Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

If these surpluses. were created by the government in some magic way there may be in them a cause for thankfulness to Sir John Macdonald and his followers, but when it is considered that every dollar of the surplus is money taken out of the pockets of the people without a shadow of an excuse, money not required even by the reckless expenditure of the government, there is not much cause for rejoicing.

Oh.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Are we to believe the congratulations tendered to the country by the Finance Minister in 1901, or are we to believe the criticisms of Mr. Fielding as editor of the * Morning Chronicle ' in 1882 ? If the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has abandoned the views which he entertained in 1882, perhaps at some future time in this debate, he will explain to the House when he abandoned these views, and the reasons on account of which he did abandon them. But that is not all. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) went at the surplus again in 1883, and this is what he said about it in the columns of the Halifax ' Morning Chronicle ' :

That millions of dollars should be unnecessarily taken yearly from the consuming classes of the country, and this without being absolutely necessary, is a cardinal principle of the Finance Minister's, to which even his best friends do not unreservedly assent.

Perhaps the best friends of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) who is Finance Minister to-day, do not unreservedly assent to his present proposition. He continued :

They see that a surplus of millions at the capital is just so much money withdrawn from the trade of the country. How long can the Dominion stand the drain ? Certainly not many years longer.

In view of the depression which the Finance Minister says is probably coming upon this country, how many years longer does he think the country is going to stand this drain ? But, Sir, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) is not alone with regard to that. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) has told us :

Taxation is an evil that nothing but the requirements of government can justify.

Then he now stands up and tells us that he expects a surplus of $6,000,000 and upwards during the current year, and at the same time he says that there is not the slightest necessity for any change in this budget, that everythings is happy, delightful and comfortable, and he asks the opposition to suggest to the government some particular class of goods from which the duty should be removed, some burden of the people that should be lightened. Well, it was not always so with the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). In days gone by he took the position that the doctor was not required to prescribe until he was called in to attend his patient, but now the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cart-

wright) thinks that the doctor should be called upon to prescribe before he is invited to the bedside of the sick.

Well, I will give the hon. gentleman a suggestion with respect to the taxes. Let us look at what the taxes on the people are. In the first place, there is a tax on tobacco, which is very large, and which has been increased by hon. gentlemen opposite. I find that we take out of the people, in taxes on tobacco, in customs, $486,000, and in excise $3,281,000. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that possibly the duty on tobacco, which was increased by them, might be reduced at least to the former amount. I find that in taxes on sugar a very large amount is taken from the people. During the present year, on sugar below 16 Dutch standard, no less than $1,828,000 was taken from the people ; and I desire, in passing, to mention to the hon. Minister of Finance that his taxes on sugar were considerably increased in 1898. In that year he took from the people in taxes on sugar $1,324,329, and in 1900 he took in the same way $2,286,123, an increase of nearly $1,000,000. The hon. gentleman admitted at the time that the additional tax which he was placing on) the people amounted to at least $250,000. My hon. friend from West York (Mr. Wallace) suggested that it would be at least $600,000 ; and, if we are to judge from the figures which I have just placed before the House, my hon. friend was well within the mark in making that statement. Will the hon. gentleman explain why we have not some remission of the sugar duties ?

But, Mr. Speaker, we had some suggestions from the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce in days gone by as to taxes which should be lightened. In 1882, referring to Sir Leonard Tilley's surplus, he used this language :

I ask how it was got. $1,100,000 was derived from two of the most odious and oppressive taxes which were ever imposed in any civilized country before, under similar circumstances at least, the taxes on breadstuffs and fuel. If he really wants to relieve the people, let him remove the taxes on breadstuffs1 and coal.

My hon. friend the Minister of Finance in the legislature of Nova Scotia, in 1885, took occasion to move this resolution :

That while it is as a rule inexpedient to deal with Dominion questions in this House, in view of the obnoxious character of the duty on bread-stuffs, the House must firmly protest against the imposition of such duties.

Now, I find that last year the government took out of the people in taxes on bread-stuffs $371,000 and in taxes on coal $1,309,000. These duties were maintained by the Conservative party in the past, and fought for by that party all over this Dominion, on the principles of the national policy- that the people of Nova Scotia were bound to submit to duties of that kind for the good of the country as a whole, and that the 51

people of Ontario were bound to submit to them for the same reason. But hon. gentlemen opposite are now in power ; here are their promises and pledges before them ; and here is a surplus of over $6,000,000 ; and will they be good enough to explain to the House why it is, if those were good principles in 1882 and 1885, they are not good principles now ; or why it is that, holding those principles, if they do continue to hold them, they have not seen fit to lighten the burdens of the people ?

