Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had the pleasure of listening to the reply of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) also to the reply of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) to the leader of the opposition. And the friends of the Minister of Trade and Commerce desire to congratulate him upon his manifestation of his old time vigour which has so often electrified the House. We are pleased to see him still so vigorous, and congratulate him on making one of the best speeches, that we, his friends, have ever heard delivered in this House. We also had the pleasure of listening to a reply, or supposed reply, by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The hon. member for West Toronto opened with an expression of regret that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had revelled in old slanders. From the manner in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce presented his case I am not surprised that the hon. member for West Toronto was sorry, and I can well imagine that that sorrow was shared by every hon. member on your left,

Mr. HUGHES fVictoria).

Mr. Speaker. I can realize that, were I a follower of the men who were responsible for the condition of things that the Minister of Trade and Commerce so eloquently depicted, I also would have experienced feelings of regret; but, combined with those feelings would have been a feeling of shame. It is not well for our friends opposite to forget what took place in this country in days gone by. It may be an old story, but it is an old story that will bear repeating, and the people of the country should not be allowed to forget it. For, on the other side of the House there is still a remnant of the old guard. It must not be forgotten that like begets like, and that, if the country were left unwarned, the old conditions of affairs might again result. The hon. member for West Toronto should have regretted these statements of the hon. minister because they were ancient literature. I am sure the hon. minister had an excuse for going back ten years, after having listened to the leader of the opposition, who, when finding fault with the expenditure of the present government, had to go back sixty years in the history of the United States to tell us that, at that time the expenditure of the United States was only one-third as great as the expenditure of the present government of Canada. Sixty years is a long time to go back in order to gain arguments, particularly when those arguments had no bearing on the case, the conditions being entirely dissimilar. At that time the exportations of the United States amounted to the huge sum of about $9,000,000. But it is not to that part of the speech of the hon. member for West Toronto that 1 object to so much. What I object to is the inaccuracies that he injected into his speech, the positive misstatements that he made-or my reading of Canadian history has been incorrect. As will be remembered, when the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce drew attention to the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie and his scheme of development of the North-west, he passed a glowing eulogy upon the character of our departed friend, and still insisted, as he had insisted twenty years ago, that, if the schemes of Hon. Alexander Mackenzie had been carried out, the interests of Canada would have been better promoted than by the schemes that were afterwards adopted. Here is what the hon. member for West Toronto said :

I tell you, Sir, that had that policy been continued, the whole of the trade and the products of that western country would now be tributary to the United States. It may be possible that a larger population would be there now, but our North-west would not belong to Canada, and there are few members who will agree that It were better that Manitoba were more prosperous even at the cost of not belonging to Canada and Great Britain.

Where does our hon. friend from West Toronto get the idea that, even had the I desires of Alexander Mackenzie been grati-

fled, we would have lost that great territory to the north and west of us ? How could we possibly have lost the North-west and Manitoba ? [DOT] The discussion which took place here on that very question last night convinced me still more clearly that Hon. Alexander Mackenzie was right in his contention. I have often attended banquets and have heard the glowing eulogies by our Conservative friends taking credit to themselves for the work of making the Canadian Pacific Railway. I rejoice with them that it is a magnificent piece of work. I am willing to confess that the expectations which I had with respect to it have not been realized. I had the pleasure of going over it, and I found that it was, from end to end, a thoroughly modern and well equipped road and a credit to the people of Canada. But, in saying that, I do not mean to say that the scheme of Hon. Alexander Mackenzie would not have answered the purpose of the people of Canada equally well. And our friends who are so willing to discredit Alexander Mackenzie's memory, and to speak of the ' water stretches ' which were part of his scheme, had evidence the other night in the speeches of our friends that represent that western country that these same 1 water stretches ' that have been so decried still offer the solution of the problem that is before us. It is now the purpose of the government, and has been for years, to utilize these same ' water stretches ' which were to have been a part of Alexander Mackenzie's scheme. And it was because there was no means of using this water communication that the recent glut took place in the North-west.

As I understand it, and I do not think 1 have forgotten, it was the intention of the Liberal party at that time to construct a railway from Port Arthur to Winnipeg and use the water stretches to get to it. These same water stretches have still got to be utilized in order to make of the Canadian Pacific Railway that benefit to the people of Canada that they have a right to expect. So far as being an available means of moving the products of the western farms to the places of export in the east, that narrow line that passes through New Ontario down to Montreal is absolutely useless.

But we might excuse our hon. friend for going back himself into ancient history if he was absolutely correct in telling us what he found. But I take it that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) made a great mistake when he began to touch the trade questions of the country. If I wanted advice as to the quality or judiciousness of an investment, I would be willing to take the advice of the hon. gentleman. On matters of business of that kind I acknowledge his superior skill; but when we read statements emanating from him such as the one I am about to quote, we have to revise our opinion, I have looked into his speech, and I find he says this :

The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerco has drawn for us a very doleful picture of what will take place if we do not return to good old simple free trade. What would free trade mean for Canada ? It would mean the closing up of every factory wo have 'rom the Atlantic to the Pacific What has been the effect of free trade to some extent, already ? It has driven away our bright young men who are educated in our schools of practical science and ether institutions of learning.

I was not aware, Mr. Speaker, that the free trade of Canada had driven our bright young men out of the country to seek homes in a foreign land. If that has taken place, the Minister of Trade and Commerce proved last night that it took place at a time when we had anything but a free trade tariff; and if it took place during the past five years, it certainly has not taken place during a period of a free trade tariff. The hon. gentleman was entirely wrong in introducing the question of free trade. We have not got free trade now. We did not have it during the period of the national policy, neither did we have it at any time during the history of this country with which I am familiar. In 1896 and for the fifteen years previous to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce alluded, the average rate of duty on dutiable products was thirty per cent. Surely he does not call that a free trade tariff. The average rate of duty to-day after the preference has been" granted to Great Britain, based upon the valuation of goods entered for consumption in this Country, amounts to twenty-seven per cent. Surely no hon. gentleman, much less a financier of the standing of the member for West Toronto, will say that a tariff which gives a protection of twenty-seven per cent is a free trade tariff, and that because of a free trade tariff our bright young men are leaving this country to make homes in the United States. I am surprised that our hon. friend made such a mistake. After two or three specimens such as I have given you of the errors into which he fell, I will be excused if I do not devote any more of my time to his speech.

Now, I desire for a few moments to confine myself to the amendment that has been presented by the leader of the opposition. We have had in former years amendments to the Budget resolutions in various forms. They all vary slightly, but the resonant note in them all is that we must have increased protection. That amendment starts out by saying :

This House regarding the operation of the present tariff os unsatisfactory.

Now, I am quite willing to admit that in certain details, or in its practical operation as regards certain industries, it is unsatisfactory to the proprietors of those industries. But to ask this parliament to affirm that the present tariff is unsatisfactory is to ask us to deprive ourselves of our reasoning faculties and to say that white is black or black

Is white. Now what are the actual facts of the case ? What evidence did our friends give us to prove that this tariff under which the country has made such wonderful progress, is an unsatisfactory tariff ? Is there any evidence of it any where in this country from the Pacific to the Atlantic ocean ? What are the facts of the case during the past five years ? Our friends on the other side say they want to get back to that old national policy under which this country made that marvellous progress of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke last night. But we do not need to take opinions on matters of that kind. There are facts accessible to prove whether the tariff as a whole is unsatisfactory and has been injurious to the people of this country, or whether on the other hand it has been advantageous. I do not want to weary you, nor will I do so, by giving you a long procession of figures ; but there are a few facts that X desire to present to the House to-night that will be probably welcomed by some who have not given that phase of the question the consideration that it deserves. We had the national policy for some fifteen or sixteen years before the present government attained power.

