1. $419,382.48.

2. 28th September, 1901.

3. This boat has been tested and is of sufficient strength to confront the ice conditions in winter at the Strait of Canso.

4. No traihs have been transferred because the bridges connecting the boat with the land are not yet ready.

Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin) asked :

When will the report of the commission on the weighing of butter and cheese be laid on the Table ?

The investigation is not yet completed. The commissioner's time has been occupied with other matters since the meeting of parliament. He has not had the opportunity of finishing up, but hopes to do so within a few days. The report will be forthcoming as soon as possible.

1. Did the government arm, equip and transport by land and sea, at its own expense, the

various contingents of troops which were despatched to the seat of war in South Africa, to assist in subduing the enemies of the King ?

2. If not, what are the different conditions respecting arming, equipping and transporting the several contingents ?

3. If the government did not, at its own expense, arm, equip and transport any one or more of the contingents, what was the reason for such action ?

1. The government did arm, equip and transport, by land and sea at its own expense, the two contingents of troops which were despatched to the seat of war in South Africa, from Canada, in 1899 and 1900.

2. The arming, equipping and transporting of all corps were carried out at the expense of the Imperial authorities, as proposed by them.

3. The reason is that the government deemed it in the public interest to act as they did, and if the hon. member is not satisfied with that course, it is open to him to affirm by motion, the policy which, in his opinion, ought to have been adopted.

Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is not necessary to go very fully into the discussion of the budget after we have had a week of very full and careful discussion of that subject in which views have been presented of the most divergent character, so that, I presume, almost every opinion that can be readily advanced on the subject has already been laid before the House. There are, however, reasons why we should pay a great deal of attention to the matter of treating with proper interest the important occasion recurring annually in our affairs when we have our national balance sheet laid before us, and to a certain extent, having the confidence of the government, have some opportunity of learning in what directions, if any, the government propose to make a change of policy during the coming year. I am delighted to be in a position on this occasion to congratulate the government and the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on the fact that he has again an opportunity of bringing into the House and placing before the country a statement in which is evidenced the fact that Canada is prosperous in a very high degree indeed. The surpluses with which the hon. gentleman has been favoured since he had the

honour of occupying the position of Finance Minister of Canada, have been almost annually recurring and I dare say, that, to him, they are becoming an old story. However, it is not well that either the government, or the House, or the country, should acquire the idea, or hold the opinion, that such a state of affairs as has existed in Canada since 1898 is going to continue for ever. We have unquestionably had a series of most fortunate and prosperous years, and in the year which has passed we have had the magnificent surplus of $5,648,000, which places the government of the day in such a position that they should not be short of money., Their revenue exceeds $50,000,000, reaching $52,514,000, but, I find that although they have this enormous sum of money placed in their hands by the contributions of the people of Canada, they have still found it necessary to incur a very large expenditure on capital account and in respect to this matter, I think the government are fairly open to criticism, because, I think that many items have, in the course of the past year, been charged to capital, which should, properly speaking, have been charged to consolidated revenue account, and if that course had been pursued, if all the items which could be fairly proven to be chargeable to consolidated fund account had been charged to that account, the hon. Minister of Finance would not have had nearly so large a surplus as he has. The expenditure has been very large, on consolidated fund account nearly $49,000,000, and on capital account, about $11,000,000, showing either that the demands upon the government from their supporters are enormously large, or that the government are in an exceedingly pliant humour and are endeavouring to make all their friends share in the good times which are at present prevailing throughout Canada. It is rather an extraordiary thing in the face of such a showing as we have had this year-a rather unexpected showing I believe, because I do not think the hon. Minister of Finance anticipated quite so great a success in the matter of money-to see after all the debt of Canada has increased to $268,000,000 and that during the past year it has ueen increased to the amount of nearly $3,000,000. It is very evident that the system under which the hon. gentleman has conducted the affairs of Canada during the past year is one in which he is going to continue for at least a year to come, for he tells us and the country that while he estimates the revenue in the year now very nearly coming to a close at $56,800,000, or, $4,300,000 more than his very great good fortune gave him this year, he expects to have an expenditure of not $49,000,000 but of $51,000,000. On capital account, the expenditure which certainly stood at an enormously high point last year when it was about $11,000,000, is to be increased to $14,250,000. Therefore, the total expenditure of Canada in

tiie coming year will be $62,250,000, and the debt of Canada,, in such marvellously good times as we are enjoying, will be increased by $6,000,000. That is a very extraordinary showing, because at the present time we are not having any very remarkably large expenditures. There is uo Intercolonial Railway to be built; there is no Canadian Pacific Railway being paid for; there is no great work in connection with the canal development of Canada; there is nothing that will occur to the ordinary citizen of the country, to account for the fact that in the face of such enormous revenues as Canada has enjoyed for the last two years, it should be necessary to increase the debt in Canada in th'ese two years by $8,986,196. Of course, the Minister of Finance has very much better opportunities to know what is likely coming, than has an ordinary member of parliament and more particularly one who sits in the cold shades of opposition and does not receive his information so readily or perhaps so correctly as do the members supporting the government; but it does strike me that the government has shown an alacrity, a readiness, a cheerfulness in going forward with its policy of tremendous expenditure which *nail require more careful consideration.

