada and it was to be operated by the government of Canada. I have never known since confederation that the government of Canada has failed in its duty in operating that railway. But, I hold in my hand a telegram, received by me to-day from a friend in Prince Edward Island. I will read that telegram to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, and I am pleased to see that he is present and that the time is most opportune now to reply to this question.
Mr. Edward Hackett, M.P., Ottawa :
Tignish, P.E.I., March 15, 1901. No train this week. Superintendent won't employ sufficient men clear track.
(Sgd.) P. C. MURPHY. M.D.


Edward Hackett: That Is all. The Minister of Railways will not employ the men to shovel the track although plenty of men are to be found to do the work. In the interest of the people whom I represent, I ask the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) to see that they shall have at least one train a day. We find the people of western Canada agitating for railway accommodation in Manitoba and the North-west and elsewhere where we are building railways, and the people of Prince Edward Island are satisfied that they shall have all necessary accommodation notwithstanding that in the Mr. HACKETT.
little province we are deprived of anything like a decent mail service. The urgency of the matter will be seen when this gentleman to whom I referred, had to pay an extra amount for the sending of his telegram across the short cable of nine miles, from Cape Traverse to Cape Tormentine. I, as the representative of my constituents ask the Minister of Railways, I call on him and I demand from him that he shall see that sufficient men are employed to keep the track clear and give the people west of Summerside that railway accommodation they are entitled to.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The information which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hack-ett) has just now given me is the first I have had on this subject, and I think it would perhaps have sufficed if the hon. gentleman had sent me the telegram and put me in possession of the information which he has, so that I could have communicated with the general manager and j have the matter inquired into. I am quite sure that there is no disposition on the part of any of the authorities to stay their hands when obstacles occur in connection with the running of our trains. The mere employment of additional labour would not, I am sure, prompt them to refuse doing anything that might be required under such circumstances. They have no instructions which would warrant them in not giving a proper service to any part of the Island, or indeed any other portion of the government railways. If the hon. gentleman will send me that telegram I will at once communicate with Moncton and ascertain what the facts are. I am not at all surprised that trains should be blocked there, because that is not an uncommon thing when storms are heavy and the same thing is occurring all over Canada. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett) that perhaps those who are writing or inspiring such newspaper articles as he has read are more anxious to find a grievance and make a complaint than they are to bring the facts to the knowledge of the proper officers. I would suspect that the paper that the hon. gentleman has read from, is not one which is ordinarily friendly to the government, and I would imagine that it was not anxious to put the case in an impartial way. There is certainlv no design on the part of the Minister of Railways or of the government, or the department to refuse the people nil nroper railway facilities or accommodation. I promise the hon. gentleman that I will inquire into the matter at once. 1 am advised that the very paper which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett) has read from, contains the additional statement that the condition which is represented to have occurred on tile western portion of the line lias occurred all over the line. The hon. gentle-
man (Mr. Hackett) will know whether that is correct or not. If it is correct, it will show that this block in the west is not due to any discrimination on the part of the authorities.
Motion to adjourn the House negatived.



HALIFAX-MANCHESTER LINE.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, will the right hon. the Prime Minister permit me to mention that I have just received a telegram from the president of the Board of Trade of Halifax protesting against a contract being made with the Manchester line which omits Halifax as a port of call on the homeward voyage. The board protests that the subsidy should not be granted unless Halifax is included both ways, and stipulation made that Halifax shippers shall have the privilege of shipping at least
2,000	tons per homeward voyage. I presume that the matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), but in case it has not, I take the opportunity of mentioning it now. It is a matter which demands the attention of the minister.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
The 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 he granted to His Majesty.
['Very well.']
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: Mr. Speaker, it is always matter of honest and legitimate curiosity on the advent of a new parliament, to ascertain whether either of the great parties representing the two great divisions of public opinion in this country have anything in the way of a new policy to propose ; and when, as in the case of one of these we have the happiness of knowing that they have almost a complete brand-new outfit of new leaders the curiosity is deepened. On the present occasion, however, if I am to judge from the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier), who, I suppose was constituted the mouthpiece of the opposition, and also of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) who followed him ; there does not appear to be any great chance of our legitimate curiosity being gratified. The hon. member from Toronto (Mr. Osier) in the course of his remarks yesterday observed that there was not much to be said about the budget-and the hon. member did not say much. The government largely agreeing with the hon. member (Mr. Osier), thought that they might give the opposition the great advantage always dear to theologians, to politicians, and to ladies of
all sorts and conditions, of having the last word. We were willing to rest our case on the statements of my hon. friend beside me (Hon. Mr. Fielding), thinking our friends of the opposition were likewise willing to rest their case on the champion they had provided. But as it appears that the hon. gentlemen desire a further continuation of the debate, we have no objection whatever that the matter should be discussed from every point of view.
As I have said, Sir, the hon. member for Toronto did not speak at any great length. The hon. gentleman did not give us much indication of the new policy, if a new policy there is to be, which the opposition are prepared to propound. I am bound to say that in that respect, however, although he did not speak quite as long, he gave us some more hints than the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) who succeeded him. The hon. member for Toronto is of opinion that from this time forth-I do not know whether in this he spoke for himself, or as the mouthpiece of the opposition-there should be no more bonuses to railways, unless I presume such bonuses are approved by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or some other competent authority. The hon. gentleman was likewise of opinion that the time had come when we should issue no more scrip to the half-breeds. The hon. gentleman, in the third place, thought it was' impolitic to go on expending money on the St. Lawrence navigation, if I followed him correctly, until it was pretty well established in the fulness of time whether Montreal or Quebec should be the great port of Canada. Now, Sir, if on that occasion the hon. member spoke as the mouthpiece of the opposition, and if they will formulate their views and put them in the shape of a motion embodying these three great planks, nothing will give us more pleasure than to discuss them in any way, shape or form they please to choose.
As for my hon. friend from Bothweil (Mr. Clancy), I did not observe that he made any suggestion at all, except to the effect that he was not going to be stampeded by any one-I do not know to whom he had reference-to vote .against the present preference to Great Britain unless he liked to.
In the way of criticism, the hon. member for Toronto complained at some length of the increase of the public debt. The hon. gentleman did not find it convenient to mention, what I think he might have mentioned, that in four years the total increase of the debt of Canada under the present government has been a little less than $7,000,000; while, if my memory is not at fault, in the three years preceding, the total increase of the debt of Canada had been $17,000,000. It is perfectly true that the debt of Canada increased by about $7,000,000 in the last four years; and of what items were those seven millions mainly composed ? They were composed of a grant of about

$3,500,000 to the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, a grant of $1,500,000, a free gift of the people of Canada to the troops in South Africa, and a discount of about $1,000,000 caused by the placing of a 2J per cent loan in the English market.
Mr. Speaker, I am as averse as any hon. member can be to seeing any undue increase, or any increase that can be avoided, to the public debt of this country. It is, for our means and resources, a large debt, and I do not like to see it increased; but I will say this, that in the course of my experience I never knew a case in which better value was given to the country for an addition of six or seven millions of dollars to the debt than has been given to Canada in these three items to which I have referred. By the addition of $3,500,000, In the shape of a subsidy to the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, the government very largely developed a very important region in British Columbia, and at the same time provided a large and growing market for a large section of the Northwest, a matter of great importance and value to the settlement of that country ; and it can easily be established, if hon. gentlemen choose to take the trouble to examine our records, that even at the present moment, in all human probability, the result of that expenditure and the increased population and increased trade and traffic thence accruing, has been to add to our revenue in the shape of increased returns from customs and excise, which we would not have had but for the construction of that road, a sum of money which has already almost entirely recouped the treasury of Canada for that $3,500,000. I say nothing of the importance-though they are a part of the consideration for that $3,500,-000-of the great advantages which were obtained not merely for the people of the North-west, but the people of older Canada, who are enabled to trade with British Columbia on very much better terms than they could have done if that subsidy had not been granted. For the $1,500,000 which was granted for the service of Her Majesty in South Africa, I say also that this country has obtained good and adequate value. Putting all other considerations aside, and looking at the matter from the most sordid pounds-shillings-and-pence point of view you please, as a mere mercantile venture, as an advertisement, Canada never used $1,-
500,000	to better purpose than when she sent
3,000	of her choicest troops to Africa, and when they established for themselves, as I am glad to be able to say they did, a record unsurpassed by any other portion of Her Majesty's forces, for gallantry, discipline, endurance, skill and conduct in the field. The $1,000,000 which we added to our public debt under the guise of discount on a 2i per cent loan, made by my hon. friend shortly after his entrance into office, was also money right well spent, and for this simple reason. It is a matter of very Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
great importance to us, who will have to renew our indebtedness for many millions, I think not far short of fifty or sixty millions, within the course of a few years, to establish as low a rate of interest for our loans as can possibly be obtained; and therefore that nominal addition to our debt was money very well spent and invested in the interest of the people of Canada. If my hon. friend had simply desired to keep down the apparent debt, it would have been a very easy thing for him to have floated a 3 per cent loan. Had he done so, instead of an apparent addition to our debt of $1,000,000, he would have been able to reduce It by half a million from the proceeds of the premium which he would at that period have been able to secure on such a loan. In our $200,000,000 of net debt now existing, it would be hard for any hon. gentleman to point out any case in which the people of Canada have got better value for their money than they have in these six millions which have been added to our debt under the present government. I say farther: if we were able to invest sixty millions on equally good terms, my hon. friend the Finance Minister would be well advised to do it, and do it at once.
The hon. member for Toronto also wanted to know what we had done with the large surpluses which we had received during the last few years. Sir. I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. gentleman and his friends that what we did with the surpluses to which he alludes was to pay oft' the large undischarged liabilities which our predecessors had left behind them. When we came into office we found that our predecessors had gone out of office not merely with a considerable deficit, but likewise with a large amount of undischarged liabilities.
There were several millions due on railway subsidies unpaid. There was a very large amount, not less, I think, than $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 at least, to be paid for the completion of the canal contracts which were under way and which the late government had left unfinished. If you add these sums together, you will find that there is ample scope for the employment of the entire surplus which we accumulated during our term. I say nothing of the fact, which may more fitly be discussed another time, that we had besides to turn a dead railway into a live one and provide a considerable sum for equipping and putting the Intercolonial Railway into shape to be an efficient competitor with its great rival.
But my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier), not content with the past, projected his eagle vision into the future. He desired to know what provision we were going to make for the next 25 years. I was pleased to hear that remark. The hon. gentleman is a citizen of Toronto. He has witnessed, no doubt with interest, how, for the space of thirty years, the Reform party have kept power in Ontario, and I think it suggested
itself to bis mind that as things were going there was every probability that the present party in power would be called on to provide lor the future of this country for the next 25 years. Sir, I am pleased to be able to relieve the mind of my hon. friend with respect to these 25 years. During the next 25 years, in fact, during a shorter period, we may probably have to refund the whole or very nearly the whole of our debts. At this moment, the charges for our debt and sinking fund are a little over $13,000,000 a year, but if my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) succeeds in establishing a 2J per cent or even 2J per cent rate and in dispensing with the sinking fund-as I know he will-the probabilities are that before thei 25 years will have expired, we will have reduced that $13,000,000, which is a fixed charge that we cannot control, to something like $6,000,000 or $7,000,000. And if the population-as I think, under the energetic operations of my hon. friend in front of me and other valuable members of the party, it will be-is sufficiently increased, if it resumes its normal rate of increase, and at the end of the 25 years we have 8,000,000 or 10,000,000 of people-as we have every reason to hope we may-the interest will be absolutely reduced to one-half, and, relatively to the population it will be reduced to one-quarter of the amount we now pay.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Is it to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture the hon. gentleman is referring ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: My hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) will answer for himself. I do not know what surprises may be in store for us, but I say candidly that I was rather sorry to see my hon. friends, who have spoken so far, were rather disposed to fall back into the old ruts. These hon. gentlemen refused-and refused, I fear, deliberately-to face the facts. They refused to admit that within the last four or five years conditions have changed to an extraordinary degree in Canada. They refused to admit that new obligations have been assumed, for which we have had to provide, and they refused entirely to make any reasonable allowance for the expenditure rendered requisite by these changed conditions. They preferred to repeat exploded charges. I had hoped better from them, I thought that those things might well enough be relegated to the limbo which always follows a general election, and that we would turn over a new leaf and deal with things to a greater extent as we find them to-day. But no doubt these hon. gentlemen, are a good deal handicapped by the traditions which they have inherited from their predecessors. No doubt also they have found it rather difficult to get anything new to propose, and they must not complain-though I notice some of them are disposed to complain- too much if the people are disposed to judge 48
them by the standards they themselves set up. I have seen a good deal of political life in Canada, and can very well recollect that, when times were hard, and we were in power, our friends opposite were the very foremost to impress on the people that these things depended entirely on the government. If times were bad the government were to blame. Sir, the people took them at their own words. The people judged them by their own standard and did, I dare say, to some extent, give my right hon. friend beside me and his colleagues credit for the fact that there were good times and that they knew how to make the most of them.
But when I come to deal with such criticisms as I have heard from hon. gentlemen opposite. I notice one thing. Not only are these criticisms to a great extent contradictory, but they appear to be self-destructive. These hon. gentlemen complain that we have stolen their policy, and almost in the same breath they complain that we introduced- especially in the matter of the preferential tariff-a totally new departure. They are never tired of complaining that we are giving England a preference, without favour or consideration granted to us, and at the same time they make it a charge against this government that one of the results of our policy has been a largely increased trade with the United States. Some of them were willing to show-and I think my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) rather intimated the same thing-that all the advantage which England gets in the preferential trade is of an extremely flimsy description. I think some have put it as low as one-quarter or 1 per cent. I think the hon. gentleman admitted that it was one-third of 1 per cent. What particular figure they may finally settle upon is a matter for their own consideration, but I would point out to them, that if that consideration be a mere flimsy and trivial matter, if the preference is of very little importance, is it not rather an audacious request on their part and would it not be one on ours, to ask that the English people should, abandon their old and well-settled policy for so very trifling a consideration. I am not of the opinion myself that it is of such a trifling advantage. I think it is a matter, on more than sentimental grounds, of very considerable importance to the English manufacturer and exporter that whereas German and American competitors have to pay $3, he is only called on to pay $2, and I entirely differ from the hon. gentleman in thinking that the great consuming population of Canada fail to reap a large advantage from that reduction. Also-though I think they did not dwell much on that point - I have noticed that many of them complain that this reduction so trivial in consequence and insignificant in its character, has worked a great deal of injury to our own manufactures. There also I do not agree with



them, although I dare say some may be more or less inconvenienced by the fact that they have to compete on less favourable terms with England in our market.
Then these hon. gentlemen are constantly complaining of the extravagance of this government and constantly pointing to the fact that we are spending a great deal more money than they did-with which point I shall deal later on-yet almost in the same breath you will find these hon. gentlemen, or some of the leading men among them, constantly urging the government forward to new and heavy expenditure, in some cases expenditures, which, if carried out at all, would probably mean an addition of some hundreds of millions of dollars to our national debt. Sir, I would advise these hon. gentlemen to agree with each other-though perhaps that would be too hard, considering their traditions-and if they can agree with each other, I would advise them to formulate, and to formulate without much delay, some definite policy ; and, when they have so done, to challenge the policy of the government.


Mr. BENNETT.: And you would adopt the policy ?


