Hear, hear.

Mr. WALLACE.

We know what the right hon. gentleman said when the people were proposing to assist the mother land when war was declared in South Africa. We know the attitude he took then : We could not. we would not assist Great Britain. We had passed a resolution by a unanimous vote a few months before in the House of Commons. With what result ? Why, the ink was hardly dry until circumstances compelled us to make a choice, and the right hon. gentleman made Mr. WALLACE.

his choice that we would not, we could not go to the aid of Great Britain. The overwhelming voice of the loyal people of Canada made the First Minister turn about as he had often done before and therefore it came quite easy to him, and he consented to send a contingent to South Africa. Then, there is another hon. gentleman who professes loyalty to us-the hon. Minister of Public Works. He spoke in Guelph on Friday last. He made quite a speech, and gave us a lecture on loyalty, telling us how we should be good Canadian citizens, and he was going to invite himself to come to Ontario and have a constituency there. When I look at myself for a moment, I see that the electors of Ontario, and particularly of West York, are very generous. They do not look too particularly at their candidates, but, we must draw the line somewhere, and I think there is not a constituency in Ontario but would draw the line at the hon. Minister of Public Works. He has invited himself. I wait to see whether any constituency in Ontario will invite him. It would be particularly hard up for public works before that would be done. But, he says that he is going to come to Ontario, not only to tell them that he is going to be a candidate in Ontario, and that he has always deprecated the racial and religious cries that we now have to-day in North Bruce, but, he says that he is preparing to come even to the Orange order and ask the young men there why they are opposed to the Liberal administration. If he comes to any meeting of the Orange Association, or where the Orangemen are, I will guarantee that he will receive fair treatment. After he has done making his harangues in Ontario, which are very much different from those in Quebec, I have no doubt many of the audiences will ask him : Are you the Mr. Tarte who said, when a Canadian contingent was being sent out: Not a man, not a dollar will be sent ? Are you the same individual ? Are you the man who made a speech at Laval University a few months ago in which you said :

One of the paramount duties of the French members of the House of Commons was to show that they were Frenchmen.

Are you the Mr. Tarte who said :

I am a minister in a British government; I take the liberty to call myself French, but if it is desired that I should declare myself a British citizen and it is desired to prevent myself calling myself French, then I refuse to call myself a British subject.

They would no doubt ask him was he the Mr. Tarte who said these things. They would ask him: Are you the man tv ho put

up the tri-colour above the Union .Tack on the ships under your command down in the St. Lawrence.

Hear, hear.

Mr. WALLACE.

Our friend over there says : ' Hear, hear.' There is another

Tarte in the House. They would also say: Are you the gentleman who had an interview in Paris; a disloyal interview in which you said :

We have to make pretenses of our friendship and our loyalty to Great Britain because it would lead to difficulties if we did not.

They would also ask him: Are you the

Mr. Tarte who denounced the Fox Bay settlers on Anticosti Island as murderers, without having a particle of evidence to prove it, and are you the gentleman who had to withdraw that statement, and withdraw it with very had grace indeed. They would ask the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) all these questions and a great many more. They would also ask him: Are you the gentleman who in a

court of justice a short time previous to the elections stated that you were not worth a dollar, and who afterwards said in the House of Commons that you had bought La Patrie with your own money for $30,000 cash, and had bought a royal residence almost, for which you had paid cash too. And then they would ask : Where did you get

the money. They would load up the Minister of Public "Works with so many inconvenient questions that I think he would be rather sorry that he came up there even if he got the good hearing that is proverbially characteristic of an Ontario audience. Therefore, I say, Mr. Speaker, that we do not require to have lessons in loyalty from the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), from the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding), from the First Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), nor from the Minister of Public Works. The record of the Conservative party is one of loyalty and consideration for the mother land.

Mr. BOURASSA.

Except when Home Rule Bill is moved in England.

Mr. WALLACE.

Except when Home Rule Bill is moved in England.

Mr. BOURASSA.

Then comes the Kingston speech.

Mr. WALLACE.