Further than that, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce distinctly stated in his speech-although he differed in that respect from the hon. Minister of Finance- that this is not a protective tariff, but a revenue tariff. If this is a revenue tariff, on what principle does the hon. gentleman uphold the maintenance of this surplus ? On what principle does he contend that under a revenue tariff we should come down with a budget which produces a surplus of $6,000,000 ? Is a revenue tariff designed to produce a surplus of that kind ? I do not pretend to be so great an authority on economic questions as the hon. gentleman ; but I have always understood that a revenue tariff was designed to produce a revenue fitting for the requirements of the government; but here is a tariff which is to produce a revenue in excess of the requirements of the government by no less than $6,000,000. The hon. gentleman says it is a revenue tariff, and yet he says there is not the slightest occasion for making any change in it.

I do not intend to occupy further time with respect to the remarks which have been made by the hon. Minister of Finance or the ihon. Minister of Trade and Commerce ; but I desire to come to the resolution of which I have given notice. There have been in the past two political parties in this country, with somewhat divergent views upon the tariff question. Since 1878, and indeed since before 1878, the Liberal-Conservative party has been maintaining the principle of protection to Canadian industries. Since 1878 the Liberal party has not had any one uniform principle of trade policy. Sometimes they have put forth the view that free trade should prevail in this country, sometimes that a revenue tariff should prevail, sometimes that we should have unrestricted reciprocity with the United States, sometimes that we should have commercial union with the United States. Since they got into power in 1896, they have to some extent modified the tariff, but I have never yet heard any authoritative statement from the hon. gentlemen occupyingl the treasury benches as to whether or not they still adhere to their free trade principles, or the free trade principles of some of them, or whether they have become avowed protectionists. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has challenged us to put our policy before the House.

Well, Sir, we are putting our policy before the House, and we shall be very glad indeed to hear what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has to say about it. Now, although according to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, they have not altered the protective features of the tariff, nevertheless we have had some changes, and we have had some warnings from these gentlemen. I will not trouble the House with going over all those warnings, but I will mention just two of them. In 1897, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said this :

And lastly, what my free trade friends will remember and lay to heart, we have turned the ship's head in the right direction and towards

the open sea.

That is, towards the open sea of free trade. Well, we shall be very glad indeed to know from that hon. gentleman, who apparently has not always been permitted to lay before the country his real views on points of this kind, whether the ship's head is still in the direction of free trade. Then my hon. friend the Minister of Finance told us :

So far as protecting the industries of this country is concerned, eternal vigilance must be the price of protection.

In other words, the industries of this country are not to know from day to day whether. they have protection or not ; the working men are not to know from day to day whether those industries will continue. They are not to know whether or not they shall be driven into exile into other countries to seek work or whether their wives and children will have bread in this country. But something, which the hon. gentleman describes as ' eternal vigilance,' is to be the price of that protection which the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce says does not exist; and indeed we cannot find the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce agreeing upon the quality of the present tariff in any two speeches they have ever made in this House. I may say in passing that only on Thursday and Friday last these two gentlemen were in exact contradiction to each other. The hon. the Minister of Finance said, speaking of the delegation who had approached Mr. Chamberlain on the subject of Imperial preferential trade :

Mr. Chamberlain told the delegation courteously, but firmly and emphatically, that the thing could not be entertained for a moment unless they were prepared to give up their protective tariff against Great Britain. That was the basic principle of Mr. Chamberlain's statement, and these gentlemen were not prepared to give that up nor would I have been prepared to give it up had I been in their place.

That is the statement made by the Minister of Finance, and against that we have the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which he has reiterated over and over again. If, he said, any one maintains that this is a protective tariff, I differ with him. Which are we to believe ? Is Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

this a protective tariff, as the great financial authority of the government at present tells us, or is it only a high revenue tariff, and ! not a protective tariff, as the former great financial authority of the government tells us ? Is the government at present a government which submits in its budget a tariff for revenue only or a government which brings before this House a tariff which does protect the industries of this country ? I leave these two hon. gentlemen, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to settle between them their differences on that point. I am not able to reconcile their statements, and can only leave it to the House to determine what they mean.

I will not weary the House with quoting what has been said by the right hon. gentleman who leads the government (Et. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce on this question in days gone by. The right hon. gentleman told the country at Winnipeg :

I come before you to-night to preach to you this new gospel of free trade.

I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman-and I will sit down and let him reply

if he desires-whether or not he comes before the House to-day to preach the gospel of free trade. I pause for a reply. The hon. gentleman does not seem inclined to give me any information on that point. He said :

I denounce to you the policy of protection as bondage.