Mr. TAYLOR.

We have got it yet.

Mr. HEYD.

If we have got it yet, then the very first statement in the resolution is incorrect, which says that the tariff is unsatisfactory, because then the tariff would be satisfactory. Now, which position does my hon. friend choose to take ? If he says it is satisfactory, then it must be the old national policy ; if it is not satisfactory, it cannot therefore be the national policy. Now, I notice that whenever our friends have got an object to gain, and that the present tariff can in any way be credited with any benefits, they say it is the same old tariff. But when they think they can make political capital by decrying the tariff, then they deny that it is the national policy. I would like our hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) to choose to-night on which side he is going to stand. Is this tariff satisfactory or unsatisfactory ? If satisfactory, it must be the old national policy : if not satisfactory, then it cannot be the national policy, and it must be a product devised and brought into execution by the present government. But what effect had it upon our trade during the past five years ? And five years is quite long enough to test the efficacy of a tariff. Take the imports into this country in 1896 ; that is a pretty good test of the purchasing power of the people. We find that in 1896 the imports entered for consumption exclusive of coin and bullion, were $105,147,000. Five years before that during the operations of the national policy, or the tariff that our hon. friends want to restore, the imports amounted to $110, 000,000. So our power to purchase the luxuries and the necessities of life from foreign Mr. HEYD.

countries had actually been reduced by $5,000,000. Since the introduction of the present tariff, satisfactory or not to our hon. friends on the other side, our imports have increased to $177,000,000, being $72,000,000 greater in 1901 than they were five years previously.

Measured from that standpoint, this tariff is not unsatisfactory. For the last five years of the old national policy the import trade of the country had diminished by $5,000,000, while during the first five years of the present' tariff it had increased by $72,000,000, or over 70 per cent. Apply the same process of reasoning to the export trade of the country and has this tariff injured the producing classes of the country in any particular respect ? If so, the trade returns do not show it. In 1896 our exports of the produce of Canada were $109,000,000. For the five years before they were $88,000,000, or an increase of $21,000,000 in five years. During the last five years, under the operation of this despised and mueh-to-be-amended policy that we have now, they increased to $177,000,000, or an increase of $67,000,000 in five years, or 65 per cent, the entire increase in five years, both in imports and exports, being $140,000,000. Measured on the basis of a revenue producer the conditions are also favourable. In 1896 the revenue was $20,000,000, collected on an average duty of imports of 194 per cent, while in 1901, the revenue was $29,000,000, based on a 164 per cent tariff, an increase of $9,000,000, or almost of 50 per cent. Surely that does not prove that the country has been retrograding. The total revenue increased from $37,000,000 to $52,000,000, or by $14,000,000 a year. While the general trade of the country was so satisfactory, while the revenue has never been so buoyant as it has been in the last five years, what has been the effect of this policy on our trade ? The discounts, the money loaned by the bank to traders and to the manufacturers of this country in 1891, amounted to $202,000,000; in 1896, five years afterwards, the amount had increased to $224,000,000, or an increase of $22,000,000, while during the past five years the discounts have risen to the magnificent sum of $318,000,000, or an increase of $93,000,000. When you come down to the real basis, that is, its actual operation, upon the individuals who constitute the people of Canada, you can measure it best by the savings of the people. In 1891 the deposits in the chartered savings banks and in the Post Office Savings Bank, amounted to $193,000,000. In 1896, after five years of the national policy in all its glory, the deposits had increased to $245,000,000, or an increase of $52,000,000, while in 1901, after five years of the application of the present much-despised tariff, the deposits of the people had increased to $390,000,000, or an increase of $145,000,000 added to the savings of the people. These are the financial and trade aspects of this tariff of ours which has given our friends so much trouble, and which they are so anxious to

amend. Now, I am quite willing to admit tliat I would like to have seen the government make some slight changes in the tariff, changes, that, in my opinion, would have been a benefit to some of the manufacturing interests of this country, changes, that, under the circumstances, I think they were entitled to, but, I realize what these figures mean when the hon. Minister of Finance sees the question staring him in the face and wonders to himself how a change in the tariff will be viewed by the various portions of this Canada of ours, which are not equally interested in that aspect of the question. There is another phase of this resolution to which I desire to object:

This House is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries, &c.

Now, I would not like, as' far as I am myself qualified to speak, to be willing to express an opinion of this kind. I do not believe that the agriculturists of this country would endorse that opinion. When I look at the trade figures once more and X discover that our agriculturists are the greatest manufacturers there are in this country, that the agricultural interest is the greatest manufacturing interest there is in Canada, when I find that that industry exported last year, in animals and their products

alone, $55,000,000, where five years ago they exported $36,000,000 worth, that in agricultural products they exported $24,000,000 worth, while five years ago only $14,000,000 worth were exported, I ask myself the question : Am I entitled to speak for that great agricultural class which has no interest in a high tariff, whom we cannot protect by a high tariff and whom we can only benefit by making life as easy as possible ? We cannot protect the agriculturists of this country. Neither have I been waited upon by any agricultural societies in the riding from which I come, asking me to seek increased protection for any product of the farm or of agriculture. I ask myself the question : Would I be justified in expressing the opinion that a declaration of protection will benefit the mining industry of this country ? That is an interest that does not appear to receive that calm consideration that its growing magnitude entitles it to. That mining industry of ours is going to become a source of enormous wealth to the people of Canada, which we, even in our day, have only a faint appreciation of. When we look at the actual facts of the case and see that only five years ago the exports of minerals from this country were $8,000,000, while, last year, they had risen to the munificent sum of $40,000,000, an increase of 500 per cent in five years, we can hope that when twenty-five years shall have elapsed the prediction made by Professor Bell, one of the most eminent geologists that we have in this country, recently in an address delivered in the city of Toronto, when he showed himself to

be thoroughly conversant of the subject, that in twenty-five years Canada would export not $40,000,000 but $1,000,000,000 of mineral products, shall have been verified, and we are hardly in a position to say that by increasing the cost of mining machinery we will be advancing the interests of the miners of this country. That is an industry that can only be protected by making mining machinery cheap. The government have done what they could by removing the duty from mining machinery, and I do not therefore like to endorse this resolution even on behalf of the miners. Then, you take our fisheries; how can we give adequate protection to the fisheries ? They have no products we could give any protection to under the sun. The only protection our fishermen want is the protection of good harbours, good life-saving apparatus and the protection that markets easy of access will give to them. Any money in the form of protecting the fisheries expended to make the lives of the fishermen more secure and their occupation less hazardous and more agreeable, will be money well expended, and it will be the only kind of protection that we can give our fishing interests.

