Mr. PRINGLE.

free to admit that the consumption may have increased to a slight extent, but not to a very large extent. The total imports of all classes of dutiable goods exclusive of woollens, in 1897, was $59,925,608, whereas in the three months of July, August and September, 1900, they amounted to $24,715,609. Now, if the imports of woollen goods had increased in the same proportion, they would have approximated for the three months $2,525,000, making a surplus of the imports of woollen goods for the three months of $719,000. That means a great deal to the manufacturers of woollens in the Dominion of Canada. It means work for at least twenty-eight factories, each turning out $100,000 worth of goods. One-third of this amount would go in wages. I am not going to discuss the reasons why the woollen industry of this country should receive a moderate protection-at least 30 per cent. That ground has been fully and amply covered by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). But I

Now, as I said from the start, I did not intend to take part in this debate ; but as I come from a manufacturing town, and the manufacturing interests of that town are very seriously affected by the attitude of the government in regard to the tariff, I felt it incumbent upon me to say a few words in support of the amendment.

Mr. A. McLENNAN (Inverness).

Mr. Speaker. While we must admit that it is now difficult to bring into this debate anything new, interesting or original, I feel that, representing as I do, a very important constituency and coming from a portion of this Dominion which has prospered to so great an extent under the policy of the present government; I feel I would be recreant to my duty if I did not offer a few observations on the subject before the House. I was somewhat surprised, coming from the same province as the hon. leader of the opposition, to find that hon. gentleman submitting to us a resolution in opposition to that policy which has brought such an unprecedented degree of prosperity to that province. As an indication of the Improvement which has taken place during the past four years, I might point out that that portion of the

government railway, which runs through the province of Nova Scotia, and which formerly moved very slowly and leisurely along during the daytime, is to-day and has been for the past two or three years utilizing every hour of the twenty-four, so great is the demand on its resources for the carriage of freight. Some idea may he formed of the immense improvement in traffic when I state that over that portion of the Intercolonial Railway which runs through the Island of Cape Breton, the revenue for the year 1900 was $500,000 in round numbers, as compared with $125,000 in 1899, and that a small sleepy town in eastern Nova Scotia, which four years ago had a population of 3,000 or 4,000, is to-day a city of 10,000 or 12,000.

There are many points to which I could call the attention of the House, hut as we are all anxious to have this debate brought to a close, I shall limit myself to very few. Referring more particularly to the county I have the honour to represent, let me inform the House that it possesses the only undeveloped coal properties east of the Rocky Mountains, and these properties remained undeveloped until the present government came into office and furnished an opportunity for capital to take hold of and develop them. The present administration voted a very handsome subsidy to that enterprising firm, Messrs. McKenzie & Mann, who have constructed a railway from the Strait of Canso to the Inverness coal properties, four in number, and I would ask the attention of the House while I submit a few figures showing the extent of these properties. These figures are taken from the report of an expert mining engineer sent out by an English company, and this is what Mr. Ross has to say with regard to them :

One hundred and eighty million tons ol coal at Port Hood, twenty million tons of coal at Mabou, over one hundred million at Broad Cove, and two hundred and forty million tons at Chimney Corner.

All these properties are about being touched by the railway built by McKenzie & Mann, and thus prosperity is not only brought to the working people of Inverness, but a market to the farmers as well, for the county of Inverness is one of the finest agricultural counties in this Dominion. In view of these facts, I cannot understand now any representative of Nova Scotia should show any disposition to go back from the present era of prosperity to that era of paralysis of trade and of every line of industry which prevailed in that province during the eighteen years of the so-called national policy. [DOT]

It has been charged that the present administration is expending money beyond its means. But these hon. gentlemen who make that charge forget the policy of their late honoured leader, Sir John A. Macdonald. In the year 1890, Sir John A. Macdonald addressed a large meeting near the city of Halifax, at a place called Prince's Lodge, and at which were present delegates from all parts of the maritime provinces. The elections of 1891 were then-approaching, and the Conservative leader was gathering his friends from all parts of the provinces. He there declared that his policy was to give the people their own money to expend upon their own public works. As an instance of the wisdom of this policy, he cited the fate of John San-field Macdonald, once premier of Ontario, and the success of. Sir Oliver Mowat who had succeeded him. Premier Macdonald, he told his audience, thought he was doing wonders when he husbanded the people's resources and locked up the people's money in a strong box, but the people grew restless and wanted their money. While they admired that characteristic of Mr. Sanfield Macdonald, which induced him to thus husband the resources of the province, yet they found that their public works were being starved out, and they rose in their might and hurled him from power and elected Sir Oliver Mowat in his place. And from that day, for twenty years, Sir Oliver Mowat went on expending the people's money upon the people's public works, and by this means kept himself in office by meeting the public requirements of his province. That policy, Sir John Macdonald declared he approved and intended to follow. This country, he said, was a comparatively new country and our public works needed money, and so long as he led the party the people of the Dominion would get their own money to expend on their own public works. And then, he said, ' when my successors come to power, they will find very little after me to spend.' This was the language of the late Sir John Macdonald, the leader of the Conservative party, and this was the policy he advocated in his palmy days.