Does he still denounce the policy of protection as bondage ? He went on to say :

Yes, bondage, and I refer to it as bondage in the same way as American slavery was bondage. Sir, our policy is freedom of trade, such as exists in England, such as is practiced in Great Britain.

Will the hon. gentleman rise and say that his policy is freedom of trade such as exists and is practiced in Great Britain.

The hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not backward in those days. That hon. gentleman has been a very considerable figure in political life in Canada for a great many years, and I am glad to say that I believe he has spoken for the right in many cases, and I wish I could say that he had persevered. But he then told us that a protective system was a huge mistake, and in so far as it was not honest, it was a huge scheme of robbery. No doubt, in so far as it was not honest, it was a huge robbery, but the question is in what respect was it not honest? Does the hon. gentleman think that the protection which the Minister of Finance tells us exists in the tariff is a huge scheme of robbery? What are the hon. gentleman's views on that point? He said further :

Our policy, first to last, has been to destroy the villainous system of protection by free trade, revenue tariff or continental free trade.

But the Minister of Finance tells us that protection exists in the tariff to-day. Will the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce then tell the House that it is his policy to destroy that villainous system of protection or is he content to believe that everything is happy and pleasant and comfortable, and that there is no need for a change ?

1 shall not take more time in discussing the past utterances of these gentlemen, but I will say that the policy outlined in the resolution of which I have given notice, and which I propose to move, is the same policy, in its main essential features, as that which was laid down by Sir John Macdonald in 1876, 1877 and 1878. It is a policy designed to protect the industrial interests of Canada. It is a policy intended to give work to the workingmen of Canada, to prevent our factories being closed, to prevent our people being forced to seek work in the United States, and to assist in developing the industries of this country. It is a policy, at all events, whether it be wrong or right, by which the Liberal-Conservative party is prepared to stand, and I shall ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to tell us where they stand. I shall ask them to frankly and clearly say whether or not the government has now abandoned its policy of free trade and revenue tariff and believes in protection, or whether, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has told us, the ship's head is still pointing towards the open sea.

The next branch of my resolution deals with the preferential tariff. In 1897 our chances were temporarily thrown away by the right hon. gentleman who leads the House, for a certain phrase which he used. He spoke of granting an advantage to Great Britain on account of the splendid freedom which she had granted us. Well, we all realize that Great Britain has granted us a splendid freedom, but did not the right hon. gentleman, when he promised the people of this country that he would obtain for them preference in the British markets, did he not know then that Great Britain had granted us a splendid freedom ? Had that fact dawned upon him only when he arrived' in London, and did he not remember the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who said that we owed Great Britain nothing but forgiveness for the wrongs she had committed against us by her blundering. We had in 1897, a magnificent opportunity to obtain from England some advantage in her markets. We did not obtain that, and, of course, it is too late for us to discuss with advantage what might have been. The practical question now for us is, what can be. The hon. the Minister of Finance is very ready to fling across the floor of this House the question whether or not we are prepared to repeal the British preference. Well, it is very difficult sometimes, and might be regarded as 51*

very offensive, to ask or to take back that which has been given away.

The Liberal-Conservative party have never said that they proposed to repeal that preference; but they have said that they would never rest satisfied until, in addition to that and as compensation for that, we had obtained a preference in British markets. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question with regard to that also. Suppose, as some business men throughout the country think may be the case, that additional preference which he last year gave to British goods should result in destroying some of our industries, in closing up some of our factories, in paralyzing a portion of the business of this country, what would the hon. gentleman do about it ? He may not be prepared to answer that question now. It is just as legitimate a question as the one he put to us. It may be that there will be difficulties in this country, it may be that there will be very great difficulties in this country, on account of the step which the hon. gentlemen have taken. The only thing that we can say is that we shall have to deal with these difficulties as best we may, but deal with them in such a way as not to offend or to lessen the sentiment of . unity of the empire which is so strongly impressed not only upon the people of this country, but throughout the entire British possessions. Now, I do not want any misunderstanding so far as the position of the party which I have the honour to lead in this House is concerned. I am prepared to stand for the unity of the empire, for the integrity of the empire, as strongly as any member of this House. I am prepared, for that purpose, to advocate and support the claims of any government that will spend its last dollar and send its last man in support of the integrity of the empire against any foe that may threaten disruption. But, Sir, I do not attach as much importance to some things that have been said in this House with respect to the effect of sentiment in the mother country on matters of that kind as has been expressed by some hon. gentlemen opposite. Why, they would have one believe that the British workman foregoes liis pipe and his beer every evening in order that he may go out on the streets to find some goods of Canadian produce or manufacture that he can buy. But the extraordinary part of it is that when you turn to these hon. gentlemen and say: If sentiment has such a remarkable effect upon the mind of the British consumer as that, how is it that Britain will refrain from giving us a preference in her markets ?-then these hon. gentlemen turn to you and say: It is

of no use to talk about that, the Briton, in matters of trade, is absolutely cold-blooded and devoid of sentiment. The Briton, apparently has sentiment when he goes out to buy his goods, but when we talk about a reciprocal advantage by means of an adjustment of his tariff which could be effected

without additional burden upon the British people

The PRIME MINISTER, Oh, oh.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)-there is uot the slightest sentiment in the Briton at all. My right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) laughs at that.