Take our forest products. . I am aware that some who are engaged in the lumber industry, especially in British Columbia, are anxious that a duty shall be put upon lumber. But while that may be the case in British Columbia it apparently is not the case in Manitoba. As far as I am personally concerned-although I do not think it would do much good-I am in favour of putting reciprocal tariff on lumber as long as our friends to the South of us maintain a tariff on lumber. But that industry has not increased materially during the past three years as it has only risen from $27,000,000 to $30,000,000. Taking the five great national industries I have spoken of : The minerals, the fisheries, the forests, animals and their products, and agriculture, we have an export of $161,000,000. On that vast trade, by no method of protection can you encourage it to the development of a single cent. On the other hand we have the great manufacturing industries of this country ; industries that have grown up, some of them, with the country ; industries that sprung up under the fostering care of the national policy ; and it is this phase of this resolution that particularly appeals to me. Under this excessively high tariff which hon. gentlemen opposite desire to bring about, we would have again a condition of affairs such as we had some fifteen years ago when industries were established in this country that were alien to the country, that would never be self-sustaining, that would always have to be spoon-fed and always be a burden upon the rest of the community.

I, of course, have my own views on this question. I am regarded by some of our | friends on the other side ns being a pro-

tectionist. I am a protectionist in some things. I am a protectionist for all these industries that are indigenous, and all in relation to which there is even a remote possibility that they will develop into such a national growth as will enable them ultimately to become self-sustaining. I believe we have these. national industries in this country of ours. I have seen grow around me, and grow in all parts of the country, industries that have been encouraged by the people of Canada ; industries in which the savings of a life-time have been invested, and my sympathy-even if my judgment does not-my sympathy compels me to assist the promoters of these industries whenever I have an opportunity, to preserve the savings that a life-time of frugality and of self-denial have enabled them to acquire. Even the manufacturing industries-however, they may complain of the present tariff-have prospered as a general thing during the past five years, and we have the same method to go by in order to measure the extent of their prosperity. Five years ago our exports of industries that were to be ruined by the free trade Liberal party as our friends choose to call them, and as the member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) calls them ; five years ago we exported $9,000,000 worth, and last year we exported $16,000,000, an increase of $7,000,000, or almost 80 per cent.

I recognize the value of manufacturing industries to this country. I realize that no country has ever grown great that was a purdly pastoral, or fishing, or mining country. I realize that the home market is of tremendous benefit to the province of Ontario and to the province of Quebec. The condition of our farmers in Ontario is entirely dissimilar to the condition existing in the North-west and Manitoba. To all farmers living within 25 miles or 30 miles of the city of Brantford, the local market makes their farms more valuable, makes living easier, makes life less arduous and decidedly more pleasant. That condition prevails throughout the province of Ontario, and realizing from the experience of other countries that we must have a manufacturing development in this country to take advantage of these great sources of wealth that a benevolent providence has bestowed on our people ; to enable us to develop those great timber resources that we own and these mining resources' that are just beginning to make their appearance ; I say it is absolutely necessary to develop manufacturing industries in Canada. I take the stand now, and I have always taken it, that wherever we have a natural product that is capable of development by encouragement, in the way of a subsidy, or of .a bonus, or in the way of even protection if you like ; I am quite willing to go with you in that. I endorse the bounties that were given by the present government to our iron industry. It is said that these bounties Mr. HEYD. t>

will cost us some $800,000 this year. I do not care what it costs. Some people are getting frightened that it will cost $8,000,000 before the period shall have expired during which the bounties shall be granted. I do not care. If it cost $8,000,000 all the better. I would rather it cost $8,000,000 than $5,000,000. The mere fact that it does cost $8,000,000 is an evidence that it is an industry that is not alien but native to the soil, and that ultimately will redound to the welfare and the prosperity of this country.

The iron industry particularly, is regarded by almost all nations as the barometer of their prosperity. Wherever the iron industries are prosperous that country is bound to prosper, and, therefore, I endorse the attitude of the government in respect to the bounties on iron. But I see before me conditions arising which will require-whether the government are willing or whether they are not willing-a readjustment in this tariff. If the Canadian manufacturers are going to use Canadian iron there will have to be a readjustment of the tariff in such a way that not only the iron producers themselves, but the man who is engaged in converting that raw iron into its varied manufactured forms-all those cognate interests that are associated with it-will have to be also encouraged in various ways. Although this may result in a temporary increase in protection it will mean in the end the establishment of industries in our own country, and the providing of a home market which after all is the best and surest market that any country can possibly have. That is my view on that question. As one who is familiar with financial and trade questions, I see that the government have almost insuperable objections to make to any change. But looking at it from my standpoint, I do not agree with them in the attitude they take with respect to the slaughter market.

I listened last night with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) who alluded to some of his friends as being slightly tinctured with the virus of protection. I included myself in that category. Probably I was egotistical in thinking that he alluded to me, but I thought that if what he said be true, namely, that the people of Canada have no reason to complain that they are buying cheap goods in the slaughter market ; that those of us who differ from him in that opinion are at least in good company, because we remember that only recently a conference was held in Europe, at which this great question of the slaughter market was forced upon the powers of Europe who had been bonusing beet sugar that was exported from these countries.

Great Britain stood by until her sugar refineries were driven out of existence. She consoled herself with the fact that in their

place she had acquired jam makers who had captured the markets of the world. But notwithstanding the fact that their jam makers had bought cheap sugar in England, the British government entered its protest, and said to the continental beet-root sugar producers : Unless you cease making Great Britain a slaughter market, we shall have to put a countervailing duty on your sugar. The result is that the bounties granted to beet-root sugar production will only be paid a short time longer; and the slaughter market which Great Britain has been for years for the bounty-fed beet-root sugar producers of Germany and Belgium will soon come to an end. Therefore, if 1 am not egotistical in including myself among those friends of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who object to Canada being made a slaughter market, I can at least console myself with the reflection that we have the government' of Great Britain along with us on that particular question.

The Board of Trade of the city of Brantford passed a resolution objecting to unfair competition, and I believe the government could have justified an attempt to prevent that unfair competition. I instanced a case in which a deliberate attempt was made to stifle a Canadian industry on the plea that for a short time the consumers of cutlery would be able to buy it cheaper than they otherwise would. But I am convinced, they are convinced, we are all convinced, that when this industry is stifled out of existence, the price of cutlery will go back to its old position. These men did not ask for increased protection. They simply wanted this cut-throat competition from the United States put down. They wanted the government to raise the duty, in order to prevent these men flooding our market with cheap American cutlery, and to make such a rebate to Great Britain as would leave the present tariff of only 20 per cent. We must remember the importance of that industry. It is an industry that is cognate with the iron industry. It is an industry that is made up entirely of Canadian labour, because 14 cents worth of raw material, after Canadian labour and Canadian intelligence is expended upon it, is converted into $8.50 worth of finished razors. That is the kind of industry we ought to encourage in this country. A dozen shears worth $6.12 in the open market are made out of raw material that only costs 78 cents. It is too late to talk to these men after their industry is stifled. It is no use to tell them then that stability of the tariff is a desirable thing. I recognize that stability of the tariff is a good thing; but there is no use offering a stone to a man who is hungry or a straw to a man who is drowning. These men want to be protected now, not after their industry is stifled; and in these particular lines, I think the government might well listen to the plea that has been made.

The claim made by the carriage men is also one entitled to consideration. They do not ask for more protection; they simply ask for the Canadian market. They want the valuation of a slop-made buggy increased to $50, so as to prevent the country being overrun with a quality of buggy that is of no use to the purchaser and is likely to injure an industry capable of conferring great benefit on the people of this country.