That Kingston speech that I made was an exact repetition of a speech of Lord Salisbury, which met with the approval of the British people. And my remarks met with the approval of the loyal people of Canada too and were approved by the parliament of Canada. 1 have said, Mr. Speaker, that these gentlemen opposite were not disturbing themselves very much in the interests of the people of Canada. The First Minister said : We should not be

bothered with those tariff tinkers; they are a great nuisance, and the Minister of Finance told us how the bounties to be given on steel and iron were to be charged to capital account in the future and removed from being paid out of current account ns has been usual in the past. The fact is

that if we are going to give bounties the only proper way is to pay them out of current revenue, and not borrow the money to pay them. If you pay $1,000,000 in bounties on the production of $2,000,000 worth of steel or iron produced at the Sydney mine, almost the whole of that steel is sent out of Canada to Europe, and the moment it leaves this country Canadians receive no further benefit from it. We are told now that although this material is not going to be used in Canada it will be charged to capital account. If you construct public works out of capital account the people of Canada own these public works, and if you give subsidies to railways, these railways add to the wealth of the Dominion and are an advantage to the people, but this $2,000,000 worth of iron and steel that goes out of the country is never more seen here. All it is worth to the Canadian people is the labour it gives in producing it, and yet we are told that the bounties on it are to be paid out of capital account in the future. Well, why does the Minister of Finance do this ? It is because that next year the minister or this minister should have a surplus of a million dollars, he will say that his government is running the affairs of the country well so as to get that surplus, whereas if the two million dollars that he will pay in bounties were charged to revenue as it should be, he would have to face a deficit of one million dollars. But, the Minister of Finance wants to prepare himself for something that is coming, and so he wants to have the iron and steel bounties struck from being a charge on the revenue and placed in capital account. I protest against that kind of book-keeping.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we were told to-day, as we were told on Thursday last by the Minister of Finance, that the beet-root sugar men may look for no consideration from the government of Canada. We are told that the government would give them some benefit in letting them have their machinery free of duty. Well, that was done last year. As a matter of fact the question stands in exactly the same position as it was a year ago, because there is not a dollar's ' worth of beet-root sugar machinery made in Canada to-day. There is not a beetroot sugar factory in Canada, and therefore this pretended concession is no concession at all. It is a negative concession anyway, and it is not worth a cent unless the industry is established here. It costs the government nothing and it is worth just about that to the beet-root sugar industry. I was present at the denutation of the beet sugar men which waited on the government last week, and the members of that deputation made out an extremely strong case although they were told by the government that nothing could be done for them. We imported last year 316,000.000 pounds of sugar and syrups valued at $8,350,000. the freight on -which from far-off lands would be certainly $1,000,000 ; making it cost to the

people of this country, $9,350,000 ; and there was $2,380,000 of duty paid on it ; making it altogether $12,000,000 when it arrived in the Dominion of Canada.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it has been proved by that deputation of gentlemen who were here, and who knew what they were talking about, and by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), who has made a most exhaustive examination of this question, that beet-root sugar can be made in Canada. We can grow the beets, and we can make the sugar. Beet roots grown in Canada have as large a percentage of saccharine matter as beets grown in any other country. The gentlemen desiring to establish this industry come to the government of Canada and ask for a bounty to enable them to establish factories. We were told that it would cost at least $500,000 to establish each factory, and that it would take about 30 factories to supply the Dominion. It is difficult to get these men to put their money into the industry, because if the Conservatives came into power to-morrow, I have no doubt they would strike off that $2,380,000 of duty to commence with. But the government turn a cold shoulder to them ; they do not want any tariff tinkers to come here to bother them ; they want to enjoy their well-earned luxuries and rest; no trouble or worry for them. We are to have $6,400,000 of a surplus, the Finance Minister tells us, and to give a small percentage of that to build up an industry in the country which will save $12,000,000, and give that $12,000,000 to the farmers and manufacturers of Canada, will never do. It could not be done ; it would never be done ; and the First Minister sent them about their business. He said ; They are tariff tinkers, and we will give them warning to keep away for all time.