There are indications that Cailada has reached the highest point in this period of prosperity in which we have been living for some years past. The total trade of Canada is a very good indication of the state of affairs in the country. The total trade of Canada has for the last three or four years increased by enormous sums annually, but in the last year a different showing occurred and the total trade of this country increased by only about $5-

000. 000-a very significant fact which would seem to show that the great swelling tide of business which has been sending our figures up in such an extraordinary fashion has to a certain extent reached its full, and that we may expect-in view of the expeiiences of the p&st which hcive dgygi' failed to be uniform-we may expect that in a very short time the tide will be ebbing, and the shrinkage in our figures may perhaps be quite as rapid as was the increase.

1, of course, Mr. Speaker, do not anticipate that we are going back to the lowest figures of former days; that has not been the history of the business of Canada. Although it has had periods of inflation and periods of depression, still, during the periods of depression there has been a steady upward progress-Canada was pros-penng, was adding to its population, was adding to its wealth, was developing its industries and was constantly increasing its volume of business. That increase we may expect to continue to some extent; but that we shall have such revenues and such trade as we have had for the past two vears is too much to hope.

Mr. BELL.

on the North American continent and the islands adjacent thereto shall come under one government. Then, the question of bringing Newfoundland into the confederation is one than which I am sure nothing could be more important. But we have no mention of either of these very important matters in the budget speech. It may be that some effort is being made to develop the trade of this country with Newfoundland, and to bring that portion of the British empire, which must remain under the control of a friendly power, within our political limits. If so, there is no mention of it in the budget speed). For those who are aware of the uncomfortable and deplorable situation in which Canada finds itself with regard to the Alaskan frontier, it is easy to realize what the awful consequences would be if the control of Newfoundland, lying at the mouth of the St. Lawrence and holding the keys to Canada, should pass into the hands of a power not friendly to ourselves. It may possibly be a very difficult matter to secure the admission of Newfoundland into the confederation ; but it is a matter of such great importance that to my mind all succeeding administrations in Canada should devote to that object a large part of their attention, and should never rest without using every available means to bring it about. Then, how- complete would the inclusion of the West Indies make us as a people. We have everything which a northern people might desire-enormous resources of the mine, extensive forests, great wheat fields; we can produce every product of the temperate zone in abundance ; but there are products which we cannot produce, but which the West India islands could supply us with in abundance. We would be as completely selfsupporting as the United States, with all the advantages it has in possessing the southern states. The only reference in the budget speech that might indirectly be supposed to affect the question of policy regarding the West India islands is the reference to the question of a bounty on beet root sugar. The Finance Minister did not commit himself at all to any such scheme and I think in this he did well. To my mind it is far more important to devote our energies to affording the West India islands relief by accepting from them, free of duty if necessary, their sugar or by such reciprocal arrangements as would leave to them the profit of producing the sugar required in the Dominion and encourage them to look towards this country for a political alliance.

However, the great question of interest in the budget speech was the trade question. There was no doubt a great deal of anxiety in the country to know whether the government would make any changes in the tariff: And until the lion. Finance Minister finally informed the House that there would be no tariff changes this year, considerable uncertainty as to whether the government was going to change its attitude on the tariff Mr. BELL.

question or not A review of our history will satisfy any reasonable man that the tariff question has been, and is likely to continue for some time, the great question at issue in this country. If I have not rpad history amiss, the various changes of government which have occurred in Canada since confederation have largely turned on the tariff policy of the government. The first defeat of a Canadian administration, since confederation, occurred in 1872, over the policy of the government of Sir John Macdonald in building the Canadian Pacific Railway. But it must be borne in mind that at that time political parties in Canada had not settled' down into the well-defined position in which we find them to-day. The first government after confederation was a coalition one, and many of the men who supported Sir John Macdonald and his Conservative administration were not Conserva-. tives by tradition, history and party feeling, but men who had been dislodged from their fixed places by the coalition necessary to bring about confederation. With such supporters, the administration of Sir John Macdonald was not so strong as it would have been, if he had been supported by a phalanx of men who had been associated with him on party lines, and the cause of his defeat undoubtedly was the very large defections which took place from the ranks of his supporters-a defection for which no parallel can be found in the history of Canada, either in the central parliament or any of the provincial legislatures. This defeat of the Conservative chieftain restored the two parties to their old positions and arrayed them fairly against each other. What was the issue which then divided the two parties and on which the fate of each was decided ? The information given us the other night by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) goes to show that at the time there was a certain openness to conviction in the minds of both Liberals and Conservatives on the question of the tariff. Generally speaking, in the ranks of Mr. Mackenzie's supporters were men who would have welcomed a change in the direction of protection, and among whom considerable dissatisfaction was created when the Finance Minister announced that no tariff changes would be made. The Mackenzie government was made up almost exclusively, as far as its leading members are concerned, of men who had been actively engaged in the political contests in the upper provinces of Canada, such as the hon. member for South Oxford (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), the Hon. Edward Blake, Mr. Mackenzie, aided by that great power outside the House, Mr. Brown, who largely directed the Liberal party of that day. These gentlemen had been accustomed in the upper provinces to a certain degree of protection. They had been accustomed to a 20 per cent tariff, whereas from the lower provinces there was a band