Hear, hear.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Well, I may say to my right hon. friend there have been business men in this country and in England, who have, probably, as good a practical grasp of the situation as my right hon. friend, and who say that the thing can be accomplished ; and, unless he is prepared to set himself above the opinions of these leading business men, he cannot say that this thing is impossible.

Now, is there any possibility of obtaining this preference ? So far as its benefits are concerned, I need not say one word. The right hon. gentleman himself has admitted the great benefit it would be to Canada. Every hon. gentleman who has addressed this House, every gentleman of any importance in public life who has spoken in this country on the subject, has admitted the great practical benefit it would be to the people of Canada if we could obtain an advantage in the markets of Great Britain. I will not weary the House by adducing arguments on that subject, because I believe that the advantage of such a preference is incontrovertible. But I will say a few words with regard to the possibility of obtaining it. Now, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance made a statement on this subject which is quoted in the Morning Chronicle, a Liberal organ in the city of Halifax, in its issue of the 28th of August, 1900. And this is what he said on that occasion :

There are three points which Sir Charles Tup-per would like to make, but in not one of them is there any foundation for his efforts. He continues to talk about the Conservative party obtaining a tariff preference for Canadian products in England ; that is to say that Great Britain would impose duties on foreign foodstuffs while admitting those of Canada free. This is an old cry with Sir Charles Tupper, but no one knows better than he does that it is arrant humbug.

That was an interview which the hon. gentleman, I think, gave to some person in Montreal. Now, I wish to point out to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and to the House that If this is ' arrant humbug,' there are a great many business men in this country and in England, who have been guilty, with Sir Charles Tupper, of believing in this ' arrant humbug.' The maritime Board of Trade, a body which represent 1,200.000 people in the maritime provinces passed tuis resolution :

Resolved that in the opinion of this board mutual preferential trade within the empire would greatly tend to cement the unity of the empire, vastly assist in developing resources of the several colonies and dependencies thereof, Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

hold a restraining influence upon emigration, directing it from foreign countries to countries within the empire, and conduce to an equitable system of commercial intercourse between the empire and the nations of the world.

I suppose that these men, who are shrewd, level-headed business men of the maritime provinces were not dealing with what they supposed to be ' arrant humbug.' The Boards of Trade of Toronto and Montreal have passed similar resolutions. On the 17th of March, 1896, the right hon. Prime Minister said :

My hope is-nay, my conviction is-that on the 23rd June, the Liberal party will be at the head of the polls, and that it will be the Liberal party with its policy of a revenue tariff that will send commissioners to London to arrange for a basis of preferential trade.

And any one who reads the speech of the right hon. gentleman on that occasion cannot doubt that what he was talking about was mutually preferential trade. So, as far back as 1896, the right hon. gentleman did not regard this proposition as ' arrant humbug.' Then, the premier of Ontario, (Hon. Mr. Ross) said-and he has dealt on more than one occasion with this subject, but I quote from his utterance of a few months ago :

I see no reasons why Canadians should hesitate o look to Great Britain for some encouragement *nd response on her part. True she admits our products free of duty, but then she confers a imilar favour upon foreign nations.

Have we not a right to expect that her own subjects, though living abroad, will be treated more favourably than the Magyar or the Russian or the citizens of the United States.

So, it is quite clear that the premier of Ontario, even so late as 1900, did not regard this project as one that involved ' arrant humbug.'

Will my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) allow me a word ?

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Certainly.

I did not, in an interview in Montreal or elsewhere, characterize preferential trade as ' arrant humbug,' but I said that for Sir Charles Tupper to pretend that he could obtain it through the Conservative party and by his methods was ' arrant humbug.'

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Then, I will read again what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) said :

There are three points which Sir Charles Tupper would like to make, but in not one of them is there any foundation for his efforts. He continues to talk about the Conservative party obtaining a tariff prefereence for Canadian products in England ; that is to say that Great Britain would impose duties on foreign foodstuffs while admitting those of Canada free. This is an old cry with Sir Charles Tupper, but no one knows better than he does that it is arrant humbug.

I did not read it all, but I will read it all

now, so that there may be no mistake about the hon. gentleman's meaning.