We have other1 industries in South Brant in the same condition, such as the hammock industry and the pottery industry. Yet I am not in favour of making the Violent change in the tariff which our friends of the opposition demand. During the operation of the tariff we have had in the city of Brantford alone six new industries started. They knew the competition they had to meet, and they will be able to hold their own unless an attempt is made to stifle them through the medium of a slaughter market. It was only the other day, since I spoke to the House on the question of shears, that an increase was made in the price in the United States market of 10 per cent, while a reduction has been made in the price in the Canadian market of 17i per cent. In the United States shears are sold at $5 a dozen, which in Canada are sold, less duty, at less than $3 a dozen. No industry, however well conducted, or however honest may be the men who are behind it, can stand a competition like that, and I would have stood by the government if they had said : We

will set our faces against the slaughtering of the products of the United States in the markets of Canada. The producers of the United States are so hedged in that they are not subject to competition from foreign countries. I realize the position they occupy; and although I am not very friendly to the United States, I also realize that we live alongside of them for 4,000 miles. Whether we like that or not, we have to put up with it; we have to subject ourselves to those natural conditions by which nature has surrounded us. I have heard considerable exception taken to the fact that we buy so much from the United States and sell them so little. That is true; but it is brought about by conditions which no government can affect. The United States is the producer of those raw materials which the people of Canada absolutely require, which they cannot produce themselves, except at an abnormal expense, and which they cannot get any where else in the world. Therefore it is that last year we imported $53,000,000 worth of raw materials from the United States; and we got them there because it paid us better to do so than to buy them any* where else or to raise them ourselves. That is a natural condition that cannot be altered. Cotton, coal, India rubber and a hundred other products we must get there ; and we cannot change that fact, however much we

would desire. Of the things that are even on the dutiable list, but that are absolutely necessary to the welfare of the manufacturers of this country, we have imported from the United States a large quantity. We have imported some $7,500,000 in metals alone; but these are the raw materials of many of our manufacturers. 1 hope through the development of our iron industries at Sydney, at Collingwood, at Hamilton, and at Sault Ste. Marie, we shall soon be in a position to be independent of that phase at least of our importations from the United States. But, try, however much we may, talk however much we like, we cannot change those natural conditions which will for all time make it necessary for us to go to the United States to buy certain raw materials; but holding the views I do, I am not willing, even for the benefits that might be conferred on Canada, or even in a desire to gratify a feeling of animosity to the people of the United States, to vote for the resolution that is placed before us, because I believe that a tariff that would give the protection which is absolutely necessary to make every manufacturer independent of foreign competition would not be in the interest of the people of this country. But, on the other hand, a tariff devised with skill and care, a tariff that would develop the natural industries of this country, that would discriminate in favour of them as against those which would always be a burden on the people, would ultimately result in the development of the manufacturing interests of this country to an extent that Canada has never yet witnessed.

Mr. E. D. SMITH (South Wentworth).

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have listened to the speeches of the three gentlemen on the other side of the House who have addressed us on this question, witli some amusement and some gratification. It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery ; and the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down certainly ought to be gratifying to any member on this side of the House, if a good, sound protectionist speech on the whole can be said to be so. The fact is also amusing that the three hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the House represent three different phases of the tariff question. First, we had the address of the hon. Minister of Finance, which was very wary. The hon. gentleman has had experience. He told us that he had been waited upon by numbers of deputations, representing different industries of this country, asking for increased protection, and he replied that he could not see his way clear at present. He held out a ray of hope for the future. He evidently remembered the lesson of twenty-five years ago, when the representatives of the various industries of this country waited upon the Finance Minister in the Mackenzie administration and asked that protection be grant-Mr. HEYD.

ed our Canadian industries. He remembered the reply then given by the Finance Minister of that day (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) : ' Governments are but flies on the wheel f I can do nothing for those industries. Go home, work harder, put more elbow grease into your work, and you will get along nicely.' And he remembered too the verdict at the succeeding election. Therefore the hon. gentleman was more wary than his predecessor in the Mackenzie government. He did not say positively, as Sir Richard Cartwright did twenty-flve years ago, that the government were but flies on the wheel. He did not come out flat footed and squarely on the policy of free trade or revenue tariff, in which he is generally supposed to be a thorough believer. No, he put the manufacturers off with the plea that at some future day they might obtain the desire of their hearts. At some future day he was quite willing to abandon, even more than he has done already, those principles which, during so many years, he had advocated throughout the country. Evidently the desire to retain comfortable office had greater weight and power over him than his inclination to stand by his principles, and so he hedged on that question.

Then we had a speech from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) and it sounded very much as if it were his last speech. He made such a gigantic effort, he spoke at such great length, three and a half hours, he sang so loudly once more the old songs, that he seemed to be concentrating all his remaining vigour into one great valedictory argument before leaving the theatre of parliamentary life. He evidently had a crow to pick with his colleagues, and in this, the closing effort of his parliamentary career, he determined to let them know where he stood. To every one in this House it must be evident that the hon. gentleman is far from comfortable. His memory no doubt harked back to twenty-flve years ago when he regarded the proposal to raise the tariff from 17i to 20 per cent, as the entering of the thin end of the protection wedge, and the contrast must have struck him with his position to-day when he is compelled to remain in the same cabinet with colleagues who have adopted a 35 per cent tariff against the importations from the United States and other countries. And this 35 per cent tariff, he is constrained to declare is a revenue tariff. The position of the hon. gentleman is certainly a humiliating one, and I do not wonder that he must look forward with dismay to the not distant day, predicted by the Minister of Finance, when the representatives of this government, who have all their lives been advocating free trade or a revenue tariff, will make a big rise in their tariff. It is not surprising therefore that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should have been auxi-ous that this should be his last speech, and judging by the effort he made he evidently

felt that he was singing his last song and fighting his last battle.

The next gentleman who addressed the House was the representative for South Brant (Mr. Heyd). From that hon. gentleman we had quite a different tune. He started out determined not to commit himself, he made a huge effort to avoid declaring positively that he was a protectionist, as everybody knows he is, he made a desperate attempt to agree with the government in its tariff policy, but he had not gone very far when he gave up the attempt and broke into a good, sound protectionist's argument. It was indeed an amusing object lesson to see those three hon. gentlemen, who first addressed the House from that side on the Budget, taking each a different view of the tariff. What is the country to understand ? Surely the resolution of the leader of the opposition is a very opportune one. Surely the time has arrived when the government should pronounce itself definitely and distinctly on this tariff question.

