Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I have a word or two of personal explanation to make. Yesterday an hon. member of this House was pleased to state in his place, that I had been guilty of making certain statements equivalent to falsifying the record, and had quoted figures from a certain document which he named, which I could not produce or verify. Sir, that is a peculiarly odious kind of charge, and I may add a peculiarly silly one; for I do not suppose that many members of this House are less likely to make statements and quote figures from a document such as the Statstical Year-book without being able to verify them, than myself. I sent word to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) who is the party in question just now, that I was going to bring this matter up, and I am sorry he is not here. I did not expose the matter yesterday afternoon, because I wanted to see how far stupidity and party spite would drive these gentlemen ; and I also wanted to see that they should be so committed that there could be no possible quibbling and no possible wriggling out of the position in which they had placed themselves. I will proceed briefly to give the House the authority on which I made the statements I did with respect to what appears in the Statistical Year-book for the year 1889. The House will recollect that I gave certain estimates of the population of Canada in the course of my remarks on the budget, and I stated that those had been derived from the Statistical Year-book of the year 1889. The House will also recollect that yesterday it was stated in this House, that these figures were not to be found in the Statistical Yearbook, that other figures were given, and a long deduction was made therefrom. Sir, I have here the Statistical Year-book for 1889, printed for the Department of Agriculture by ' Mr. Brown Chamberlain, printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in the year of Grace 1890.' On page 116, of this valuable and veracious document will be found the following statement: In the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1887, the estimated population of Canada is given at 4,875,005 souls. Immediately thereafter, for the fiscal year 1888, the population is given at 4,972,101, and for 1889, the popu-Hon. Mr. FIELDING.

lation is given at 5,075,555. I call the special attention of the hon. leader of the opposition to these facts, as he appeared to be under the impression that his colleague from Pictou had been making a correct statement when he disputed the authenticity of my remarks. Sir, that is enough in itself, but there is more also. I stated besides, that these hon. gentlemen-at least, the predecessors of these hon. gentlemen- had carried out the calculation, at any rate as regards one year, and that they had produced the results of showing that in 1890 or thereabouts, the population estimated by them for Canada would exceed 5,200,000. I have here, Sir, the Trade and Navigation tables for the Dominion of Canada for the year 1890, countersigned by Sir Mackenzie Bowell, then Minister of Customs, under date of the 29th December, 1890. On page X, the total duty Collected from customs is put down at $24,014,908. On the opposite page, you will find the amount of customs duties paid per head of the population put down at $4.60. You will further find at the bottom of the page this statement:

The calculations in this column are based on the estimated population of the Dominion in each year as published by the Department of Agriculture and statistics in the statistical Year book. See Pages 116 and 180 of that book for 1889, the figures this year having been corrected to correspond with those in the said statistical Year-book.

Now, I suppose it is possible for these two. hon. gentlemen to go through the profound arithmetical calculation of dividing $24,014,908 by $4.60, and if they do, they will find by the quotient that the estimated population of Canada, according to the customs returns and the Statistical Year-book, amounted to 5,220,632. Sir, I leave the House to say who has falsified the statements in the Year-book.

Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).

Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I did not hear the first part of the remarks of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, and furthermore that I am compelled to leave the city on the first outgoing train, and therefore have not time just now to reply adequately to what the hon. minister says. I regret that I am called away by circumstances over which I have no control, the death of a near relative, to go out of the city immediately; but on my return I will deal with this matter, and I trust that the question may be settled satisfactorily to the House and the country.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that I stated to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce that I quoted from the Year-book of 1889. It does not appear from what the hon. gentleman himself says that he has any fault to find with the Year-book of last year or that of the previous year, which were the Yearbooks I referred to. The statistics of these

Year-books are set out in the returns which have been laid on the Table of the House by members of the government in the past two years, and they were the very statistics to which X had reference. X therefore insist that the figures which I quoted and on which I relied, are figures furnished by this government to the country and paid for by this government out of the country's money, and figures which any member desiring to address the House has a perfectly legitimate right to rely upon. If I had told the hon. gentleman that I was quoting from the Year-book of 1889, the observations which he has made might have some relevance; but as he knows that that was not the Year-book to which I referred

I had nothing to say to the hon. gentleman. I referred to his friend from Fictou.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

But the hon. gentleman did iu the course of his speech refer to my having relied on figures on which he said I should not rely at all. He turned with a great wave of his arm to his followers, and said ' I thought so,' because I used figures which he and his colleagues printed and paid for out of the public moneys of this country, and because I placed some slight reliance upon them. Perhaps 1 should not have done so, considering the record of hon. gentlemen opposite in the past. Possibly I should apologize to the House and the country for having placed the slightest reliance on any figures which these hon. gentlemen furnish to the House and the country. But in my simplicity and ignorance as a young man in public life, I thought that when the hon. gentleman and his colleagues placed these figures before the House, we might place some reliance upon them. The hon. gentleman with great force and eloquence has pointed out that I had no possible right or reason to do so, and I accept his word with regard to that. If there is any consolation in all this to my hon. friend for having administered the reproof which he did to myself and the hon. member for Pictou, I am sure that as far as our side of the House is concerned, he is entirely and perfectly welcome to it.