of free traders, to whom the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) attributed that change of purpose which led Mr. Mackenzie to nail his free trade flag to the mast. In the lower provinces practically free trade prevailed. My native province of Nova Scotia knew only a 10 per cent tariff, and never, until the construction of railways was deemed necessary in that province, was such a thing as the raising of the tariff looked upon except with the greatest disfavour. We were an agricultural, fishing and mining people. We had no manufactures and were not aware that we needed any, and certainly the idea of protection might well have been expected to find a place much more readily in the minds of that array of men of ability who formed the Mackenzie cabinet, and who came from the upper provinces, than among the men who came from the lower provinces, and who composed, to a large extent, the opposition led by Sir John Macdonald at that time. The government of Mr. Mackenzie decided, in view of this free trade sentiment in the lower provinces, to stand by its so-called free trade policy. It had advanced the duties from 15 per cent to 16| per cent and then to 174 per cent, finding that the lower rate was not sufficient to furnish the revenues required for carrying on the business of the country. But that was not at all a position acceptable to the men who held that the time had come when protection was required. The tariff then in existence was held out to the country as a revenue tariff, which probably it was. It gave no encouragement to the manufacturers. and the result was that the Mackenzie government, instead of being sustained by a majority of sixty, found itself in opposition with a majority of sixty against it. The Canadian people evidently decided most positively that, in their opinion, a certain measure of protection was necessary.

Now. from 1878, when the government of Mr. Mackenzie was defeated, until 1896, when the government of Sir Charles Tupper was defeated, there was a constant keeping of that trade question to the front. Those who spoke on behalf of the Liberal party may have varied their statements, but throughout that time they constantly maintained that they were in favour of free trade. In consequence of the fact that they seemed to think they could gain advantage for their party, and, perhaps press their opponents somewhat closely by exaggerating the importance of the trade which might be done between Canada and the United States, in consequence of the extraordinary stress which they laid upon the feature of the matter, in consequence of the fact that they pressed home the view that the trade of the United States was worth a great deal more to Canada than the trade of the mother country or any other part of the world, it came about that they were led on step by step, until finally their programme

was not free trade alone, but it was a policy which would give to us trade with the other part of this continent, trade that, while giving us access to the markets of the United States, would practically make us one people with the people of the United States. And that was so far pressed by these gentlemen that, in 1891, Edward Blake, who had been their leader, withdrew from them, on the ground that such a policy as was advocated and pressed upon the people of Canada by these gentlemen, if adopted, could not fail to be the precursor of political union. Now, why did these hon. gentlemen attach sucn enormous importance to the trade that this country might do with the United States as compared with that it might do with Great Britain or any other country under the sun? It seems to me, in the light of events as we now know them, that they were endeavouring to gain a certain advantage in the struggle they were carrying on against Sir John Macdonald. But, knowing, as they probably did then, and as they certainly do now, that any kind of fair trade arrangement with the United States was impossible of accomplishment, that no trade arrangement could be affected with that country without our surrendering our commercial and even our political liberties, they felt that Sir John Macdonald never could make an arrangement with the United States that would be acceptable to the-people of Canada. Therefore, they insisted and charged home upon the government of that day that it was their fault that they did not succeed in effecting a reciprocity treaty. They attributed this failure not to the unwillingness of the American people and government but to the maladroitness of the Conservative administration because it asserted Canadian commercial independence and spoke in no submissive terms through representatives it sent to Washington. It was stated by these gentlemen that, when they came into power and sent men to Washington who would show the legislators and statesmen of the United States that there were men in Canada who were friends of that country, the United States would be ready to effect a trade arrangement that would be desirable for Canada. That is my surmise as to why the gentlemen who are now in power, and who were then in opposition laid enormous stress upon the importance and the absolute necessity of securing some reciprocal arrangement with the people of the United States. That is why they were willing-so far as man could judge-to place the fiscal affairs of Canada absolutely in the hands of the people of the United States. Because, as was well observed by Mr. Blake, there could be no question what the result would be when the representatives of Canada and the representatives of the United States sat down to frame a tariff for the two countries-it would be an American tariff and a tariff

favourable to the United States, a tariff which would give the United States the trade of Canada, while excluding the trade of the mother country. Now the tijne has come-and passed, I may say-'when this administration has had an opportunity of showing whether or not it was right in its estimate of American public men, and whether or not those gentlemen would be ready,, if approached in what the government held to be a proper spirit, to accept the overtures of Canada and give us a fair measure of trade. We know that the government sent its ablest men, including the leader of the government himself, to Washington. And these hon. gentlemen have come here and confessed absolute, complete and unqualified failure in respect of that matter, and have said, that so far as they were concerned there was no occasion to resume the sittings of that joint commission, that they expected nothing further from it and, in fact, did not desire to Resume negotiations at all. Thus we have come to the point where the leader of the government, having failed to do that which he insisted the government of Sir John Macdonald could do, and being shut out from the market which he and his lieutenants for eighteen years proclaimed was the one thing necessary for Canada, now the hour has arrived when we have a right to ask of that right hon. gentleman if, being unable to secure that arrangement of the United States which he maintained he could effect, what is he going to do about the situation of affairs in this country and between this country and the United States ? That state of affairs has been described on two occasions in the course of this session, as carefully and truly, and, possibly with as much completeness as could be expected of a gentleman who sat on that high commission, a gentleman who is an American by birth and whose business interests have led him to become familiar not only with the business situation in Canada, but with the business situation in the United States. And that hon. gentleman tells us that the situation to-day is intolerable for Canada. Therefore, we ask, what is the government going to do about it ? We have reached the point when some decision must be come to by those who are in a position to give a decision-the government of Canada. Now, what do we see occurring not only in this House but in the country as well ? We see this question which, as I have said, has been one of the great questions from the time Canada became a nation, which has been the maker and unmaker of governments in the past, we see that question pressing to the front. Now, the government of the day has not made any great or fundamental changes in the tariff and-to their great credit be it said-has continued, in the main, the tariff as it was before. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) sain of himself the Mr. BELL.