And while, as Sir John Macdonald truly said, this is a comparatively new country, with various and pressing wants, a progressive government certainly could not fail to apply the people's money to the people's wants. It would not, indeed, be a matter of surprise to see a resolution of the character of this which has been introduced by the leader of the opposition brought into this House, if this parliament had been here for years, with the trade of the country paralyzed, with revenues falling and the public works of the country starved out. If we had had a. condition of that kind year after year for several years, then, indeed, it would not be a matter of surprise if the leader of the opposition and his party should suggest an alternative policy. But,, at a time when the present government and parliament are fresh from the people, when the people of Canada have pronounced their judgment as to the government's policy of the past four years, and that only four

[DOT]2331

months ago, it is difficult to understand why lion, gentlemen opposite find it advisable, or even justifiable, to bring in a resolution condemning a policy which the people of Canada have approved in a manner not to be mistaken by the opposition or anybody else. There was a time when the majority of the people of Canada approved of a somewhat high tariff. Indeed, I was one of those who thought that, while the industries of Canada were in their infancy, while they were under severe competition from the older industries to the south of the line, a fair amount of protection was necessary until those industries should be, as it were, self-sustaining. And, as is well known throughout the country, the original intention of the national policy was, that it should be a temporary affair, that these heavy duties should not be maintained beyond the period during which these industries might fairly be called infant industries. But, the trouble was that the high tariff was kept up to such an extent and for such a time as to render the manufacturers of the Dominion almost independent of the government, in fact the masters of the government at last, so that they could defy that government to touch their interests by the threat of swooping uown upon them at an election. I compare the mistaken policy in that regard with the mistake which this government would make if they continued the bounties on iron and steel. The iron and steel manufacturers would, like other pampered manufacturers, become masters of the situation. Suppose that plants like that at Sydney and Sault Ste. Marie were established at Montreal, Halifax, St. John, Toronto, and other places, and the present bounties on iron and steel were continued until these institutions became so well planted that they would actually become the masters of the situation, the administration would then learn their mistake, and so would the country. But. the present administration evidently saw this danger, and they drew the line at seven years. We will back you, say the administration to the manufacturer of iron and steel, for seven years ; if you are tnen able to walk without support, you can walk, but if you cannot, we are through with you anyway. This encourages the manufacturer of iron and steel in the meantime, but. when these establishments are self-sustaining, the people will be relieved from further supporting them. I heard it stated by the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) that the present government made no effort to secure trade, that they had not opened any new channel of trade. Well, there is one tiling to their credit, and that is, that if they have not opened up any new channels of trade, they have clearly demonstrated to the people that they were capable of developing, widening and deepening the channels that already exist. To demonstrate this, let me quote a report from an Ameri-Mr. Mclennan.

can consul reporting to his government. This is a quotation from the report of Mr. James Boyle, American consul at Liverpool :

The statistics of the British blue-book on trade for 1898 presents two striking facts-that the notable increase in American Imports last year was chiefly in manufactures, and that Canada is the leading competitor of the United States in forest and farm products. This Canadian competition in the British market is now keener than it ever was, and American farmers and shippers would be wis^ to appreciate the fact that the outlook is that it will increase. That there should be competition is inevitable, owing to the similarity of the natural and farm productions of the United States and Canada and the equidistance of the two countries from this market. But during the past two years

That is two years of Liberal administration. -the Canadian trade has been given a great impetus through the operation of a system of government supervision and subsidies. Possibly influenced by the Canadian example, Russia is shortly to introduce the experiment of subsidizing sold storage service on ships bringing dairy produce to Great Britain, and already Russia sends enormous quantities of these products to this market (Liverpool).

In the annual for 1899 of the British Co-operative Wholesale Societies (which do a yearly business of $60,000,000) there is a long article on Canada and its productions, from which is taken the following statement of the official efforts that are being made to increase the sale of Canadian products in Great Britain.