I beg to state to the hon. gentleman that his friend from Pictou deliberately charged me with falsifying the record. That is what I called attention to, and, if he possessed any sense of honour, he would withdraw the charge.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I draw attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman is falsifying the record which his own colleagues presented to the country.

I am not. [DOT]

56}

Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I was alluding to the resolution which the hon. leader of the opposition has placed in your hands, in which he professes to outline the policy of the Conservative party on the question of the tariff. I said that as far as I was concerned, I might be very dense, but I would like a little more information from the hon. gentleman as to what he meant by adequate protection to the industries of this country. I pointed out that adequate protection might mean almost anything- that while the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), who represents the woollen industries in this House, might consider 50 per cent adequate protection to the woollen industry, the farmers who sit on, the opposition side of the House might think 15 per cent adequate protection. The people in the North-west are as much if not more interested in the tariff question than the people of any other section of this country, and what we would like is a definite statement from the leader of the opposition as to what he would do if his party got into power. We would like to know whether he would repeal the preferential tariff. That is one thing we in the west are interested in. It has enabled us to get woollen goods at a much lower price than before on account of the 33} per cent preference, which has been a great relief so far. I would like to know also from the hon. leader of the opposition whether he proposes to increase the duty on agricultural implements, on which this government materially reduced the duty. We would be glad to know what the hon. gentleman would do in regard to these and a number of other prime necessaries of life ? The hon. gentleman's followers would then be in a position to go round and tell the people exactly what the hon. gentleman's resolution meant. The hon. gentleman has pointed out that if the duty were increased on certain commodities, the result world be to build up certain manufacturing industries, which would be a benefit to the agriculturists in the older provinces, inasmuch as they would provide a home market for their products. But we in the west have to export everything we produce beyond what we consume ourselves, and find a market for it outside of the shores of this Dominion. We have to send our wheat, our butter, our cattle, and everything else to the English market; whereas we have to pay a duty on everything we consume, whether under a

protective tariff or under a revenue tariff. We have a revenue tariff to-day, and we do not complain of that, because we know that we have obligations to the nation and we have to bear our share of the taxation. We are willing to do that, and do it cheerfully; but we think the line should be drawn somewhere. When the present tariff was brought down in 1897, a great many of our people in the west were a little dissatisfied, because they thought it should have gone a little further in the direction bf tariff reform; but when the matter was pointed out to them, and they realized the advantage they got from the preference, our people were satisfied with the tariff as a revenue tariff. But we are told that there are rumours in the air that there is likely to be an increase in the tariff in the near future. I have heard nothing that would lead me to believe that there will be anything of the kind. My hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver), in addressing the House a few nights ago, read from the speech of the Minister of Finance a passage which led him to believe that the government did intend in the near future to increase the duties on certain commodities. Here is what the Finance Minister said, and I do not see anything in it to cause any alarm lest he should raise the tariff :

We do not propose to make any changes in the tariff this session. I do not for a moment claim that the tariff is perfect. I think, that, on the whole, it has proved a very good tariff. Indeed, when we recall the circumstances, under which our tariff revision took place, when we remember the very complicated and difficult problem with which we had to deal,'.ve may well congratulate ourselves upon our t uecess in devising a tariff so well adapted to the requirements of the country, a tariff under which Canada has prospered in a greater degree thau in any period in her history. I have occasionally pointed out the desirability of a reasonable measure of tariff stability. Nothing would be more likely to unsettle business than a practice of 'ntroducing frequent tariff changes. Hence, we have resisted applications for many small changes and we think it well to do so to-day. But I would not have it understood that this view can always he held.

I suppose that last phrase is what agitated my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) : 'I would not have it understood that this view can always be held.' Then the Finance Minister proceeded to say :

As time passes, conditions change in our own country and it will be well for us to take note of this, so that we may adjust the tariff accordingly. Nor is that the only reason that might require some change. Conditions arise in other countries of which we are obliged to take account. We do not propose that we shall stand still and that this tariff shill remain unchanged, but we think the time is not opportune for making changes at present.