other day, they have not treated the manufacturers unfairly, and are prepared, when the matter comes up for consideration, to take into account their interests and wants in a friendly way. But, that is not enough. The hour has come when the representatives of Canada in this House are of opinion that a step forward should be taken. The government that rules Canada to-day, it appears, is not a free trade government, and is not prepared to adopt that revenue tariff on which it appealed to the people in 1896. Of the quality and nature of that revenue tariff these gentlemen cannot be in doubt, because they were most explicit in defining it, declaring that they appealed to the people to support a revenue tariff such as they have in England. These gentlemen, It appears, are not prepared to give this country a revenue tariff such as they have in England, a tariff which would admit the manufactures of every country, which would lighten the burdens of the working people as much as possible, will make food cheap, will admit the wheat of every country free, and manufactures and all products of every country free, that will rely for a revenue to carry on the affairs of the country upon a tariff, imposing such duties upon such articles of general consumption as will furnish the government the money to carry on the affairs of the country while as little as possible disturbing any industry and the balance between industries.

I say if the government of Canada to-day is not prepared to live up to the programme with which they went to the people of Canada in 1896, and upon which presumably they secured a verdict, and returned to power, then I say the time has come when it is necessary that we should have such a resolution as that moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and when we should have a declare4 policy. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we are free to say that we desire a policy that shall declare and shall establish such a system of protection as will sustain and protect every industry in Canada to-day, and will, as rapidly as possible, develop within our country such industries as are likely to succeed in it; and that as soon as possible Canada shall, in the matter of manufacturing, supply all her own wants, and shall buy as little as possible from the outside world.

Now a great many speeches have been made in the course of this debate which have touched upon the question of protection, and they have done so in such a fashion as to show that almost without exception members on both sides of this House are protectionists. They are not, some of them, prepared to protect everything, but there is not one man among them who has not declared himself ready to protect every interest in which his constituents are more particularly concerned. Every one of them

is prepared to adopt the principle of protection, if I may except my hon. friend from liussell (Mr. Edwards). I do not know that I could except him; if I had an opportunity to know his business interests as well as he knows them, possibly I might find that there was even in his case a nigger in the fence. But be that as it may, there can be no question that the speeches made in this House in the course of this debate have been those that might have been made by men who believed in protection. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) said the other night, and he reiterated his statement, ' I am a protectionist.' It is true he was one of a somewhat peculiar kind, he was of that brand which, 1 may say, is largely to be found on the other side of the House. He was prepared to protect everything that his constituents wanted protected, but nothing more. He would stand up for protection to labour, for'the exclusion of cheap labour from the country. Now that is a very high form, in one sense, of protection. But every man who has spoken on this subject except the hon. member for Russell, is in favour of some kind of protection. Possibly the hon. member for Guysborougli (Mr. Fraser), if he had spoken, might have opposed it, I do not know what declaration he would have made. But throughout the whole of this discussion it is perfectly clear that we are all protectionists, as it was many times in a former parliament, when this question came up, and when man after man who was arrayed against the Conservative government and who was nominally a free trader, was himself ready at once to stand up for protection to those interests in which his constituents were particularly interested, as did the late member for Lambton (Mr. Lister), for a most extravagant protection to coal oil, and as did the hon. member for Queens, Sir Louis Davies, who now graces the bench of this country, and who could not for a moment think of withdrawing that protection which was necessary to the pork industry of his native province. Throughout the whole of this discussion it has become clear that we are practically all in favour of protection.

Now then why should not this government take us more fully into their confidence and inform us as to what they are going to do. They did certainly furnish us with one or two good reasons why we should delay a little to press the question at this time. They suggested that in a short time a conference would take place in London where this, and perhaps some other questions, would be discussed at great length, and it would be better that the representative of Canada should go to a certain extent with a free hand. They furthermore suggest that the results of the census might to a certain extent affect the conclusions to which they might come. But on the whole I am pleased Indeed to ob-54

serve that not only the supporters of the government but the members of the government themselves, so far as they have spoken, have not altogether discouraged the idea that they are going to move onward1 in this matter, and give to Canada a more perfect and more comprehensive system of protection than that we have to-day; although I am prepared to say this as a protectionist, that I am not altogether disposed to find much fault in the gross with the present system, which is very fair in its effects, and it has done a great deal to maintain the interests of this country.

Now the question as to what the government will do upon this matter is one of the very highest importance to us, and it is dealt with by the resolution moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. That resolution voices the fact that to a certain extent the people of Canada, as represented by the opposition in this House at least, are not altogether satisfied with the condition of affairs that we find in Canada to-day. We cannot make the assertion that Canada has no protection. Many industries have adequate protection probably; but there are some industries which have no adequate protection, there are some industries in Canada to-day which languish, there are factories which are closed, and there is no reason why such a state of things should exist. If we are going to have protection at all, then let it be such as is called for in the resolution moved by the leader of the apposition, one which, in the first place, declares protection to be the declared policy of the government, and secondly, that it shall be adequate and sufficient protection. Now in respect to free trade with the United States, it is perfectly clear from the figures given us in the course of this debate by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) that we have not sufficient protection. That hon. gentleman makes the statement that no less than $22,000,000 of manufactures are coming into Canada from the United States every year, that pay no duties. If that be the case, then it seems to me that there is a large field in which the government might very well move, within which it might carry out such a system as it has in force in reference to other industries, and might secure and retain for the people of this country the privilege of manufacturing that large amount of goods which are inlported.