Matthew Henry Cochrane: As you did the national policy.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No, I think my hon. friend is speaking in considerable ignorance of the real effect of the introduction of the preferential tariff, and other changes made in the tariff of 1897. If he means to say that our tariff is a very high revenue tariff, I will agree with him ; if he says it is a protective tariff, I differ. And I will tell him that the best test of a protective tariff the world over is this-and he will see it exemplified on the other side of the border-that under a protective tariff imports go down. Under our tariff imports have expanded marvellously.
Now, it is inevitable, under the circumstances, that I must go over some of the old ground. If our friends on the other side will persist in making these unfair comparisons, if they will ignore the changed conditions of the country and the new services we have to provide for, if they will ignore entirely the proposals which they themselves made in 1896 from this side of the House, it becomes our duty, whenever they take that line, to remind them, and to remind the country, of what the real, actual position of affairs was. Now, in 1896, the then Finance Minister, Mr. Foster, brought down main estimates-and it was perfectly well known that he had very large supplemental estimates in reserve, though I will not go over that ground now- these main estimates alone showing that he required $38,358,000 for the services of 1897. We will start with his main estimates ; for the sake of the argument, I put on one side the well known fact that he Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
must have introduced, had his government remained in power, very heavy supplemental estimates in addition. These hon. gentlemen declare that we are enormously and atrociously extravagant, because my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), in the year last past, has expended $43,000,000, or nearly so. Now, I will admit that an additional expenditure of $4,600,000, in round numbers, is a very large addition to the annual expenditure ; it is a thing to be inquired into, a thing to be explained. But, before these hon. gentlemen declare that the mere fact that $4,600,000 more was spent in 1900 than was asked for in the main estimates alone for 1897 proves extravagance on our part, they will do well, and the House will do well, to consider under what circumstances this additional expenditure was required. I speak now, of course, of the sum chargeable to consolidated fund alone. I find that of the $4,600,000 additional expenditure, at least $1,500,000 was required for the services of the Intercolonial Railway, every penny of which was recouped to the treasury from the added receipts of the Intercolonial Railway. And a sum nearly as large was required for the service of the Yukon territory, for which the late government did not need to provide one farthing ; and this sum likewise was recouped the people of Canada out of the receipts of the Yukon territory. This service has not cost the people of the older provinces one single stiver. In fact. I am rather inclined to believe that the balance is the other way, and that we have a fair amount to our credit as a result of our expenditure on the Yukon. Then, about $500,000 was spent in the reduction of our debt in the added sum spent for sinking fund. If you want to make a fair comparison of expenditure, from this $4,-
600,000	you must take the $3,500,000 which appeared on both sides of the account. That is only common fair-play. And, when that is done you find that the alleged increase of $4,600,000 diminishes to a total increase at the end of the fourth year of $1,100,000-giving, as I said, the hon. gentlemen the benefit of the fact that I have simply taken their main estimates and have entirely left out of sight the enormous supplemental estimates that they would have had to bring down. Now, the total receipts from the railways and canals was, in 1896, $3,490,000, and, in 1900, $5,232,000. being an increase of receipts at the end of the fourth year of $1,638,000. Our expenditures for the same purpose, in 1896, were $3,826,000, and, in 1900, $5,244,000. So. our expenditures increased $1,418,000, while our receipts increased $1,638,000. I do not lose sight of the fact that there was considerable expenditure on capital account during that interval, but I point out that the interest on that account, up to June 30, 1900, was met, and, I believe, fully met, by the additional sum we received from the Intercolonial
Railway. Sir, I would like to ask kon. gentlemen opposite how muck tke poorer we were owing to tke fact tkat my kon. friend tke Minister of Railways now spends five millions or five and a quarter millions on tke Intercolonial Railway, and gets back five and a quarter millions ; kow muck poorer we are because we spend a million and a quarter or a million and a kalf in tke Yukon and receive a million and a quarter or a million and a kalf from tke Yukon ; kow muck poorer we are because we are debited on the one side with kalf a million of sinking fund and reduce the other side by purchasing kalf a million out of the sinking fund ?
There is another way of looking at this question tkat kon. gentlemen opposite would do well to consider. As I have said, tke conditions are mightily changed. In 1896, when these proposals tkat I alluded to were brought down, we had a very considerable deficit. We were threatened with a deficit in 1897. In 1895 our total available income, after providing for tke fixed charges-for interest and sinking fund, subsidies to provinces, and expenses known as ' collection of revenues '-was $7,000,000. In 1897. things were somewhat better; our total available income was about $10,000,000. In 1900, making these self-same deductions, our available income was about $21,000,000. That is to say, our available income is treble what it had been in 1895, and it is double our available income-which is the point which hon. gentlemen should chiefly consider in regard to these matters-of 1897. And, while our available income had increased over 100 per cent, our expenditure on the same basis-putting on one side the fixed charges and expenses known as ' collection or revenue,' which, as I said, are recouped-was about 10 per cent more than it had been in 1896 and 1897-the expenses of the two years not varying materially. Under the circumstances, it does not lie in the mouths of hon. gentlemen opposite to say that this government has been very reckless or extravagant In the additions it has made in public expenditure. And, if the House wants to know how the remaining $1,100,000, for which we are fairly accountable, is made up, I can give him in gross-I shall not inflict on hon. members the minute details-the three main items that have caused that increase. One of these was a considerable expenditure on the militia, to which I never heard a whisper of opposition from hon. gentlemen opposite. Another was a heavier expenditure on the part of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) ; and, if I remember well, very few indeed of his items were challenged in detail.
The third large item was caused by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture in the expenditures he made, with the unanimous approval of this House, for the purpose of developing and expanding our trade 48$	[DOT]
in agricultural products of various kinds ; the fourth was for the purpose of increasing and extending the immigration into this country on the part of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior. Now, Sir, if I am correctly advised, the result of my hon. friend's operations, in brief, has been this, that probably within the last three or four years-and here again he can correct me if I am in error-something like 30,000 or
40,000	farms have been taken up in Manitoba and the North-west, are now being brought into cultivation, and are adding largely to the resources, and wealth, and exporting power of this country. These were the objects for which we incurred an additional expenditure. Up to the present moment they have not been challenged by hon. gentlemen, and I doubt very much whether here or elsewhere hon. gentlemen will venture to challenge the expenditures incurred for these particular purposes ; and if they do not venture to challenge them, if they are content to allow them to pass with their entire approval, then I say we are perfectly justified in saying that the additional expenditure we have incurred is either, as I have already said, wholly and entirely in the nature of cross entries where, for every penny we spend we get a penny back, or that it is for purposes which command the unanimous approval of this House and of the people of this country.
But, Sir, perhaps it is when we turn to the developments of trade and commerce that we are able to see better than in almost any other way how great and how vast are the strides which this country has been making within the last four or five years. I spoke just now of the increased trade with the United States, and here it is worth while observing that this increase is to a certain extent a nominal increase. The nominal increase, I believe, was close upon $40,000,000 during the past year. But it is to be observed that we imported and exported, thus virtually neutralizing part of the item a much larger quantity of coin and bullion than in previous years, and it is also beyond doubt that a large part of our increased exports to the United States consisted of precious metals, which would find a market with perfect facility in any other part of the world, and as to which we cannot say that we are under much obliation to American customers for relieving us of them. Nevertheless, after making all allowances, there is no doubt that our trade with the United States has largely increased, and so far from holding that as any groupd for reproach, or any ground for misgiving, I for one am very glad indeed to know that our trade, and particularly our export trade with the United States, has incerased largely. A year or two ago our total export trade with the United States was about $45,000,000, our total export trade last year was $68,000,000, being


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: There never was so good an advertisement given to any country, or to the productions of any country, as that given to the productions of Canada when we introduced preferential tariff. When hon. gentlemen say, as I think I heard one hon. gentleman say the other night, that not one man in a thousand in England knows anything or cares anything about the preferential tariff, I can tell him that there is probably not one man in a thousand in mercantile life in England who does not know and appreciate, and was not exceedingly impressed by the fact, that Canada alone of all the world had given a distinct preference to British goods in her markets. Sir, this is not a sentimental question. Great Britain stands in the position of a very rich and wealthy consumer who has the power of choosing between four or five rival competitors for her trade in goods nearly equal in quality, nearly equal in appearance. If you have the good-will of that customer you may rely upon it, and the people of Canada may rely upon it, that you will get a preference in the trade of that customer. In dealings with such a customer it is of great importance to have his good-will, and our people are finding it so more and more day after day. If our people will continue to send forward good articles, if they will avoid the danger which always besets trade when there is a rapid increase in the demand, of sending forward an inferior article, and relying on the previous excellence of their products to retain the market, I say if they will avoid that besetting sin, there is hardly any limit to the extent to which we may push our most profitable trade with England, more particularly as the articles which we have to sell are products of high quality, articles in which quality is looked to more than price by a very large portion of the English consumers with whom we deal.
Now, Sir, I do not see the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) in the House, but I would like to put a question or two to his confreres. If these hon. gentlemen complain that we have too great a surplus, if they allege, as I think I heard that hon. gentleman allege, that when you have a surplus it is your duty either to reduce the taxes or to reduce the debt, I would like very much to know from the opposition what particular taxes they propose to reduce. Sir, that is part of the express business of an opposition. If the opposition think that any taxes are oppressive on the people they have the fullest constitutional power to bring the question up here; and I for one, would be disposed to give most respectful consideration to any proposition that they may be pleased to advance for the reduction of taxes, whether it be on American goods, whether it be in the shape of a further extension of the British preference, or in any shape they please. There is a fair and full opportunity and I invite
them most cordially to do so, it they want to move to reduce taxation. They may also move to strike out Items of expenditure. It is fair, it is just and it is the duty of the opposition and I would he pleased, particularly In the matter of railway bonuses and other things of that kind, to see the opposition bestirring themselves actively In [DOT]the shape of reducing the various items which are brought down by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and some other of my hon. friends. But, Mr. Speaker, I would say to hon. gentlemen opposite, that if they are not prepared to come forward and move for the reduction of taxation, if they are not prepared to strike out any special outlay, if they are not ready to abrogate the preference which we now grant to Great Britain, there is not very much object to be attained by prolonging the discussion of the budget brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding). It can serve very little good purpose for them or for us, to go over the old allegations which have been threshed out on every hustings in the Dominion of Canada during the last general election. There is one point, however, upon which I am disposed, and upon which my hon. friend beside me (Hon. Mr. Fielding) Is disposed, to partially agree with these hon. gentlemen. There is no doubt whatever that we have had a most extraordinary and .remarkable expansion of trade and commerce within the last few years, and I would be very sorry that this House, or this government should proceed to regulate their expenditure on the assumption that this will go on and continue until they had absolutely clear proof that the expansion was based on a permanent increase in production, which was perfectly sure to be maintained. However, on that head, I shall have a little to say before I sit down. I quite admit, as the history of Canada, of the United States, of Great Britain and of every other commercial country shows, that periods of great commercial expansion are apt to be followed by periods, either of depression, or of stagnation, and that a reasonable margin should be allowed to provide for such a case. Particularly, when the rate of increase has been as great and vast as it has been in our case, it would be folly for us to expect that it could be maintained ad infinitum. I believe I am speaking, for, not only myself, but, for my colleagues, also, when I say that we have fully realized that fact, that we have had it clearly before our eyes and that we design to regulate our future conduct in accordance therewith. But, Sir, in all these matters, after all said and done, there are two things which may be regarded as about the very best test of trade development in a country like this. One, I think, is the test of the great and rapid increase of trade and commerce; another is our -success in
filling up our waste lands and in adding largely to the active producers of this country. As regards the development of trade it is absolutely unparalleled ; the record is almost too good. The figures which my hon. friend beside me (Hon. Mr. Fielding) gave were sufficiently convincing, and if he erred at all, I think he erred on the side of moderation and hardly dwelt enough on the enormous rapidity with which our general trade, and more notably, our exports, have increased within the last few years. It is a very interesting fact that I now state to the House, that, within the last six months, the exports of our own produce, the produce of Canada amounted to $108,002,883. Before we came into office the exports for 1898-and it was a record year, it was the highest year that had been attained- amounted to $109,707,805. Six months of the present fiscal year equalled the highest record that up to that time had ever been attained in the fiscal history of Canada in the matter of the exports of our own produce. As to the total volume of our trade, I would like to call the attention of the House to this very notable fact, that, in 180S, the total volume of our trade was $131,027,532. In 1897, and it was a record year, it was the highest year we had ever attained, the total volume of our trade was $257,168,862. In these thirty years the total volume of our trade had increased by $126,141,330, and these were during the years in which we had added the whole of the Northwest Territories, the province of Manitoba, the province of British Columbia and the province of Prince Edward Island to our territory. Sir, in 1897, the total volume of our trade was, as I have already said, $257,168,862. In 1900, the total volume of our trade was $3S1,517,236, the difference being $124,348,374 in three years, as against $126,141,330 in thirty years. Sir, as to the question, and a very important question it is, whether the great growth in our exports is reasonably likely to be maintained, I have been at some pains to analyse the chief items of increase, and I am inclined to think, that, from the character and nature of the increases, there is a reasonable probability that the greater part, at any rate, of the expansion in our exports will be maintained, a point which all business men will regard as a very important matter. I find that our exports of bacon and hams in 1896 amounted to $4,381,968, while, in 1900, our exports of bacon and hams had grown to $12,758,025. In 1S96, our exports of butter amounted to $1,052,089, while, in 1900, our exports of butter totalled $5,122,563. In the matter of cheese our exports in 1896, were $13,956,571, while, in 1900, they were $19,856,324. In the case of the mines our exports in 1896, were $8,059,650, and in 1900, $24,580,266. Our exports in manufactures likewise increased very largely in these years. I would point out that these several items compose the major portion of the total

increases in our exports, and I think that there is reasonable ground to believe that these exports will not only be maintained, but probably will be increased with reasonable care and diligence on the part of our producers during the ensuing year or two. I need not say, Sir, that particularly in the case of the mines, these industries may be regarded as being almost in their infancy, that there is every ground in these and somewhat similar cases, as for instance, in the making of pulp, pulp wood, and paper therefrom, to look for a large and expanding trade. And now, Mr. Speaker, in concluding, let me ask if these facts be so, and I do not see how they can be successfully contradicted, is not my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and are not the government fully justified in asking :	Why disturb so
prosperous a condition of things ; your trade is increasing, your debt is stationary, your population is increasing, your revenue is increasing, new resources are developing everywhere-why should we be asked to disturb so wholesome and goodly a condition of affairs ?
I doubt very much, Sir, whether these hon. gentlemen really believe that the existing condition of affairs could be bettered in any shape or form. I look around and 1 find it very difficult to ascertain where, if anywhere, there is any real discontent with the government. So far as I have been able to see, I am inclined to believe that the discontent which the hon. gentlemen opposite say exists may be confined to three classes. I am aware that there is a numerous class of gentlemen who are discontented with us because we have not made them senators. I am aware that there are certain manufacturers who are discontented with us because we have not chosen to allow the tariff to be used as an instrument for their private benefit; and I am aware also that the members of His Majesty's loyal opposition think, and, perhaps, with some reason, that we have had altogether too good times. I am inclined to think that that is beginning to dawn dimly upon their minds. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier), though he knew it not, had, to a certain extent, the spirit of prophecy on him when he almost predicted that we were here to stay, and to stay for five and twenty years. If that be so, I trust that my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his colleagues will be able, in these five and twenty years to administer the affairs of this country in such a way that when that time expires, they can point to equally as good a record as that we have the honour to submit to the consideration of the House and the country to-day.


Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all listened with a great deal of pleasure to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), but I dare say that some of us who were members of former Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
parliaments had our pleasure diminished by the fact that we had heard that same speech in various forms on several occasions of late years. I may remark that it differs very widely from the orations which the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) was in the habit of delivering previous to 1896. I shall have occasion to make extracts from some of these former speeches of his, which will enable the House and the country to see what a wonderful distance the hon. gentleman has travelled, and how remarkable are his powers of locomotion. It would appear from what the minister (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) said at the eud of his speech, that no reasonable man could suggest the idea that a change is wanted in this country, but still he sits representing a province which has overwhelmingly condemned the administration of which he is a member. More than that, I am told that in the constituencies he visited as an active agent of the Liberal party, his presence produced most disastrous results.


William Humphrey Bennett: Lincoln.