That is all the Finance Minister said with regard to the revision of the tariff. And there are no doubt many things in the tariff that could be improved. For instance, some of our manufacturers are

Mr. DAVIS.

paying thirty-five per cent on their raw material while they are only getting twenty-five per cent protection on their manufactured products. Such a case is a very fit subject for revision. Take again the article of oatmeal. The raw material is taxed more than the manufactured product. This year, owing to Providence having given us a great harvest, our people do not require to buy any oats, but sometimes we have to buy them from the United States, and under our tariff our millers are practically prevented from making the manufactured article. A revision is therefore necessary in the item of oats. A revision of the tariff might be made, which would not increase the amount of taxation on the people in any part of the country. Take the article of coal oil. We are paying at present something like five cents a gallon on all the coal oil consumed in this country. As this subject has already been warmly discussed, I do not propose to go into it at any great length now, but when we consider that in order to benefit some 10,000 people, who are directly and indirectly living out of the coal oil industry, the balance of the population of this country, or 5,300,000 people, is taxed at the rate of five cents a gallon, it is evident that there is need here for revision. It is evident that the knife might be applied to this item, and that the taxation taken off coal oil might be added to some other article in order to protect some other industry, requiring more assistance. So long as you do not increase the general amount of taxation which the people have to pay, there is no objection to you re-adjusting the tariff. We do not care if you take the duty off some commodity which our agriculturists and labourers have to use, and add it on to those consumed by the wealthy. If, for instance, you leave the duty as it is on the coarser grades of woollen manufactures made in this country, which are the only ones that our people can manufacture at a profit, and raise the duties on the finer qualities worn by the rich, there would be no objection on the part of the west. But we do not want the duties raised on the ordinary classes of goods we have to use. We are paying our share of taxation and strongly object to paying anything more.

I listened a few nights ago to the speech made by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He made two speeches in this House, as he found one was not sufficient to explain why he had gone back on the faith of his fathers and the faith he had professed during the last fifteen years. I remember in days gone by, before I was in active politics, I used to read the speeches of my hon. friend with pleasure. I used to lie in bed reading them ; I was so proud of them I used to repeat his stories too, they were such good stories. When he was discussing the balance of trade the other night and trying to convince the House that it would be a good thing to cut off our nose

to spite our face-or, in other words, because the Americans have a high tariff we should raise our tariff against them in order to get even-I was reminded of a story which he used formerly to tell illustrating that very point. He told us about a farmer, in the old days, when we were selling barley to the United States, who started out with a carload of barley for the American market. At the boundary line he met a gentleman with a lot of gold braid around his hat who asked him where he was going. I am going, replied the farmer, across the line with a carload of barley. You cannot cross with that barley, said the officer, before you give one third of your load as duty. The Canadian farmer protested, but in vain, he had to hand over the one-third and was not very well pleased- He crossed the line and* sold the balance which remained to him in the American market, and with the proceeds he bought some nice American buggies with which he started home. When he came to the line again, he was very pleased to see his own native soil, and the first man he met was a Canadian customs officer, with the badge of office around his hat. The Canadian told this customs officer what awful robbers the Yankees were, how they had mulcted him of one third of his load, and the Canadian officer gave him every sympathy. He said : Yes, that is perfectly

ture, these Yankees are villains, but we will get even with them. I will take half your buggies from you, and in that way we will get square. That is the story which our hon. friend from North Norfolk used to tell with great gusto, but he has lately seen new light. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not at all interested in the balance of trade as the hon. gentleman puts it. To my mind when people have something to sell, they should sell it in the best market they can find, and when they have something to buy they should buy it where they can get it the cheapest. If they can sell their grain in England at a better price than in Germany, they should do so ; and if they can buy in the United States cheaper than somewhere else, they should give the American market the preference. Surely the hon. member for North Norfolk will not maintain that when we have to get certain raw material from the United States, we ought to impose a duty on that raw material coming into this country, and for the reason forsooth that the Americans charge a high tariff on other commodities which they require from us.

Now, if the hon. gentleman should go before a British audience and discuss this balance of trade question in this way, what would he find ? He would find that the people there would not listen to a doctrine of that kind ; for every person knows that the people of England have to buy raw material from the United States, and, to put on a duty with the idea of getting even with the people of the United States would be

merely to work against their own interest. I was going to say that, though we from the west do not take up a great deal of time in discussing questions in this House, yet I notice that whatever question is discussed, nearly every gentleman who rises to take part in the debate speaks of the great west and of the great future of the west. The west has a great future. When you consider that we have there only four hundred thousand people all told, including the people in the cities and towns and people in every line in business, and that these four hundred thousand people have produced in one year one hundred million bushels of grain and a vast amount of wealth in the shape of cattle, dairy produce and so on, making a total of over $60,000,000, I think, hon. members of this House will agree that we have become a factor in the affairs of this country, and one that must be considered whatever question may be taken up. And, when it comes to the question of taxation, the voice of the west will have to be heard. As I have said, we do not expect anything unreasonable ; we expect to pay our portion of the taxation necessary to meet expenses of the country. We are practically satisfied with the tariff as it is now. But, if it comes to anything like an increase, I am afraid there is apt to he some grumbling in the country west of Lake Superior. I think I could show by figures, if time would permit, that the tariff is a reasonable one and one under which our industries may prosper. But, when the manufacturers, the woollen men, or the leather men, or the machine men, come asking for an increase of duties, they must remember that the people do not feel called upon to submit to taxation for their benefit. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), the other night closed his remarks with a great flourish about wanting a policy of Canada for the Canadians, i agree with the hon. gentleman. The only difference between the leader of the opposition and myself is that he wants a policy for the minority of Canadians, and I want a policy for the majority of Canadians.