However, so far as we have gone, I, as a protectionist, I have no great reason to be discouraged by the attitude of the government. The hon. Minister of Finance was of course non-committal, as I presume he should be; but at the same time he rather held out the hope that after certain preliminaries had been completed we should then have a revision of the tariff in which all industries, particularly all industries requiring care or assistance, should receive

that assistance at his hands. Even the Minister of Trade and Commerce who used to fulminate so loudly and so fiercely against protection, was certainly much more moderate and much milder on this occasion than he used to be. His language was not at all threatening, in fact he was apparently so au fait with the system of protection that in a most cavalier fashion he tendered his services to the leader of the opposition, and proffered his assistance, assuring him he would give him two or three lessons on the subject of protection which would enable him to produce, any kind of tariff whatever that Canada might want. This is not a cause of surprise, because we have reason to know from the revelations made at one time or another, that unless we are very much mistaken and misinformed, that hon. gentleman did, upon one occasion at least, prepare and complete a protective tariff for the use of the Dominion of Canada. Now, however, while he will not go further than to tender his services to the leader of the opposition in a somewhat jocose fashion, he has not said anything at all that would give the members of the manufacturing fraternity in Canada very great concern. He has spoken to them in a very kindly fashion indeed. He says to them of course you have been very well off, and you cannot deny that. As he has said himself he has, at sometimes, been looked upon as an enemy to the manufacturers of Canada, but,' he has not proved to be such a bad enemy after all. He has treated them with a fair amount of kindness, and, reading between the lines, I have every reason to hope and to believe that the government of the day is prepared, in so far as this question is concerned, to adopt a policy which will be in keeping with its conduct since it came into power, and give us a system of adequate protection w'hich it will avow openly to be its policy.

There are one or two points to which 1 wish to make reference in connection with this question of protection which came up repeatedly in the course of the discussion before the House. It has been repeated that you cannot protect certain interests, that j'ou cannot protect the farmer, the miner, or the fisherman. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) reduced that matter to an absurdity by proposing what he called a very moderate scheme of protection to the farmers which might involve an expenditure of $50,000,000. Those who have taken that line have thought that some power in Canada might have to be given to us to impose a system of protection upon the farmers, the fishermen, the miners and producing bodies. What power can be conceived of in this country that would be in a position to impose its will upon the classes I have just enumerated ? There can be no question at all of the fact that power in Canada is in

Mr. BELL.

the hands of those very classes. If that power is not entirely in the hands of the farmers, the miners and the fishermen, if they should think, or if they should conceive that their interests, or their welfare, were in danger there can be no question whatever that without the consent of these great classes we could never have any policy of any kind. And you could certainly never have a protective policy in Canada. To make such a statement as that seems to be begging the whole question. If these great producing classes are not to be benefited by protection in the limited form in which we speak of it in this discussion, which means particularly protection to the manufacturers for the purpose of developing the manufacturing industries of the country, if you cannot secure the assent of these great producing classes to the proposition which benefits them by developing the manufacturing interests of the country, thereby adding to the welfare of these great producing classes, if you cannot succeed in doing that, then it would be hopeless and absurd to suggest any policy of protection in any country whatever. But, the view held by every one who is in favour of protection in a proper and limited sense is that while its particular advantages are directed towards the establishment of manufacturers, by the establishment of such manufacturers you add directly to the welfare and revenue of these great producing classes In the country. The system has other advantages as well. You diversify your interests you introduce a great variety of interests, a great variety of employments into the country and you develop a very much more highly organized, progressive and advanced community in that way. That, perhaps, is not a sufficiently practical argument with wrhich to appeal to people who work for their bread, who till the farms, who net our seas, and who mine our minerals. The great argument that has always succeeded in persuading the people to accept protection in the past and it will induce them to accept it in future, if I am not mistaken, is that by developing a manufacturing population in the country they add value to every dollar's worth of the products which they gather from the bountiful hands of nature. How much would be gained by the farmers of the North-west Territories, if, instead of having to send their wheat to the British market, where it competes with wheat grown by the coolie labour of India, they could have that wheat sold in Canada in the form of bread to the men whose wages have risen, as they have in almost every country where manufacturing industries are developed, to the highest possible point V We find that in every country in which manufactures are highly developed that instead of the working classes being depressed or injured, the wage earner is the man who, in the end, has the advantage and that no matter how prices of commodities may

fluctuate in all these countries wages go upwards and upwards steadily and in the end It is the workingman who has the advantage, to whom in all cases is the residuary advantage given. If you can give us a market in Canada as the United States have now furnished, to a great extent, a market in the New England states for a large portion of the wheat produced in the western districts, if you can provide a market in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, in which the wheat of the Northwest Territories would be consumed instead of being exported, can there be any question that you would add many cents a bushel to every bushel of grain that the North-west farmer garners ? There can be no question about it. If you cannot propound such a system of protection in a democratic country like this in which every man has control of his own interests I say it would be futile to suggest such a policy of protection. Instead of the mass of the people being injured by the protective tariff retained in force until 1896, I say that they were benefited by their own act because they maintained it in power. It must be remembered that since 1878, however those other questions and subordinate interests that were presented to the electors might change from time to time, the great and important and over-ruling question in all cases, so far as the government of Sir John Macdonald and his successors was then concerned, was the question of the maintenance of the national policy intact and on that policy upon which he in successive years appealed to the people, in every successive election, until his death, he was sustained by the voice of the people, not by the votes of the cities, at all, but by the support of the agricultural counties, the fishing counties and the mining counties. He did not rely when he was returned to power, as far as the returns go to show, on the votes of the manufacturing classes, but he was returned to power by the unanimous voice of the people of Canada.