Adam Carr Bell: The county of Lincoln, with an assured Liberal majority of 600, was visited by the minister (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), and his visit was immediately fatal to the candidate of the Liberal party there. Wherever the hon. gentleman passed through Ontario, his trail was marked in all directions by dying and perishing victims belonging to the Liberal party. He visited Toronto, and that city is to-day, perhaps, the banner Conservative stronghold of all Canada. Now, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is apparently very anxious that the Conservative opposition should furnish the government with some variation of its present policy. I am not surprised at that, because any one who takes the budget speech and adds to it what has been said by the minister (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), will be inclined to remark that so far as power of initiating anything new is concerned, the government has shown an absolute want of efficiency. It has to-day a policy, and that remark may form a companion remark to the statement of the minister (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), that the opposition has no policy. Well, a man whose purse has been taken from him by a footpad has no purse, while the footpad has come into possession of one, and may vaunt it if he choose. The government to-day has a policy, but it is a policy which they appropriated from the opposition, and the government apparently glorying, the theft, twits the opposition with having no policy. I do not think, however, that it is the intention of the opposition to allow itself to be thus defrauded of its policy. Sir, the Conservative party of Canada stands to-day as it has stood for the last twenty-three years, prepared to maintain that policy of protection; the
policy of adequate protection. In that respect, I do not see that we could propound any policy that could be of advantage to our opponents, because notwithstanding the denial of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, they have shown themselves to be adepts, not in initiating a protective policy, but in the maintenance of a protectionist policy when it comes ready-made into then-hands. I was more struck by what the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not say than by what he did say, and particularly so, as he avoided, with the utmost care, any reference to that part of the speech of the member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), which most required attention at his hands. There can be no doubt that the belief exists in the lower provinces, whence I come, as well as elsewhere in Canada, that immediately previous to 1879, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) and his colleagues in the Mackenzie government, had, under pressure of public opinon, made up their minds to fall in with the views expressed in parliament by Sir John Macdonald and his lieutenants, in favour of protection to the manufacturing, the agricultural, the mining and the other interests. I have heard it told in detail that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) had prepared a protective tariff, when his purpose was interrupted by an incursion of free traders from the lower provinces, who threatened the Mackenzie government with the loss of their support unless the project was abandoned. It is told that then the hon. gentleman locked up in his desk his protective tariff, and he probably has it in the archives of his family to the present day. If that be not the ease, then it is difficult to attach any kind of meaning or relevancy to the remarks made by the premier at the banquet given .to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in April last, and in which the Prime Minister represented that hon. gentleman as showing great magnanimity and great loyalty to his party, in that he silently lay for eighteen years under the odium of having obstructed himself to the will of the people, and thus brought disaster upon his party, whereas, had he chosen to speak out, he could have shown that the fault did not lie with him. I regret that the minister (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) did not deal with that question, because the one thing which is altogether unsatisfactory about the budget speech is. that it leaves the government to-day standing in the equivocal position they have occupied since they came to power, of endeavouring to pose before the country as being in favour of protecting the manufacturers, and at the same time in favour of giving the consumers all they want. They are endeavouring to avoid the point at which it would be necessary to declare themselves, and to show whether they are protectionists or whether they are in favour of a revenue tariff-free traders, so called. The minister
(Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) told us last night, when he interrupted the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), that he was in favour of a revenue tariff which would impose a 20 per cent duty upon imports, and. that the condemnation to which he had been subjected was not because he refused to adopt a protective tariff, but because he refused to go beyond a 20 per cent tariff. The hon. gentleman declares that to-day he is in favour of a revenue tariff.
He maintains that he is to-day opposed to a protective tariff ; and still he sits as a member of a government which has at this moment not a maximum revenue tariff of 20 per cent imposed on all the importations of the country, but a tariff with duties as high as 5 cents a gallon on coal oil, 35 per cent on various lines of manufacture, and specific duties on every page. My hon. friend will not for one moment, I am sure, contend that the tariff which includes specific duties as high as 5 cents a gallon on coal oil, and which grants bounties to the extent of $3 a ton on pig iron, which the manufacturers tell us can be produced for something less than ?6 a ton, is in any sense a revenue tariff. Does the hon. gentleman ask the people of Canada to believe that he is sincere when he says that he is a strong upholder of a revenue tariff, while he sits in a government and draws the salary attaching to that government, which maintains a tariff such as I have described ? It is too much for human credulity. It is almost impossible to understand how the hon. gentleman can make s.uch statements in this House. However, that point has to a large extent been avoided. The hon. Minister of Finance has made no change whatever in the tariff, and so this matter goes for the moment over, and we are compelled-because in this House we must believe what is said by a member-to accept the statement that the tariff! of the government is a revenue tariff, although it imposes specific duties in all directions and grants bounties to the extent of 50 per cent of the cost of the materials produced, and imposes taxes on some commodities as high as 35 per cent, or even 50 per cent or 60 per cent, while it admits other commodities free of duty altogether, .in order that it may benefit and favour certain industries in the country. We have to believe, I say, in a technical sense, whatever is said in this House ; but I must say that the mental effort required to believe all these things is such a tax upon us that nothing but regard for an old statesman of Canada, a man who 'has grown gray in the service of the country, would induce us even to make the attempt to reconcile these hopeless discrepancies.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I was very much pleased yesterday to hear a budget speech of so very pleasing a character, both to the country and to the opposition-one of the most pleas-j ing that has ever been delivered In Canada ; because it is filled with good things-the

tidings of large revenues and abounding trade. I was pleased, during that discussion, to view the great delight which it afforded members sitting on the government side to feel that they were living in such a happy decade. Apparently, these gentlemen supposed that nothing of the kind had ever occurred before, and the Finance Minister, I believe, encouraged that belief in their minds. Now, it is always an unpleasant thing to dispel pleasing delusions. Still, we on this side of the House are always truthful; and I am compelled, out of regard for the truth, to give these gentlemen the knowledge which they might not seek for themselves, in the happy condition in which they live- that there have been kings before Agamemnon, that there have been surpluses in this country before the days of the present Liberal administration. In 1881, 1882, and 1S83, when Sir Leonard Tilley was Finance Minister of Canada, there were surpluses just as good, and I am compelled by truth to say even better than that with which the hon. Minister of Finance has met the House on this occasion. The surpluses of the Finance Minister which afforded such pleasure to his friends on the other side of the House, for the last three years amount to $14,615,000. For 1900, which is his banner year, he has a surplus of $8,054,000, a most amazing sum of money. Still, Sir Leonard Tilley, in 1883, had a surplus of $6,310,000, to which he added-and at that time my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) was sitting in the House, and did not contradict him, so that I presume a different system of book-keeping at that time prevailed-to which he added from the sale of Dominion lands $1,744,000, making a total surplus of $8,060,000, surpassing the boasted surplus of the present year by some $6,000. At present, I need scarcely say, receipts from the sale of Dominion lands' are to be found under the head of miscellaneous, and are included in the consolidated revenue of Canada. In 1884 Sir Leonard Tilley had again the pleasant duty devolving upon him of meeting parliament with a surplus of $7,064,492, and adding the receipts from the sale of Dominion lands amounting to $1,009,000, he was able to present to the House a total surplus of $8,073,492. And we must remember that that was 17 years in the past, when Canada was a comparatively small, poor, and unimportant country, compared with the Canada of to-day. At the same time Sir Leonard Tilley was in a postion to announce to parliament that the whole capital expenditure of the. country, amounting to $14,171,413, had been met in full without borrowing a cent of money outside of the revenues and the resources which came into the hands of the government. That achievement, I need scarcely say to my hon. friends who will take the trouble to recall the facts, eclipses the brilliant record which the Finance Minister was able to lay before parliament yesterday.


Adam Carr Bell: Another point that becomes interesting is to contrast the mode in which these different Finance Ministers dealt with this happy condition of affairs. We find that Sir Leonard Tilley showed a great desire to benefit the people of the country, and so managed the finances of that day that he reduced the net debt of Canada from $36.17 to $35.75 per head, and reduced the net interest on the debt of Canada from $1.64 to $1.50 per head, diminishing the annual impost on every individual in the country by 14 cents, or a relief of taxation on every family in the country of some 70 cents. Contrast that with the condition of things to-day. Does my hon. friend the Minister of Finance use his surplus, the golden harvest which has been gathered, for this purpose and in this way ? No. We find that under the present Finance Minister, who no doubt his friends on the other side of the House would like to suppose is a greater Finance Minister than has been, the debt has increased from $63.33 per head to $64.75, an increase of $1.42, and the net interest has increased from $1.74 per head to $1.78, an increase of 4 cents per head, showing a difference between the two of 18 cents as the result upon every individual in the country.
What was the condition of affairs in those years ? The capital expenditure of the government then was very high. It was the period just on the eve of the rebellion in the North-west, and when there was great activity in canal and railway building and tremendous demands on the treasury were being made. In those three years the capital expenditure of Canada was $29,729,000, or an average of $9,909,771 per year, whereas in the four years of the present administration. the capital expenditure has been only $23,358,000, or $5,839,000 per year. Contrast the two expenditures on capital account, that of this government, amounting to $5,-
839,000	per year, and that of the Conservative government, in the period I have referred to, amounting to $9,900,000 per year, and you will see how much less expenditure this administration has had to meet, and yet the ministers of the period I have referred to, when a Conservative administration held office, were able, despite the fact that our population and resources were smaller, to exhibit surpluses greater than even those of which this government boasts.
What is the contrast in another respect. It will be found that the Finance Minister has not distinguished his term of office since 1897 by any great reduction in the taxes of the people, if we except the 12} per cent, 25 per cent, and 33A per cent taken, under the preferential tariff, off the duties on British goods. With the exception [DOT] of this preference, the hon. gentleman has not made any reduction in the taxation. Compare his record in this respect with that of the late Sir Leonard Tilley. Sir Leonard Tilley in 1882 reduced taxation by one and a quarter million dollars, and in 1S83 by a like amount.
He took this amount off: the taxes 'with the full intention of diminishing the surplus and thereby lightening the burdens of the people, and yet, after making these reductions, he was still able to come before parliament with a surplus greater than that which the hon. the Finance Minister announced yesterday. It has been always held a proper policy for a finance minister to reduce taxation when he finds a buoyant revenue and a large surplus. I could recall capital speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite-particularly by the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce, pointing-out the great danger attending a surplus and declaring that a finance minister, whose administration showed a large surplus, was not a good financial manager. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) has not succeeded in impressing this view, to which he so frequently gave such vigorous expression when in opposition, on his colleague, the Minister of Finance. The finance minister who succeeded Sir Leonard Tilley, the Hon. Geo. E. Foster, pursued the same course as did his predecessor. In 1891, when the country was very prosperous, when business was flourishing and the prospect of a surplus most certain, Mr. Foster took $2,000,000 off the taxes of the people, and he deliberately did so with the object of leaving that money in the pockets of the people instead of putting it into the treasury. He reduced the taxation of sugar by $3,500,000, and on the other hand imposed taxation of one million and a half dollars on malt, spirits and tobacco, making a net reduction of $2,000,000. But our present Finance Minister is wedded evidently to the opposite policy. His desire is to be able to boast of surpluses, but I do not know whether the people will enjoy his surpluses to the same extent as do the hon. gentleman and his supporters in this House. To my mind, the people would have far more reason to congratulate themselves if the Finance Minister would so manage the affairs of this country as to impose only such taxes as are necessary to avoid a deficit. But the hon. gentleman persists in keeping up the taxation'so that he may be able to boast of a surplus.
In 1878 the net debt of Canada was $124,-
551.000	; in 1896 it was $258,497,000, and in 1900 it was $265,000,000. There is nothing that seems to afford our hon. friends opposite so much pleasure as to make very unfair and misleading and improper statements in connection with the public accounts. During the few years they have been in office, they have had comparatively small capital expenditure to meet, compared with what the previous government had to meet in 1884 and 1885. The capital expenditure then rose to the point of $23,000,000 in one year. We then had to meet the cost of building the Canadian Pacific Railway and the expenses of the North-west rebellion, and were consequently adding to the
capital debt of the country at tho rate of $9,000,000 per year, as compared with a smaller capital expenditure of only $5,839,000 by this administration. So that it is not difficult to show that as regards the progress of Canada and the amount of money collected during the term of the present administration, and its addition to capital expenditure, that record is eclipsed by that of a previous Conservative administration.
I have indulged in these remarks principally because to a great extent the claim is made on the part of the government everywhere-not only on the hustings, but even here in the House of Commons, where men are supposed to know something of the facts -that we are living in an era of such prosperity as we never knew before, and that all this wonderful prosperity is entirely due to the financial guiding power and ability of our hon. friends opposite. This is a most absurd contention. I have pointed out facts to show that twenty years ago, when Canada1 was a poor country compared with today, a Conservative administration eclipsed the boasted record of the present government.
So far as the citizen of the country is concerned, he is not so much concerned in great surpluses as he is in economy. What is good for the citizen, ' the man in the street,' as he is called in the old country, is to have a government in power that will glvp him efficient service, security of life and property and light taxation. What is the record of this government in this respect ? They have not reduced 4axation, but have wonderfully increased it. It is true, they have, at various times in the past, condemned expenditures as extravagant and condemned them because they meant in- ' creased taxation. I might as well here recall to the memory of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce who, I regret to see, has left his place, an utterance of his own when he was in opposition and criticising the administration, to show the position he occupied toward this matter of expenditure at that time. In criticising the budget speech of Hon. Mr. Foster in 1896- the last occasion when the task devolved on the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright)-he expressed himself in this way. And I may say to those who listened to his speech to-day and noted not only what he said, but made correct and careful note of what he did not say, that the remarks that I am about to cite offer a remarkable contrast with his utterance of to-day :
For my own part I do not hesitate to tell him that I consider a yearly expenditure of $40,000,000 of $38,300,000 altogether too large for the present resources of Canada. I say It is a disgrace and a shame to the government that have been entrusted with our affairs that they come down to us and ask for an expenditure of $38,300,000 a year for Federal purposes. Sir, the
thing is wholly unjustifiable	The
fact of the matter is that hon. gentlemen opposite have been discounting the future at a most

tremendous rate, and now the bills have come back and there are no assets wherewith to meet them. Sir, there is very little use on the part of hon. gentlemen whining over this matter. They ought to try and meet it, and the way to meet it is to reduce our present establishment, the way to meet it is to reduce your present extravagant mode of government and to reduce your extravagant ideas.
In 1897, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Rickard Cartwright) went into power in company with his colleagues. In the year that had elapsed from the making of his speech in 1896 to his accepting office in 1897, affairs in Canada had changed only in that the recovery which was manifest in 1896 had continued to make its way. There was nothing in the circumstances of 1896 to justify the hon. gentleman In the statements he made, for instance, that we had been discounting the future at the most tremendous rate. We had been recuperating, we had been passing through a'period of hard times, a period of rest, a period when the country was economizing and had gained a position from which it could go forward to greater expenditure, could begin to live upon a higher and more extravagant scale-as is the habit of governments as well of private individuals. If these remarks had been made by the hon. gentleman today in criticising the budget speech of his hon. friend the Minister of Finance, they would have been proper. We have been discounting the future; we have been taking every dollar we could from these fat years and spending it; we have not been putting one dollar of it away to meet the lean years that are to come. These remarks of the hon. gentleman would have been pregnant,
. pertinent, wise, if they had been made in criticising the budget speech of to-day; they were neither wise nor applicable in criticising the budget speech of Mr. Foster in 1896. What is the reason the hon. gentleman, who was so critical then, who was so rabid that his judgment persuaded him to say what he knows he could not defend anywhere, to make statements that are contrary to the facts and not to be defended-what is the reason that the hon. gentleman, who was so prone to criticism then that he was led to be unfair and unjust, who criticised so severly an expenditure of $38,000,000, sees nothing wrong in an expenditure that will touch if it does not exceed $46,000,000 ? The sole change apparent to me and to the country is that the hon. gentleman himself has got into office. The course which he recommended to the Conservative administration of reducing our present establishment, reducing the number of ministers and the cost of government has not been carried out. The ministers have been increased in number, and among the gentlemen so added to what he called an unnecessarily large establishment is the hon. minister himself. The hon. gentleman, so long as he is in this House, will not get up and argue that he should not be here-I presume that he is Mr. BELL (Pictou).
too logical for that. Before he makes up his mind to criticise the administration, his resignation will reach the premier, and he will be able to make that criticism a candid one. Is it possible that he will hesitate to make that small sacrifice in order that he may become once more the keen, unspairing critic of extravagant administration in Canada ?


An hon. MEMBER.: He could not do justice to it.


Adam Carr Bell: An hon. gentleman on this side has anticipated me. I am sorry that he who made so much of small opportunities during the years of Conservative administration is not on this side today. There is only one thing that would put him at a disadvantage-a lack of adjectives, I think he has quite exhausted the vocabulary in criticizing the Conservative administration. With such a task as would be presented to him if he were on this side, he would be in the position of the gentleman, who on one occasion was expected to indulge in a great burst of profanity, but said not a word except, ' I won't swear ; can't do justice to the subject.' Now, while we would like very much if we could have had the opportunity in indulging in an analysis of the fiscal management of this government, we would like also to lock horns with them on the subject of free trade or protection. We would like to have driven them out of the lines of Torres Vedras in which they are now so comfortably ensconsced, get them in the open and make them declare whether they are or are not in favour of protection. There is one subject on which our hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce has given us a large invitation. He has asked us to name those expenditures we would like to have stopped, to specify the taxes we would like to have reduced. I think it is not very difficult to meet his views in that respect.
I think it would not be difficult, in the matter of public works, to make large economies without impairing the efficiency of the service. For instance, the expenditure on the Sorel bridge, to which attention has been called by the Auditor General, might have been much less without injury to any public interest. I think that numerous cases in which contracts are let without tender might have been managed by hon. gentlemen on this side so as to economize considerably.
I think we could have built telegraph lines in British Columbia without such expense as has been indulged in by these hon. gentlemen. I think we could have economized to the extent of a couple of millions in the subsidies to the Crow's Nest Pass Railway.
I think, on the other hand, if we had been on that side of the House during the last four years we could have been able to specify some matters in respect of which we would have removed the taxation. I
do not see why the Minister of Finance did not make some suggestions of that nature, while maintaining that protection of the industries, of this country in which we support him, and for which we give him credit, according us that sincerest form of flattery which he has administered to our vanity in imitating our policy. If we had been on that side of the House we could have suggested changes in the tariff which would have impaired the rotundity of his remarkable surplus, and which would not have impaired the rotundity of the purse of the public. We could have suggested the removal of the taxation on sugar, of the taxation on tobacco; we could have suggested that in many other respects which are properly the subjects of a revenue tariff, the tariff could have been reduced on the necessaries of life to the lowest possible point. But the hon. gentleman will probably not take our advice in this matter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think the hon. gentleman would'give it.