This tariff was accepted by the people of the west as a revenue tariff. Hon. gentlemen opposite have changed their position on this tariff question so often, that it is pretty hard to put your finger on them. When the tariff was first brought down they raised a howl and declared that we were going to ruin all the industries of the country. Though we then gave a preference of only 121 per cent to Great Britain, they predicted that the country would go to the dogs under the new tariff. But when, after a year, they found the country prosperous to a degree it had never attained before, when they found that the mills, instead of being closed were running day and night, and the working people, instead of being out of employment, were earning 20 per cent more wages than when the Conservative govern-

ment were in power, they changed their ground and said : Oh, this is the national

policy ; you have only continued the old tariff ; you have done nothing to help the country, but have simply continued our policy. I have already pointed out that Mr. Foster, the Finance Minister of the late government, and the man who, while he sat in this House, spoke for the Conservative party on fiscal matters, tried to prove, not only in this House but through the press that we had only reduced the tariff by the one sixteen-hundredth part of one per cent, and that the preference was a sham because we had first increased the tariff and then taken off a slice-in fact he tried to show that it was the same national policy. But when they found in the election of 1900, that the country took no stock in their cry of stolen clothes, we find them changing their position again, and now the leader of the opposition comes down with a policy of adequate protection to the labour, agriculture products, manufactures and industries of this country. I have already shown that a resolution like that means anything or nothing, as you choose to take it.

As showing how the country has prospered, I think it would be easy to point out in what way practical relief has been given to the people-speaking particularly for the people of the west-under this tariff, thereby causing a prosperity such as has never been known in this country before. This tariff, brought down in 1897, and in operation ever since, has been the means of reducing the taxation upon the people to the extent of 810,000,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about the expenditure, and say that we are spending an awful lot of money. So we are spending an awful lot of money. But if we did not get the money in we could not spend it. In order to make a fair and reasonable comparison between this government and the late government on this point, you must consider not merely the expenditure, but also the revenue in the two regimes. Under this tariff, as I have said, over $10,000,000 have been saved to the people within the last five years. That means that this government, by taking the shackles off trade and allowing goods to come into the country more freely than before, have not merely reduced the taxation of the people by $10,000,000 but have been the means of placing over $50,000,000 a year in the treasury, as against $36,000,000 which was the amount when the hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. If you take the importations of last year, you find that a saving of nearly $4,000,000 was made by the people as compared with what they would have paid under the old tariff. Exclusive of coin and bullion and of Indian corn, which was simply imported and exported, the duty on the total importations last year made an average rate of 16 90 per cent, as against a rate in 1896, which

Mr. DAVIS.

gentlemen opposite have time and again challenged the government to show what they have done to improve Canada's exports, what they have done to bring about this measure of prosperity that we enjoy to day. I say they have done a great deal to bring about this measure of prosperity for the very reason that they have adopted up-to-date methods in running the affairs of this country. They have done as any business man would do in his business, they have made our capabilities known, they have advertised our wares, they have advertised our produce in the English market and other markets, and in that way they have been able to find new markets and to enlarge the old ones for the producers of this country. That is one of the reasons why our export trade has swollen to its present enormous proportions. Let me show you how our exports have grown :

Exports-Canadian Produce to Great Britain.

1897 $69,533,852

1898 93,065,019

1899 85,114,555

1900 96,562,875

1901 92,857,525

In 1897 the exports of animals and then-produce and agricultural products the produce of Canada, were .$47,000,000. In 1901 they amounted to $66,000,000. Canadian butter to the amount of 10,413,131 pounds was sent to Great Britain in 1897, whereas in 1901 we sent 15.602.445 pounds. For the year 1900 we sent 24,317,436 pounds. Cheese in 1897, 163,942,649 pounds, in 1901, 195,125.317 pounds. Eggs in 1897, 6,939.496 dozen, in 1901, 11.273.452 dozen. Bacon in 1897, 59,552,464 pounds, in 1901, 102.709.560 pounds. Beef in 1897, 363,53$ pounds, in 1901, 8,819,213 pounds.