Government Enterprise.

It is a government enterprise, and is unique in the history of governmental connection with trade. The plant for two years past has been worked from the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa. Its object is not only to increase the demand in Great Britain for Canadian cheese, butter, eggs, poultry and fruit, but to so improve the means of transportation by rail and sea that these Canadian products shall be sent into market in the best possible condition and in the most attractive form. The scheme even goes beyond this, for another of its aims is to steadily improve the grade of all produce sent to Great Britain, and thus secure for Canadian produce a good and abiding reputation.

To secure these advantages, the Department of Agriculture, in the first place, sent out its experts to aid in the establishment of creameries.

It goes on to give figures with regard to the

exports of Canada, to Great Britain during the same years. It starts in this way :

The exportation of Canadian butter to Great Britain has greatly fluctuated. It reached its highest figures in 1881, when the value was $3,333,419; from then, against European competition (particularly Danish), It gradually declined until 1889, when the value was only $174,027 ; after 1889 the trade revived, but has not had a regular growth. Its present development dates from 1897. when, under the stimulus of governmental instruction in manufacture, shipment, &c., and subsidized cold storage steamers, it jumped up to $1,912,389, as compared with $893,053 in 1896. In 1898, the value was $1,915,550.

The Canadian cheese trade has been one of steady growth. In 1868 the value of the exportation to Great Britain was only $548,574 ;

in 1880, $3,772,769; in 1897, $14,645,859, and in 1898, $17,522,681. These figures, both as to butter and cheese, are taken from the last report of the Canadian Minister of Agriculture, covering the fiscal year ended June 30, 1898.

From the same authority is taken the following table, showing the rapid growth of Canadian farm products exported, and, speaking roundly, over 90 per cent of these exportations were to Great Britain:-

Inc.

Articles. 1896. 1898. p.c.Wheat $ 5,771,521 $17,313,916 200Flour

718,435 5.425,760 655Oats

273,861 3,041,578 1,010Oatmeal

364,655 554,757 52Pease

1,299,491 1,813,792 39Cattle

7,082,542 8,723,292 23Cheese

13,956,571 17,572,763 25Butter

1,052,089 2,046,686 94Pork, bacon and hams. 4,446,884 8,092,930 82Eggs

807,086 1,225,304 55

Following is a table which shows the value of the leading Canadian importations into Great Britain, with the value of the same kind of products from the United States, for the years 1S94, 1897 and 1898.

He then gives a comparative statement for the two countries, Canada and the United States, by which it will be observed that just as American exports decrease Canadian exports increase :

Mr. H. A. CALVIN (Frontenac).

Mr. Speaker, I wish that X could give a silent vote on this question, and X wish so because it is not very pleasing for me to hear the sound of my own voice in this Chamber, and it would save you the infliction of any extra words at such an early hour in the morning. I feel that I cannot give a silent vote on this question. I am not a strict protectionist and this amendment is a protectionist amendment I am in favour of the preferential tariff, and although this amendment does not very distinctly ask for the abolition of that preference, yet many of the speeches on this side of the House have tended very decidedly in that direction, and to that extent I am not in accord with them. We must have a revenue. That goes without saying. That revenue must come largely from customs duties. These customs duties may be arranged in such a way as that they may be incidentally protective, and that seems to me to be not much out of the way. I am not a protectionist for protection's sake, and I rise to make this explanation in order that I may stand clearly before the House and before my constituents on this point. I hardly go as far in the matter of absolute free trade as my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Edwards) who certainly is consistent. I cannot help but admire the manner in which he stood up for free trade even against a proposal to put a duty on lumber, he being a large lumberman himself. I cannot say that I admire so much the stand taken by his neighbour (Mr. Charlton) who, professing to be a free trader, and sitting amongst those who profess free trade, yet when his own trade is attacked, comes out a strong protectionist, and speaks in favour of the motion of the hon. gentleman from Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). If there is any trade in which this country should be impregnable, and I think is, without fear of being successfully assailed, it is in the lumber trade. You have a country carpeted with forests ; you have a population who are quite capable of developing that great national resource to the very best possible advantage, and in that trade, if in any trade, I believe we are unassailable.