There is none.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

No, and this further language will make it perfectly plain :

Everybody who has had a correct view of English public opinion has been and is still aware that such tariff legislation in Great Britain for the present or the early future is impossible.

I thank the hon. gentleman for reading it all.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

What the hon. gentleman was talking about was an agitation in favour of preferential trade, and characterizing it as ' arrant humbug.' If it did not mean that, it meant nothing. Why could not the hon. gentleman in the same way characterize this resolution which I have read as an arrant humbug ?

So it is.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

He could just as well characterize the statement of the right hon. gentleman who leads the House as arrant humbug. These hon. gentlemen seem to forget that their leader stated so far back as 1896, not only that this proposal to obtain a preference was not an arrant humbug, but that the Liberal party were going to send commissioners to London for the purpose of obtaining it. Will hon. gentlemen cheer the characterization of their leader's words as arrant humbug ? They do not seem so ready. The present premier of Ontario says again :

Have we not a right to expect that her own subjects, though living abroad, will be treated more favourably than the Magyar, or Ithe Russian, or the citizens of the United States?

Is that arrant humbug ? Hon. gentlemen seem to differ in their views, according to the person or the body which expresses a sentiment on this question. Then, Sir, there is another statement which I shall bring before this House, the statement of a gentleman who holds a leading position in the commercial life of the city of Halifax, and who was a delegate from Halifax to the Congress of the Chambers of Commerce in London, in 1900. On the occasion of a very full and exhaustive report of the proceedings of the conference with respect to this matter, he had this to say :

If the support of the powerful Australian Commonwealth could be obtained, it would have great influence with the British public, who are slow to adopt untried innovations in matters of trade, but on the other hand, will always listen to reasonable arguments if supported by solid facts and figures. Jf at the next congress, to be held four years hence, the colonies were practically unanimous a very long step would be taken towards the solution of a very difficult question.

That gentleman happens to be a Conservative, but I do not think any one in this

House who knows hii i will say that he is not a moderate and i i.rewd man, of great ability and excellent j Mlgment with regard to all matters of tra fie. Now, there has been some expression of public opinion in England with regard to matters of this kind. The Liverpool Journal of Commerce, in the latter part of last year, had this to say with regard to this subject:

. . . There is, however, a peaceful alliance which it is the country's duty to her colonies and to herself to make, viz. : a commercial

alliance, and it behooves everybody with a stake in the country and a desire to see Britain flourish and maintain its commercial and shipping supremacy and its integrity as a nation, to do all in their power to encourage by all legitimate means reciprocal trade with the colonies, preferring the products of the labour of their enterprising brethren who are striving to bring honour and glory to the common flag by extending its sphere and increasing the value of the territories over which it floats.

Now, that is a fairly strong expression of opinion on this point.

Mr. HEYD.

What does it mean ?

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

It means that it is desirable for Great Britain, as I understand it, to adopt in the early future a policy of reciprocal trade, granting to the colonies a preference and receiving from the colonies a preference in return. Now, Sir, the Saturday Review, in October last, had this to say on that subject:

If the modification of the public attitude towards Cobdenite views goes on during the next twenty years at the rate it has proceeded during the preceding twenty, there will be no difficulty ir. getting a party strong enough to effect commercial union within the empire by means of preferential rates.

After twenty years.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

The Saturday Review at that time had not had the pleasure of reading the hon. gentleman's speech delivered on Friday last. No doubt if it had had the benefit of his views, this particular paragraph might not have been written ; but being in entire ignorance of what the hon. gentleman was going to say some months afterwards, that periodical published what I have read. Now, Mr. Boyle, the United States consul at Liverpool, reported to his government as follows :

Beyond question, during recent years there has been a great development of sentiment in favour of an Imperial preferential tariff, and I do not hesitate to say that this sentiment has a far stronger hold, not only among the masses of the people of Great Britain, but even among the politicians, than the party newspapers and party leaders concede. It is a significant fact that for the last two years this question has been discussed more than any other at meetings of chambers of commerce and trade organizations of Great Britain and her colonies.

It is clear that this consul, in making that report to his government, did not have exactly the same view as that which has been

expressed by the bon. Minister of Finance, that to consider any such question at the present time is merely arrant humbug. The Imperial Trade, Defence and Anti-Free Imports League has issued a pamphlet, in which they say :

If the incoming government fails to pass measures of fiscal reconstruction, giving the wheat, lumber and fruit of Canada, the wool, wines and minerals of Australasia, the tea and rice of India, and the products of South Africa an advantage over competing goods from foreign sources, it will amount to a criminal abandonment of the best fruits of the intertrading power of the empire.