In the resolution of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), as presented to the House, it is held that there is a certain amount of contradictions. The argument has been put forward by the other side of the House that, whereas, in its first portion it appeals for a system of adequate protection of the industries of Canada and for the maintenance of the Canadian market for Canadian products, that in so far as it later on suggests a preference within the empire there is involved a contradiction. I cannot see that this is a legitimate argument. It might as well be held that during all the years in which the United States has been a highly protective country there has been an inconsistency in that policy in going to South American governments and to a certain extent of listening to the overtures of Canada in the direction of reciprocity. There is no inconsistency to my mind, 54J

in the matter at all. In fact, it would rather appear as if reciprocity were the necessary and natural incident of a protective tariff. Without a protective tariff you could practically get no reciprocity. Lord Salisbury, himself, in speaking of the position of England in dealing with this matter, said that England has nothing to offer, that England has nothing to exchange. England, which is a free trade country has given everything to the countries with which it might enter negotiations and has nothing to offer, whereas, the country which has adopted a protective tariff has something to offer. It has concessions to make. It is entirely within its power to make such a treaty of reciprocity with any other country as would involve a letting down, to a certain extent, of the barriers put up in the way of trade and as would confer a certain amount of advantage on the country with which it was negotiating. I am prepared to recognize that there are very great difficulties in the way of working out a satisfactory preference within the British empire. At the same time it wrould be a very foolish thing on the part of the government of Canada, or the people of Canada, or the parliament of Canada, to, for a moment admit, that such a thing cannot be accomplished. There were in operation a few years ago the Belgian and German treaties; treaties which Canada had for years asked should be denounced; treaties which were discussed at the Inter-colonial conference here; treaties whose denunciation had been pressed upon the Imperial government, and which the Imperial government in the most formal fashion on the report of one of its leading statesmen refused to denounce. Yet, although it seemed, up to the last moment, that the denunciation of these treaties was a concession that would not be made, the time came when by pressure of circumstances it was made. These treaties are now denounced and business is readjusting itself very rapidly and it is very difficult to say that any interest in Canada has suffered in consequence thereof-except that we may perhaps suffer somewhat from the unfriendly attitude of the German government I maintain that in the same way, it is going to be possible for our colonial governments of Australia and Canada, and that government which we may hope to see soon established at the Cape, working in concert with the British government, to devise some method by which there may be a system of preferential trade within the empire. The simplest way in which that could be done is the way which I suppose we would not accept at all; that is, to adopt the suggestion made by one of the British statesmen and enact free trade within the empire. I do not know that his suggestion was exactly that, but it was, I think, that all the colonies should adopt free trade. Of course, in order to do that it would be necessary for

Canada to repudiate that policy which has been maintained by successive governments in this country, not only by the Conservative government but by the Liberal government which succeeded. I should think, that would be entirely out of the question. The great difficulty that lies in the way of accomplishing a preference within the empire, unquestionably must lie in the fact that Great Britain is so confirmed in her belief apparently, that free trade such as she has to-day, is that which best suits her interests; that we can scarcely expect the mother country, with her experience, with the enormous measure of prosperity she has enjoyed under free trade, to abandon that system even if it could be shown that it would very largely be in the interest of her colonies for her to do so. The men who have charge of these matters in England have always treated this question on a business principle. They have balanced the trade which they might hope to develop with the colonies, against that enormous trade which they do with the rest of the world, and so far they always seem to have made up their mind that whatever they might hope to gain from the colonies they would more than lose in some other direction. That is perhaps the proper view for a British statesman to take. I have always been disposed to think, that when we were in this country discussing protection, as we did in 1878; and when the argument was advanced that protection was not a good thing because we should follow the example of the mother country and adopt free trade under which Great Britain has achieved such enormous success; had risen to such a position among the nations of the world, outranking beyond all comparison the others, and being facile princeps in the world from a manufacturing and commercial point of view-it always seemed to me that such an argument as that was absolutely out of the question so far as we were concerned. There was little reason to doubt that a country which had commenced her manufacturing career as a protective country and had with skill, courage, boldness among her seafaring population obtained control of all the seas, had shown that capacity for commerce which was evidenced by the enormous development of her trading companies-for instance the East India Company- I say that it always seemed to me that that country had laid sure and fast the foundation of her industries during a period of protection, and that now was ready to come into the arena armed at all points with success, braced, strengthened and fortified, with capital abundant; It always seemed to me that it was naturally the most obvious thing in the world for Great Britain to invite other countries to come into the free trade arena with her, because there she was a Triton amongst the minnows, without any opponents. There was neither indus-

Mr. BELL.