Now as regards foreign trade, I present a summary statement showing the progress and prosperity of the country under Liberal rule indicating the wisdom of the Liberal fiscal policy.

Statement showing the foreign trade of Canada by five-year periods that is to say, the five years from 1897 to 1901, inclusive, being the last five years of the Conservative administration :

Aggregate foreign trade, 1897-01. .$1,651,726,204 Aggregate foreign trade, 1892-96.. 1,193,453,797

Increase In 5 yrs., Liberal rule.$ 458,272,407

Imports for consumption, 1897-01_______$758,085,924

Imports for consumption, 1892-96_______ 567,617,947

Increase in 5 yrs.. Liberal rule...$190,467,977 Exports produce of Canada, 1897-01. .$756,090,015 Exports produce of Canada, 1892-96.. 522,299,289

Increase in 5 yrs., Liberal rule. .$233,790,726 Exports produce of Canada to Great

Britain, 1897-01 $437,133,826

Exports produce of Canada to Great

Britain, 1892-96 294,859,222

Exports produce of Canada to United

States, 1897-01 $252,103,818

Exports produce of Canada to United States, 1892-96 179,306,963

Increase in 5 yrs., Liberal rule..$ 72,796,855 Exports Canadian mine to all countries, 1897-01 $104,078,270

Exports Canadian mine to all countries, 1892-96 32,080,247

Increase under Liberal rule.. ..$ 71,998,023

Exports Canadian fisheries to all

countries, 1897-01 $ 52,955,091

Exports Canadian fisheries to all countries, 1892-96 51,291,152

Increase in 5 yrs., Liberal rule.'.$ 1,663,929 Exports Canadian forests to all

countries, 1897-01 $145,465,322

Exports Canadian forests to all

countries, 1892-96 126,063,954

Increase in 5 yrs., Liberal rule..$ 19,401,368 Exports Canadian animals and their produce, and agricultural products,

the produce of Canada, 1897-01______$368,230,911

Exports Canadian animals and their

produce, and agricultural products,

the produce of Canada, 1892-96.... 254,751,545

Increase in 5 yrs., Liberal rule. .$113,479,266 Exports Canadian manufactures, 1897.1901 $ 62,143,520

Exports Canadian manufactures, 1892 1896 39,561,961

Increase in 5 yrs., Liberal rule..$ 22,561,371 Statement showing the increase in foreign

trade from 1896 to 1901 under Liberal rule,

as compared with the increase from 1878 to

1896 under Conservative rule :-

Aggregate foreign trade, 1896 $239,025,360Aggregate foreign trade, 1901

386,903,157

Increase under Liberal rule, 5 yrs.$147,877,797

Average increase per annum.. ..$ 29,575,559

Aggregate foreign trade, 1896 $239,025,360Aggregate foreign trade, 1878

172,405,454

Increase under Conservative rule,

18 years $ 66,619,906Average increase per annum.. ..$ 3,701,106

Imports for consumption, 1896 .. ..$110,587,480 Imports for consumption, 1891 .. .. 181,237,988

Increase under Liberal rule,5 yrs.$ 70,650,503

Average increase per annum.. ..$ 14,130,101 Imports for consumption, 1896 .. ..$110,587,480 Imports for consumption, 1878 .. .. 91,199,577

Increase under Conservatives, 18 years $ 19,387,903Average increase per annum.. ..$ 1,077,106

Exports produce of Canada, 1896.. ..$109,915,337 Exports produce of Canada, 1901.. .. 177,431,386

Increase under Liberal rule, 5 yrs.$ 67,516,049

Increase in 5 yrs., Liberal rule $142,274,604 Mr. DAVIS.

Average increase per annum.. ..$ 13,503,209

m

Exports produce of Canada, 1896.. ..$109,915,337 Exports produce of Canada, 1878.. .. 67,989,800

Increase under Conservatives, 18 years $ 41,925,537

Average increase per annum.. ..$ 2,329,197

I think that all goes to show that this country has been progressing fairly under the rule of my hon. friends who now occupy the treasury benches, and I think, that, while it may be that hon. gentlemen opposite are not satisfied with the government of the day, it has been shown that whenever an opportunity has been given the electorate to pronounce upon the policy of the government, they have intimated that they are entirely satisfied with the manner in which the affairs of the country are being conducted at the present time. There is no doubt that there are hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who are not satisfied. They are in the cold shades of opposition and they cannot be expected to enthuse over the immense trade of this country as they might have done if their leaders in the past had adopted the astute methods of the present administration and had thereby brought about a similar condition of prosperity, because, by reason of advertising our goods in foreign markets and adopting a proper trade policy the government has, in large measure, brought about this state of prosperity. 1 do not say that the government of the day causes the rain to fall or the sun to shine. No government can do that, although hon. gentlemen opposite used to make the claim in the days of the old national policy that the Conservative party made the hens lay big eggs. This may be ancient history, but in the hays of poor old Alex. Mackenzie, when the times were hard and there was a great depression in the United States and all over the world, these hon. gentlemen did not make any allowance for this condition of affairs, but they told the people that through Mr. Mackenzie's bungling and stupidity this state of affairs had been brought about and they, said if you pat us in we have a panacea for all the ills that man is heir to in the national policy. We do not claim, as I have said before, that the government can make the rain to fall or the sun to shine, thus causing the crops to grow, but the government can do a great deal by assisting to open up the country, by improving the transportation facilities, by giving the people lower freight rates and in various other ways, and a great deal has been done in these directions by the present government.