And only in the latter part of last year, the United Planters' Association of Southern India passed the following resolution :

That considering the critical condition of the tea and coffee industries, this association do communicate with the India Tea Association, the Ceylon Planters Association, the Indian chambers of commerce, and the leading firms of merchants and brokers interested in tea and coffee, &c., in this country and in England and her colonies, with a view to ascertaining whether a movement in favour of a commercial combination of Great Britain and her colonies and India against the world (which would by a system of differential duties, afford some protection to British-grown products and manufactures) would receive support

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to weary the House by giving these extracts, but I feel It is my duty to do so. What I am asking In this resolution is that the House Should declare that this is an opportune time for bringing that matter forward and influencing public opinion throughout the empire with a view to obtaining it; and I am showing the House as well as I can that there is some opinion, not only here, but in England and in the other colonies in favour of this movement ; and that it will not be merely a forlorn hope. We remember the attempt which was made in 1894 to induce the British government to denounce the German and Belgian treaties. We know that at that time we were told in so many words by the British government that those treaties would not be denounced, that it was not prudent to denounce them, and questions of trade were dealt with, and the volume of the trade of Great Britain with Germany and Belgium on the one hand, and with the colonies on the other hand, was pointed out. These same questions are agitated now, and are referred to as affording an answer to any suggestions that we should make the attempt. But we know that the attempt to have those treaties denounced was successful ; and we believe that if this government and the other colonies of the empire were to put their shoulders to the wheel and make a vigorous attempt in this direction at the present time, we have at least some prospect of success. And if there is some prospect of success, why should this government sit silent and make no allusion to it in the speech from the Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Throne and in the budget speech, and simply say that it is arrant humbug and is not worth attempting ?

Now, there was a recent article in the ' National Review ' which dealt with the subject from another standpoint, from the standpoint of the necessities of the British government at the present time. What was said in that article is this :

Beer and tobacco are already so heavily mulcted that they cannot carry greater imposts. Whence, then, are we to get the millions which will be needed if our national position is to be rendered secure? I answer that the political fads of the '50's and '60's and '70's must be discarded by a new administration. The condition which rendered them useful and salutary have long since passed away; yet such is the force of routine, such that inertia of mind to which allusion has been so often made, that men are still enslaved by them. And we shall have to fight for our lives, we must neglect no weapon. A tariff offers us at once a means of raising funds for naval armaments, of obtaining allies and of weakening the enemies who are plotting our fall. With a tariff, too, we can consolidate the empire.

This article shows that at least there is some volume of public opinion in England in favour of this view. Mr. Ford, the correspondent of the New York ' Tribune,' in commenting on this article uses the following language :

A reaction against free trade in England is now more likely to happen than a revolt against protection in either America or Germany ; and the consolidation of the empire, the great cause of Imperial federation may be the justification for the renunciation of time-honoured policies.

Then, we hear that the great Australian Commonwealth is now laying the foundation of its fiscal system and if we are to believe what we see reported in the public press we are to understand that that commonwealth is likely to adopt a moderate protection platform. We are also to understand that it is likely to adopt a system of a preferential tariff in favour of the United Kingdom, not of merely giving the United Kingdom a preference without any corresponding advantage, but a system by which England will be asked to give to Australian products similar advantages in the English market. In view of this movement in the Australian Commonwealth, is it not the duty of Canada, having regard to our own interests. to join with Australia in doing that, so that all the colonies of the empire may present their views to the mother country at the same time and in that way to assist in bringing about what all of us think to be so desirable ?

There is another suggestion which I have to make to the House. We know the condition of affairs in the British West Indies. We know that the trade of these countries has fallen off very considerably during the past few years. We know that the trade of Canada with the British West Indies has fallen off very considerable. In looking over the figures I was very much surprised

to see to what a remarkable extent our trade with the West Indies has fallen off since 1895. I find that in 1895 our total trade with the West Indies was $8,081,622, while in 1900, it was $3,976,172, showing a decrease of $4,705,450. Our exports to the West Indies were, in 1895, $3,887,602, and in 1900, $2,870,343. Our imports from the West Indies were, in 1895, $4,794,020, and in 1900, $1,105,829. I believe the figures which the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) presents to the House in the Trade and Navigation Returns relate to the entire West Indies. As far as I understand they are not confined to the British West Indies, and the figures I have just quoted are taken from his comparative statement. Now, on the contrary, I find that the trade of the United States, so far as the British West Indies are concerned, is increasing. In 1895 the trade of the United States with the British West Indies was $18,708,500, while, in 1900, it was $22,230,974. Both exports and imports have increased, while on the other hand there does not seem to be a very healthy state of affairs in respect to the trade relations between Canada and the West Indies. The point I am coming at is that the best possible solution of the difficulties that the British West Indies are labouring under, is the adoption of a preferential tariff throughout the empire. During the year 1899, Mr. I. C. Stewart, of Halifax, a very enterprising journalist who was interested in the trade of Canada with the West Indies, made a tour of the West India Islands and investigated the cause of the decline of our commerce with the British West Indies. He came to the conclusion, after carefully studying the subject in the different islands and after discussing it with the leading business men in the different islands, that a remedy might be found for that unfortunate condition of affairs. He believes that preferential trade within the empire would settle this difficulty. He says:

For a time I found it difficult to make up my mind as to what should be done, and I seemed to be inclined to despond of any possible aplu-tion of the trouble, but, as I thought more deeply on the matter, it occurred to me that we might help to develop this trade by assisting the West Indies to find a larger market. If we could not give them that larger market ourselves, and recalling the important place that Canada now holds in the councils of the empire, it began to impress itself upon my mind that Canada might be able to bring to bear some influence upon the mother country to induce her to take the necessary steps to provide a market among her consumers for the sugar which the West Indies can produce, and would be producing, were it not for the unfair competition of the bounty countries. Preferential trade within the empire would settle this difficulty at once. Then, be goes on to point out bis views in regard to tbe way in which that might be worked out. That is a subject on which hon. gentlemen in this House, who are better acquainted with the trade relations between ourselves and the West Indies and who are

better acquainted than I am in regard to the conditions prevailing there, are better qualified to speak than I am. I give this as the opinion of a man who has studied the subject and who has arrived at that conclusion in regard to it. What I suggest in the resolution which I am moving, is that we sho'uld now "make an effort to achieve this purpose and surely I have placed sufficient evidence before the House to show that it is not such a forlorn hope that the government should remain supine and hold its hands from attempting to accomplish this end.

The third point in the resolution which I have placed before the House refers to the condition of affairs which exists between this country and Germany at the present time, and I am bound to say that I was astonished to hear the hon. Minister of Finance practically justifying Germany in granting a discrimination in favour of other countries and against Canada. I could not interpret his language in any other way and I am also astonished that neither in the speech from the Throne nor in any remarks which have fallen from the financial exponent of the government has there been any reference whatever to so important a subject as that which concerns this country in its trade relations with Germany. The situation as I understand it is that after the denunciation of the German and Belgian treaties a modus vivendi, or temporary convention, was arranged between England and Germany and that convention practically gave temporarily to each country the same advantages which had been enjoyed by each country under the former treaty, except that Canada was excluded from it. Thus it is. that, at the present time, as has been pointed out in an article on the subject in the ' National Review ' of November last, Germany having two tariffs, one a general tariff, and one a conventional tariff, grants to the United States, our keenest competitor in that market, the advantages of the lower, or conventional tariff and insists that Canadian products shall be subject to the duties imposed by the higher or general tariff. The hon. Minister of Finance and the government seem to think that this is a matter as to which we have no right to complain, and as to which it does not behoove them to say a single word. Well, Sir, they have very excellent authority as to what this act of Germany means. Let me quote to the House what was said by the Marquis of Ripon in his despatch to the Governor General of Canada on June 28, 1895 :

It must not be forgotten that, as I pointed out in my other despatches of this date, whilst the grant of preferential tariff treatment is a friend-i ly act to the country receiving it, it is an unfriendly act to countries or places excluded from it. .

The position of affairs to-day in the empire is this : Canada gave to Great Britain

a tariff preference ; gave to Great Britain an advantage by which the goods of Great Britain came into Canada at a lower rate than the goods of countries outside the empire. Germany, disliking this action of Canada ; disliking the denunciation of the treaty, consents to a temporary renewal of the convention or treaty between England and herself but insists that Canada shall be excluded from, it. Now, I do not know whether or not this is a correct statement of the actual position of affairs to-day. I take this from an article which seems to have been written by a responsible man in the National Review of November last. I say, that if this is the condition of affairs the Canadian government were extremely remiss in not dealing with the matter either in the speech from the Throne or the budget speech, and announcing to this country whether or not tho government of Canada propose to sit calmly down and] submit to that sort of treatment from Germany ; whether or not the government of Canada have made any protest ; whether Germany is to bo allowed-on account of a preference which we granted, not to any foreign country but to Great Britain and certain of her colonies-whether Germany on account of that is to be allowed to do a friendly act to Great Britain and the rest of the colonics of the empire, and to commit an unfriendly act against Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) told us that he did not know what Great Britain might do in the goodness of her heart if we granted this tariff preference. Surely the minister would not think that this isi a very ample return for anything which we may have done.