I am much interested in the attempt-I call it only an attempt-to show that it is possible to protect agriculturists, the prices of whose products are fixed in a foreign market. I am not going to argue that ; it does not seem to me to be necessary. The price is fixed by the foreign market, and it just means'that the farmers who produce these goods should be able to produce them under the most favourable circumstances possible. That does not mean a high protective tariff. Further, I would say this : That the professions of hon. gentlemen on Mr. Mclennan.

the other side of the House are not quite consistent with their practices. They profess to be free traders ; they really are protectionists. The practices of the two sides of the House, it seems to me, do not differ very materially, and I may say while on this subject, that it will be a happy day for Canada when they do not differ at all When the tariff will cease to be a football in this House, and in the counti'y, and when the business of the country will not be continuously disturbed for fear of tariff revision or lowering or raising-and if there is anything which disturbs business it is the uncertainty attending what may be done at any particular session by any particular party that may be in power-I repeat, it will be a happy day for the country when the tariff ceases to be the football of parties, and when the two parties will divide on the general administration of the affairs of the country ; for I suppose it must be that the country will be governed by either one party or the other. Right here I think that the government are very fair candidates for condemnation now. They have an abundant revenue; the most abundant revenue the country has ever had, but there is no suggestion of the lessening of taxation to the extent of one solitary cent. It is a case of spend, spend, spend. Collect every dollar that we can from the people and spend it all. I do not think that is a sort of thing that can go on in this country for ever. The government claim a surplus of $8,000,000. If that is so, why- not lessen some of the taxes ? Why not take some of the duty off coal, or why not take the duty off sugar, as has been suggested by my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) ? But what is the use of going through the list ; the government know just as well as I do where duties can be knocked off and where the burdens of the people can be lightened. In spite of all the revenue that comes in every dollar of it goes out and the public debt is growing. I rose, Sir, not to make a speech, but to put myself right in this matter, because on this amendment I intend to vote with the government. Though that is technically voting confidence in the government, and perhaps it is, I want to say that I do not wish my vote to be taken as a vote of confidence in the government. I have not confidence in the government. I do not think their general administration is such as should commend itself to me or to any other-I won't say ' other'-but to any fair-minded person. May I be permitted to go back some years in the history of the neighbouring republic, at a time when their position as to population and unoccupied territory fairly nearly resembled ours. I refer to this to illustrate what I mean by a wasteful administration of public funds. Let me read a sentence or two from the fourth annual message of President Munroe. It looks like ancient history, but it will illustrate my point:

On the 30th of September, 1815, the funded and floating debt of the United States was estimated at $119,635,558. If to this sum be added the amount of 5 per cent stock subscribed to the Bank of the United States, the amount of Mississippi stock, and of the stock which was issued subsequently to that date, the balances ascertained to be due to certain states for military services, and to individuals for supplies furnished and services rendered during the late war, the public debt may be estimated as amounting at that date, and as afterwards liquidated, to $158,713,049. On the 30th of September, 1820, it amounted to $91,193,883, having been reduced, in that interval, by payments of $66,879,165.

Here is the United States after coming through a costly war with a debt of nearly $160,000,000, with a population of seven or eight millions, and with a large unexplored and unoccupied country. Except as regards their war experience their condition was pretty nearly akin to ours at present. Having come through a war which called for a debt of $160,000,000 ; in five years they paid off $60,000,000, and just let us go along n few years further to see where they landed in the latter part of President Jackson's term. In his seventh annual message in 1835, he said :

The condition of the public finances was never more flattering than at the present period.

Since my last annual communication, all the remains of the public debt have been redeemed, or money has been placed in deposit for this purpose, whenever the creditors choose to receive it. All the other pecuniary engagements of the government have been honourably and promptly fulfilled, and there will be a balance in the treasury at the close of the present year of about $19,000,000. It is believed that, after meeting all outstanding and unexpended appropriations, there will remain nearly $11,000,000 to be applied to any new objects which congress may designate, or to the more rapid execution of the works already in progress.

Now, I call that good finance; I call It pretty common sense kind of work, and it is not the kind of thing we are accustomed to in this country. In about twenty years they extinguished a debt of $160,000,000, and in 1835 they had it all clear, and had something like $1,000,000 in the treasury. Is that the kind of road we are on in this country? What is the end of this road? Are hon. gentlemen opposite never going to say to company promoters: No, we are not going to give you any bonus, we are done with that; we are guardians of the public money, and we have stopped the bonusing of railways. I am afraid that time has not come yet, but I hope it will come soon. Must we spend, spend, spend, without any end to this sort of thing ? Must we be face to face with repudiation before we think it Is time to call a halt ? Must money be thrown away, as it has been in the Galops cut, where $1,000,000 has been thrown away. I do not say that it has been thrown away by hon. gentlemen opposite; but they condemned that work when they were on this side of the House, and yet they themselves have 74

spent $200,000 on what is an absolutely worthless undertaking. It is a channel that is never going to be used. I do not know how many expenditures have been made in the country of the same sort, but I do know of that one. I say it is time to call a halt on these heavy expenditures. We cannot go on the way we are going for ever, and I think I have given a fair sample of what I mean by reasonable, fair, ana correct finance.

Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).

Mr. Speaker, I had wished to speak on this subject, as I think every member has a perfect right to do; but at this time of the morning, for the sake not only of the feelings of the House, but my own feelings, I will refrain from so doing. I think every member of this House, especially a member who claims to be independent, should express his views on this first vital question that has divided this House this session, and I had expected to speak somewhat lengthily in expounding my views upon it. But, Sir, I feel more like protesting against what I consider the unparliamentary procedure followed in this House in the carrying on of its debates, rather on what I regard as debating society lines, making it necessary for a member to call in the services of an intermediary before he can get a place in the line of speakers. I do not think a member should be expected to speak at this hour of the morning. The system that is followed has this result, that some members can drop into this House in the course of a debate that lasts for days, deliver their speeches, and be gone. This has the effect of lengthening the debates. I have also proved that a member can sit in the House, and try for hours and even days to get the floor without succeeding in getting it. However, Mr. Speaker, I can well be content to dispense with my speech on this subject this morning, because I had the pleasure, as we all had to-day, of hearing my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Smith) in an eloquent and forcible speech, give expression to very similar views to what I hold on this question. I am totally opposed to the claim that has been made time and again in this House in the last few days, that we want more protection, and want it for the sake of the workingmen of this country: I believe that is wrong. I

am absolutely sure that high protection has nothing whatever to do with wages. When I hear gentlemen in this House or on the platform in the country, talk in this way, I always think of Ruskin's remarks about the make-believe of the Russian court. He said that in the Court of Russia, with all its pomposity and all its make-believes and its cringing, servile officers, it always struck him that surely the leading men there must wink at one another when their followers were not looking. So when these gentlemen, especially the manufacturers, those

who have worked the national policy for all it is worth, are telling the workingmen of this country that this is what they want to make them rich, I think, they must wink at one another. I regard high protection as a double tax on Industry, and the people employed in industrial pursuits, the producers of this country, are the people who have to pay these taxes. 1 am sorry I have not a fair opportunity to go more fully into this subject; but at this time, it would be, as I say, not only an infliction on the House, but on the member who tries to deliver a speech.

Mr. A. S. KENDALL (Cape Breton).

Mr. Speaker, I regret that at this late hour it is incumbent upon me to make a few remarks, particularly on the resolution of the hon. leader of the opposition. But representing as 1 do one of the leading constituencies of the Dominion, the county of Cape Breton, the greatest coal mining county in the Dominion, and the site of the new iron works, and representing as I do a large labouring element in that constituency, I feel that I should not give a silent vote. Let me say that I am a free trader. From the day I first took the hustings five years ago, to this day. I have never ceased to preach that doctrine. The resolution of the hon. leader of the opposition calls for more protection. I regret that to-night I have to curtail the remarks that I had hoped to address to the House, so I shall at once come to the subject of which I wish particularly to speak. Away back in the seventies the coal trade of the county of Cape Breton was no doubt in a desperate condition. Hon. gentlemen opposite appealed to the country on protection, and a duty of 60 cents a ton was put on coal. Following the imposition of that duty came a rapid increase of the coal trade of the country. I admit that; but 1 want hon. gentlemen opposite also to admit this, that coincident with the introduction of that duty came a rapid lowering of the freight rates. In the seventies the rate on coal from Cape Breton to Montreal was $2.50, $2.75, $3.00, and $3.50 a ton. Soon after the introduction of the national policy came a rapid lowering of the freight rates down to $2.00 and $1.50 and $1.00 until in 1S97 the rate fell to from 65 cents to 90 cents a ton. Now, I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, if the imposition of the duty of 60 cents a ton was of value to the establishment of that trade, how much more beneficial was this great Reduction of the freight rates ? 1 claim that the coal barons of Cape Breton took the whole advantage of the duty and put it in their pockets. I claim that they overcharged the consumers of coal in Montreal and other places, and kept the labouring men of Cape Breton and other parts of Nova Scotia labouring for from 80 cents to 90 cents and $1 a day. These are facts. Now, Sir. I wish the record of the Conservative party on the coal trade in the Mr. PUTTEE.