Adam Carr Bell: I am giving it in all sincerity. A government which is going to maintain a protective system can derive money enough from the duties on protected articles, and still relieve many other articles by making them subject to a revenue tariff.
Now, there is another point in reference to which the Minister of Finance seemed to be in a somewhat combative mood, he was very anxious to .have his course challenged in respect to the preferential tariff, he wishes that the opposition should challenge his course in that matter. The hon. gentleman reminds me of the miserable plight in which Sinbad the sailor found himself after he had foolishly allowed the old man of the seas to get upon his shoulder. He found himself choked and incommoded by the manner in which the old man of the sea gripped him about the neck, and when he suggested that the old man get off his shoulders, he, feeling very comfortable where he was, resigned to his situation, declined to quit. I believe the Minister of Finance with his preference to England on his back is in a similar situation, he put it there and let him keep it there. He is anxious apparently that the opposition should help him out of his dilemma. He blundered into it, he may blunder out of it; if not, let him blunder along until he falls under the weight of it, as he undoubtedly will. There can be no question whatever that if nothing else drives this government into a corner where they will be compelled to make an honest and public declaration of their policy, and to say whether they are genuine protectionists or hybrid free traders, it will be the operations of this precious preference to England. It is a thing that no man on
this side of the House approves. But, as I have said, our hon. friends have got themselves into this plight, and by all means let them stay there until they find some way of relieving themselves. Now, the objections to such a policy are numerous. In the first place, while there may be some value in the sentimental considerations which are asserted continually, they are very intangible. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with his great experience, spoke, I hoped to hear something important from him. When he told us today that he was prepared to defend the preference and challenged the opposition to say anything against it, I hoped to hear him say something to justify it. Now, what was the extent of his justification ? It was a bare assertion that the sentiment aroused, the effect produced upon the English mind by the knowledge of the fact that Canada alone of all the world had given that country a tariff preference, increased our exports to that country. The hon. gentleman made that assertion, I presume it was necessary for him to make some assertion, but did he furnish one vestige of proof of that assertion ? Did he suggest one consideration that made that assertion a probability, that made it a likelihood ? Not one. There is only the bald assertion that the kindly sentiments aroused in the minds of the English people by the preference we had given them, the fact that we had shown them a disposition to help them in the work of developing their trade, has earned for us a kindly place in their minds, to such an extent that they will buy our goods. Now, I do not believe that. I am prepared to believe it on reasonable proof, I have never heard any proof whatever, and I decline to accept even the assertion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the one thing follows the other. The facts are against it. The relative developments of trade as proved by the figures cited last night by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) discredit the statement. The showing is that while our trade with Great Britain has increased, it has increased much more largely with other countries to which we have shown no favour whatever. The evidence goes to show that while our trade has increased with Great Britain, it has increased far more with the United States. So that the whole argument falls to the ground, and in calling it an argument, I am showing sincere kindness towards the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I am conceding to him a great deal out of a sense of politeness. To my mind it is an argument that does not carry conviction. On the other hand, this mode of assisting the British manufacturer is, to my mind, exceedingly objectionable. What is the fact of the case ? Supposing that we wanted to benefit England, supposing we wanted to bestow a large advantage upon

her, the greatest advantage we can possibly bestow on her is by maintaining a good understanding with that country, by drawing closer and closer the ties of kinship and the feeling of kindness, while at the same time endeavouring to build up this country to a point, to a stature, at which it will be a more and more powerful ally and a strong arm to Great Britain, if she should ever need our help.
Now, how can we do that ? That question was settled in 1879. One of the objections made at that time to the establishment of a protective tariff in Canada was that it was an unfriendly act towards Great Britain, a country which depended upon its manufactures, which prized its foreign trade. It was argued then that possibly the British government might even disallow our protective tariff on the ground that it was striking at British trade. But the men of that day who passed the national policy, who put the national policy into operation, had considered all these things, they met the objection that it was an unfriendly act to Great Britain, they faced that bugbear, for bugbear it was, they were not frightened by it, and they faced that consideration in 1879, and settled it then. Their protective tariff was not hampered, or impaired, or emasculated, by sentimental consideration for the manufacturers of Great Britain. Nothing of the kind was allowed to affect the efficiency of the national policy at that time, and nothing of the kind should be allowed to affect the efficiency of the national policy to-day. Therefore, I say if this administration is ever brought to their knees, when pressure of hard times will come to the manufacturing industries of this country, and bring them to that point where they will approach the government for relief, if this government is then going to maintain the position of a protectionist administration, it will have to look carefully into the effect of this preferential tariff. I believe that the very preference into which this administration fell by accident will force them at a very early date to declare themselves either straight protectionists, as I would like to see them, or to go back to their old love which was inculcated in them by Brown, Mackenzie and all the other worthies who were leaders of their party before 1879, and to declare themselves a free trade or a revenue tariff party, not only so, but to live such a life in the eyes of men as will prove them to be a free trade and a revenue tariff party.
Now, what is the objection to this preference ? It is sometimes called a concession made to the British public. If it is a concession it amounts to very little. It is one that is conferred not upon the whole British population, but only upon a section of it. Now, the whole effect of the preference so far has been to increase the im-


Adam Carr Bell: ports of Canada from Great Britain in the last year by $7,729,000.
Now, as this is rather an important point, perhaps I had better deal with it as a whole. The total imports of Canada in 1896 were $110,000,000, and in 1900, $189,000,000. Our total trade in imports increased in four years $79,000,000. The increase in the last year, this extraordinary year, this year in which we have had a most startling development of trade, has been $35,000,000, or nearly $30,000,000. Great Britain's part of this business, for the year 1896, amounted to $33,000,000, and for the year 1900, to $45,000,000. In exact figures, our trade with Great Britain increased in four years by $11,809,988, and in the last year, in which the most satisfactory increase has been made, satisfactory from the point of view of those who like that kind of thing, because it has been very well said that for people who like that kind of thing, that is the kind of thing they like, the increase was $7,729,G07. We, on this side of the House, do irot like it at all, because, as far as we can see. this increase lias been at the expense, not of the whole people of Canada, but at the expense of a very limited class of the people of Canada, a matter to which I will refer later on. Taking now the United States imports, they amounted to $58,000,000 in 1896, while, in 1900, they amounted to $110,000,000. showing an increase in four years of $51,000,000, and in the last year, an increase of $17,000,000. Relatively, the increase in trade from Great Britain is larger. It is not surprising that it should be so, but the whole increase in our trade from the United States, amounting to $17,000,000, is more than double the increase in trade from Great Britain. Our imports from other countries also increased. We bought, in 1896, $19,000,000 worth, and in 1900. $35,000,000 worth. In four years our trade with other countries increased by nearly $16,000,000. and in the last year it increased by $9,000,000, so that, as compared with the rate of increase in our trade from Great Britain, it does not show to advantage at all. Our trade from a number of other countries increased from $19,000,000 to $35,000,000, and in the last year it increased by $9,000,000, whereas the trade from Great Britain showed an increase of $7,729,007 last year. However, this is not as conclusive, perhaps, as the figures given by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), because, he showed that, whereas the government party are, in this matter, driven to argue and to try and persuade the public that we are getting our advantage indirectly, that while we are increasing our imports from Great Britain, to a great extent, we are largely increasing the exports from this country, his evidence goes to show that Great Britain stood eighth in tile list of countries in the order or proportion of their trade. So that, the fact of the
matter is, that despite this preference given to Great Britain, our trade with that country has not increased as rapidly as it has with other countries to which we make no concession whatever.
Now, there is another very marked objection to this preference. It is given only to a special class in Great Britain. It is given only to a very limited portion of that class, because there are very many lines of manufacture in Great Britain which cannot compete with similar industries in the United States or in Canada. The advantage therefrom is derived by the manufacturers of woollens and some lines of metal. In wood, tobacco, and other manufactures they cannot compete. We can hold our own in manufactures of paper, and some other lines, and the consequence is that the scapegoat, the man who is called upon to make all these sacrifices in order that Canada shall acquire certain advantages of a sentimental character, is the manufacturer of a comparatively limited number of lines of goods in Canada. Take the manufacturers of woollens, for instance ; they tell us that they cannot face the competition to which they are subjected under a tariff that has been reduced by 33* per cent. Why should a certain industry be singled out for destruction in order to secure a sentimental consideration of this kind ? If Canada wishes to confer an advantage on the empire, it should put a tax on all the citizens of Canada to defray the cost of that advantage, and not throw this burden upon one particular class. Apart from that, no man who is thoroughly in favour of adopting protection as the national fiscal system of Canada can justify that process, if it be one that throws a burden upon any particular industry in the country. The whole purpose of protection is to protect ; and to introduce into the system a provision which makes it inefficient is a coui'se that can be followed by no government that honestly believes in protection. For a protective government to have tacked to this system such a form of modifying the tariff as this preference, is to show that these hon. gentlemen do not understand what they are doing, when they are, on the one hand, protecting by their system some industries, and on the other excluding some industries from its advantages. If, at the same time, their system is allowed to go to its legitimate end, it must end in disaster to the whole system, to the industries of the country, and they will be forced to deal with the subject at an early day.
There were a great many things in the budget speech which were very pleasing, because they conveyed to us the knowledge that the country is prosperous. However, there were a good many things not dealt with that one would naturally expect to be contained in a message indicating the condition of prosperity in which the country is. There are, I think, many portions of the
world to which we might turn our eyes with the view of extending our trade. In the last budget speech, one of the most notable points was the information as to a proposed arrangement with a portion of the West Indies, by which we expected to develop a certain amount of trade in that direction. Unfortunately, that matter fell through, and it is a somewhat singular thing that, in the budget speech made this year, there is no reference whatever to any negotiations, or any attempt to regulate, or improve our relations with outside countries, and notably, no intimation made whatever to show that any effort has been made to develop our trade with the West Indies. This is a matter in respect to which I think the government should be alive ; they should be awake and hard at work. I believe it is only necessary for Canada to take in the West Indies to round out her confederation, to make it a perfect government, to give it all those diversities of climate, soil and product that will make it a selfsupporting and practically independent part of the world. With the addition of the West Indian islands, so far as this country is concerned, I would not exchange places with the United States, powerful as they are. I think in that case we will be a microcosm, a little world, and we will have added to our territories a contiguous territory which would enable us to develop some very valuable resources. Then, there is another point, and that arises in- connection with the preference tariff, to which I have paid some little attention. That is, the discrimination of Germany against the products of Canada. The government makes no reference to that. Apparently the government has never thought of it. Is the government prepared to take any action now to protect Canadian interests or is it inert ? Is it aware of this fact, or is it in the position of the Minister of Railways, who discovered only from a private telegram read by a private member, that an important portion of his railway system was blocked up by snow ? Is it possible that the administration is not aware that discrimination is being used against the exports of this country in Germany ? Is it possible the government has no remedy tn offer ? Is it not a singular thing that in the one opportunity during the year which the Finance Minister has of telling the people of Canada how he is looking after their affairs and what proposals he has to make for the future, that the Finance Minister neglects to give any consideration to a most important matter affecting the country ? Or is it possible that the government shrink from their duty ? If so, I would remind them that here again there is a contrast between their attitude and that of the Conservative administration, because so far back as 1883 Sir Leonard Tilley said :
If we fail to make satisfactory arrangements with the governments that do not place the

natural products and the manufactures of Canada on equal terms with those of any other country, we will ask parliament, at the next session, to impose a duty of 10 per cent additional on their products until they grant us such terms.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: That is what we are doing now.


Adam Carr Bell: Where ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is exactly what we are doing now ; imposing a material difference-not exactly 10 per cent-between the duties on German goods and British goods.


Adam Carr Bell: That is a most unworthy statement.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It happens to be a fact, and I suppose therefore the hon. gentleman thinks it unworthy.


Adam Carr Bell: It just shows the size of the calibre that suits the Finance Minister.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The House can judge of calibre between us.


Adam Carr Bell: It is just about his size. What he does is actually to put Germany on an inequality with one other country in the world and leaving her exactly equal with every other country in the world. That is a most unworthy statement of the Finance Minister, and I would be tempted to use even the stronger word ' evasion' in reference to the unfortunate remark made by the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not happen to think so ; we will have to differ.


Adam Carr Bell: I do not doubt at all the difference would be in my favour. Then we are to assume that the duty apparently has been discharged by the government. We now have it on the 'high authority of the Finance Minister that they have dealt with this question, and, therefore, I presume I need not waste my time in arguing further on the question.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Hear, hear.


Adam Carr Bell: We know from the Finance Minister that they have, done all that is necessary under the circumstances. They are apparently satisfied. Germany can go on and discriminate against Canada and I presume the government will still impose that 10 per cent-as the Minister of Finance says-discrimination against her in the same vigorous and effective manner in which they are imposing it now. Hurrah for this government. It is a great day for Canada that its interests are so well guarded.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend had better explain what he would do about it.


Adam Carr Bell: I have already explained what a predecessor of this Finance Mr. BELL (Pictou).
Minister would do about it, and although I am not in a position to promise too much, I venture to assure the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) that so far as he does at any time stand up and strike a blow in the interest of Canada as against any foreign country, he will have the support of the Conservative opposition of this House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, 1 have gone, somewhat inadequately perhaps, over the various features of the budget speech that attracted my attention. I regret very much to find that the charge which has been made at times against this administration, not only by members of the opposition but by the independent people of the country, is borne out by the facts as we see them, to-day. The great merit of this administration since 1897 was in their capacity to follow. Their great good fortune was that they succeeded an administration which lived a long time and which gave that feature of stability and firmness to the tariff which the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) spoke of as a good thing that attracted his commendation and approval. But, Sir, that quality of stability and permanency in the fiscal system of Canada has not altogether grown up during the years which the hon. gentleman has been Finance Minister. It has been a characteristic of that system since 1879, and that these last four years have not been an unfortunate exception to that stability is due to the fact that he and his friends very properly determined', to follow in the footsteps of their predecessors and in consequence to abandon every profession and every pledge they made while in opposition. In every department of government these gentlemen in office have acted most wisely in continuing the course of their predecessors. They have disturbed nothing. In connection with this, perhaps I may read an extract from the speech of the Minister of Finance in 1897, when he found it necessary to turn that sharp corner which they had to take. He said :
Every man who invested a dollar in the national policy

That is, I suppose, in the industries fostered by the national policy, because I do not think this was a policy game, although it had a policy name.
Every man who invested a dollar in the national policy did so with his eyes wide open to certain important facts. He was well aware that from the beginning down to the end the national policy was condemned by one of the great political parties in Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what party that was.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: You will find out by-and-by.


Adam Carr Bell: It will be in the sweet by-and-by when we pass from this sublunary sphere. I think it has gone to that limbo in which ghosts and disembodied spirits play their part.


Alexander Johnston: I will be able to tell you one hon. member who condemned It.


Adam Carr Bell: How does lie vote now ?


Alexander Johnston: He is on the opposite side of the House.


Adam Carr Bell: He probably is and votes for this revenue tariff-protective administration.


William Humphrey Bennett: And bounties on iron.


Adam Carr Bell: And bounties on iron, no doubt. I go on with the reading of the extract :
He was well aware that every effort had to be put forth by governmental influence and such influences as the manufacturers themselves are well aware of

I wonder if the manufacturers are well aware of these influences now. I have reason to think that during the last campaign in the country the manufacturers were well aware of these Influences and were looked to by the government to exert themselves.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: More so than ever.


Adam Carr Bell: Even to a greater degree perhaps. I quote again :
*-in order to obtain from the public an apparent endorsement of that policy.
Apparently that endorsement was satisfactory because it has passed current with the gentlemen who came into power; it was discounted in full.
Now, the manufacturers knew of this and they must have known that when they put their money into these factories they were taking their risks. There was a speculative element in the whole national policy business, and the men who played the game and gathered in the winnings ought to be prepared when the turn of the tide comes, to pay the losses and try to look pleasant.
I am surprised to find that my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Melding) speaks so familiarly in the language of a certain element of sports in which I did not know he was so well versed.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: He probably visited New Glasgow occasionally.