But look at the result, Mr. Speaker. In 1896 we imported from Germany $6,493,000 worth of goods ; in 1900 we imported $8,883,000 worth. In 1896 we exported to Germany $757,531 worth of goods ; in 1900 we exported to Germany $1,715,000 worth. Our trade with Germany is developing ; it would develop still further if we were not thus handicapped, for look, Sir, at the facts with respect to the trade between the United States and Germany. The trade of the United States witli Germany, so far as imports are concerned, lias increased by $3,090,000 since 1896, and so far as exports from the United States to Germany are concerned tho trade has increased by no less than $89,000,000 since 1896. Germany grants to the United States a tariff preference. Under the tariff preference the United States exports to Germany have increased $89,000,090 in the last four years. We, because we granted a tariff preference to Great Britain, are practically excluded from the benefits of that trade and the Canadian government has not one single word to say to the country when it brings down the budget, and the Minister of Finance has not one single word to say with regard to it in his financial statement. Indeed, when this

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

matter was dealt with by my hon. friend for Pictou (Mr. Bell), the Minister of Finance practically justified the course which Germany has pursued. I do not think that this country ought tamely to submit to treatment of that kind. I do not know of any reason why this country should riot discriminate against Germany if Germany discriminates against this country. I have endeavoured to look into the treaty conditions between England and Germany and I have not found anything still outstanding which would prevent Canada from dealing with this matter in that way. I have pointed out in the resolution a means by which we might deal with matters of that kind where we do not have fair treatment in foreign markets.

With respect to our trade relations with the United States I do not desire to say much. I entirely concur with what was said, and very wisely said, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), that so far as our trade relations with the United States are concerned, we must use every possible effort to maintain friendly and cordial relations with that country. I know that it has been suggested by a gentleman on the other side of the House, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), that our best course would be to raise our tariff to 50 per cent, which he says is the tariff rate of the United States. 1 am not prepared to say at the present time that I concur with that; on the other hand, I do say that our trade relations with the United States demand the attention of this government. I think we might well have had some statement from the financial exponent of the government and from so great an authority as the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to that. Our resolution which we have brought before the House is broad enough to cover a matter of that kind, if it is thought wise to deal with it ; but. as I have said, I do most heartily concur with the view that so far as the great country to the south of us is concerned, we should do nothing which should be misunderstood by that republic and which might provoke a breach of the very cordial relations which at present exists between the two countries.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry indeed to have detained the House at such great length, but I was obliged to do so because I had a great many extracts-more than I liked-to read to the House. Just one word in conclusion. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has taunted us with the suggestion that we are likely to remain in opposition, as he says, for the next 25 years. Well, I do not know that the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) is in a much better position to form an opinion in regard to that than the rest of us. But I would like to say this : I am sorry that the minister (Sir Richard Cart-

wright) did not see fit to put any higher ideal before members of this House and before any political party iu this country, than the obtaining or retaining of power. I understood the hon. gentleman to suggest that such is the greatest possible good to any political party at any possible cost. There are, Mr. Speaker, things of more importance to any political party in this country than to obtain power or even to retain power. I think, Sir, that an honourable adherence to honourable principles professed in opposition or in power is a thing more to be regarded than even the obtaining of power itself. I think the upholding of the standard of public opinion in this country, the upholding of the standard of public life in this country, is of more importance to any political party than the obtaining or retaining of power. I think that to stand for the unity of the people of this country and to suppress any cry of race or creed that may be raised, is a matter of greater importance to any political party in Canada than is the effort to obtain or retain power. For my part, speaking for the party I have the honour to lead in this House, I say that we shall endeavour to carry out the principles which we have professed in this resolution and the principles which we have at all times professed in the past; of endeavouring to uphold the industries of Canada, to develop the resources of this country, to maintain the integrity and unity of the empire. In doing this, Sir, I think we shall be discharging our duty, and if we discharge our duty. I am sure that we need not fear the issue. Mr. Speaker. I beg to move the resolution of which I have already given notice, as follows .-

That all the words after ' that ' in the proposed motion be left out, and the following sub-stitued 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 a policy of mutual trade preference within the empire would prove of great benefit to the mother country and to the colonies, and would greatly promote the prosperity, unity and progress of the empire as a whole, and that the present time, when the Commonwealth of Australia is laying the foundation of its fiscal system, is particularly opportune for taking prompt and energic steps towards the furtherance of this object.

This House is further of opinion that equivalent or adequate duti'es should be imposed by Canada upon the products and manufactures of countries not within the empire in all cases where such countries fail to admit Canadian products and manufactures upon fair terms, and that the government should take for this purpose all such available measures as may be found necessary.