A good deal has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite with reference to the expenditure of the country. I do not want to take up the time of the House in discussing this question which has been threshed out very thoroughly already, but, I may say that we are quite willing to compare the record of this government with

the record of its predecessor in the matter of expenditure. How do we make that comparison ? The only proper way to get at that is to find the difference between the expenditure and the revenue. The receipts of this country have increased from $38,000,000, in round numbers, in 1895, to over $52,000,000, which we expect to get during the present year. Hon. gentlemen opposite say : Yes, that is very true, but you are taxing the people more. The census has shown that the increase of population does not warrant that increase in expenditure.

I have already shown that we are taxing the people less than hon. gentlemen opposite did because we have taken $10,000,000 out of the people less than would have been taken if the old tariff had been in operation. But, neither this government nor any other government ever taxes the people. The government never goes to each man's door and collects the taxes from him. The very fact that the revenue was increased from $38,000,000 to $52,000,000 is the strongest possible proof of the value to the country of the policy of the present government. It goes to show that the government has brought prosperity to the country and for that reason money is flowing into the public treasury. But, if the government were to raise the rate of duty 5 per cent, instead of the money going into the treasury to be spent in the interests of the people in proper public improvements, it would divert it into the pockets of a few manufacturers for the benefit of a few individuals. The policy at present in operation has brought about the present satisfactory state of affairs. Why are we getting this $52,000,000 V We do not send tax collectors round to the people's doors to collect the taxes. We are getting this revenue because the people are taxing themselves, because the people are able to tax themselves, because, under the policy of this government, the people have been able to buy luxuries for their families that they were not able to buy under the national policy, because, they are able to dress their families as they never dressed them before, because they are able to buy articles that under the national policy they never were able to buy. If a man is now able to buy two binders, where before under the national policy, he had to cut his crop with a cradle or a scythe and these binders are imported he pays more taxes. If he buys two ploughs with which to cultivate his land, if these ploughs are imported he pays more taxes. If he buys two dresses for his wife, where he had hard work to buy one when the Conservatives were in power and if the goods out of which these di-esses are made are imported he is paying more taxes. If hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House were able to show that the money has not been properly expended, then, * it would be a fair proposition, but, the proper time, as has been pointed out here before, to do that is when the esti-

the Tay canal, the St. Charles Branch, the, Langevin block and the Curran bridge; but I need not go over all these cases, because the House knows all about them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have takeu up enough of the time of this House. I have spoken at greater length than I intended. In conclusion, I want to refer to what .1 consider the proper policy for this country to pursue. Instead of manufacturers coming down here and asking the government for more protection, we should turn our attention to the opening up and developing of the vast heritage which we possess beyond the great lakes, and I am glad to see the government doing this to a large extent. In that way we would be furnishing a market for our manufacturers at our own doors. At the present time people in the west are consumers of the greater part of the things which are made in eastern Canada. Your travellers and agents are going all over that country buzzing like flies around a honey pot. They find that $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 of cold cash which our people get for their produce is worth looking after. Therefore, I say that the judicious expenditure of more money on immigration and on improving the transportation facilities to open up that country, is the proper policy to adopt. If the gentlemen who are hunting for a little more protection would work as hard to make a success of their business as the farmers have to do, they would not be coming down here harassing the government for more protection. The farmers have to work day and night to make their farms pay. They do not come down to Ottawa harassing the government for more protection ; but these gentlemen, if their machinery gets a little antiquated, or if they get a little old themselves, do not buy new machinery, but come for more protection. I remember a little story, of a gentleman who came down here on a delegation that wanted more protection for woollen goods. A gentleman said to him:

4 You get 23 per cent protection against English goods, and you have besides the freight between Great Britain and Canada, which is equivalent to 3 or 4 per cent more; why are you not satisfied ? ' He said : 'We cannot compete with the manufacturers in the old country.' ' Why ? '

' Because our machinery is not as good.' He was asked : ' W'hy not put in new

machinery ? ' He said : ' I am too old.'