Another industry of enormous importance to this country has evidently been treated in the same way. In the Kootenay country they are producing enormous quantities of silver, lead and copper ores. They ask to have smelters and refineries established there. A resolution which was passed by the Trail board of trade, says :

Whereas, there are at the present, time no lead refining works in the Dominion of Canada, and the initial cost of establishing such a plant is very great, it is the opinion of the association that the Dominion government should encourage the establishment of such a plant by the grant for a term of years of a bounty of $5 per ton on all lead of . Canadian origin smelted and refined in Canada.

We are robbed by the United States tariff to-day on our lead and silver ores ; and these people come to the parliament of Canada. as they have a right to come, and they get the cold shoulder and a point blank refusal. The exports of these ores last year were :

Quantity. Value.

Lead 19,800,000 lbs. $ 678,000

Copper ore and matte.. 13,000,000 lbs. 1,387,000 Silver 2,283,000 oz. 1,354,000

A total value of $3,420,000, not speaking of the nickel, which amounts to more than $1,000,000. For the last lour months the production amounted to $2,500,000, showing how rapidly the production is increasing. Last year hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars could have been saved to tbe people of this country if we had the smelting and refining works in Canada. All that Is required is a subsidy of $5 a ton on silver lead ore, which is worth $60 or $70 a ton ; so that $5 per ton is equivalent to 7 per cent-that is all they ask. The Finance Minister thinks it is a very nice thing to give a bonus of 55 per cent on pig iron ; but 7 per cent is asked on lead ores, and it is refused. I would like the Finance Minister to tell us by what rule of fair-play the government give 55 per cent bounty on pig iron, and refuse to give 7 per cent on silver lead ores ?

Will my hon. friend allow me to say that there is an application before the government on that subject ? I do not say wbat may be done with it, but it is not correct to state that the matter has been disposed of and the application refused.

Mr. WALLACE.

The Finance Minister announced no tariff changes.

This is not a tariff question at all.

Mr. WALLACE.

The First Minister told us to-night that there would be no tariff tinkering, and we are told now that this is not a tariff question at all. I have in my hand the prospectus of the company which the Finance Minister knows something about-the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, Limited, of Sydney, Cape Breton, Canada-a company which an hon. gentleman has told us was working so strenuously against him that they got him elected. This company say in their prospectus that they are going to produce next year 400,000 tons of pig iron, 75,000 tons of steel blooms, and 325.000 tons of steel rails. They say :

If the production from the company's works be as estimated, 300,000 tons of pig metal and 60,000 tons of steel blooms in 1901, and thereafter 400,000 tons of iron and steel per annum, made from Newfoundland ore, the bounties to be received from the Canadian government will be as follows

1901 $ 870,000

1-902 2,075,000

And this is only one of the refining works of all those that are being established all over the Dominion. We are having them at Collingwood. at Midland, and in successful operation and prospering at Hamilton ;

Mr. WALLACE.

and we shall have them at many other points in the Dominion. This company, according to the prospectus, will be getting in 1902 $2,075,000 of the money of the good people of Canada ; and in what proportions are they getting it :

Alter crediting the value of the by-products from the coke ovens, the cost of our pig Iron should not exceed $5.50 per ton, after everything has been reduced to steady practice.

On an article worth $5.50 they are going to get a bounty of $3, 55 per cent of the cost is to be paid by the people of Canada. It is a pretty liberal concession.

The hon. gentleman's former leader (Sir Charles Tup-per) wanted to make it $3.

Mr. WALLACE.

The ost of our pig iron should not exceed $5.50 per ton and the government gives a bonus of $3 on every ton made from a Canadian ore.

It is not Canadian, the ore is Newfoundland ore, and the former leader of the opposition wanted to pay the full $3.

Mr. WALLACE.