province of Nova Scotia to be well known in this House. We found in 1890 and 1891 that the home market was no longer able to absorb the output of our collieries. We were told on the hustings in 1891 that what we proposed was a fatuous policy-that it was impossible to send coal to any other market than the home market. In this House in 1889, Mr. McICeen, now senator, quoted letters from a gentleman in Boston stating that our coal was so sulphurous that the Americans would not take it; at any rate, the commercial conditions were snc-h that no matter how good the coal was it could not be got in there. Some Liberals took a different view, notably the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), and the Prime Minister of Nova Scotia (Mr. Murray). Which policy was to prevail ? The one based on the ideas that only a restricted market was available for the coal trade of Nova Scotia or the policy of expansion 7 In 1893 the Minister of Finance brought a resolution into the Nova Scotia legislature providing for the equipment of the collieries of Nova Scotia, in a way they had never been equipped before, and with the object of forcing our coal into other markets.

Mr. MACLEAN.

Was not that the national policy.

Mr. KENDALL.

No, it was not. The national policy is a policy of restriction Ours is a policy of expansion. What happened ? In 1893 the measure brought down by the Minister of Finance was fought by the Halifax Herald, and by every Tory influence that could be brought to bear against it. Even in Cape Breton, which would be most benefited by the policy, the candidates of the government were defeated by the opponents to the measure.

We were told that the coal would not go abroad. Well, mark the results. In 1896 some 200,000 tons went into the United States. Last week from the port of Louis-burg some 29,000 tons went into Boston. And this year, in all probability, we will send between 800,000 and 1,000,000 tons into that country.

I wish to point to another fact. The great difficulty years ago in the Cape Breton collieries was the fact that they only had work during seven or eight months of the year. The restricted' home market did not require a sufficient output to work our mines all the year round, but with the policy of expansion since adopted, we have work for every miner, not only throughout the summer months, but every day in the year, and we could employ a thousand more miners if we could get them.

Let me remind hon. gentlemen also that the Conservative party in Nova Scotia sent demonstrations to Ottawa to-endeavour to thwart this movement of the Finance Minister who was then premier of Nova Scotia. We therefore have the records of the two parties before us, and we find that

while the country was depressed under this great protective policy, called the national policy, it is to-day thriving under the policy of expansion.

Mr. MACLEAN.

And iron bounties.

Mr. KENDALL.

I am speaking now of coal. Last year there was more money expended in the equipment of the collieries, independent of the iron business, than was ever expended in former years. The hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) the other night, intimated that my colleague and I and several others of the maritime provinces were sent here through the money furnished by the Dominion Steel Company. I am going to refute that charge. We are not here by the help of the corporations, but in spite of them, and I think 1 can convince the House that the statement I am making is absolutely correct. My colleagues and I were elected in 1897 to the local legislature of Nova Scotia. We then made certain pledges and carried them out. We determined, from the day we entered public life, that our main effort would be to destroy the hold which the corporations bad on the people of our country. We curtailed the powers of the coal companies, and when the new Dominion Iron and Steel Company came looking for a charter, we said to them: So far you shall go and no further. We had certain restrictions put on their charter which aroused their displeasure, and even Liberals in connection with that concern were anxious that we should not be elected to this House. If they had no other reason, they probably judged it advisable, in view of the possibility of the government being defeated, that the county should be represented by Conservatives. I wish once more to reassert that we are here today in spite of the corporations and not by their favour.

I shall not speak entirely from the Nova Scotian standpoint, because no man is worthy of being a member of this House who does not measure the interest of his province by those of others. But l snail now refer to the industries of Nova Scotia, and in doing so I will only be following the lead set by hon. gentlemen from the other provinces. I wish to bring a few facts to the notice to the hon. the leader of the opposition. Down in that hon. gentleman's province, there is an apple industry worth from ?800,000 to 81,000,000 a year. Can he show us how a protective tariff is going to benefit that business ? In wlint way would such a tariff help the apple grower to grow or sell his apples. There is also a gold mining business down there, worth from 8000,000 to $800,0)0 a year. How is protection going to assist the gold miner to get and sell his gold. There is a large pulp business and deal business in that province, the products ofi which find their way into the French, American and English markets, where they 744

have to light against the products from Norway and other parts of the world. How will protection benefit those industries ? Then there is the fishing industry, worth from 87,000,000 to 88,000,000 per year. How can protection help the fishermen, who have to send their fish to the United States, to the West Indies, South America, the Argentine Republic, the Mediterranean, and there compete against the fish from Norway and Sweden, from Newfoundland, and the bounty-fed fish of St. Pierre. Will he show us how a protective policy is going to benefit the 27,000 fishermen of his province? I would also point out that the very first cargo of iron manufactured in Sydney went to the United States, and that the next goes to Europe. Our main trade connections must be over the sea. Protection can only hinder, not promote our trade.