It was easier to come down here and ask for more protection than to put in new machinery. The true policy in the interest of this country is to open up and develop our North-west Territories, and in that way provide an enlarged market for our manufacturers. We are getting producers into that country at the rate of 50,000 a year.

I am quite satisfied that this year we" will get 75,000 if not 100,000 people in there, and these people are bringing in large

Mr. DAVIS.

amounts of money. They are not poor people who are coming from the United States, but are well-to-do people. If we spend $500,000 to bring in 75,000 people, and they bring into the country $10,000,000 of money and goods, they are increasing the wealth of this country to that extent. If we spent $1,000,000 on immigration, and brought in 150,000 people, and they brought in with them $20,000,000, that would be a good policy for this country.

Hon. gentlemen on the other side say that we are not getting in the proper class of immigrants. Well, I am in a position to know more than do these hon. gentlemen who talk so flippantly. I have personal knowledge of the fact that we are bringing in the proper class of immigrants. These immigrants are producing millions of bushels of wheat. Why, there is a little town in my riding, which five years ago was a wilderness, and in that town there are five large elevators this year, and the export of wheat from it was something like a million bushels. That is the kind of people which my hon. friends opposite are so fond of abusiug- poukhobors, Galicians, Germans and other foreigners. What we want is men willing to take off their coats and go to work. We do not want gentlemen with eye glasses. They may be very desirable in the clubs, but in our country we want men who will tear up the prairie and produce wealth, who will take off their coats and apply their muscles to the plough. And that is the class of men we are getting, and the money spent on immigration is tlie best expenditure that we are making in the interests of the country, and if we were to increase that expenditure, we would be adopting a wise policy.

Then take our transportation facilities, we must have some other method of getting our stuff out of the country. The other day I was taken to task by the Minister of Public Works because I said that the canal system had outlived its usefulness. Well, that system may be all right to relieve the congestion of traffic, but it is not to be compared with railways. We are told that our canals are valuable because were it not for them, our railway rates would be much higher. We are told that the railway rates are regulated by the rates on the canals. It is a sad admission that we should have spent some $90,000,000 on canals for the purpose of regulating our railway rates. It seems to me that we ought to have devised some system of regulating these rates without having had to spend $100,000,000 for that purpose. What we want is a continuous line of railway which can be operated twelve months in the year and double tracked if necessary. East year four hundred thousand people in the west produced 100,000,000 bushels of grain. We are going to get people in there at the rate of 100,000 per year, and in eight or ten years the production in that country will be increased to 400,000,000 or 500,000,000 bushels, which will have to he carried

to the seaboard, and that cannot be done over our canals when they are frozen up six months in the year. What we want is to be able to put our wheat on the car and run it through to the seaboard. There has been too much money spent trying to compete against nature. We have been spending millions of dollars in Montreal trying to create an artificial port-trying to make an ocean port out of something that was never intended to be so by nature. If half- that money had been spent on the port of Quebec in providing proper facilities there, where we have a port that can float the largest ship that will be built in the next twenty years, and if we had a railway running from the centre of the territories right into that port, from which our produce could be shipped twelve months in the year, you would not hear anything about the car shortage that we hear so much about at present.

Then we have to take into account the depreciation in the value of wheat and the charges for interest and insurance, when it has to be stored over during the winter, which must amount to at least 6 cents a bushel. There is also this further point to be considered. If we have to depend wholly on our canals, we will have to store an immense quantity of wheat in the elevators at the head of Take Superior, and when navigation opens in the spring and we throw that on the markets of the world, down goes the price, so that the farmers will be out, not only the loss in storage and insurance, but also the depreciation in value on account of such an immense quantity being thrown on the market.

What we want is a continuous line of railway from the west to some ocean port, and Quebec is the proper place. This would enable us to send our commodities to a port which could be kept open twelve months in the year, and in this way we would stimulate the production of grain and other products in the North-west, and thus not only increase the trade of that part of the country but the trade and wealth of the whole Dominion. This government has still a large domain of public lands at its disposal, notwithstanding the 70,000,000 acres which our lion, friends opposite gave away to railways. Notwithstanding their extravagance in this respect, we have still left millions of acres of fertile land, the property of the people of this country, and by providing proper transportation facilities, by opening up and developing the country, by getting immigrants in there, we will increase the value of our own public domain to sucli an extent that we will have sufficient in ten years to pay the whole public debt of the country. That is if we keep these lands ourselves and do not give them away to railway corporations. What we want is to get settlers into that country, and if we are not spending enough money at present on immigration, we should spend more. If five and a half million people in round figures are paying

now $52,000,000 or $53,000,000 into the public treasury, and 5,000,000 more west of the lakes, and you will double the revenue and thus furnish the means to pay the interest on any amount of money to be spent in developing this country.