What are the arguments advanced why this government should be sustained ? The only one was the prosperity of the country. Well, we on this side are glad to be able to admit that the country is prosperous and are just as proud of that fact as hon. gentlemen opposite. But to say that the country is prosperous is one thing and to credit that prosperity to the government is quite another. Twenty-five years ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce took entirely the opposite view. He then said that governments were but flies on the wheel and could do nothing for the interests of the country. Last night he admitted, nay, urged, that governments can do a good deal. That a wise policy well administered can do considerable for a country is undoubted, but has this government done anything to increase our prosperity ? In order to reply to that question we must go into details. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and those who followed him on that side have a very happy faculty of grouping together our imports and exports, and thus showing a very large trade In the aggregate, and comparing that with our trade five years ago they see a great gain. I do not know, however, that, with the exception of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, there is any hon. member of this House who would have the temerity to maintain that our imports in themselves represent prosperity. The Minister of Trade and Commerce did that last evening. But I would ask how is this country to be benefited by having large importations. Supposing we had large importations and small exports how long could that state of things continue. It could only continue as long as we can raise the money to pay the difference by mortgaging our farms and factories. Is that desirable ? Can anybody possibly contend that that would be a satisfactory condition of affairs ? What is the history of those

countries that have exported more than they imported ? We have an example right along side of us. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that a country cannot export unless she imports, that in order to sell we must buy. That is the old theory, started doubtless at the time of Cobden and Bright, and the hon. gentleman must have been sleeping all these years. But we are living in a practical and not in a theoretical age. We look upon what is transpiring about us and judge by the actual results. What are these results V Until twenty-five years ago the United States imported more than they exported. What was the condition of affairs then ? Not only millions but billions of dollars of British capital floated into that country to develop its resources. British capital owned the American railways, it operated the American factories, and the greater number of American industries. About twenty-five years ago these American industries became developed to a large extent and the United States began to export more than they imported. They became wealthier year after year. They have paid off portions of the capital they had borrowed, lifted the mortgages upon their farms and factories, and bought in the stocks of their railways. Tear by year they became more masters in their own house, until, about five years ago, when the value of commodities rose very rapidly. Then their exports took a tremendous bound and their exports for five years past amounted to the enormous sum of $2,600,000,000 more than their imports. Has it made them poor ? Does it appear that the United States are in a deplorable condition because they are selling more than they are buying ? For twenty-five years they have been selling more than they have bought, and during the last five years their surplus of exports over imports has been enormous. And they continue to do it. Does anybody presume to say that they will not continue to do it ? What is their condition to-day ? Not only have they got possession of their own industries and their own railways, not only have they been able to pay off their mortgages and to relieve, to a large extent, their municipalities and states of debt, but they are reaching out all over the world to find places to invest that large amount of money they have made by exporting more than they have imported. They are coming into our country and buying our industries and our railways. They are going into London whence twenty-five or thirty years ago came the money that built up the United States and are buying industries there. They are going into France, they are going into Russia, into South American states, into Mexico-they are going all over the world, to find investments for the enormous sums they have made by exporting more than they imported.

Mr. HOLMES.

Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith, Wentworth) allow me to ask him a question ?

Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).

Certainly.

Mr. HOLMES.

Will the hon. gentleman tell me how it was that, from 1879 to 1894, during the national policy, the imports of Canada were larger than the exports every year ?

Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).

That is an exactly similar state of affairs. Let these industries continue under a protective tariff, as is proposed by this resolution, and instead of importing $75,000,000 of goods from the United States, millions from Germany and from other countries, our own industries will be able to supply our market, and we shall be in the position of the United States, viz., by exporting more than we import. Now, Mr. Speaker

Mr. HOLMES.

The hon. gentleman has not answered the question.

You are very hard to please.

Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).

Aside from

the attempt to bolster up a bad cause by always speaking of the prosperity of the country, and pretending that it is the result of their policy, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce made some statements that are worthy of a word in passing. In contending that, under the policy of the Conservative administration the country had not developed and been as prosperous as it would have been had the policy he proposed been carried out, he referred to the case of Manitoba and the North-west, and argued that the Conservative policy had been injurious to the people of the North-west, and that if the policy that he and his government twenty-five years ago had adopted, had been continued, the development of the North-west would have been greater than it is to-day. Everybody must have been surprised to hear the hon. gentleman make such a statement, as we were surprised to-day to hear the hon. member for South Brant try to maintain that proposition, in the face of the well known fact that the government of which the present Minister of Trade and Commerce was a member over twenty-five years ago opposed, tooth and nail, the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the principal, almost the sole, means of developing the country. It was the Conservative party that, in the face of all difficulties and notwithstanding the criticisms and opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite, built the Canadian Pacific Railway. Hon. gentlemen opposite at that time maintained that this was a work far beyond the power of this country. They maintained that it would bankrupt the Dominion and that the road would never pay for the axle grease for the wheels. Yet, in spite of the determined opposition of the most powerful men in the Liberal party, the Conservative party carried out what they proposed to do, and finally built the road-; not with 'water stretches,' but a railroad from one end of the country to the other.

Mr. SMITH (Wenthworth).

And everybody to-day, whether Grit or Tory, no matter what his politics may be, agrees that the Canadian Pacific Railway has been the great means of binding the provinces together and developing the resources of the North-west as they could never have been developed without it. How can these lion, gentlemen stand up and say, of all things, that their policy would have developed the North-west ?

The Minister of Trade and Commerce also had some criticism to make with regard to the number of people coming to this country. He said that under the late administration there were not so many immigrants as are now coming to Canada. I well remember reading-I was not then a member of this House-whenever these sums of money were asked by the Finance Minister in those days for immigration, and they were small sums compared with those that are now spent, hon. gentlemen opposite declared that it was useless to spend money to bring in immigrants to this country. The late government spent about $125,000 on immigration during their last year of office, but this government spends about $500,000. If the late government had spent equally large sums, no doubt they could have brought in a great many more immigrants than they did. It does not lie in the mouths of opponents of the late government to complain on this score.

Now, in order to show that this government is, in no measure, responsible for the prosperity we now enjoy, as I said before, we must investigate the different items. I have spoken only of imports. I do not think there are many people in this country that think imports alone bring prosperity. Now, I must confess that the government can do a great deal, not only with regard to the exports, but also with regard to the imports. What did the government preceding this one do ? Let us take an example. When they came into power we imported 7,000,000 pounds of raw cotton. Now we import over 40,000,000 pounds. What does that mean ? That means simply this-that there are employed in this country many thousands of hands manufacturing this cotton. And so it is in every line of industry that was protected in 1879. That is what that government did to build up the industries of this country, bring in population and retain in the country the people that we had.

The Minister of Trade and Commerce criticised the Conservative government for allowing immigration to flow from this country and so many Canadians to go to the States. I was wondering what would have been the result if his principle had been adopted and if, instead of having the protective tariff, which even hon. gentlemen opposite are bound to admit has built up this country, his policy of a revenue tariff had been carried out. How many more Canadians would have gone from this country to the United States ? Surely when hon. gentlemen opposite themselves

have been obliged to accept this protective principle, although they say they have cut off a little twig here and there, they must admit it would have been injurious to this country and that we would not have had so many people retained in this country from 1878 forward, if their policy had been adopted. They furnish us the proof themselves. So I cannot understand, no one can understand how, if from 1878 forward, any policy which the hon. gentlemen opposite have ever proposed had been carried out, the Canadians who have left this country could have been retained in it. Until they show that I contend they have not proved their case.