Let me congratulate the hon. the leader of the opposition on certain statements he has made. He has stated that questions of race and religion will never be raised by any one in his party with liis sanction or approval. He has stated also that it is in the interests of the Dominion and of the British Empire and the advancement and enlightenment of humanity that our relations with the great republic to the south should be of the very best and eveiy effort should be made to strengthen the good relations that now exist. But I commiserate him on this one fact, that the hon. gentleman put up to speak for him as the financial critic of the opposition took the ground that no further subsidies should be granted in Nova Scotia or any of the older provinces. I can well understand the difficult position in which he would be placed if he were to announce such a policy in the counties of Queen's, Shelburne or Lunenburg. I can well understand the difficulties that the leader of a political party has in meeting the constituents along the line from Shelburne to Louisburg.

One word more, and I shall sit down. I say that the policy for the maritime provinces-and I have heard the same policy *propounded in the lower part of Quebec, in parts of Ontario and the North-west-should be a policy of expansion rather than a policy of restriction. Hon. gentlemen opposite should recollect also that Sir John Thompson stated on one occasion that, in the development of industries under the national policy, there were certain mouldering branches which should be lopped away. Have we not instances of mouldering branches that require to be lopped away now ? I think that during the last few days instances have been produced showing that there are one or two industries of this country that cannot survive except at the expense of the other industries. That has become apparent. Now, speaking for the county I have the honour to represent. I wish to say that our labouring men will rely on their strong arms and the gifts that

God has given them to operate upon. And, having the opportunity to operate upon those gifts and the opportunity to freely exchange their products, whether with their next door neighbours or with people ten thousand miles away is the best way to protect them. They want opportunity to freely exert their energies and to exchange their products for the products of other labour, and this they think will be the best protection that parliament could give them ; and as far as parliament is concerned it can best exert itself in the interest of labour by favouring measures that have for their effect a fair division of the profits of industry.

House divided on amendment (Mr. Borden, Halifax) :

YEAS :

Messieurs

Alcorn, Lancaster,

Ball, LaRiviSre,

Barker, La veil,

Bell (Addington), Lefurgey,

Bennett, MacLaren (Perth),

Birkett, Maclean,

Blaln, McCormick,

Borden (Halifax), McGowan,

Boyd, McIntosh,

Broder, Monk,

Bruce, Morin,

Cargill, Northrup,

Carscallen, Osier,

Clancy, Pope,

Clare, Pringle,

Clarke, Prior,

Cochrane, Reid (Grenville),

Culbert, Richardson (Grey),

Earle, Roche (Marquette),

Fowler, Roddick,

Ganong, Rosamond,

Gilmour, Sherritt,

Gourley, Simmons,

Hackett, Smith (Wentworth),

Haggart, Sproule,

Henderson, Taylor,

Hughes (Victoria), Tisdale,

Ingram, Toltcn,

Johnston (Cardwell), Vrooman,

Kaulbach, Wallace,

Kendry, Ward, and

Kidd, Wilmot.-64.

NAYS :

Messieurs

Archambault. Laurier (L'Assomption),

Bazinet, Lavergne,

Belcourt, LeBlanc,

Bernier. Legris,

Bickerdlke, Lemieux,

Blair, Lewis,

Borden (King's, N.S.), Logan, *

Bourassa, Lovell,

Britton, Loy,

Brown, Macdonald,

Bruneau, Mackie,

Bureau, Maclaren (Huntingdon),

Calvert, McColl,

Calvin, McCool,

Carroll, McCreary,

Champagne, McEwen,

Christie. McGugan,

Copp, Mclsaac,

Costigan, McLennan,

Mr. KENDALL.

