PRfNGLE (Cornwall and Stormont). Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate. What has surprised me has been the variety of opinions expressed by hon. gentlemen on the government side of the House. The hon. gentleman who spoke last night, the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes), opened his remarks by referring to the inconsistencies that the opposition were led up to. I think it ill-becomes any hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the House to refer to inconsistencies. Their whole record has been a record of inconsistencies. I am not going pver all those old and pretty well threshed out subjects now-commercial union, unrestricted reciprocity, continental free trade, free trade as they have it in Great Britain, and all the other fads and policies which these hon. gentlemen advocated for a period of eighteen years. I say that in so far as this side of the House is concerned there has been no inconsistency. We have been twitted with having the old policy, of some twenty-five years ago. We are proud to stand by the policy which was advocated twenty-five years ago, and we believe it is the policy which is in the best interests of the Dominion of Canada. The hon. member for West Huron spoke in regard to the woollen industry, following the 63i

hon. member for North Lanark (Mr. Rosamond). He stated in regard to that industry that if those engaged in it were not satisfied with a duty of 23 per cent, they should get out of business. He is only reiterating the statements made by members of the government. I say that is not a fair statement, it was not a proper statement, and it is all the more reason why we, on this side of the House, should ask for a declared policy and that the manufacturers should know just what their position is in regard to the tariff. The hon. gentleman went on to say in regard to that industry that he had not as yet had any evidence of the woollen industry being in an unsatisfactory condition. He said that in so far as he could ascertain, the woollen industry was thriving, and that every mill in this country was running on full time. I would like to take him to the town of Cornwall, in the electoral district which I have the honour to represent. I can show him a mill in which there are some $200,000 invested and which is one of the best equipped mills in Canada, but, which, to-day, has closed its doors necessitating the discharge of 170 operators. In regard to these operators, about fifty of them are the heads of families. Each of these families will average about five persons. The closing down of that mill simply means taking the bread out of the months of 350 people in the town of Cornwall. It cannot be said that the people behind this mill had not sufficient capital to run it, and make the running of it profitable. The mill is owned, as you know, by Lord Mount Stephen, a very wealthy man who as quite able to operate the mill, if, under existing conditions, there was any object in operating it. Now, I say that the hon. member for West Huron, before he makes a statement of that sort, should inquire and see just what the condition of the woollen industry is in this country. The hon. member for North Lanark has given some very valuable figures in regard to the increased importation of woollens between 1897 and 1901, and it is quite apparent that it has almost doubled within that period, to the injury of the woollen industry of this country. The hon. member for West Huron also stated that it was in the interests of this country that there should be a reduction in the tariff in regard to other lines of articles which are consumed by the people. He is one of the hon. gentlemen who are evidently in favour of a tariff for revenue, or free trade. He has referred to the policy of the Conservative party, and he says that that policy was an anti-British policy. I will just refer him to the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) some time ago when he clearly stated that if the policy which he advocated of unrestricted reciprocity discriminated against Great Britain,

he was quite satisfied that it should do so. The hon. gentleman has said :

I believe this country would have been better oft if we never had a national policy.

I shall not go back to the dark days between 1873 and 1878, when owing to the Mackenzie government not meeting the conditions as they arose, Canada was in a most depressed state. We all know that the Conservative tariff, inaugurated in 1879, was really the first Canadian tariff that gave thorough protection to our home industries. We know that the results of that tariff were most satisfactory. Two years after the adoption of protection there was collected $2,900,000 more than was necessary for the expenditure of the country, while prior to that time, year in and year out, there were deficits. The official statistics tell us that within two years after the adoption of protection in 1879, there was an increase of over $20,000,000 in the value of bank stocks; the Canadian labourer got better wages; the Canadian manufacturer made larger profits; the Canadian merchant increased his business, and the Canadian farmer obtained a higher price for his products. It is needless to dwell further on the prosperity which Canada enjoyed as a result of the adoption of the national policy. Any one who looks at the statistics will see the progress which Canada made during the years immediately succeeding 1879.

We have had a good many speeches from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, and we have had a good many different theories advanced by them as to our fiscal policy. The hon. gentleman from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton); the hon. gentleman from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and other supporters of the government, made strong protectionist speeches, while the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) came out as a straight free trader. At all events the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) is consistent, and he holds to his theory of free trade no matter what policy the government he supports may place before the country. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) told us that the conditions in Canada are very similar to the conditions which exist in the United States. I agree with that statement to the extent that our natural resources are similar to the resources possessed by the United States. But, the hon. gentleman said further on in his speech :

The proposition that you can protect the labouring man is the greatest absurdity that was ever spoken.

I do not agree with that statement. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) turns to the statistics, he will find that in every protectionist country the rate of wages has increased, while in the free trade countries the rate of wages has diminished. That would indicate that you can protect the labouring man. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) also said : ,

Mr. PRINGLE.

In my estimation protection is neither more nor less than legalized robbery.