try, nor experience, nor capital elsewhere in the world that could compete with her. The consequence was that the countries which did engage in this free trade dance with Great Britain did very soon find that they were paying the piper. But, the case of Great Britain is not ours ; was not ours in 1878 when we adopted the protective system ; is not ours to-day. Those other countries which did listen to the blandishments of Great Britain and did endeavour to compete with her under free trade conditions; where are they to-day ? Have they continued the merry dance ? Each one of them has had good reasons to change its opinion. Each one is now as rapidly as possible withdrawing from that position into which it was led, and as rapidly as possible placing itself in the position in which Great Britain was when she commenced her career. They are pressing Great Britain as hard as they can in the markets of the world, and are taking advantage of her adherence to her old system In her own markets, and are closing their markets absolutely against her. Under those circumstances it cannot be expected that for some time to come- although the date may not be so far distant as at this moment it seems-it cannot be expected that Great Britain should reverse or much modify her free trade system. She believes it is the best for her and very possibly it is the best for her, situated as she is. And so long as it is so, it is better in the interest of the empire; it is better in our interest (to the great extent to which we rely upon the support and protection of that great country); it is better for us all that she should maintain that course which would keep her at the zenith of her power and wealth and prestige. But, if we are to concede to the mother country that right; if we are going to justify in her the course by which she shapes her policy, by the rule that she shall do that which is best for her own people living within her own borders; then I say unquestionably, following her example, it is our duty as component parts of the empire-even looking at it as an Imperial matter-to develop our country and to follow that- course of policy in this country which will give us the greatest possible gain, advantage, and development in the Canada in which we are living.

It seems perfectly clear that every component part of the empire, even regarding it from an Imperial standpoint, can best serve the interests of all, can best strengthen that great and world-wide empire which we recognize to-day, by each within its own sphere, under that policy which is best adapted to it, developing its powers, its wealth, its resources, and its population. So far we must stand firmly upon the principle that Canada must be for the Canadians, and that we cannot in respect of such a matter as the convenience of the mother country give such a preference as will imperil, or injure, or weaken,

in any respect our own industrial life. The highest and truest loyalty to the mother country and to the empire of which she is the head, requires that. And, if in the concessions we have made in this trade matter, we have made the mistake of having gone so far as to have weakened Canada's resources in any respect whatever, then it is our duty, in so far as it is possible, to correct that mistake.

I am not going to argue for a moment that it is not rather a difficult matter, that the administration having made the concessions it has made to the mother country, having made a straight cut in the duty of 33J per cent, and having received a great deal of credit, and to a certain extent the warm thanks of the mother country for that act-I am not going to say that it is not difficult, while giving this 334 per cent, to raise the tariff so high that the 33J per cent will not be sufficient to serve the purpose of developing the trade of the mother country with us. I will not say that it is not going to be difficult to take away with one hand what you have given with the other. I am always free to believe that in this matter our government has made the mistake of being too generous, and did not in the full realize, as it now does, the consequence of it.

X presume that we must stand where we are as far as that is concerned, but not with respect to any other country in the world. If this preference, having been given is not to be withdrawn-although I would fain see it withdrawn if it has done injury to any Canadian interest-I maintain that with respect to the United States, which has profited so much by our trade, it is the duty of the Canadian administration to raise the tariff to such a point that our own people will be protected in their own markets and will not be beaten in those markets by their American competitors. I do not of course know what the intention of the government was in giving the preference to Great Britain. I presume that it was to acquire a certain amount of the gratitude of the mother country. I presume that the premier of Canada had no objection to become a persona grata to the people of the mother country ; and I dare say it has been worth all it may have cost us, to have placed ourselves in a position to ascertain-that is where I see the great value of the preference-the fact that a preferential can be given within the empire. The right hon. gentleman has established that; and the preferential having been given, can it not be extended ? I admit that it is a matter of extreme difficulty. I admit that the adjustment of the relations between all the colonies and the mother country will involve considerations which cannot be dealt with in a hurry. But I maintain that they can be dealt with, and I maintain that it is the duty of the government of Canada to see that our tariff is so changed and modified that it will secure the Canadian markets for ourselves while at the same time giving a preference within our markets to every other part of the empire. It is too late in the day to enter upon a discussion that would be at all exhaustive as to the manner in which that object would be effected, but it seems to me that it can never be effected by giving a straight cut of one-fourth or one-third off the customs duties of the country. The industries of the country are so involved with one another, our commercial relations are so intimate, you shake so many portions of the edifice of our tariff when you touch one of them, that such a tariff as 1 am suggesting could only be arrived at by having an exhaustive examination of all imports, all the industries, and all those innumerable circumstances which affect the flow of commerce. Then, we should have in this country a maximum and a minimum tariff. Every item of the tariff should be dealt with separately, and should be so adjusted that we would maintain to the greatest possible extent the trade of Canada for the Canadian people, and at the same time develop in every possible way the commerce between the other colonies of the empire and ourselves, and between the mother country and ourselves. That, it seems to me, is not an impossible thing, although it involves great difficulty. But let us liope that after the premier has had the conference which he is to have with representatives of the other colonies and with the leading public men of the empire at the approaching coronation, he will be able to report to the people of Canada that if no elaborate scheme has been developed, sufficient progress has been made to justify him in announcing that the day is not far distant when such a result may be attained.