Adam Carr Bell: I quote again from the Finance Minister :
I wish to emphasize the fact that it never has been the policy of the Liberal party, as declared by any member of the Liberal party occupying a responsible position, if they came into power to destroy at one movement all the manufacturing industries or so change that policy as to place them in peril.
What a lovely thing it was that all the time these gentlemen were going about Canada denouncing protection and the bloated monopolists, and the thieves, and robbers, and praying no doubt night and morning for the salvation of that unhappy victim who had been bled white-is it not a lovely
thing to know that during all that time these hon. gentlemen were carrying in their breasts this lovely reservation ; this saving grace, this clause that saved them ; that it was never their idea when they came into power to destroy by one fell movement the policy of protection. And here I take it there is another saving clause apparently. They are not to destroy it by one movement, but they are to destroy it by a very great number of small movements, and by a graduation so imperceptible that we will not get to the end of it when that period of 25 years has expired which we have been talking about. The Finance Minister goes on to say :
We denounce the principle of protection as radically unsound and unjust to the masses of the people. And we declare our conviction that any tariff changes, based on that principle, must fail to afford any substantial relief from the burdens under which the country suffers.
That issue we unhesitatingly accept, and upon it we await with the fullest confidence the verdict of the electors of Canada.
What issue was that ? It was the issue of a gentleman who believed in free trade, who denounced protection, but who, with his healthy and wholesome reservation, thought that his creeds, his convictions, did not pledge him at all to destroy the manufacturing industries of the country or place them in peril, or change the policy that existed. That is the issue-a lovely issue, a double-barrelled issue; an issue which placed him not between the two horns of a dilemma, but between two comfortable seats on either of which he might reach office. The Finance Minister calls that an issue. Yes, it is a very satisfactory one for him and his party; they are in power, the industries of the country have not been interfered with, and the policy has not been disturbed. I do not know that he will find any party in this country ready to grapple with him on that issue, unless possibly some third party arises that would be willing to do so. The hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) might be prepared to take up that issue; but as long as we are limited in this country to the two great issues of a revenue tariff on the one hand and protection on the other, it will be difficult to find a party ready to join issue with a party which believes in both of these things, at once.
Now, a great feature of my hon. friend the Finance Minister's policy when he was in the government of Nova Scotia was to do nothing-to draw his salary and stay in office; and possibly his coming to this government marks the adoption of such a policy here. We will see whether this system, which worked so well in a small field, will be equally successful in the larger one, and whether this government will succeed simply by staying in office and drawing their salaries. While I am prepared to look as favourably on this government as any man in Canada who is an opponent of theirs, I

do begin to fear that there is a little truth in the criticism which has been directed against them, that they lack initiative. What have they done or originated since they came into power in 1890 1 What have they changed ? Well, they changed one thing: I believe they turned down the fast Atlantic service, and they have not yet revived it. I have no doubt, however, that true to their system of sooner or later carrying out those features of their opponents' policy which they come to believe are popular with the public, they will ultimately revive that project. But what have they themselves initiated ? What new departure have they made ? I ask for an answer, and there is no answer. Nothing; they have made no change; they have shown no originality, no inventiveness, no ingenuity. I believe their whole idea is to do just as my hon. friend the Finance Minister did when he was in the government of Nova Scotia-avoid running up against anybody's prejudices or doing anything that would provoke opposition, but hang on to the sweets of office as long as possible.
There is one great party in Canada which has never been known to be satisfied with simply doing nothing. The Conservative party had its faults, no doubt, because no man or party is faultless; but it was a party which had thrown upon it the burden of developing a great country, and they developed it. They had to take upon themselves that task at a time when this country was comparatively poor, a task which might have daunted the legislators of a much older and richer country, and they performed that task, I need scarcely say, in the face of a great deal of opposition from hon. gentlemen opposite. They wrought out everything of value which we have in Canada to-day-our system of government, our canal system, our railway system, our judicial system. Everything of value which we have in Canada to-day was set in motion by the Conservatives. There is not a single thing in Canada to-day, except that preference into which these gentlemen fell or blundered, to show that they are in power, except the fact that they are drawing their salaries and occupying their offices and that their names appear attached to certain public documents. Now, there is work for them to do. There is a tremendous task lying immediately in front of the government of Canada, and that is to go on and develop and jJerfect that system of international preference which we who are Imperialists long to see and under which this country will grow up as one of a great band of sister nations associated with the mother country. We want to see the trade between the mother country and all the colonies developed. The Finance Minister says it cannot be done- you cannot get this preferential trade. Why not ? He says you cannot get it because Lord Salisbury is not in favour of it, because Mr. Chamberlain is not in favour of it; and


Adam Carr Bell: he rests his opinion of Mr. Chamberlain's views on a newspaper article which referred to what occurred in an informal interview which a gentleman of Ottawa had with Mr. Chamberlain. But are we to cease exerting ourselves to secure this great and desirable result simply because certain statesmen of the mother country express themselves unfavourably to it ? No. That was not the course pursued by the Conservative government. Hon. gentlemen know what obstacles the Belgian and German treaties were in the way of preferential trade, and how the government of Canada for twenty years asked that those obstacles should be removed, and were met with a constant refusal. They know how, when the colonial convention met in Ottawa, a formal request was made for their removal, and how that was refused also. Then, hon. gentlemen opposite had the good luck to come to the day of reaping after all that sowing, and in their time these treaties, which we were told could not be abrogated, were denounced by the British government. These gentlemen, by their preferential tariff, blundered into such a position that it forced the hand of the mother country


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. BELL (Pictou)-and the mother country, in kindness, to help them out of their difficulty-because at that time the preference, instead of being a preference to Great Britain, was extended, through the blundering of these gentlemen, to no less than twenty-three countries. Laugh now, if you please. I think there are quite a number of new members in this House, Mr. Speaker, who laugh a little out of place. The preference was extended to twenty-three countries, not one of which had extended corresponding benefits to this country which were supposed to be necessary in order to get the preference. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that it was not a blunder that compelled him and his government to admit the goods of all these countries into this country under the preference, while they maintained hostile tariffs against us ? One happy result was the abrogation of the German and Belgian treaties by the British government, and the result of that abrogation shows that the Conservative contention that Great Britain would not suffer was the correct one. Both Germany and Belgium were willing to renew the treaties without the objectionable feature.
Let these hon. gentlemen make another move and see whether they cannot blunder into another such situation. They may not do it by design, but may by accident, but if they do not move at all, whatever chance we might have of taking advantage of the present opportune moment may be lost. Theirs is a great work to be accomplished, and that work will not be done if these hon. gentlemen will restrict themselves to considering simply what Lord Salisbury or
Mr. Chamberlain wants or even what the people of England want. We are rapidly attaining the position in this world in which our sister colonies and ourselves stand on a position of equality, so far as wealth, industry and energy are concerned, with the people of the mother country, and I should not be at all surprised if it would be the happy function of my right hon. friend and those associated with him to show the way to the statesmen of Great Britain of accomplishing a policy which will make all parts of this great empire one in selfinterest as well as in sentiment. We have solved problems in Canada that might well have daunted the statesmen of any country. We have, in the course of a few years, with a handful of people, created a great empire without any help from Downing Street. We have shown what a comparatively small people can accomplish. Then let these hon. gentlemen on the government benches not be discouraged by a simple refusal to be heard in Downing Street, let them leave Downing Street severely alone, and approach the people of Australia and the other British colonies in different parts of the world, and let all these branches of the one great family make common cause and approach unitedly the British government. I have given my right hon. friend credit for more ability than he thinks he possesses, for I believe that with the assistance of the premiers of the other colonies he would be able to formulate a scheme by which the mother country and all her colonies could enter into the full enjoyment of a common preferential tariff. The task lies at the hands of this government, and I hope that when we next meet, the government will be in a position to show the people of Canada that they are in sympathy with the great mass of our people, because our people do believe in the advantage of preferential trade and a fiscal system that would knit into one whole all the English-speaking colonies. I hope that the government will show themselves alive to the necessities of the hour, and will come here next session, if not with a complete scheme, at least with the facts collected which will enable the people to arrive at some conclusion as to the best method of accomplishing what the great majority desire.
I am sorry that it has been my painful duty to tear away that vision of golden enjoyment in which the Prime Minister and his supporters are now revelling. It is too bad that I should have been able to show that when this country was not half as rich as it now is, it could boast of as large surpluses and show a much better use made of the money, and at the same time show a considerable reduction in taxes.
I congratulate my hon. friends on the fact that they are living in such good times. I also congratulate my hon. friend the Mln-49
ister of Finance on the fact that he has not lost the shrewdness for which he was noted in our province. Like an experienced sailor, he is evidently quite aware that a gale is brewing. He sees the skies darkening, the waters foaming, and is taking in a reef and preparing the crew for rough weather before long, so that they may not be too much disturbed when the winds break on the vessel and the salt seas flow over it. But the hon. gentleman's views have changed considerably. When he was in opposition, and a reaction set in, anti the tide of prosperity changed, he and his friends said that was a proof of misgov-ernment, that the country was, being robbed and everything going to the dogs.
On this side of the House, however, we do not take that position. We are prepared to admit that it is perfectly natural the tide should turn, and are pleased that the Finance Minister should see the change coming, but we would be better pleased if we saw some preparation for the change in the estimates. No doubt, however, this administration finds it hard to make the expenditure any smaller than that in which they have been indulging during the last four or five years.
The hon. gentleman speaks of this approaching period of depression, not as the result of misgovernment-as he would have done were he in opposition-but as a necessary period of rest and recuperation, and upon the existence of which he is actually in a position to congratulate the country. Why, it is almost worth the money it has cost Canada to see how these gentlemen have changed their views. Depression is no longer an evidence that the country is being mismanaged and misgoverned, but is merely an evidence that the country is resuming a more healthy condition and getting ready for greater exertions in the future. How is it that that view of the question never struck that wonderfully wise man the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) during eighteen years? It may have struck him, he may have been fully impressed with it, but if so he kept his opinion profoundly secret. When on this side, he was always prepared to denounce and never to praise, but things have wonderfully changed since the hon. gentleman obtained office, and to-day we have him admitting what he would have never acknowledged previous to 1896, namely, that Canada is getting rich.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance pointed to the deposits in the post office savings bank, and to the note circulation as evidences of prosperity. Well, I have been pretty observant in political affairs, and I never met during the years the late government was in power any Liberal speaker who was prepared to admit that there was anything in such matters. They would all tell us that undoubtedly the country was being bled white for the benefit



of the bloated manufacturers and that the deposits in the savings banks and the note circulation did not mean anything. It is really gratifying to find these hon. gentlemen converted to more rational views.
But, I fear that my hon. friend the* Finance Minister may not have anticipated the full force of the approaching gales. He is still figuring on a very large surplus. I hope he may get it, but there are certain indications that the stringency coming may be more severe than the hon. gentleman anticipates. There are certain things which indicate the coming change. The hon. gentleman spoke of the wonderful development of our exports. Well, I have not the advantage of access to the latest documents as has the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I have access to the customs returns to the end of November, and I find that while the exports of bullion from the Yukon amounted to $14,000,000 or $15,000,000 over the same five months of the preceding year, and while there is a small excess in manufactures, every other department of our exports has fallen off quite largely-the forests, animals and their products, agricultural products, the fisheries, every one is diminished. There is another thing even more important, a point of which Sir Leonard Tilley took good note when he anticipated the decline coming in 1883, and that is the probable great decrease in prices. We have had good times in Canada, marvellously good times. This is due to a variety of circumstances. The first is the one great general cause, the swing of the pendulum upwards, which is world-wide. The second cause has been the war between Spain and the United States. Then there are the war in the Transvaal, the good crops and the Yukon, with its enormous development. And lastly, there is the enormous increase in prices. Prices, since these hon. gentlemen came into power, have advanced 20 per cent according to Bradstreet's table-from 68 to 88. That state of affairs is not going to last long. At an early day we are going to see a change. The apparent shrinkage of the exports of this country and the shrinking prices that wTill accompany it will. 1 fear, bring a state of affairs worse than my hon. friend the Minister of Finance expects. I hope it may not be so. In that, I am sure, I voice the opinion of hon. gentlemen on this side. While hon. gentlemen opposite, when on this side, did take pleasure to a certain extent in pointing out all the losses, all the bad balances that took place in the history of Canada, I do not think there is a man on this side who will not rejoice to see the country prosperous even beyond the expectation of the hon. Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, there are very many other points to which I would like to address myself, but I observe that it is six o'clock, and I will conclude my remarks.
At Six o'clock, House took recess.


Adam Carr Bell: After Recess.
House resumed at Eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 20) respecting the Nakusp and Slocan Railway Company.-Hon. Mr. Prior.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 60) to incorporate the United Empire Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Birkett.
Bill (No. 62) to incorporate the Pontiac Colonization Railway Company.-Mr. Murray.
4VAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Mr. CHARLES S. HYMAN (London).: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members on this side of the House, and I am equally sure that members on the other side, are pleased at the courteous manner in which the debate, so far, has been carried on. I can only trust that to the end of the debate, we may have the same courtesy, the same kindly feeling, between the two parties in this House ; that we shall continue to recognize as we ought, though we may differ as regards certain principles, that, as representatives of the people of this country, we should all endeavour to work out the destiny of the country to the best of our powers. The courtesy of debate has been very largely' contributed to, I feel sure, by the happy statement that the Finance Minister has been able to make with regard to the finances of Canada. It must have given the hon. minister great pleasure, not merely as representing the people of Canada in the important office of Finance Minister, but as speaking on behalf of his party, to be able to make to the House the statements he did in his speech. It must have been a matter of congratulation to him to be able to announce that the revenue of the country for the year ending 30th June, 1900, had been $51,029,000, and the expenditure only $42,975,000, thus giving the very gratifying surplus for the year of no less than $8,054,000.
And still greater, Mr. Speaker, must have been the hon. gentleman's pleasure to be able to tell the House, that, notwithstanding the normal current expenditure, and notwithstanding the large expenditure on capital account, he was enabled to reduce the debt of this country by no less a sum than $779,000. Now, we have had a somewhat lengthy speech this afternoon from the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) and he was pleased, during his remarks, to make some reference to the fact that the great province of Ontario had condemned the present government. I do not know whether this hon. gentleman is aware of the facts of the case, but if he has carefully studied the subject, if he will, for a mo-
meat, remember, that, in 1881, this great province was gerrymandered from one end to the other, if he will remember that not only was it gerrymandered in 1881, but, that the process was repeated in 1891, he may possibly find same reason for the vote which was cast in the last general election in that province. I may give this crumb of comfort to the hon. gentleman, that if he were to take the vote that was polled for the different Liberal candidates in the province of Ontario in 1891, and if he were to apply that vote to the different constituencies as divided for the local legislature, he would find the Liberal party would have a distinct majority from that province in this House. But, fortunately, as the poet might say, there are others. The province of Ontario is not the only province in this Dominion, and if that province did condemn the government, probably for the reasons 1 have given, what shall we say of the province from which the hon. gentleman himself comes ? What shall we say of the province of Nova Scotia ? Surely the policy of the government is not condemned in the province of Nova Scotia, but, on the other hand, the government came from the province of Nova Scotia in a very much stronger position than before the election. What shall we say of the province of New Brunswick ? The province of New Brunswick did not condemn the government. What shall we say of the great province of Quebec ? The province of Quebec certainly did not condemn the government. What shall we say of the North-west Territories, from which not one member opposed to the government sits in this Chamber ? And what shall we say of the province of British Columbia in which the government have a decided majority ? I think that this country has grown to be too large, that it has passed the time when provinces and provinces only can be considered, and I think that the policy of the government, as pronounced upon, not by any one particular province, but, by the people of this country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, is shown to be acceptable by the majority of members we have on this side of the House. I am not going to follow at any great length the hon. member for Pictou, but, as far as I could follow his speech his main charge was directed to what he was pleased to call the inconsistencies of the government. Now, there may be hon. gentlemen in this House who might with some degree of fairness make that charge against the government, but I do think that when we come to look somewhat casually into the speeches that the hon. gentleman, who now so glibly says the government is inconsistent, has made, It will be seen that the charge will stick more closely to him than he succeeded in making It against the government. I have before me a copy of the lecture delivered by the hon. gentleman in the year 1891 in which he says :
I consider the argument of the free trader unanswerable. I believe at this moment that if Canada took a liberal step in the direction of free trade it would go a longer way to place her upon the road to the greatest prosperity. The reasons why I consider Canada should turn about and adopt a free trade policy are : (a) that we might free ourselves from the dominating influences of the United States; (b) on account of the failure of the national policy; (c) because of the startling revelations of the census.
Surely, it does not become the hon. member, who gave, no later than 1891, vent to such sentences as I have read, to spend probably three-quarters of the time of his speech trying to find inconsistencies on the part of the government. But the hon. gentleman was not content with that. Again, in 1896, he made another speech from which I quote :
The great issue for this election is the trade and tariff question. I avow myself an admirer of the national policy, and am prepared to support it in preference to any so-called free trade policy which could be put forth.
Now, he deliberately, thereafter, and in his speech to-day, charged the Liberal party with having appropriated; their policy-X presume, meaning the so-called national policy. While it may be true in part, the very most we can be charged with, if such is the fact, is petty larceny in any case. The hon. gentleman, after having accused the government of appropriating their policy, says, that, so far as the Conservative party are concerned, they stand by the old policy. If we have appropriated their policy and if the hon. gentleman as a member of the Conservative party, stands by that policy, I would like to know why he should take up the time of the House so long in condemning that which he stands by. But, I take issue with the hon. gentleman even upon that question ; I say that the policy is not the same policy and if he will carefully go into the different items of the tariff he will find considerable differences. He will find that in more than 140 items in the tariff there have been reductions, and large reductions, and he will find, that, if he were to apply the old policy to the imports of last year, the government would have taken from the pockets of the people something more than $3,000,000, but herein, 1 say, lies the greatest difference. Notwithstanding the fact that the Conservative party were in power for so many years, notwithstanding the enormous majorities, that, during most of the time, they had at their back, did they ever succeed in making any preferential ar-i rangement, or giving any preference to Great Britain ? Therein lies very largely the difference between the old policy of protection of the Conservative party and the new policy of the Liberal party. The only two tariff items to which the hon. gentleman referred were the tariff on oil and the bounties. So far as the tariff on oil is concerned, under the old government, the tariff was 7 cents a gallon and under the