That is the old old story. For years and years the Liberals made that declaration when they were out of power. But if protection is legalized robbery, why did not the party which the member for Russell supports abolish protection when they got into power ? Why did not they institute free trade instead of adopting to a large extent the national policy, which was inaugurated by the Conservative party ? Perhaps the hon. member for Russell can settle that with his political leaders. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) further said :

In the United Stares every producer of the natural resources of that country is a slave.

With that statement of the hon. gentleman I cannot agree. The producers of the United States would, no doubt, be themselves astonished to hear that. Further, the hon. member said :

I believe our duty is to legislate for the Canadian people without any regard to what the American people or any other people do.

In that statement I absolutely concur, and I say that in the interest of the Canadian people we should have a declared and settled policy of adequate protection in this country. The hon. member for Russell has spoken of the history of the United States, and he told us that the industrial history of that country had not been a record of success. Well, we in Canada are much interested in the history of the United States, and if time permitted I could carry this House back to all the protectionist measures that were adopted by the neighbouring republic. To begin with, I would have to take you back to the second Act which was placed on the statute-books of the Congress of the United States, and which was the foundation stone of the success of the industries of that country. From the date of the passage of that Act until the present time, there have been almost continuous tariff Acts passed by congress, giving protection to the industries of the United States, and whenever that country reduced the tariff and moved in the direction of free trade, there was a financial crisis and trade w^s depressed. I believe that we in Canada have got to look at this matter largely in the light of experience, and 1 say that the experience of other nations in dealing with fiscal matters should be a guide to us. Let us remember that it is not only the United States that has adopted a high protective tariff. I think lam safe in saying that every nation under the sun, with the single exception of Great Britain, has adopted protection as its policy. France to-day is one of the richest countries in the world, and France is highly protective. We all know the industrial history of Germany. ' We know that Germany in years gone by had a protective tariff, and we know that tariff was lowered to the

great disadvantage of Germany. We know that in 1897, Bismarck came down with a manifesto which was acceptable to the German people, and they carried a protective tariff by a large majority, the result of which has been that since that time Germany has gone on increasing in wealth and increasing in prosperity.

Mr. EDWARDS.

What are the conditions in Germany to-day ?

Mr. PRINGLE.

The conditions in Germany are, I understand, prosperous.

No.

Mr. EDWARDS.

Germany is to-day experiencing the greatest depression she has ever known in her existence.

Mr. MACLEAN.

Probably because they have not enough protection.

Mr. EDWARDS.

May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pringle) a question ?

Order.

Mr. PRINGLE.

I would be pleased to answer the hon. member for Russell.

Mr. EDWARDS.

Belgium is close to France and Germany, and would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pringle) tell me what are the present conditions in Belgium. Will he also kindly tell us of the conditions of Switzerland, a small country, and also of Holland ?

Mr. MACLEAN.

And Ireland.

Mr. PRINGLE.

frankly and manfully and said : ' I liave

been a free trader, but I have come to see that free trade is against the interests of this nation, and I am now a protectionist.' The hon. member for Russell may follow the example of Daniel Webster, and we may see him coming forward next session with a confession like that of the hon. member for North Norfolk.

I might quote the language of Sir John Barnard Byles, which I think contains a great deal of truth. He says :

A nation, whether it consumes i*s own productions or with them purchases from abroad, can have no more to spend than it produces. Therefore the supreme policy of every nation is to develop its own producing forces.

I say the supreme policy of Canada is to develop its own producing forces. There is no reason why the people of this country should import from the United States of America sixty or seventy million dollars worth of manufactured goods. We can make those goods in Canada, and I believe we should make them in Canada ; and notwithstanding what we hear from the opposite side of the House, I believe there are men sitting on the government benches today who are just as strong protectionists as we are, and who will adapt themselves to the conditions existing in this country. The hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) made a very strong speech along the line of free trade ; but I say that he does not agree with the leaders of the Liberal party to-day. Does he agree with the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who made a very strong protectionist speech in this House a short time ago ? Does he agree with the Hon. George W. Ross, the Premier of Ontario ? That gentleman does not say that the national policy was a curse to this country. WThat he says is that the Conservative party were the first to discover the benefits of a protective tariff and to introduce it into this country. This is the language of the Hon. George W. Ross, addressed to the legislative assembly of Ontario on the 22nd of January, 1902 :

It was on this continent largely that the idea of fostering trade by a direct intervention of the government, grew up ; and perhaps it is on this continent that it has as strong a hold as it has in any part of the world. The American government sixty or seventy years ago entered upon a policy of fostering its industries by protection. Germany, France, Italy, Russia, and latterly the Australian Commonwealth has followed in the footsteps of the United States. The purpose in every case, whether wisely or unwisely, whether according to the principles of Adam Smith, or the protectionist school, was to add to the wealth of the nation and to develop its raw material, and to increase its resources. The same object has been aimed at in various other ways. Railways have been built by subvention in land and money, for the development of the latent resources of the country. The states of the Union, including the federal government, have given nearly one hundred mil-