The late leader of the opposition was very anxious to have Newfoundland brought into confederation and treated as one of the family. But I find that the present government have not turned their hands to assist in any way in getting Newfoundland into confederation. They have treated her as a foreigner and an alien. They have done nothing to accomplish what we considered most important for the future of this country, for our fishery interests, and our interests in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the late leader of the opposition was most anixous that something should be done. But I am speaking of the Minister of Finance.

Not correctly.

Mr. WALLACE.

Yes, let me read still further :

To encourage the manufacture In the Dominion of iron and steel, parliament has granted bounties as follows :-

On pig iron, per ton of 2,000 tons to the 21st April, 1902, from native ore $3 and from foreign ore $2; on steel, $3.

From April 21st, 1902, to 1st July, 1903, from native ore, $2.70 ; foreign ore, $1.80 ; steel, $2.70.

The next year, native ore, $2.25; foreign ore, $1.50 ; steel, $2.25. The following year, native ore, $1.65 ; foreign ore, $1.10 ; steel, $1.65.

And so on, reducing the bounty until it disappears entirely. This company estimates -and I assume it is stating the facts correctly-if not the Minister of Finance can denounce them for speaking false statements with intent to deceive the people of this Dominion-this company estimates that in 1901 it will have obtained from the Canadian government, $870,000 ; in 1902, $2,075.000 ; in 1903. $1,850,000 ; 1904, $1,450,000,

and so on. No wonder that the Minister of Finance is going to take that little account out of the current revenue and borrow the money and charge it to capital. Then the bounty is not limited to the iron and steel industry in Cape Breton, but all the other refining works and smelters in Canada are to be treated on the same terms, and let the hon. the Finance Minister estimate any figure he chooses to add to this $2,075,000 and see how much he will have to pay out altogether.

Yet, when the beet-root sugar industry, that is going to start thousands of farmers in this country and make an expenditure of $12,000,000 among the people and save the money we send out of the country to-day, asks for a bonus, those asking it are dismissed and called a lot of tariff-tinkers by the high and mighty gentlemen who are ruling this country

' The hon. leader of the opposition called attention of this House to the fact that the German tariff was distinctly hostile to Canada, and that Canada has to pay 50 marks, or 9-82 cents, a bushel more duty on grain than is charged American product On rye we pay 9J cents more than the Americans. On oats we pay 44 cents more, peas 3.1 cents, corn 2i cents. This was brought about by the blundering of this government. They first gave Germany and Belgium a preference in the markets of Canada, and a year later they repealed that preference. Why did they repeal it ? Either they had not intended to give it to Germany or Belgium at all, in which case they were blundering, or else they changed their mind and took it away. By their conduct they angered the German people, and the result is that the United States have a preference of 10 cents a bushel on their wheat over Canada. We had opened in these two countries a great market, which was rapidly growing, for the wild goose wheat which they required for certain purposes, but when the Americans got the 10 cents advantage, the price of wild goose wheat, which had gone up higher than the fall wheat of Ontario, dropped again, because the markets were closed to it. So with many other agricultural products. The United States have a preference over us in those markets, and we have not heard that the Canadian government have taken any steps to have it removed. Have they gone to the German government or made any effort whatever to get the same fair treatment as the United States ? No, Sir. And [DOT]yet we do not put up such a high tariff against the Germans as do the United States. We import eight and a half million dollars' worth of goods from Germany and only send one and three-quarter millions, so that we could make a very strong case, but I have never heard that this government have ever bothered their heads about it. Too much like tariff tinkering perhaps, and they do not want to bother with it, but just stay quiet and enjoy themselves.