present government the tariff is 5 cents a gallon, a reduction of very nearly 30 per cent. As regards the bounties to be paid on iron and steel, I fancy the great difference between the policies of the two parties lies in this, that, while the bounty was inaugurated by the Conservative government, there never was any finality. The Liberal party took the matter in hand, and very properly said that while they would still continue the bounty for a certain number of years there would undoubtedly come a period when these industries could exist and flourish without that bounty. And so they have changed the policy in that particular, and have taken, I think, a very wise course indeed.
Now we had, as the chief financial critic of the opposition, the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) who I am sorry is not present, and one of his chief complaints against the present government was that of increased expenditure and extravagance. But I did not hear during the whole course of his remarks that he took exception to one single item of expenditure that the present government have made. Now, I do not think that the hon. gentleman chosen as the chief financial critic of the opposition, is entitled to a great deal of credit when he makes general charges of extravagance, but will not take the responsibility of laying his finger upon one single item to which he takes exception. Of course we know perfectly well why he did not do so. We know that if he objected to any particular item it would probably have a political effect against his party in some particular locality. Therefore, unless he is willing to share some of the responsibility for objecting to some particular items, his opinion is not entitled to much respect.
The hon. gentleman stated that so far as the Canadian farmer and exporter were concerned, they were at a great disadvantage in Germany on account of the abrogation of the treaty, and of Canada having been removed from the favoured-nation clause. I was somewhat surprised, after listening to his speech, to turn up the figures of our trade with Germany, and to find that the exports from Canada to Germany in 1896 amounted to $757,000 in round numbers; while in 1900, after the abrogation of that treaty and the exclusion of Canada from the favoured-nation clause they had grown to $1,715,000, or 130 per cent. So I do not think that his criticism in that respect amounts to very much. With regard to our imports from Germany, I find that in 1896, we bought $5,931,000 worth, while in 1900, we bought $8,383,000 worth. So that while our purchases from Germany increased 41 per cent, our exports to that country increased 130 per cent.
The hon. member for Toronto laid down some very strange propositions, and one proposition that he laid down with a great deal Mr. HYMAN.
of fervour, was that the time had come when the bonusing of railroads, especially in the older provinces, should cease. One particular railway that he happened to mention runs from the town of Amherstburg in western Ontario to Ridgetown. He did not object bonusing that part of it, but he did object to that road having been bonused by the present government from Ridgetown to St. Thomas. Now, what are the facts of the case '! That road was projected a number of years ago, that road was bonused from Walkerville to Ridgetown, not by the present government, but by the late government; and if the Minister of Railways and Canals were here he woidd bear me out in the statement that when a deputation asked for the continuation of that road from Ridgetown to St. Thomas, one of the strongest and the most effectual arguments they used before this government was that the late government had practically pledged to them a bonus for the distance between Ridgetown and St. Thomas. Now, I have no desire in the absence of the hon. gentleman to impute any motives to him; but one cannot forget the fact that so long as that railway stooped at Ridgetown, so long was it a feeder of the Canadian Pacific Railway, of which he is a director; but the very moment that that road was continued to St. Thomas, instead of being a feeder for the Canadian Pacific Railway it became a competitor of that road. I say that under these circumstances one cannot avoid joining the financial critic of the opposition with the director of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Now, Mr. Speaker, during the course of this'debate we have had several references to the preferential tariff, and I think that the Minister of Finance has succeeded in defining very clearly the differences between the two parties on this important measure. Now, if I understand the policy of the Conservative party, it is this:	They are not
prepared to give the mother country a preference in Canada unless we receive an equivalent from the mother country. They want an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The Liberal party on the other hand simply go to the mother country and say :	We
know that you are under a large expense on behalf of Canada, we know that your army is kept up, not only for the protection of Great Britain, but for the protection of greater Britain; we know that we have the protection of your navy, we know that in every English consulate on the globe a Canadian citizen has the same protection as a British citizen, and that protection means a great deal. We say to the mother country that while we would like a protection in her market we will not wait, until she is willing to give that preference before giving her a preference in our market, but we will give her the preference in our market at once. Now, Mr. Speaker, which of the two policies is more likely to attain the object of securing a preference in the
markets of the mother country ? I believe myself that the time will come, in view of the growing Imperialism which we see on every hand, when we will obtain a preference in the British market; but I do say unhesitatingly as a member of this House, that I think the means adopted by the Liberal party will achieve that end very much sooner than the means adopted by the opposition. It must have given the Minister of Finance, particular pleasure to have noted the tremendous expanse of trade during the last few years. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) referred to most of the items bearing on this increase of our prosperity, but with the permission of the House I will mention briefly some of the comparisons which he omitted.
Turning, in the first place, to the imports Into Canada, I find that in the year 1878 they amounted to $93,081,000 ; in 1895 they amounted to $110,781,000, and in 1900 they had grown to the great volume of $189,622,000. During the seventeen years of the so-called national policy, with all the development which that policy was said to have brought about, the import trade of this country grew- by $17,700,000, but in the five years that this Liberal government has been in power the imports of this country grew by no less a sum than $78,841,000. In other words, during the seventeen years of Conservative rule they succeeded in increasing the imports at the rate of $1,000,000 per. annum, while during the five years the Liberal party have been in power the imports have increased by no less a sum than $15,768,000 per annum.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Charles Smith Hyman: If we turn to our exports, we find a no less favourable condition. In 1878 the exports of this country amounted to $79,323,000 ; in 1895 they had grown to $113,638,000. So that during the seventeen years of the Conservative regime the exports of Canada had grown by $34,-
315,000.	Then came the advent of the Liberal government to power, and from that period until the 30th June, 1900, the exports had grown to $191,894,000, or a total growth of $78,256,000. Let us analyse this a little [DOT] further. In the seventeen years of Conservative rule, the seventeen years of national policy with all that the members of the opposition would have us believe it implied, they succeeded in increasing the exports of Canada at the rate of $2,000,000 per annum, but, Sir, the present government-whether they stumbled upon it, as the member for Pictou would lead us to believe, or whether they did it by design-have succeeded in increasing the exports of this country during these five years by no less a sum than $78,000,000, or at the rate of $15,651,000 per year.
Let us now look at the total trade of Canada and make a comparison* between the years the Conservative party were in power
and the five years of the Liberal government, and no less a satisfactory state of things will be found to exist. In 1878 the total trade of Canada was $172,405,000 ; in 1895 that had grown to $224,420,000 ; but in 1900 it had grown to the enormous sum of $381,517,000. During the seventeen years of the Conservative rule there was an increase of $52,015,000, or about $3,000,000 per annum, while during the five years of Liberal rule it increased by no less a sum than $157,097,000, or somewhat in excess of $31,000,000 per annum-$3,000,000 a year in the seventeen years' Conservative rule; $31,000,000 a year in the five years of Liberal rule. But says the hon. gentleman from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) : You have been spending a great deal too much money. Well, Sir, I submit it is a good business proposition, and one that even the hon. member (Mr. Osier) would likely concur in : that the larger one's trade grows the larger sum is required for the carrying on of that trade. And although I am not prepared to admit, nor is there any necessity to admit, that the expenditure of this government has increased to any very large extent, still, it would be a wonderful thing if it had not increased, and increased almost in comparison to the increased volume of trade. Let us assume the position of a large merchant, or an aggregation of merchants, and if their trade were to grow from $224,000,000 to $381,000,000 in the course of five years, surely that merchant, or that aggregation of merchants, could not be charged with extravagance in carrying on that business if it were shown that there was some slight increase in the way of expenditure during the period of this immense growth in their business. If there was one thing in which the late government did pride themselves on, it was the tariff as applied to manufacturers. It was stated by them that the national policy or the protective tariff was largely, in fact directly, in favour of the manufacturer. There is one test by which the manufacturer can show his strength and it is not so much by his success in the protected market, as it is his success in carrying on his business where he is brought into competition with the world. Therefore, we would naturally suppose that if we on this side of the House are open to the charge, that by the destruction of the national policy we have materially lessened the power of the manufacturer of this country to go abroad and sell his goods in competition with the whole world, there might be some facts to prove the statement. But so far from that being the case, we are prepared with figures to prove that the Canadian manufacturer is in a far stronger position in this respect under the present government than he was under the government that held sway for eighteen years with their so-much-boasted national policy. In 1878 the manufacturers of Canada exported $4.-
127,000	worth of goods, and in 1895 they had

Increased their exports to $7,768,000, or an increase in the seventeen years of the national policy, of $3,641,000. Then the Liberal government took office, and we find an enormous increase in the ability of the Canadian manufacturer to compete with the manufacturer of the whole world in the markets where competition is keenest. We find, Sir, that in 1900 the manufacturers of Canada exported no less than $14,224,000 worth of products. During the seventeen years of Conservative rule the increase was $3,641,000, but during the five years of Liberal rule the increase was no less than $6,-
435,000.	During the seventeen years of Conservative rule, the manufacturers of Canada, notwithstanding the fact that to a very large extent they were the supposed pets of the government; notwithstanding the fact that to a very large extent the whole policy of the government was supposed to help the manufacturers ; they were only able to increase their exports, and thereby show their ability to compete in the markets of the world, to the extent of $214,000 per annum, but in the five years since that date they have shown their ability to compete, and compete to the extent of an increase per annum of $1,291,000.
It must also have given the hon. Finance Minister the greatest pleasure to state to this House the high standing of Canadian credit in the financial markets of the world. He was able to make a statement which I am sure aroused the pride of every Canadian, namely, that the 2} per cents which he himself had placed on the English market had risen in value, while the consols, the strongest of all securities, had materially declined. I think there was no statement made by the hon. Finance Minister in his excellent presentation of the budget which could give Canadians more pleasure and more joy than the one relating to Canada's financial standing in the English market. I may be pardoned, if under the circumstances, I repeat the details : that the 21 per cents, which sold at 911, were now quoted at 92, while consols, which at the time the 21 per cents were sold at 91} were worth 115, have dropped at the present time to 97J-a drop of nearly 17 points for consols, and a rise of Canadian securities during the same period of nearly } per cent.
I am sure it gave the members of this House particular pleasure to hear the statement of the hon. Minister of Finance in regard to the Yukon. If there is one hon. member on this side of the House against whom the attacks of the opposition have been strong, it is the hon. gentleman who has charge of the administration of that district; and I am sure it speaks volumes for his care, his prudence and his judgment, that after the three or four years since that country commenced to develop, we find that it has not cost the people of this country a single copper for all the Mr. HYMAN.
development that has taken place there. I say there was no statement made by the Finance Minister which gave more pleasure to members on this side of the House, because we know the bitter attacks which have been made on that hon. member, and we respect him so highly that we are glad the Finance Minister was enabled to make that report to the country.
There is another department as to which the Minister of Finance was able to make an announcement which also gave particular pleasure ; that is, the Post Office Department. We know that the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock), when he succeeded in inducing his colleagues to reduce the postage, made a bold stroke. I myself, and I have no doubt a number of other members, thought it would mean a large shrinkage in the receipts, and therefore a larger deficit in the department. But I was delighted, as I am sure we all were, to learn from the hon. Finance Minister yesterday that in the month of January the receipts of the Post Office Department had exceeded the expenditure. I trust and hope that the prognostications which were made by the hon. Postmaster General last year or the year before will be fulfilled. I believe that he is so careful in his statements that before very long we may safely look for the receipts of the post office to be sufficient to carry on the business of that large department.
There was a statement made by the Finance Minister which may not have given so much pleasure to hon. gentlemen, not merely those on this side of the House, but to those on the other side : that was, that in the wisdom and judgment of the government, there should be no tariff changes during the present session. Asa business man, and one knowing something of the principle and the workings of the tariff, I must say that I concur most heartily in the judgment of the hon. Finance Minister and his colleagues in not making any changes in the tariff during the present session, for I think we should have a longer period in which to give it a fair trial. I have no doubt that the time will come when some change must be made in the tariff, and I am perfectly sure that the hon. Finance Minister and his colleagues will then most carefully consider what is in the interests, not of any particular class, but of the country as a whole. I know that some sacrifices will have to be made. No tariff could be applied to a country so diverse in its interests and its character as Canada, that would satisfy everybody ; but we on this side of the House, and I think the country generally, are prepared to make those sacrifices, and I am prepared to leave in the hands of the government the choice of both the time and the manner of such alterations in'the tariff as may have to be made.
Now, it seems-and I am very glad that it is so-that this is to be a session of short speeches. 1 will not detain the House any longer, except to refer to what the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) said in his closing remarks, that this government had a work to do. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this government have a great work to do, and they are perfectly able and competent to carry on that work. They have grasped Canada's position better than any government that has been in power heretofore ; and I am sure they are prepared to do that great work, perhaps not to the entire satisfaction of the hon. member for Pictou, but to the satisfaction of the majority of the people of this great country. Speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker, I am a Canadian ; I am proud of being a Canadian. I love Canada, and I do trust and hope that the future development of this great country will be thoroughly in accordance with its greatness. I may be hoping for too much, but I hope that we will soon have a fast Atlantic service and see steamers plying between this country and the mother land, that have been built from Canadian steel. I hope to see steamers built that will be a credit to Canada, in which every plate, bolt and rivet will be the product of Canada and Canadian workmen, and I hope to see the present government bring about that result.


Mr. E. D. SMITH (Wentworth).: the councils of his party an expenditure, from the consolidated fund alone, during the past year of $46,400,000. And for what purpose ? Not to build great public works or great public improvements, but simply to carry on the ordinary affairs of the country, simply to do those same things which were done in 1896 with nearly $10,000,000 less money, and which amount the hon. gentleman then said was a monstrous sum to provide.
If the expenditures being made by these hon. gentlemen in power can possibly be justified, it does not lie In the mouths of the leaders of the party to justify them, because they professed, when in opposition, that a sum $10,000,000 less was a monstrous and extravagant amount to provide.
I might read one or two more extracts. The great Liberal party met in 1893 in this city, and formulated a policy. One of the planks was :
We cannot but view with alarm the large increase in the public debt and in the controllable annual expenditure.
Well, what was the controllable annual expenditure in 1893 ? It amounted to $36,814,053. According to the collected wisdom of the Liberal party, not the utterance of one individual party in it, but as laid down by that party in convention assembled, $36,814,053 was a sum altogether beyond the requirements of this country to expend. And yet that party to-day is expending just about $10,000,000 more than that. The present hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) said :
The Liberal party says that several millions may be lopped off the present expenditure without injury to the public service.
The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said :
The Liberal party, if in power, could at once reduce the public expenditure and effect other savings to the extent of five millions per annum without impairing the efficiency of the service.
The hon. member for North Norfolk, I am bound to admit, in the address he scattered amongst the electors of his riding, apparently still has this idea to a certain extent. He differs from the government slightly, but at least sufficiently to appear to be independent, so that the opposition in his county withdrew and allowed him to make a safe entry into this parliament. He criticised the government in that manifesto for not carrying out their promises, and, in that respect he is consistent.
Now, let us compare for a moment these expenditures. For the five years commencing with 1892 and ending with 1S96, that is, the last five years of Conservative administration, the expenditures on consolidated fund amounted to $1S6,246,120. What have they risen to ? In five years that are just closing, they amounted to a total of $208,461,066, an increase of a little over $22,000,000. This is for carrying on ordinary Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
affairs of the country, not for building great public works or effecting any important and permanent improvement. This is the amount required by these economical gentlemen who were going to do it for millions less. The fact is they required twenty-two millions more in the five years just closed than was required by the extravagant Tories in the five years previous. Now let us turn to the total expenditure. It is easy to keep down the expenses on consolidated fund if largo items that were formerly charged to that account are chargeable to capital, therefore, in order that we may prove our case fully we must take the total expenditure. And it would be scarcely fair to compare one single year with another. Let us take five years of Liberal-Conservative rule as compared with five years of Liberal rule-that should make a fair comparison. In the last five years of Liberal-Conservative administration, the total expenditure was $210,202,852, whilst in the five years now closing the total expenditure was $247,539,129, or an increase of $37,336,277. Now what lias become of this $37,330,277 ? What have we got to show for it ? If we had great public works more than we had before. if there had been an enormous development of the country and huge expenses necessary, there might be some excuse of this tremendous expenditure even from these gentlemen who professed to believe that the sum spent previously was monstrously too much. Why, this additional expenditure is more than half of what the Canadian Pacific Railway cost. What would have been thought of any hon. gentleman had he risen in his place in this House live years ago and asked that the total expenditure for the public service or public works, or anything else, should be increased $33,000,000 over what had been under the previous administration? He would have been said to be almost insane. But tlie hon. gentlemen who have been ruling the destinies of this country for the last five years have made that enormously increased expenditure. Now let us compare this with the methods adopted by the Liberal-Conservative party. They were in power for eighteen years. The hon. Minister of Finance in his speech goes back eighteen years. That scarcely affords a fair basis of comparison. Let us go back for five years and compare the five years of Liberal-Conservative administration previous to their getting out of office to the five years previous to that and see how it stands -let us see if they carried out their promises. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when the great public works, the great arteries of commerce, such as the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Intercolonial Railway and the great Welland canal, were being built, the Conservative administration were charged by their opponents with incurring an expenditure that would be far beyond the means of this country, that bankruptcy and ruin would follow such enormous ex-
penditures. Sir John A. Macdonald and the other great leaders of the Liberal-Conservative party thought differently; they thought that the country could stand the strain and that the expenditures would be justifiable. They incurred those expenditures, and the country received the benefit. In replying to their critics, they said that when the great arteries of commerce, so necessary to this country were completed, we will call a halt; we will then try to live within our income and to keep the total expenditures of this country from increasing. Did they do it ? In 1887, the total expenditure was $41,504,152. In 1891, the total expenditures were $40,538,534. The total of the five years from 18S7 to 1891 was $210,674,843. This, it will be observed, was after the great arteries of commerce I have referred to were built. In the next five years, the last five years of Conservative administration, the total expenditures were $210,202,852, a decrease of $471,991, as compared with the previous five years-and this notwithstanding that the population increased and the requirements of the country increased. Carrying out their promise, the leaders of the Liberal-Conservative party kept the expenditure down, not entirely within the income, but sufficiently to prevent an increase. And it must be remembered that during the last five years we had our hard time. The hon. Minister of Finance went back eighteen years in speaking of our debt, and tried to make a comparison between the debt annually incurred under a Liberal-Conservative administration and that annually incurred under his administration of finances. Now, I think the Minister of Finance was scarcely fair in going back eighteen years. It seems to me that, had he been just in his statements he would have been satisfied with going back seven or eight years. In going back eighteen years, he took in the total expenditure incurred in building the Canadian Pacific Railway, in which period $52,512,613 was spent. At that time also $10,000,000 were allowed to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the release of a certain portion of the land grant. In that period the debts of the provinces, an altogether unusual expenditure, amounting to $10,291,052, were taken over, making a total extraordinary expenditure over and above anything of the same nature incurred by tae present administration, of $73,000,000. I think it was hardly fair for the Minister of Fiaance to include those things in his state-meat.
Now, I propose to extend the period and go bi.ck eight years under the Conservative administration, and let us see how the matter stands. In the eight years from 1888 to 1896 the Conservative administration has annually increased the debt at the rate of $2,997,000 ; under this administration i; has increased $1,749,093, or a decrease of about $1,200,000 annually in the debt. Thai is to say, the debt has increased
annually $1,200,000 less than it did during the eight years of Conservative administration. But what are the circumstances ? During these last five years we have had a plethoric revenue. The world has experienced the best times it has seen in this generation ; Canada has shared with that prosperity, and no one is more delighted to know it than we are on this side of the House. During that period of good times the revenue has been redundant, $31,115,384 more have been taken from the people during the last five years than was taken during the five years previously ; arid the debt has increased within $1,200,000 a year as fast as it did under the Conservative administration, when hard times prevailed in this country and all over the world. We all know that during that period hard times prevailed in the United States even to a greater extent than in Canada. During that period over 400 banks toppled over in the United States, and in this country only one. In England, although possessing the greatest amount of skill and capital of any country in the world, although her ships were carrying her commerce over all the seas, even she felt these hard times severely. There were proportionately more men out of employment in England, more distress prevailing in all industrial ranks, than there was in Canada. We could not help but feel those hard times, however prices fell, and consequently the revenues fell. The quantities of goods we imported fell off and the duties collected fell off proportionately. So I say that a comparison between the annual increase to the public debt during the two periods is infinitely in favour of the Conservative administration. Now, what have these gentlemen on the ministerial benches done to increase the revenue ? According to the Minister of Trade and Commerce they have not increased the duties, in his opinion the duties are a little lower now than they were before, but I will deal with that point a little later. What I want now to impress strongly upon the House, is the fact that in spite of the enormous taxes taken from the people of $31,000,000 more than by their predecessors, and in spite of the $7,000,000 that have been borrowed during the past five years, we have nothing of importance, no great public works, no new and valuable assets to show for it. It seems to have been actually wasted, or at least the major part of it.
Now a word with regard to the trade ana commerce of the country. The hon. Minister of Finance is very canny, he did not attribute, as has been so often done, to this government the greatly increased trade of this country in exports and imports. He probably has learned wisdom by experience. But the hon. member for London fell into the trap that the hon. Minister of Finance avoided. It is true that the trade of this country has increased, it is true that our exports and imports have increased enor-