Cowan, Malouin,

Davies (Sir Louis), Marcil (Bagot),

Davis, Mareil (JBonaventure),

DSchene, Martineau,

Delisle. Matheson,

Demers (Levis), Meigs,

Demers (St. John), Mignault,

Desmarais, Monet,

Douglas, Murray,

Dugas, Oliver,

Dyment, Parmelee,

Edwards, Paterson,

Emmerson, Prefontaine,

Erb. Proulx,

Ethiei, Puttee,

Fielding, Reid (P.estigouche),

Fisher, Richardson (Lisgar),

Flint, Roche (Halifax),

Fortier, Ross (Ontario),

Fortin, Ross (Rimouski),

Fraser, Ross (Victoria),

Gallery, Rousseau,

Gauvreau, . Russell,

Geoffrion, Schell,

German, Scott,

Gibson, Sifton,

Girard, Smith (Vancouver),

Gould, Stephens,

Guthrie, Sutherland (Essex),

Harwood, Sutherland (Oxford),

Heyd, Talbot,

Holmes, [DOT] Tarte,

Horsey, Thompson,

Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Tobin,

Hyman, Tolmie,

Johnston (Cape Breton), Tucker,

Johnston (Lambton), Turcot,

Kendall, Turgeon,

Lang, Wade, and

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Wright-118.

PAIRS :

Against. For.

Messieurs

Dobell, Brock,

Cartwright (Sir Rich'd), Tupper (Sir Charles

Hibbert),

Angers, Eell (Pictou),

Bourhonnais, Lennox,

McCarthy, McLeod,

Morrison, Hale,

Charlton, Wilson,

Maxwell, Seagram,

Madore, Kemp,

Muloek, Corby,

Fitzpatrick, Casgrain,

Galliher, Robinson (Elgin),

I must ask to have my name withdrawn from the division list, as the chief whip on the opposition side has called my attention to the fact that the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Cas-grain) Is absent on the assumption that he was paired with me.

Mr. TAYLOR.

The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) has not voted.

Mr. BROCK.

I am paired with the hon. member for West Quebec (Hon. Mr. Dobell). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

House divided on motion (Hon. Mr. Fielding) :

Clancy,

Clare,

Clarke,

Cochrane,

Culbert,

Earle,

Fowler,

Ganong,

Gilmour,

Gourley,

Hackett,

Haggart,

Henderson,

Hughes (Victoria), Ingram,

Johnston (Cardwell), Kaulbach,

Kendry,

Kidd,

Pringle,

Prior,

Reid (Grenville), Richardson (Grey), Roche (Marquette), Roddick,

Rosamond,

Sherritt,

Simmons,

Smith (Wentworth), Sproule,

Taylor,

Tisdale,

Tolton,

Vrooman,

Wallace,

Ward, and Wilmot.-65.

YEAS : Messieurs

Arehambault, Lavergne,

Bazinet. LeBlanc,

Belcourt, Legris.

Bernier. Lemieux,

Bickerdike, Lewis,

Blair, Logan,

Borden (King's, N.S.), Lovell,

Bourassa, Loy,

Britton, Macdonald,

Brown, Llackie,

Bruneau, Maclaren (Huntingdon),

Bureau, McCool,

Calvert, McColl,

Carroll, McCreary,

Champagne, McEwen,

Christie, McGugan,

Copp, Mclsaac,

Costigan. McLennan,

Cowan. Malouin,

Davies (Sir Louis), Marcil (Bagot),

Davis, Marcil (Bonaventure),

DSchene, Martineau,

Delisle, Matheson,

Demers (Levis), Meigs,

Demers (St. John), Mignault,

Desmarais, Lionet,

Douglas, Murray,

Dugas, Oliver,

Dyment, Parmelee,

Edwards, Paterson,

Emmerson, Prefcntaine,

Erb, Proulx,

Ethie:. Puttee,

Fielding, Reid (RestigoucheX,

Fisher, Richardson (Lisgar),

Flint, Roche (Halifax),

Fortier, Ross (Ontario),

Fortin, Ross (Rimouski),

Fraser, Ross (Victoria),

Gallery, Rousseau,

Gauvreau, Russell,

Geoftrion, Schell,

German, Scott,

*Gibson, Sifton,

Girard, Smith (Vancouver),

Gould, Stephens,

Guthrie, Sutherland (Essex),

Harwood, Sutherland (Oxford),

Heyd, Talbot,

Holmes, Tarte.

Horsey, Thompson,

Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Trbin.

Hyman, Tolmie,

Johnston (Cape Breton), Tucker,

-Johnston (Lambton), Turcot?

Kendall, Turgeon,

Lang, Wade, and

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Wright.-117.

Laurier (L'Assomption),

NAYS :

Messieurs

Lancaster, LaRiviere,

Lavell,

Lefurgey, MacLaren (Perth), Maclean, McCormick, McGowan, McIntosh,

Monk, ' Morin,

Xorthrup,

Osier,

Pope,