What about the United States ? Our productions are largely the same as those of the United States. We permit American goods to come in at a moderate tariff. The leader of the opposition said to-night that it was his most anxious desire we should live on the most friendly and amicable terms with the people of the United States. I reciprocate that sentiment, but I think the best way to do so is to look very closely after our own interests. Let us make a tariff that will suit ourselves, and if the American people charge high duties on Canadian products, let us protect our farmers by charging high duties on their products. We charge a duty on eggs of three cents and they charge five cents a dozen. On butter, we charge 4 cents a pound, while they charge 6 cents a pound. On cheese, we charge S cents a pound, while they charge 6 cents a pound. On apples we charge, including the duty on the barrel, 40 cents a barrel, while they charge 25 cents a bushel, which would be nearly 75 cents a barrel. On beans, we charge 15 cents a bushel, while their duty is three times as much-45 cents a bushel. On peas, green, our duty is 10 cents a bushel, while theirs is 40 cents a bushel. On peas dry, the duty on our side is 10 cents, while theirs is 30 cents a bushel. On potatoes we charge 15 cents a bushel, while they charge 25 cents a bushel. On hay we charge $2 a ton, while the charge is $4 on the other side. On barley our duty is 30 per cent, which, at prevailing prices, would be about 12 cents to 14 cents, while they charge 30 cents per bushel. On corn meal our duty is 25 cents per barrel, while they charge 20 cents a bushel of 48 pounds, or at least two and a half times as much as the Canadian duty. Indian corn we admit free, while they charge a duty of 15 cents a bushel. On oats, our duty is 10 cents per bushel, and theirs Is 15 cents a bushel. On oatmeal we charge 20 per cent or, say, 60 cents per barrel, while they charge 1 cent per pound, which would be about $2 a barrel. On wheat, we charge 12 cents a bushel, while they charge 25 cents a bushel. On wheat flour our duty is 60 cents per barrel, while theirs is 25 per cent, which would amount to 50 to 80 per cent more. In hops, we charge 6 cents, while they charge 12 cents. As to live stock, they charge duties, which, if not prohibitory, are enormously large. On horses, their lowest duty is $30 apiece. This is when the horses are worth under $150, but if they are over that the duty is 25 per cent, which would bring it to $347.50 or over. On cattle they charge 27i per cent on those over a certain age. On live hogs, the duty is $1.50 per head. The effect of all these things is to shut the Canadian farmer out of the United States market, while the American farmer has easy access of the Canadian market, and takes advantage of it too.

Mr. WALLACE.

This is shown by the fact that the exports of Canadian agricultural produce to the United States amount to about $6,750,000, the imports of agricultural products from the United States into Canada far exceed that amount. Then there is another point to which I would like to draw special attention-the grievance under which the market gardeners suffer. The early products of the season are those for which the highest prices are paid and on which the greatest profits are realized. Being to the south of us, of course, the American gardener has special advantages in this respect. The market gardeners here have built up a great industry ; they have hothouses and other property used in this business to an enormous amount, some of the establishments representing an investment of tens of thousands of dollars. This industry, in my opinion, should receive adequate protection. The government of this country are being asked to consider the market gardeners' grievances-and it is a grievance of the whole people of Canada. The American to-day gets the profit which the Canadian market gardener ought to get. We should look after our own interests. A few years ago, the duty on pork and beef was not high enough to protect us from the invasions of the farmers of the United States. Delegations came down here and represented the ease to_ the government of Canada, and immediately the government put on a strong protective duty. The result is that to-day we have a pork and beef industry which not only controls the market of Canada but has built up such an export trade that Canadians are proud of it. We send to the markets of Great Britain millions of dollars' worth of the finest bacon in the world. This was accomplished by acceding to the request of the tariff tinkers, the farmers of Canada who came here and represented the case to the government. So, we want protection for the market gardeners. We want protection also for the agricultural implement makers. Last year we imported from the United States agricultural Implements to the amount of $1815 000. while we imported from Great Britain, excluding scythes and reaping hooks and shovel' blanks, agricultural implements to the amount of $1,015.

This $1,815,000 worth of implements that we import from the United States should be made in Canada by Canadian artisans. But we shall ask in vain for any change, because the government do not want any tariff tinkering until they are ready to come down with the free trade tariff.