mously, but what has that got to do with the administration ? Even though our exports and imports were double what they have been, what would that have had to do with the administration ? Have the hon. gentlemen sitting on the Treasury benches caused those exports and imports to grow ? If they can show that it has been through their effort that our farms and our mines have produced more, then we will be glad to give them the credit for it. Let us examine some of these exports in detail. In 1899 we exported $3,562,794 worth of coal, and during the past year $4,599,602. Now, I would like to know what the government has done to increase the export of coal ? Have they found a market for our coal in any other country in the world which we did not possess before ?


Mr. KENDALL.: The Nova Scotia government did.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: We are now discussing the policy of the Dominion government. In 1899, of gold-bearing quartz, we exported $3,272,702. and last year $14,148,543. What have the government done to increase our exports of gold-bearing quartz ? I thought it was due to the energy of the miners, I thought something was due to the men who dug, and delved, and brought up from beneath the surface of the earth these minerals and exported them. But the hon. member for London wants to claim the credit of this increased export for the present government. In sundry ores our exports increased from $48,000 to $144,000 ; of building stone, from $55,000 to $115,000 ; the total produce of the farm increased $29,663,000 ; our exports of animals to Great Britain increased from $8,194,928 to $9,093.317. I would like to know what the government in power has done to cause an increase in the exports of any one of these articles.
Then the hon. member for London stated that our exports of manufactures had increased. I would like to know what this government has done to increase the exports of our manufactures. Have they made it more profitable for the manufacturers in this country to produce the articles of their industry ? Have they made it easier for them to export their products ? Have they found in any part of the world a better market for the manufactures of this country ? Will they point out any new market or any better market that they have obtained for us, any market in which we have better terms than we had before ? Is it the United States ? These gentlemen, when they were in opposition, promised that if they were returned to power they would find us a better market in the United States. Have they done it ? Have they found a market for us in Germany ? No, in Germany and in many other countries, we are now finding it much more difficult to introduce our products than before, and that is one - thing for which the government in power Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
can ciaim credit. The hon. gentleman for London finds consolation in the fact that our exports to Germany have increased in spite of the large increase in duties imposed upon our products as compared with what they were before the preferential tariff came into force.
To say, as the hon. gentleman for London has said, that, notwithstanding the large increase in duties, there has been an increased importation into Germany of goods from Canada, is logically equivalent to saying that we would be better off if every country in the world raised their duties. I do not thinik that even such sophistical gentlemen as those occupying the benches on the other side of the House will agree with the hon. gentleman when he makes that statement. Neither he, nor any other hon. gentleman who has spoken on the other side of the House, has been able to point to a single market that has been procured for the people of Canada by the adoption of this policy. Every one knows that it is now more difficult to find markets for our goods than before. Now, if the government are in any way responsible for the increase in our exports, surely they are also responsible for the decrease. In 1898 we exported $17,313,916 worth of wheat, while in the next year our export of wheat was only $7,784,484. We exported flour, in 1898, to the value of $5,425,760, and last year to the value of $2,791,885. Of barley, in 1897, we exported $566,505 worth, while last year the export fell off to $110,040. Of oats we exported, in 1899, $3,266,388, while in 1900 we exported $2,143,179 worth. Our total exports of agricultural products in 1898 were $75,834,858, and in 1S99 they fell to $68,140,758. The total exports of Canada fell in 1899 to $138,462,037 from $145,594,885 in the year previous. According to the hon. member for London, the government are in some way responsible for the increase in our exports. If they are responsible for the increase in our exports, surely they are responsible for the decrease in our exports. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), or some one of the three hon. gentlemen who spoke on the other side of the House, challenged hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who have spoken, and those who are to follow, to state on what ground we criticise them, to state what our policy is and whit we propose to advocate. We do not propose to emulate them in the extraordinary expenditures they have incurred during the past few years. That is one of the tlings in regard to which we must give hon gentlemen opposite credit for having bnnched out and done something new and original. They have increased the public expenditure. Their adoption of the present preferential tariff is also a change, and these are the principal changes that these hm. gentlemen have made in the manner of conducting the affairs of the country. But, there

are other questions besides these which have been mentioned, and one of the most important, it seems to me, is the transportation problem. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was content, in his speech, to rest upon his oars. It seemed to me as if hon. gentlemen were satisfied to go on for the next five years in the same course that they have been pursuing during the past five years. They challenged us to propose something new, but they did not propose any changes, any new policy, or any retrenchment in the matter of public expenditure. There is a question, as I said before, which appears to me to be more important than almost any question that could engage the attention of this House, and it is the transportation problem. The hon. Minister of Finance would not touch upon it, but it seems to me that this is a question which deserves the attention of the House. It is one thing to grow products and to manufacture articles ; it is another thing to find a market for them. These are two very important things, but what is the use of products and what is the use of markets unless you can carry these products to the markets safely and cheaply. This is a great question, and we expected to have a declaration from the government as to what their policy is on this question. The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) brought in a resolution to this House, and it seemed to me that it was a very pertinent resolution, one asking that the government should now take up this great question of the transportation of the products of the country, and lay down a policy upon it. We have been waiting long enough for a policy on this question. The government are spending large sums of money to build up different ports in different parts of this great country, but they have not so concentrated their energies as to mark out some great line of action which should be pursued. It is proposed to expend $5,000,000 in deepening the harbour at Port Colborne, it is proposed to expend enormous sums of money in improving the harbour at Montreal, it is proposed to spend large sums in deepening the St. Lawrence river and making it a first-class outlet for ocean-going vessels, and we have had intimations of money being spent and proposed to be spent in various other directions, but no definite or straightforward line of action seems to have been laid down by the government. It is the duty of the government to state their policy. It is not the duty of the opposition, but rather the duty of the government, if they are earnestly endeavouring to administer the affairs of the country in the best way possible and in the best interests of the country to lay down some definite line of action and follow it out. Whether the expenditure of this sum of money at Port Colborne is desirable or not is a question. According to statements
made by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) the other night, it would seem that grain from the great North-west Territories and the North-western states, can be carried as cheaply by the Booth line to Montreal, or almost as cheaply, as he has any hope of having it carried by the allwater route. If this is the case, if it is true that wheat can be carried as cheaply by the rail line from Parry Harbour, or any other harbour on the Georgian Bay to Montreal, then, these expenditures-and hon. gentlemen require some criticism of their expenditures-of $5,000,000 is unnecessary and unwise, and not in the best interests of the people. It devolves upon the government, not upon us, to find out which of these two great lines is likely, in the near future, to be the cheaper and better line to carry the provisions of the great North-west, that, in time are destined to assume enormous proportions, to the seaboard. It has also been proposed, and it seems to me very feasible, that a line of railway, running in an air line almost from Parry Harbour to Quebec, might be the cheapest way to send the products of the west to the seaboard. If that is the case, then, we ought to devote our energies to immediately developing that line. It devolves upon the government to ascertain promptly whether this line, or whether the line from Parry Harbour to Montreal, or whether the route from Port Colborne to Montreal is the cheapest line and the best line, and when they have made, up their minds which of these is the best, it is their duty to go to work vigorously and put that line in a condition in which it will carrv these products at once. They have been dallying with this question for a great many years. It is a good many years since they proposed to incur this expenditure in the harbour gf Montreal. I think the harbour of Montreal ought to be improved ; certainly it has been a disgrace and a shame to this country that the harbour of Montreal should have been in the condition in which it has been during the past. It cannot in any way compare with the harbours in the United States in facilities for loading or unloading vessels. If the citizens of Montreal are not energetic enough to spend a sufficient sum to make a good harbour in their city, it is the duty of the Dominion government to do so, and I quite approve of such an expenditure. Whether or not Montreal will be the export point for the products of the North-west, it w'U certainly serve a large portion of the province of Ontario and we should have proper docks there. But there are other things to be looked to besides providing cheap transport facilities. We will have to provide safe transport facilities which will enable us to carry perishable products in good condition to distant markets. It is one thing to have the products, another thing to have the markets, but neither is of any use unless we

can place those products in proper condition on the markets. The province of Ontario and portions of Nova Scotia are better adapted for /the production of apples than any other place in the world. I believe that in Ontario and in the Annapolis valley we can grow apples with greater perfection than in any other part of the world, and that is making a very broad statement. In Ontario we have 10,000,000 apple trees, the product of which twill soon be worth at least $10,000,000 a year. If in days gone by these apples could have been carried to the seaboard and thence to Britain, as they could and should have been carried, we would have, not 10,000,000 apple trees in Ontario,	but 15,000,000 or
20,000,000 trees, and the farmers of Ontario as well as Nova Scotia would have a crop at the present time infinitely more profitable than /the ordinary grain crop. Where apples can be grown successfully, then, if they are marketed at a reasonable price as they can be in England, they are infinitely more profitable to the farmer than either grain or dairy products. If the steamship people will not provide proper facilities for carrying apples, and if the railway companies are also neglectful, then the duty devolves upon the government. During the last ten or fifteen years the apple men of Canada have done all in their power to induce the railway and steamship companies to provide suitable arrangements for carrying this perishable product in good condition. It was impossible to move the steamship, companies, because the apples are harvested at a time of the year when an enormous quantity of other products are going forward, when the steamers are all loaded to gunwales and the steamship owners cared little whether they carried apples or not, and so they snapped their fingers at the apple men. Finally the Fruit Growers' Association, as well as individuals, asked the government to do something, and I shall give the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) credit for making an effort. It is a small thing that has been done and it was done at the last moment, but I am not one to refuse credit where credit is due, although the little that has been done is but a small part of what ought to be done and what could be done. I would remind the House that the quantity of apples exported from Canada is no small item. During the past ten years we have shipped to Great Britain $18,000,000 worth of apples. Now, as the export price of these apples regulates the price in the home market, if we had secured the price in England that we would have secured had they been landed iu sound condition, it would have increased the price of all the apples sold in this country. We lost no less than $5,000,000 on the apples exported, and as the amount exported was not more than one-third of the quantity grown, then we must have lost $15,000,000 on the total apple crop of this country, which hon. gentlemen will see Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
means a large sum to the farmers of Canada. It is not only the immediate loss but the prospective loss that has to be considered. The farmers became discouraged because of the low price they received for their apples in consequence of the bad condition in which they arrived in England. Some years the apples rotted on the ground; some years they sold for 40 and 50 cents a barrel in the orchard, when, if they could be properly exported to Great Britain, they would have brought from 75 cents to one dollar a barrel. The year which was particularly unfortunate in this respect was one of the most unprofitable that our farmers ever experienced for their grain and dairy products, and if they had obtained 25 or 50 cents more per barrel for their apples, it "would have been a God-send to them. However, they obtained such a low price for the apples that they became discouraged, and neglected their orchards1 and to-day there are thousands of acres of orchards in Ontario that are going to waste, the initial reason being that in the years when we have a large crop, the apples cannot be exported to England in good condition. In order to show the great loss to Canada from the defective facilities for carrying our apples across the ocean, I shall read from the report presented to a committee of this House two years ago by Professor Robertson. I may say that Professor Robertson was induced to make this report on account of a bundle of actual reports of sales of large quantities of apples which I had the honour to send him. I was trying to induce the Minister of Agriculture to take action in this matter, and I sent these account sales to Professor Robertson, who states in this report :
With that letter came a bundle of account sales of last fall which accorded so thoroughly with this, that Mr. Smith inclosed them to me. I made a careful summary of them, which I will give to show the condition in which our apples arrived in England, not a few barrels, but in large lots. Dealing first with that lot of Nova Scotia apples, all that is on the one set of account sales sent by forty-three shippers and sold in London. There were 950 barrels sold as tights, five barrels of slacks and nine barrels of wets.
The House will see that nearly all these apples shipped from Halifax on a certain steamer arrived in a sound condition. I wrote to the manager of that /steamship line to find out how it was that the apples he carried landed in good condition, while the apples carried on other steamers were half rotten, and the statement he made to me was, that his vessels were specially constructed for the shipment of apples and the captains were instructed to look after the ventilation of the holds, and to see that the appliances for ventilation were properly used on the voyage. Professor Robertson further says :
Taking the shipments of Canadian apples last fall, which are Ontario mainly, a few perhaps from Quebec, sold in Liverpool by two different
sets of salesmen; taking a quantity of 14,416 barrels going by seventeen different steamships and sent forward, as near as I can make out from the brands, in about 185 different lots- the brand is sometimes so much like another brand that it may have been the same-but that is a very wide range, you see, of data from which to make a calculation. There were nearly 15,000 barrels on seventeen steamships sent forward in 185 different lots.
The account sales show this, that out of the total quantity there were only 5,928 barrels sold as tights. There were 2,793 slacks, 2,446 slightly wet, 1,997 wet, and 1,252 wet and slack. That is to say, rather more than one-half of the apples shipped in these lots were sold as slack, slightly wet and wet. The difference in price realized by these apples is very great. The only way to get any fair information on this is to take a lot of apples sent by one ship and pick out the apples of the same class sold as tight, and the others of that variety sold as slacks or wet. Going over the list and taking out the apples of the same variety under these conditions, the slack on the average sold for 2 shillings and 7 pence less than the tights. The slightly wets for 3 shillings and 8 pence less than the tights, the wets for 7 shillings and 3 pence less than the tights, and the wets and slacks for 9 shillings and 11 pence less, or nearly 10 shillings, and of these wets and slacks there were 1,252 barrels.
This is a statement that ought surely to be convincing. Here was a large quantity of apples going forward in which it is shown that the loss incurred was more than 75 cents a barrel. Therefore, I think I am within the mark when I say that the loss in the last ten years on all the apples grown in Ontario which have been shipped to the old country has been 50 cents a barrel.