In the discussion on this budget a great deal of interest has been attached to the criticism of the census figures in which the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce indulged. I was sorry that my hon. friend dealt so harshly with one of the standard publications of the government. After my hon. friend the leader of the opposition had informed the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce that he placed some reliance on the official Year-book of the 'government, in which respect I thought the leader of the opposition was only paying a compliment which was due to hon. gentlemen opposite, he was, I presume rather discomfited by the manner in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce threw a great deal of doubt on the accuracy of the figures contained in that book, and rather discredited the publication. Having been in the habit of relying on the figures of this publication, I was somewhat astonished at finding that the government continued to publish a work which contained so many errors, and were willing to lead the members of this House and the citizens of Canada generally so far astray. I was not less sur-

prised when I came to look at the figures of the Year-book to find that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce had done scant justice, if justice at all, to the compiler of that volume. The Minister' of Trade and Commerce said

The Year-book may be a very valuable document. I will give a few illustrations of what the Year-book was worth a little while ago. I remember that this same document-I thought that that was what my hon. friend referred to-estimated, in 1887, that the population of Canada was 4,856,226. In 1888 the Year-hook's estimation of the population of Canada was 4,946,497. In 1899, it had risen to 5,075,855. They suppressed 1890 and 1891, but I will carry out the calculation. On the same line of calculation, the Year-book would have given us a population of 5,210,000 for 1890, and 5,345,000 for 1891-just ten years ahead of time. These are the ' official, statistics ' that the hon. gentleman relied upon for the purpose of contradicting what, as I shall show presently, was a very well-reasoned hypothesis on the part of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding).

Mr. Fielding's hypothesis being that Canada had increased in population as much in the last five years, from 1890 to 1901, as it had done in the preceding fifteen years. Now, I always like to do justice as far as possible ; and, where an accusation is made, especially against an unpretending volume, which has no tongue except those silent ones which are found in its pages, I like to see whether there is any reason to doubt the accuracy of the statements made. Comparing the figures given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce with those of the Year-book, I have discovered some surprising discrepancies. The hon. minister says that the Year-book gives the population of Canada in 1887 as 4,856,226. But I find, on referring to the Year-book, that it gives the population of that year as 4,638,109. Then, in 1881, the hon. minister said that the year book gives the population as 4,946,497," but I find that it gives it as 4,688,147. In 1889, the hon. minister says that, according to the Year-book, the population of Canada was 5,075,855, but I find, on referring to that same book, that it gives the population as only 4,739,617.

What copy is my hon. friend quoting from ?

Mr. BELL (Pictou).

The edition of 1900.

My hon. friend had better quote the volume that I quoted from.

Mr. BELL (Pictou).

Perhaps the hon. Minister will be kind enough to lay his volume on the table so that we may all see it. Then the minister went on to say that in 1890 the year-book, for some reason or other, suppressed the figures, and he supplied the figures himself. He said that the population of Canada during that year, according to the process of figuring" adopted Mr. BELL.

by the year-book, was 5,210,000. But I find that the year-book gives the population as 4,792,605. In 1891, the hon. gentleman represents the Year-book as giving our population at 5,345,000-ten years too soon, as he said-but I find that it gives the population as 4,846,377. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is therefore out in his count as follows :-

1887 218,000

1888 258,000

1889 336,000

And in 1900, when he supplied the figures off his own bat, he is out 417,000, and in 1891, 498,623.

I think it but right to call the attention of the minister to these facts, and the only reason I can suggest for the discrepancies, is that possibly he may have discovered some edition of the year-book not issued for general use.

But my hon. friend was not satisfied with simply discrediting the year-book. He proceeded to discredit every one who had anything whatever to do with the taking of the census in 1891. He attributed motives, in the most reckless and unlimited fashion, to every one who had anything to do with it. He told us that when the census of 1891 was taken the Conservative party was in a discreditable position, and that the enumerators were presumably men in close contact with the powers at Ottawa who knew that Sir John Macdonald's government was in a desperate position and that it was necessary to place before the people census returns which would show that the national policy had been a success. Now, what possible connection could the census of 1891 have had with the election which was run by the Conservative party under Sir John Macdonald in that year. The general election took place on the 5th March, 1891, and the census enumerators were not appointed until April, 1891. And so far from Sir John Macdonald having been in a desperate position then, we find that the very first division in the House of Commons, after that general election, gave him a majority of 29, which was increased at every subsequent by election, until at the end of the term beginning 1891, the Conservative party had a majority in this House of 46.

I think my hon. friend will find it rather difficult to atone for his strictures with respect to the census of 1891. According to him Canada is not at all a desirable place for immigrants and he should not be surprised if they do not come in greater numbers. If it be correct that some 2,500 enumerators in 1891,-there were 5,000 last year, violated their solemn oath, we must conclude that perjurers are as common in this country as black flies in May. Not only have the enumerators, according to the hon. gentleman, violated their oath, but so have the commissioners and the other census officials, every one of whom was sworn to do his

duty faithfully and make no return which was not absolutely correct.

The Minister of Trade and Commerce deliberately asks the people of Canada to believe that you can find in this country, in every province, enumerators who are willing and ready to perjure themselves simply to serve the purposes of the administration of the day. I think that is the most monstrous charge that was ever made by any public man in Canada. Judging by the lengths to which the hon. gentleman had gone when in opposition in extravagant denunciation of his opponents, almost anything might have been expected of him, but this last outrage against the people is by far the worst of all, and the matter will not be allowed to rest there.

The hon. gentleman caused an investigation to be made in the province of Quebec into the taking of the census of 1891. Judging from the return which has been laid upon the Table, the government put it in the hon. gentleman's power, or the power of the commissioner who acted for him, to violate public confidence by disclosing private information given to the census enumerators in the belief that the confidential nature of this information would be respected. The evidence of this is to be seen in the documents placed upon the Table the other day. These schedules have been taken from the custody of the census officer and have been exposed to the public. I will read a paragraph from the one for the county of Bagot :-

The stuffing in the town of Acton Vale and in the parish of St. Andre of Acton, is still larger. and the evidence of it is absolutely undeniable. .