Closely allied with this is the question of looking for markets throughout the world. These hon. gentlemen told us that if they were brought into power they would secure markets everywhere. They told us that they would go to the United States, and before you could say ' Jack Robinson,'

they would have a reciprocity treaty with the United States that would bring great prosperity to Canada. But they were in power two years before they turned their hands over on this question. They should have taken it up at once, because it was immediately after the presidential election. They waited until September, 1898, before they sought a conference. They met the other delegates, sat for a short time and then adjourned, and met again. To-day, after nearly five years of these hon. gentlemen in office, we are no nearer reciprocity than we were when they came into power. I think we may fairly ask that they wind up negotiations and tell us what they were doing, either proceed to get a reciprocity treaty or say they cannot. They have not been a business government, they have in that respect falsified their pledges to the people of Canada, they have been derelict in their duties.

More than that, there are markets elsewhere. There is a great trade in South Africa. What have these gentlemen done, what has the Minister of Agriculture done, who boasts about his cold storage, fussing around and doing nothing ? We had an interesting statement from the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) the other night, who knows the business of the exportation of apples. We exported $2,500,000 worth of apples. That business is capable of enormous expansion. We grow the best apples in the world. We ought to have control of the markets of the world. The government is asked-and they

are bound to do it if they do fheir duty-to supply cold storage and other facilities that are required in order to land these apples in the markets of Europe. Have they done so ? The Minister of Agriculture has been dancing around doing nothing in the interests of the apple-growers of Canada. I was saying that they should be looking for markets everywhere. In South Africa last year Great Britain sent $63,000,000 worth of products, the United States sent $10,000,000, and Canada only sent $06,547. The United States sent 150 times as much as we did, and Great Britain sent about a thousand times as much as we did. What steps have the government taken to build up a business there ? New Zealand, a country with an area of 104,000 square miles, against our 3,500,000, and with a population of about 800.000, compared with our 6,000,000, has decided to put on a monthly line of steamers to run directly to South Africa, in order to overcome the disabilities in sending merchandise by way of Melbourne and Sydney. Here is a country with one-seventh of the population of Canada, making these efforts to build up a trade with South Africa. Now. what are the materials sent to South Africa :

Agricultural implements and tools, $738,000 ; ale and beer, $503,958; apparel, $3,217,592 ; boots

and shoes, $2,486,361 ; butter and cheese, $994,829; carriages, $682,000; cotton and manufactures of, $4,738,000; hardware and cutlery, $3,978,000; leather, $595,000 ; machinery, agricultural and other, $5,204,000.

We are the great manufacturers of agricultural machinery in the world. We should be doing our share of that business, we are doing practically none of it, because the whole exports of Canada to that country were only $66,000.

Meats, salted and preserved, $1,168,000; provisions not elsewhere specified, $2,599,000; railway materials, $1,239,000; spirits and wines, $1,228,000.

They say Canadian whisky is the best in the world, and here is a million and a quarter of dollars worth sent over there, and Canadians hardly send a dollar's worth. Corby's IXL, Walker's Club, Gooderham & Wort's Unexcelled Brands, Adams & Burns' Diamond D, Seagram's White Wheat and all the rest of them-not a aollar's worth of all this going to South Africa. Why, we could supply the world with the best of whisky, and we are doing nothing. Of course, temperance men, like the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), would be delighted to see the liquor go out of the country, then it could not do any harm in Canada.

Stationery and printing paper, $1,294,000 ; wheat, $2,451,000 ; furniture, $1,351,000.

They say we have a great combination in the furniture business. They are going to extend their markets. What is the government of Canada doing to promote trade in any one of these industries ? There was over $93,000,000 sent to South Africa in 1899. I should not be surprised if there were more than double that amount sent in 1900 ; and yet the government of Canada is unable to say they have sent a single dollar's worth, they have not devoted one day to the consideration of getting a market for us in South Africa. Just as it is everywhere. We are honoured with having a government that is satisfied with drawing their salaries, that is satisfied to rest and be thankful, that is satisfied to be a fossilized unprogressive government, that says, as the First Minister told us to-night: We are just going to do nothing. As the Minister of Finance told us the other night; We are going to rest on our oars, pn the crest of the wave. They cannot do it. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance cannot do it either. He will flop down so suddenly that he will wonder what was the matter with him.