Mr. WADE.: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to state what the crop of apples
was in Ontario in 1896,' and whether the orchards are larger now than they were then ?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: 
Lake Superior.   ..@: And so on. I could give a very large number of instances of the same kind. Now, I will give a few instances in which the holds of the vessels were ventilated, to show the difference in the condition of the apples :
Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) to do something to compel the railway companies to carry these apples and other perishable products of the farm, in ventilated cars. We load our apples and other per-
Boat.	Date Sold.	Tight.	Slack.	Slightly Wet.'	Wet.-	Slack and Wet.Ottoman	Jan. 24 .	123	14	0	0	1Corinthian	,t 24..	1(56	8	0	0	1Numidian 	M IS..	281	21	0	0	Cameronian	t, 2 & 11..	354	105	16	10	4Vancouver 	.. 2& 11..	4,200	301	4	12	30Lake Champlain	" 2 & 5..	1,397	280	99	5	0Michigan	Oct. 20 & 26. .	118	12	16	1	0Numidian	Dec. 12..	580	114	19	8	3Manchester Trader	H 6. .	1,058	173	46	36	26
Corporation	.. 11..	515	03	4	5	8" Commerce	Nov. 9.	830	38	10	0	0Corinthian	Oct. 5 & 8..	834	100	44	0	3Parisian . 	.. 10..	502	32	31	4	0


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: May I ask the hon. gentleman what season he is speaking of ?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: This season. It is possible that a few barrels may be slack owing to the carelessness of packers. I know it has often been charged in committees where this matter has been discussed and even outside, that the fault is altogether with the packer. I am bound to deny that statement in toto. I know that there are some packers who are green at the business and who do not pack properly; but they form a very small percentage, I believe not over 5 per cent of the whole. There may be a larger percentage of packers who foolishly think that by putting small apples in the middle of the barrels, or putting in apples of an inferior grade, they may make some money; but that does not affect the conditions in which the apples arrive. A barrel of apples, with big ones at the end and little ones in the middle, will go across the ocean as well, so far as being wet or slack is concerned, as a barrel of the best apples grown. go that the charge made against the packers of apples is not in accordance with the facts; but the statements which I have given prove that the fault lies with the steamship companies, and partly with the railway companies. I know that Prof. Robertson has shown that apples have landed in Montreal in such a condition that the temperature inside the barrel showed eighty-five degrees. These apples put In the hold of a vessel where the temperature may be ninety or one hundred before they get across the ocean, are certain to arrive in bad order. They would arrive in worse order from the fact of their being landed in Montreal in that heated condition. It devolves upon the
ishable products, that do not require to go into cold storage cars, into box cars which have no ventilation whatever, and in which the heat is ten to twenty degrees greater than the temperature outside. If the railway shippers and the growers of apples have asked the railway companies time and again, as they have done, to provide better cars and the companies refuse, it is the duty of the government, particularly of the Minister of Agriculture, to see that these railway companies provide suitable cars. It may be asked how would we provide ventilation. Well, there is a number of appliances that could be utilized which would enable the railway companies to have the temperature inside the cars at least as cool as outside. These appliances cost very little, and it only requires a little pressure from the government on the railway companies to make them do this. This matter might perhaps come within the jurisdiction of the railway commission proposed to be established, but in any case it comes within the province of the government, and the hon. the Finance Minister might very well have considered this question of transportation, which is of infinite importance to our people, in his budget delivery..
Let me say a word with regard to some of the questions brought up by the hon. gentleman who preceded me on the opposite side. If there is one department, which the government claim credit for having carried on economically, it is the post office. I do not know that during the last election there was any one department that they did really dare to claim having carried on economically except the post office, and concerning the management of that department, there has been a great deal of boasting. I am bound to say that it has not been carried


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: on so badly as some of the other departments. What are the facts ? The hon. the Postmaster General takes great credit for having reduced the postage from three to two cents and for having, in spite of that reduction, a deficit less than that which existed under the Conservative administration. The hon. gentleman prides himself on that as an admirable condition of affairs, but I must take exception to his claim. In the year 1896, when the rate was three cents, the receipts were $2,964,014. In the year 1898, when the rate was still three *cents, the receipts amountd to $3,527,809, or an increase in two years of $563,795. Then *the two-cent letter rate came into operation, and the receipts decreased ; but it is fair to assume that if the three-cent rate had remained in force, the rate of progress would have been maintained. Hon. gentlemen opposite claim that the progress of the country has been greater than it was in the previous two years, that the imports and exports and the trade of the country generally have been greater in these two years than in the two previous ones, and it is fair to assume that a greater amount of money would have gone into the post office had the letter rate not been reduced. Under the three-cent rate, the receipts increased $563,795 in two years, and had that rate continued we would have had receipts amounting to $4,091,604, but instead they were but $3,183,784 or a falling off of $907,620, caused by the reduction in rate. In other words, had the three-cent rate remained in force, instead of having a deficit of $461,000, we would have a surplus of $446,000. These hon. gentlemen, however, say that this is not a bad condition of affairs. They say that we have relieved the people of this amount of taxation. They say that we have taken from the people $900,000 of taxes . and that it is very satisfactory to know that we did not require that amount of money ; but a few minutes later the hon. gentleman said that he expected during the coming year lie would have to borrow at least $1,000,000 in addition to the enormous revenues which he is wringing from the pockets of the people. Well, if he had allowed the three-cent letter rate to continue, he would have had about $1,000,000 extra, and would not be under any necessity to borrow. However, if this decrease in the letter rate were really a relief to the people generally, it would perhaps be a good thing, and even as it is, I am not going to severely criticise the step taken. But I want to point out that we have lost $907,000 by that reduction, and further, that the saving made has been made by business men. Personally, it has saved me some hundreds of dollars annually, but 999 other men, who only send a few letters every year, have saved but a few cents, and that amount must come sooner or later out of the pockets of the people. It is idle to say that because our revenues are sufficient to meet our expenditures this year,
we do not need that $900,000. Surely, when we have a debt of something over $260,000,000, it does not lie in the mouth of the Finance Minister to say that we do not require any money ?
Let me say a word, Mr. Speaker, about that great question which has agitated the people for the past twenty years-the question of protection. It is somewhat amusing at times to see the frantic efforts made by hon. gentlemen opposite to prove that they are still free traders. I must say that I was rather amused by that great financier, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). He has been accused of having renounced his principles, and he made a huge effort to-day to show that he had not renounced any of his principles. He admitted that in 1878 he had proposed an increase of duty from 17J per cent to 20 per cent, but he pleaded that 20 per cent was not a protective tariff and that he had not in any sense renounced his principles when he proposed an increase of 2i per cent.
Now, the hon. Minister of Finance, in his budget speech, said that during the four years' administration of the gentlemen now in power, the duties had been reduced by 2-30 per cent and he maintained that that reduction changed this from a protective to a revenue tariff. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce maintained, only yesterday, that even with an increase of 21 per cent, his position was not altered but he was still a revenue tariff man. This point has been discussed a good many times, but, if the House would bear with me for a few moments I would like to say a few words upon it. I want to prove that hon. gentlemen opposite, in spite of their actions, at one time declared themselves free traders, and that they still say that they are free traders or believers in a revenue tariff only. In 1893, at the convention that I have already mentioned, one of the planks in the platform was as follows :
We denounce the principle of protection as radically unsound and unjust to the masses of the people, and we declare our conviction that any tariff changes based on that principle must fail to afford any substantial relief from the burdens under which the country labours. This issue we unhesitatingly accept, and upon it we await the fullest confidence the verdict of the electorate of Canada.
The present Prime Minister said at that same convention :
We will tax for revenue, but not one cent for protection.
Would he say that he is not imposing today one cent of taxes for protection ? The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that none of our taxes now were imposed for the purpose of protection ; but I do not think there is any other hon. gentleman on the other side who feels the necessity of maintaining his free trade principles who would go so far as to say that our tariff

was a tariff for revenue and not one cent for protection.
Taxation is an evil that nothing but the requirements of government can justify. When we are in power-and I don't want to sell the skin of the bear until the bear is shot ; yet X think the Tory bear is about to be skinned- we will free the people from protection, which is a fraud and a delusion and a robbery.
Has he done it ?
For it is robbery to take money from one man to give it to another.
On another occasion he said :
I will not be satisfied until the last vestige of protection has been removed from the soil of Canada. Our great reform is to put away from the soil of Canada the last vestige of protection.
Once more, he said :
If the Liberals are successful, they will cut off the head of protection at once, and trample on its body.
The present lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) said :
We have been attacking this policy year by year. This is an accursed system, a system accursed of God and* man.
The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce on one occasion said :
I say our protective system was a huge mistake, in so far as it was honest at all, and in so far as it was not honest, it was a huge scheme of robbery.
Again, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said :
I stand by the declaration I have made, that protection is nothing less than a deliberate, legalized and organized robbery; and, more than that, if they do not stamp it out, it is a very high road to political slavery first and industrial slavery afterwards.
Again, he said :
Our policy from first to last has been to destroy the villainous system of protection by free trade, a revenue tariff or continental free trade.
Surely these utterances are sufficient, combined with those that we have heard in this House, to convince the most sceptical that these hon. gentlemen were, at any rate, at that time, staunch believers in free trade or a tariff for revenue only. They have been in power for more than four years. Have they carried out their principles ? Are they establishing a revenue tariff, or a free trade, or continental free trade ? No, the tariff to-day, in its main and essential elements, is a protective tariff as much as any tariff as ever existed in this country. The duties may not be quite so high, but that fact does not destroy the protective elements in the tariff. It is not necessary that a duty should be a certain amount to make it protective. I maintain, and (I think that every hon. gentleman who has made a study of political economy will agree with me, that the system we have is a protective system pure and simple. It is true that hon. gen-Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
tlemen opposite have tinkered witn the tariff. They have cut off a frill here and a flounce there, to make the people believe that they are carrying out to some small extent the principles that they have advocated. But in its principles the tariff is a protective tariff. And that tariff is being carried into effect by gentlemen who do not believe in it. Are they the men to carry out the principles of protection ? Is it not right that the people who believe in protection should carry it out and not the party who have professed, all their lives, as the Minister of Commerce professes to-day, that they do not believe in it, but believe in a policy of free trade 7 The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce told us one of the main distinguishing features of a protective tariff. He said that a protective tariff was one that reduced the revenue while a revenue tariff was one that increased the revenue. Let us consider this. Surely the hon. gentleman will not deny that the United States is a protective country ; surely he will say that the duties levied there are based upon the principles of protection. Yet, what do we And ? In 1894, the United States imported $257,645,702 worth of dutiable goods; and in 1900 they imported $463,759,330 worth, or nearly double the amount imported in 1894. Yet, the Minister of Commerce would tell us that the United States have a revenue tariff because it increased the customs revenue of the country.
Now, let us go over some of the items of our tariff and see if they are protective. The hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) said that he could point out 140 items the duty on which had been reduced. I challenge the hon. member for London to take the tariff for 1897 and the tariff before that and go over them with me, and I will undertake to show an item on which the duty was raised for every item that he can show on which it was lowered. True, they made a reduction on some items coming from England after that date. Take a few items and see whether they are protective or not. We bring into this country $21,700 worth of fresh salmon, the duty on which is 25 per cent. Is that-for protection or for revenue ? We bring in $292,974 worth of furniture, the duty on which is 30 per cent- and this is an item which is not affected by the preference, because furniture comes almost entirely from the United States. Is that duty a revenue or a protective duty ? We import lamp chimneys to the amount of $117,915 from the United States, and none practically, from Britain. The duty on these is 30 per cent. Is this a revenue duty ? In rubber boots and shoes, our imports are $57,591, on which a duty of 25 per cent is charged. Pronged forks-of these we import $10,986, the duty is now 25 per cent. It was 35 per cent. And this reduction, they console themselves, makes it a revenue duty instead of protection. Surely no hon. gentleman who is really in
earnest will maintain that the reduction by 10 per cent of a 35 per cent duty makes it a revenue instead of a protective duty.
Let us take the item of 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. Then, tallow candles, $31,275; carriages and buggies, $43,014. These receive no advantage from the preferential tariff, and they pay a duty of 35 per cent. Thirty-five per cent upon cutters, 25 per cent upon the old farm wagons, $78,033 ; 25 per cent upon farm wagons and drays, $26,203 ; 25 per cent on sleighs, $5,684-all these goods are bought from the United States and get no benefit from the preferential tariff. 'Bicycles and tricycles, 30 per cent, $496,129'; childrens' carriages, 35 per cent, $19,914; carpet sweepers, 30 per cent, $28,826 ; clothes wringers. 35 per cent, $13,255, all from the United States, none from England. Bituminous coal, duty 53 cents a ton, $3,609,389. They did make a little reduction of 7 per cent a ton, and therefore they think they have converted themselves from protectionists into free traders.


An hon. MEMBER.: What is the duty on English coal ?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: On hard coal it is the same as it was under the late administration. Duty on electric motors, 25 per cent, $120,299;'railroad engines and locomotives, 25 per cent, $398,118; steam engines and boilers, 25 per cent, $103,187; fanning mills, 25 per cent, grain crushers, 25 per cent, windmills, 25 per cent, $15,537 ; portable engines, 25 per cent, $74,703; portable saw-mills, &c., 25 per cent, $15,779 ; threshers and separators, 25 per cent, $78,264; sewing machines, 30 per cent, $154,753; axes, 25 per cent, $41,547; typewriting machines, 25 per cent, $91,898; saws, 30 per cent, $73,297; jewellery, 30 per cent, $393,382; boots and shoes, 25 per cent, $427,906. Here they bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods, and not one cent of preferential tariff in their favour because they are all brought in from the United States, no similar goods are brought in from Great Britain. Lubricating oils, under 25 cents a gallon, 5 cents a gallon, $81,422; wall paper, 35 per cent, $70,137. I might go on and enumerate a long list of other articles that we bring in from the United States on which the duty is highly protective. There is the matter of coal oil. The hon. member for London took great credit to the government for reducing the duty on coal oil from 7 to 5 cents. I want to draw his attention to a little slip he made, the duty on coal oil was not 7 cents under the late administration but 6 cents, and these gentlemen changed a protective duty of 6 cents to a free trade tariff of 5 cents a gallon on coal 50
oil. Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce dare to stand "up in this House and maintain that a 5 cent duty on coal oil is not a protective duty ? Will he dare maintain that it is a revenue tariff or approaches it in any sense ? I do not think that with all his courage, and everybody knows he has a great deal, and it requires a great deal of courage for an hon. gentleman in his position to swallow the principles that he has advocated for twenty years, but even he will not dare to maintain that a 5 cent duty on coal oil is a free trade or a revenue tariff duty. I do not object to these duties that are protective, I maintain that in many cases they are not high enough. The difference between hon. gentlemen opposite and hon. gentlemen on this side of the House is simply that we believe in the principle of protection, and if we were in power we would carry it out to the full extent, while our friends opposite do not believe it but still they are carrying out the principle in such a manner as to make it odious to the people, if they can. Now, I think enough has been said and will be said to convince the people that the hon gentlemen occupying the treasury benches are carrying out the principle of protection simply and solely for the sake of maintaining themselves in power. Sir, I make the statement that it is no credit to the hon. gentlemen who are administering the affairs of this country that they are carrying out a protective principle which they do not believe in, simply in order that they may maintain power. It is no more creditable to those hon. gentlemen to carry out those principles in order to maintain office than it is to the wretch who, at election times, is willing to sell his principles for a five dollar bill. We know that during the last campaign there were many thousand electors, many hundred of thousands, I fear, who were willing to sell their principles, and that is one feature of the financial administration of this government which a portion of the people of this county appear to relish. But not many relish an increase of $16,000,000 in five short years to the total expenditure of this country. But there is a feature of the financial administration of this government which they exhibited a few days prior to the 7th of November, and which a small portion of the people relished to an immense extent, to such an' extent that, combined with the abominable race cry that was raised in the province of Quebec, it enabled the hon. gentlemen to put themselves once more in the seats of power. I say that they have no right to claim that they have the endorsement of the people of this country for their extravagant policy during the last five years, and their proposed extravagance in the future. They have no ground to claim that the people have condoned their faithlessness in changing their free trade or revenue tariff policy to a pro-


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate, and in doing so, I would like to give the House notice, that on Monday, I will move an amendment to the resolution that the Speaker do leave the Chair. The motion which I will make will be this :
That all the words after * that ' in the proposed motion be left out, and the following substituted therefor :
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 Canada;
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 50i
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.
This House is further of opinion that equivalent or adequate duties should bo imposed by Canada upon the products and manufactures of countries not within the empire in all cases where such countries fail to admit Canadian products and manufactures upon fair terms, and that the government should take for this purpose all such available measures as may be found necessary.
I hope the right hon. gentleman will have no objection to the debate being now adjourned.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 18, 1901.