When I say that a government can do a good deal to make the people prosperous, X refer to the imports for the present, or rather the power the government exercise through the tariff in compelling the manufacture in this country of the large quantities of goods that are imported. In that way government can do a good deal in regard to imports. But what about exports ? In regard to exports the government have limited powers. I am sure they will not contend that it has been through their instrumentality that we have got better prices in the old country during the last five years for our cheese, butter and various products of the farm. In what way then can they benefit industries and increase exports 7 I think that can be done to a limited extent by improving the facilities for manufacture, by improving the education of the people, and by giving better opportunities for production and providing better transportation facilities. Now, let us examine in detail what our exports have been; let us see what the government have been doing during the last five years to encourage larger exports. I find that for the fiscal year ending the 30th of June last, our exports increased over the previous year by $16,733,000. We find that the exports of gold amounted to $24,445,000 against $14,148,000 the year before, leaving $10,296,673 of gain in our exports of gold. Now in what way have the government been responsible for that increased export of gold ? Is it not a notorious fact that the royalty levied by this government, and their exactions on the miners in the Yukon territory, have been greater and have made it harder for the miners there than in any other country 7 That has been a notorious source of complaint. I am not criticising the government for exacting this royalty, I am only saying that under those conditions they have made it harder for the miner to produce gold for export, and consequently they cannot claim any credit for those increased exports of gold. There is another fact, this $10,000,000 of gold does not altogether represent added wealth to this country, because it has been largely taken out of the country in the pockets of American miners who have gone with it. Then I find that the total exports of the mines have Increased

by $15,752,000; a part of that was gold, and that represents nearly the total increase of our exports for the past year. Now, in what way have the government made it easier for the miners to extract the gold 7 In what way have the government made the mineral products of this country more valuable 7 Can any one answer that question 7 The miners have to work harder, and larger quantities have been exported, but the government cannot in any way be credited with that increase.

Then our manufactures have increased about $2,000,000. In what way are the government to be credited with the increased production of our factories except that they have retained to a large extent the policy of their predecessors 7 The increased output of those factories, Mr. Speaker, is surely attributable, if it is to anything, to the policy of the predecessors of these hon. gentlemen. The policy that established these industries and made them able to manufacture and export is the policy that still exists to a considerable extent. It is the same story over again that we have seen in the United States. The adoption of a protective tariff in that country caused manufacturing industries to spring up, and they grew until they were able to export tremendous quantities of goods. In this country our industries were started in the same way, and had it not been for the tinkering of the tariff by these hon. gentlemen when they came Into power, these industries would have been on a much better footing than they are today, and would have produced more for export. That is one source of complaint I have against the government, that whereas they adopted the principle of a protective tariff, whenever they touched it they touched it to its detriment

They took off the duty on binder twine, and the result is that instead of manufacturing our binder twine now the major portion of it comes from the United States. If they had let it alone we would have had more manufactories in this country, more people engaged, and fewer going to the United States. They took the duty off barbed wire, and what is the result 7 Some of the barbed wire factories closed up, more Canadians gone to the United States to find employment. So I say that wherever they have tinkered with the tariff they have done so to the detriment of the industries of this country. Take the woollen industries as affected by the English preference, and what has been the result? The woollen industries would have been to-day much more prosperous, they would have afforded employment to many more men than at the present time if that business had been let alone. I find in looking over the different articles that we have exported nearly $2,000,000 worth of agricultural implements. Has the policy of the present government made it easier for the implement makers to manufacture for export 7 No, they get

gallon to be made in respect to the matters herein referred to_, and in respect to ail matters connected with the exporting, transportation and marketing of our apples; and thereupon to enact a law to regulate the busiaess in accordance with the facts and circumstances, and with such provisions as may be just and reasonable, and as will tend to remedy and remove the disabilities which have hitherto hampered and jeopardized a most important industry.

Here is another resolution passed at another meeting, and the newspaper report in connection with it says :

The matter of the ocean Transportation of Nova Scotia apples was then takon up by Peter lanes, in a vigorous address in which he roundly scored the Furness, Withy Company for their criminal carelessness in handling our Gravenstelu apples, and his words found a responsive echo in the hearts of every one in the audience, many of whim had been losers of a pcrtion of the $30,000 lost by the exploit of the Et angeltne in cooking 20,000 Darrels of Graven-steins. On motion of Mr. Innes, seconded by Colonel Spurr, it was unanimously carried that;

This association do humbly petition parliament to cause an investigation to be made in respect to all matters connsctid with the exporting, transportation and marketing of our apples and thereupon, 'o enuot a 'aw to regulate the business in accordance with the facts and circumstances, and with such provisions as may he just and reasonable and as will tend to remedy and remove the disabilities which have hitherto hampered and jeopardized a most important industry.

This will show the sad condition of affairs in the Annapolis valley, where the industry was just getting on its feet, and where they can grow apples as good as can be grown in any part of the world. Three years ago the Furniss-Withy people had some boats that carried apples in good condition. I remember calling the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to a large shipment of apples which arrived in good condition, and in which there were only thirteen barrels slack. I then pointed out to the minister that although this steamer was only fitted up In a primitive fashion, yet that such care was taken of the apples on the voyage, that they were landed in England in prime condition. But these boats were taken off the service and others not so suitable put on-many of them subsidized by the government-and as a result the sorrowful condition of things which I have pointed out prevails. Let us see what are the conditions with regard to the port of Montreal. The minister (Hon. Mr. Fisher) has secured the placing of fans on a number of vessels sailing from that port, but it is one thing to put fans on a vessel and it is another thing to make sure that the fans are operated during the voyage. I remember very well that some fifteen years ago the apple shippers of Canada induced one line of steamers to put a few fans on some of their vessels. We found, however, that the apples were not carried in any appreciably better condition, and when we made an investigation

Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).

we found that the boats operated the fans while in the harbour, but when they got out to sea they stopped the fans because it cost a little money. I believe that to-day this very same thing will account for the apples shipped from Montreal not arriving in a better condition on the English market. I believe that some of these vessels did operate their fans and did carry out the regulations, and as a consequence the apples arrived in good condition, but on the other hand some of these vessels did not operate the fans, and the result was very injurious to the shipment of apples. I took the trouble to write to a number of receivers of apples in the old country, gentlemen who handle large quantities of our apples and who are In the best position to judge of the condition in which the fruit arrives. I asked them about this matter, and I shall read an extract from the reply of one of these gentlemen which will throw some light on the question.

As far as the export trade to Europe is eon oerned unfortunately we cannot say as far as our rwn observation is concerned that the system of ventilation, and cooling chambers introduced upon steamers sailing from Montreal to Liverpool has been a success. As certainly the steamers that carried apples under the above systems did not land their fruit in as good condition, as steamers that were not ventilated by mechanical means. You must not take from this that we think mechanical means of ventilation should not he used.

The trouble we think with the steamers from Montreal not carrying their fruit in better condition was that they did not work the system properly.

The writer has just been looking up averages made upon apples carried during the present month upon steamers with and without exhaust ventilation. Two steamers sailed from Boston within 24 hours of each other and arrived here within that length of time of each other, and thoir fruit was sold the same day. With result that on the apples we had on them there was a difference of fully two shillings per barrel in favour of the steamer that used exhaust ventilation. We, fortunately only had a very few on the steamer without exhaust ventilation, although we have considered her one of thp best ai pie carriers sailing between Boston and Liverpool. We had a much larger quantity arrive the following week on a steamer of the same line, and a good carrier. Upon the one with exhaust ventilation we had 2,135 barrels which ateraged 14s. 8d. per barrel while upon, the one without exhaust ventilation we had 1.603 barrels and they averaged 11 shillings 11 pence per bairel or a difference In favour of ;he steamer with exhaust ventilation of ?s. 9d. per barrel. The fruit was packed almost entirely by the same, men, and the quality of the apples on the steamer without exhaust system was if anything superior to the 'others, but they landed in a much worse condition, although they were stowed In the peak hatch, whith is considered the best place on any steamer for carrying apples.