I wish to say a word or two on railway subsidies. I have heard lion, gentlemen opposite condemn the system of railway subsidies and advocate government ownership of railways. That policy of government ownership is a new fad put before the people of the west, but I submit that we need only turn our attention to the government railway which we are now operating to show that such a policy is not practicable. If the railways of a country could be run by the government outside of politics, no doubt that would be a good thing, but with our present experience of an expenditure of over $50,000,000 on the Intercolonial Railway, without ever getting back a cent of interest besides being obliged to operate the road at a loss, I do not think it would be wise on our part to extend that experience. Even if it were shown that the people along the line of that railway are getting the benefit in the shape of cheaper rates, that would be some compensation, but that is not shown. It is not proved that our government railway is carrying freights or passengers at cheaper rates than other lines. And yet still the country has to face a heavy deficit in the operating of that line besides not getting any interest on the capital investment. These lion, gentlemen who advocate government ownership point to Australia. Well, I do not know much about Australia, having never been there, but I find that the per capita expenditure of that country is $3.8 per head as against $10 in Canada. How comes it that these people have to pay $38 per head.

Hon Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).

Because they own the railways.

Mr. DAVIS.

Then we do not want to own any railways, if such ownership is going to entail a rate of taxation amounting to $38 per head. But there is such a thing as regulating the railways without government ownership. I do not think that it is advisable for a government to run railways, but it is high time that the government had control over them and forced them to treat the people as they should. In every state of the American union there is a railway commission which controls the railways, and there is besides the Interstate Commission which settles all disputes between the states. But on this side of the line, although our exports are greater per head than on the other side, we are still without any means of controlling our railways, and I hope the government will take action for the appointment of a railway commission. We are told that the Railway Committee of the Privy Council attends to this matter. No doubt, Mr. COMMONS

Speaker, that has been a very-efficient body during the last five years.

Take for instance the railway rates on coal oil. In that case the committee did their duty to the people. I know that in other cases they have proven themselves to be an efficient court. But this country is growing, new transportation companies are being started, we are going ahead by leaps and bounds ; and the time has come when we must have somebody, as they have in England and in other countries, to regulate the traffic on the railroads of this country. I pointed out in this House last session, that, west of Lake Superior we were paying double what they were paying in the east as a local rate. We do not expect, in a country like that where there is little local traffic, to get a rate as cheap as in this part of the country. But we do expect fair treatment, and I believe that we cannot get that fair treatment until we get that railway commission. There are a hundred and one things for that commission to deal with. The cattle-guards question for instance, should be under their control. Such a commission should take means to find out the kinds of cattle-guards in use in the United States and other parts of the world, learn which is the best form of cattle-guard and make a recommendation to the government accordingly. This done, the government would be in a position to legislate intelligently upon this important question. Then there is the question of shortage of cars. There is an evil which we have felt very keenly in the west this year. For, after all, the. grain bill has nothing to do with it. I do not blame the railroads for the shortage of cars altogether. We raised two crops in one year in that country, and it was not to be expected that any railroad could take that out of the country in a month or two. But what I do complain of is that the railroads discriminate against the farmer and small dealers in favour of the elevator man and the man who was in a position to ship large quantities of grain. But the railroad people say that they did this in the interest of the country, because cars in the hands of big shippers were loaded more quickly and so there was less delay and, on the whole, more grain was shipped out than could have been shipped out if the cars had been given to the farmer. It may be that there is something in that argument. But I have known cases where the railroad has refused point blank to give a man a car. These things need to be inquired into and regulated. And the sooner the government take steps to appoint a commission to control the transportation companies, the better it will be for all concerned. Another thing that the commission should do is to see to it that a uniform system of book-keeping is adopted by the transportation companies, so that the public may know exactly how much capital these companies have invested in their enterprises. Nobody wants capitalists to put Mr. DAVIS.

,

money into railroads without getting a fair return. But we want to know how much they have put in, so that we may know what is a fair return. They may say that they have, for instance, $65,000,000 worth of stock, but we may know that that is half water, and still they are paying five per cent on the whole, and, in order to do that, charging rates which, we contend are too high. The commission should be empowered to examine the books of every transportation company, to ascertain how much money has been invested, and allow them to charge such rates as will give a fair return.

Mr. Speaker, I have taken up more time than I intended to. I hope and believe that, in the season now opening, we are to have a great influx of population into the western part of this country. I hope that, in dealing with all the questions I have spoken about, the government of the day will recognize the fact that we are ' getting a big boy now ' in the west, and that, when it comes to questions of taxation and other things of that kind, our interests must be consulted. When delegations of manufacturers come for increased duty, or delegations of promoters come for subsidies for Georgian Bay canals and other works, the government must take into consideration that their friends, and not their friends only but the people, the great producing people of the west, are interested in these questions and that the position and interests of those people must have consideration at the hands of the government of this country.