We are mow using our best efforts to have the same system of ventilation Introduced upon all steamers that carry apples, and have great

hopes of it t>3ing introduced in a number of steamera before another season opens. We certainly will not rest until it is accomplished, and have given instructions to all our representatives to favour the steamers that have introduced the system, and that give it proper attention, as we certainly think those steamers with the fans in, which sailed from Montreal to Liverpool were not properly attended to or they would have landed fruit in better condition. Now, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that what the Minister of Agriculture ought to do is first of all to insure that every steamer leaving Montreal or Halifax and carrying perishable products, whether apples, cheese, or any thing else, shall be equipped with apparatus that will secure a free circulation of air through the compartments in which the perishable products are carried. Then, having done that, the Minister of Agriculture has only performed part of his duty. It is very easy for these steamers to put in fans which will only cost a few dollars, but the minister must go further and he must take care that these fans are operated during the voyage across the ocean. That, the Minister of Agriculture can easily do. He can put a thermograph in each compartment of the steamer in which these perishable products are carried, and he can put another thermograph on the deck. He can lock these thermographs and when the vessel reaches England one of the number of officers whom he has watching the fruit business there, can unlock the thermographs and can see at a glance whether the fans have been worked during the voyage or not. If the fans have been operated the readings of the thermographs in the holds will be almost identical with the reading of the thermograph on deck. The Minister of Agriculture can have absolute and positive proof as to the working of the fans by this means. It therefore lies in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, to enable the farmers of Canada to export every pound of cheese and butter, and every barrel of apples to the old country in a sound and marketable condition. Thus preventing the great losses we have experienced in the past.

Let us touch on another item of our exports, that is, butter. In the last fiscal year we exported $3,355,197 worth of butter, or $2,074,366 worth less than the year before. Where is the hand of the Minister of Agriculture that our exports of butter have thus decreased instead of increased ? What has become of that magnificent system of cold storage which was to be established all over this country ? To hear the hon. gentleman talk in this House and out of it at different times, you would have thought that he had magnificent cold storage warehouses at all the ports of debarkation, and a chain of cold storage warehouses, as he called them, from one end of this country to the other, and that by this time, instead of exporting only $3,000,000 worth of butter a year, we would be exporting twenty or 47

thirty million dollars' worth, as the little country of Denmark is doing. On investigation, this so called chain of cold storage warehouses turns out to be what ? The Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, when called on, furnish a refrigerator car and put ice in it for the purpose of transporting butter along their lines. These cars go along the different lines of railway picking up butter at different factories, and no doubt in most cases soon secure a carload, but the shipper in any case is charged less carload rate, which is a very good thing indeed for the railway companies carrying carloads of butter at less carload rates, and the government paying for the ice. That is what the government has done-made arrangements with the railway companies' that these cars shall be provided. But that is not enough to justify the bragging about what has been done for the butter industry of this country. The arrangement is a good thing for the railroads and is of some advantage to the country ; but what has the Minister of Agriculture been doing that our exports of butter have decreased from $5,000,000 worth to $3,000,000 worth V It seems that almost everything that hon. gentleman touches goes backward. Two or three years ago the hon. gentleman boasted a good deal about arranging with the United States to raise the quarantine against our cattle, so as to make it easier for our farmers to export their cattle to that country, where they might be fattened instead of at home. One might think that the result would be that our exports of cattle to the United States would increase. But I find that the farmers know their business better than the hon. gentleman, for instead of exporting $1,401,137 worth, as they did in 1900, they have had the good sense in 1901 to export only $891,300 worth to the United States, doubtless fattening them at home, and selling them for export at $60 to $100 per head, instead of $10 to $15 to the States as lean cattle or calves. These are some of the items with regard to which the government could have exercised some influence in increasing the quantity of our exports, and have benefited the farmers and the people of this country generally; and I am sure that any one who investigates the subject without bias must come to the conclusion that the Minister of Agriculture has not done any small portion of his duties in these very important matters.

In the course of the argument of the hon. gentleman who preceded me, it was contended that the government was in some way responsible for the vast increase in our exports during the past five years, and ought to receive some credit for it. The truth of the matter is that our exports have not increased in quantity so much as in value. The volume of our exports has gone on gradually increasing from year to year, whether this government or the previous

government lias been in power, which has proved to my mind that the population has increased steadily from year to year, and not, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce contended, that all the increase has been in the last five years. When I look up the figures, I find that our exports have increased in quantity in an average ratio, and that there has not been a very great difference in the past five years as compared with the previous five years. Was it the government that caused the value of these products to increase in the last five years ? No, it was the prosperity of the buyer in the old country and the United States. Take cheese, for example, ona of our largest and most profitable exports. In 1S91 we exported 106,202,140 pounds. In 1896, after those depressing times when our exports did not increase as rapidly as they have done in the past five years in value, the quantity had increased to 104,089,123 pounds, an increase of 55 per cent. But during the past five years the increase in quantity has been but 19 per cent. This shows that the people have been working away just about the same in one period as in the other, and it is fair to conclude that the population has been increasing in the same proportion. Take another item-wheat. The quantity exported in 1891 was 2,108,216 bushels, and in 1896, 9,919,542 bushels, an increase of 370 per cent, whereas in 1901 the quantity exported was 9,739,758 bushels, a decrease of 2 per cent. I mention these figures for the purpose of showing that whereas the quantity of wheat exported during the first period increased 370 per cent, the value only increased 264 per cent, and that in the last period, while the quantity exported decreased 2 per cent, the value increased 19 per cent. Who placed this increased value on the wheat-the hon. gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches, or the British buyer ? Take another item-lumber, or planks and boards, one of the largest exports of the products of the forest. The quantity we exported in 1891 was 807,859,000 feet, and in 1896, 818,529,000 feet, an increase of but 1 per cent in the quantity, while the value actually decreased 5 per cent. In the next five years, while the quantity actually decreased by 11 per cent, the value increased 10 per cent. Are hon. gentlemen opposite to be credited with that increase ? Did they increase the price of our lumber, or did the British buyer and the American buyer ? So I could go through all the different industries. Take bacon. During the first period our exports of bacon increased in volume 558 per cent, and during the last period they increased only 119 per cent in volume. Here is an industry which is an example of what the government can do to improve the affairs of the country. Before the Conservative administration placed a high duty on pork, we were buying pork from abroad ; we were not exporting any. Enormous quantities of American

Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).

ing to our own prosperity. What would be another result ? It would he this, that our ships would have more goods to carry from the other side to our shores. Instead of coming across, as a large number of them do, in ballast, they would come across loaded, and that would give us lower freights on our exports. In that way therefore our producers would be largely benefited. In that respect we to-day occupy a very unsatisfactory position. Instead of British ships coming back to this country loaded, they only bring back $40,000,000 worth of goods, although they carry from this country $100000,000 worth. Then we bring back goods in condensed form, for one ship will bring back as much value as five ships carry away. Things are not in that position in the port of New York, for the quantity of exports from that port only exceeds the imports by about one-fifth. Therefore by puttiug on a big tariff against the United States, we would cause a considerable portion of American manufactures, which we now import, to be manufactured in this country, and another considerable portion to be manufactured in and imported by us from Great Britain, thus improving our position in every respect. The Minister of Public Works may improve the St. Lawrence channel as much as he pleases- and I shall be delighted if he can improve it to such an extent that steamers may sail through that channel at the highest rate of speed both night and day-we will still be handicapped, as compared with New York and Boston, until such a change is effected in our fiscal policy as will cause a much less disproportion to exist between our imports from Great Britain and our exports to that country. That can only be brought about by shutting out a large proportion of the goods which we to-day buy from the United States.

I may be met by the argument that the result of putting on a stiff duty would bo an increase in prices, that our people would have to pay more. Well, the history of the past does not bear out that theory. I maintain that we are now making in this country a large number of these things which we import from the United States just as good and just as cheap. I maintain that our agricultural implements are as good and as cheap as those made on the other side. Why, then, do Canadians buy $2,000,000 worth of American agricultural implements? Let us get right down to the facts, and we will see. These agricultural implements are sold chiefly through agents, and every man who has ever handled agents knows very well that a good agent can sell a poor article at a high price and a poor agent cannot sell even a good article, in opposition, at a lower price. Our agricultural implements are sold almost entirely through agents. The agent goes about through the country and canvasses the farmers and a good smart tongued seller will persuade them that his

471 '

implement is better than that made by Massey-Harris or Frost & Wood or any other Canadian manufacturer, livery hotly conversant with the business knows that to be the case. I know from my experience in my own business, through my own agents, that a poor agent cannot sell a better article, even at a cheaper price, in competition with a smart agent. The whole thing lies largely with the salesman. We buy half a million dollars worth or more of American shoes, yet we make as good shoes in this country, fit for any Canadian to wear. But the American drummer comes along and persuades the retail merchant that his shoes are better than the Canadian article, and the retailer concludes that he will try them. The smooth slick tongued agent succeeds in making a sale, the shoes are laid on the tradesman's shelves, and he must sell them. Our manufacturers will even buy an American made article when they might just as well buy one of Canadian make.

It is useless to tell the people to be patriotic. I remember very well on one occasion last winter, when at a gathering of the people I tried that argument. I said to them : You ought to be patriotic. We make as good machines as you can get on the other side, we make just as good boots and shoes, and yet you will buy $75,000,000 worth of American goods when you can get just as good value at the same or lower prices in our own country. Why do you not encourage manufactures and thus add to the population and prosperity of our country and enlarge our own home markets. Not only the merchant and the factory people but the farmers and the producers of every kind will benefit by this building up of our own Industries. That seemed to take very well with the audience, but to my surprise a clergyman followed me and repeated the very argument which the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave us last night. He said: I am afraid that the arguments of Mr. Smith are not very sound, because in order to sell you must buy. That was the very argument used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce last night. But I have shown by the example of the United States, and it can be shown by the example of many countries, that it is not necessary to buy in order to sell. The United States sell $100,000,000 worth of goods and buy only $40,000,000 from us.

The United States export $2,640,000,000 more than they import in five years. There is a living example that it is not necessary for any nation or individual to buy in order to sell. I was gratified, on coming home from that meeting, to read an address made by the Finance Minister the night before at some banquet along the same line, declaring that it would be a patriotic thing for Canadians to buy Canadian goods and urged strongly, that they do so. The lion. Minister of Finance did not suppose that, before one short year rolled round the

Minister of Trade and Commerce would- from his seiat alongside of him-tell him, that people, in order to sell must buy. Now, no amount of talk, no amount of persuasion, nothing but putting up the tariff wall a little higher-a good deal higher if necessary-will induce the people of this country to buy Canadian goods entirely or nearly so. It is due chiefly to throughtless-ness. But it would be a happy condition of affairs, having the goods in this country, or having the facilities to make them to have the people induced to buy the goods. It is said that the manufacturers would charge enormous prices and that the consumer would suffer. But the government has shown, as in the case of the paper combine, that it has the remedy in its own hands. If a combination exists in any industry, the government can apply the remedy at once. Considering these facts, I think it is the duty of every member of this House to vote for the amendment presented by the hon. leader of the opposition. That amendment is certainly along the line of progress made in the past. And, judging by our experience and the experience of the United States who adopted that policy and prospered under it, such a policy must inure to the benefit of the country. Having the facilities we have, and the resources we have, under no other policy can we succeed so well. I am glad to know that there are on the other side a number of gentlemen imbued with the same spirit. I imagine that before many years the party that is now in power will take up that policy. When once the Minister of Trade and Commerce and a few more of the old war-horses who have talked so long and hard against this policy are removed to good places, Senatorships or Lieut.-Governorships, I feel sure that the master hand of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) will assert itself. And that the hon. gentleman will be supported in bringing this policy by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd). He will be supported by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell), who has of late, become a convert to the principle. Living, as he formerly did, in the county of Kent, and representing that county, a county that had beans to sell, it is natural that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) should favour commercial union, unrestricted reciprocity, free trade with the United States, and so on. But, having removed to a county where he is surrounded by protectionist influences, he has become converted. Whether it was the influence in and about Toronto, or honest conviction,

I am not prepared to say. But I am pleased that the hon. gentleman has come out boldly and ideclared his conversion. Having read some of his addresses of a few years ago in this House, I am bound to say that of all the anti-protectionists, of all the men who opposed that policy tooth and nail, he was one of the strongest.

Ml'. SMITH (Wentworth).

I do not know whether the Minister of Public Works can be spoken of as having been converted. But he is a leader in the movement; and, knowing as we do that he has the whiphand of the administration, I believe that before many years the government will do what they have done on many occasions before, steal the policy of the leader of the opposition, and that, two or three years from now, we shall have them coming before the country proposing the same kind of a tariff as is declared for in this amendment.

MACKINNON (East Queens, P.E.I.) After the interesting addresses to which we have listened, Mr. Speaker, and considering the lateness of the hour, it becomes me, in speaking upon the subject now before the House, to make my remarks brief. The hon. Minister of Finance has made his motion for a Committee of Ways and Means and the leader of the opposition has proposed the following amendment:

That, all the words after * that ' in the proposed motion he left out, and the following substituted therefor :

This House regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries, as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians. And, while thus firmly maintaining the necessity of such protection to Canadian interests, this House affirms its belief in a policy of reciprocal trade preferences within the empire.

Now, it seems to me that the leader of the opposition must have a very keen sense of grim humour when he resurrects from a motion moved in this House in 1878 the main part of his amendment.

Hear, hear.

Mr. MACKINNON.

I am glad the supporters of the lender of the opposition understand that it was, in effect, the resolution of 1878-they are not working in the dark. The preference part of the resolution of course is new. The last speaker, as well as the leader of the opposition, informed us that under such a policy the people would pay increased prices. I thiuk I took down the words of the leader of the opposition correctly, that ' the people would pay slightly increased prices to protect the manufacturers.' That goes, of course, to the root of the question.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

The hon. gentleman (Mr. MacKinnon) does not quote me exactly. I said I thought that prices would not increase, that competition would keep prices down.

Mr. MACKINNON.

I am willing to accept the explanation. I thought I had the words correctly. But the sentiment was reasonably clear.