Hon. Mr. FIELDING.

Mr. TURGEON.

(Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I shall ask the House to bear with me a few minutes more while I conclude my remarks. I think I have fairly done with the administration of the Intercolonial Railway and I shall come now to the financial situation of this country. Like most other people, Canadians are proud to know the financial standing of their country, and like from time to time to be enlightened oh public affairs. The people pay great attention of the national debt and naturally fear to see it increase. They are also much pleased to see new millions added from year to year to our imports and exports, more so when the agricultural products of the country are at stake. More than anywhere else perhaps, the public expenditure is

closely scrutinized. The electors are always anxious to know if the fiscal year will close with a welcome surplus or an unwelcome deficit. That national turn of mind might be called a social virtue, a kind of patriotism which is not without its wholesome influence upon the business of the country, the minds of members of parliament and the general administration. The Americans do not watch so closely the doings of their' congressmen, but the paramount question in the neighbouring republic is the scale of wages. If wages are high, they say that the administration is to be commended. If, on the contrary, wages are low, they say it is time for a change. Not so with us. The Canadian people are not satisfied to know if there is a surplus or a deficit in the public chest. Critical and inquisitive as they are, they will not be satisfied with the mere existence of a surplus or a deficit. A surplus of 3, 5 or $8,000,000 is always welcome, but the people want to know something more. They will inquire by what process that result was reached, and to what circumstances the surplus was due. There are different ways of piling up a surplus. A surplus is a sure sign of the prosperity of the country. If the- trade of the country is prosperous, if the balance is in our favour, the people will look favourably upon the government. If, on the other hand, the business of the country is depressed, even if there is a surplus, the people are anxious to know the cause thereof.

Under these circumstances, I may be permitted to give to the House a few figures from the financial statement so ably delivered a few days ago by the hon. Minister of Finance. He told us then that the revenue had increased to the unprecedented sum of $52,514,701. This result was reached by an increase in different sources of revenue, amongst which are to be noted the excise duties, with an increase of $450,170. The next increase is to be found in the earnings of the Intercolonial Railway, which amounted to $439,219. The receipts of the Post Office Department have been of $235,969 over those of the preceding year, notwithstanding the reduction in the postage dues. The actual receipts are already larger than they were before the reduction took place.

The above statement affords me the occasion ef commending the wise administration of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock). He has given us increased postal facilities, as well as a reduction of 23 per cent in the postage dues and a further reduction from 5 cents to 2 cents for all postal communications within the empire. Is it not a wonderful achievement ? The expenditure on consolidated fund has been of $46,866,367, an increase of $3,891,088 over 1890. We are then left with a surplus of $5,700,000. But the expenditure on capital account has been exceptionally high during the year, and that has resulted in a net increase in the public debt of nearly $3,000,000. This is

practically the first large increase of the public debt under the Liberal government.

Let us come now to that question of the increase of the public debt. When the Liberal government came into power, in 1896, the net debt, on the 30th June of that year, was $258,497,432.77, having increased during the same fiscal year by $5,422,505.68, for which the preceding government was partly responsible.

Now, what have been the increases in the public debt under the present government ?

1897, increase of $3,041,163.60

1898, "

2,417,802.451899, "

2,317,047.691900, decrease of

779,639.711901, increase of

2,986,196.80

giving a total increase during the five years of $9,982,570.92, which total divided by five gives an average yearly increase of the public debt of $1,996,514.18.

We are told that the Liberal government has increased the public debt. Nobody in this House will deny such a statement.

But we are in a position to show by comparison, that under the Liberal government the public debt has not increased in the same ratio as it did under the former government, and the showing is all in favour of the hon. Minister of Finance under the Liberal government.

The official records will show for the last seventeen or eighteen years of the Conservative administration an average increase of $6,563,075. Let us come now to the deficits and surpluses of the Liberal administration. In coming into office the hon. Minister of Finance had to acknowledge a deficit of $519,981.41 for the first year. Although comparatively small, part of this deficit must be credited to the old government. For that fiscal year, specially the first part of it, the hon. Minister of Finance had to comply with the obligations contracted by his predecessors in office. But the very next year, under the influence and magnetism of his genius and of his patriotic inspirations the tables were turned and the hon. minister was in a position to present the country with a surplus of $1,722,712.33.

In 1898-99, of $4,837,749 00In 1899-1900

8,054.714 51In 1900-1901

5,648,333 29

Total for five years.. ..$20,263,509.13

Deducting the deficit of $519,981.44 from the first year, we stand with a net surplus of $19,743,527.69. If we divide this last amount by 5, the number of years, we have an average surplus under the Liberal administration of $3,948,705.58.

Under what circumstances has the Minister of Finance been enabled to achieve such results ? All the public documents will tell. New industries have been established, old industries have been galvanized into life under the patriotic influence of the

Minister of Finance, and our trade has forged along by leaps and bounds.

Our total imports and exports aggregated the amount of $239,025,360 in 1895-96, and have crept to $386,903,157 in 1900-01, being an increase of $157,877,797.

Let us compare the development of our export trade during the last five years of the Conservative government and we have the following figures : *

1891- 92

$241,369,4431892- 93

247,638,6201893- 94

240,999,8891894- 95

224,420,4851895- 96 239,025,369

Butter exports for the lirst five years of the Laurier regime :

1896- 97

$2,253,4811897- 98

2,523,6641898- 99

4,025,4051899- 1900

5,429,5631900- 1901

3,355,197Total $17,587,310

Under the wise administration of the Laurier government in the short period of five years, from the butter exports alone, twelve million dollars more found their way into the pockets of the farmers of this country.

Let us look now into the cheese industry.

Total for the five years....$1,193,453,797

How slow, to say the least, has been the trade development during these years ! Let us see now what have been our imports and exports during the five years of the Liberal administration :

1896- 97 .

1897- 98 .

1898- 99 .

1899- 1900

1900- 1901

Exports of cheese for the last five years of the Laurier regime :

Total for five years $i;651,726,204

The total trade of the country during the five years of administration of the present government has exceeded by five hundred million dollars the total trade of the last

1896- 97..

1897- 98..

1898- 99..

1899- 1900

1900- 1901

five years of the Conservative regime. I leave it to the House and the country to draw the conclusion.

A great cause of rejoicing is the fact that this large increase in our exports has been most marked in the agricultural products. The agriculturist has a fair share in the marvellous expansion of our exports during the last five years. The non. Minister of Agriculture has bent all his energies towards promoting the agricultural prosperity of Canada. To him we must give credit for those transportation facilities and the establishment of a complete system of cold storage by which the farmers of the country have been greatly benefited. No wonder they are grateful for what he has done.

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to give the House and the country a few more figures that are interesting to those of us who are representing rural constituencies. Let us look at the butter exports, so largely increased by the perfected system of cold storage established by the lion. Minister of Agriculture, and let us compare these exports with those of the last five years of the Conservative administration.

Butter exports for the last five years under the Conservative regime :

1891- 92..

1892- 93..

1893- 94..

1894- 95..

1895- 96..

Total

There is a difference of thirty millions in favour of the Laurier regime.

We have an increase of thirty million dollars for cheese ; and an increase of twelve million dollars for butter.

It was during a period of such great business activity and progress that the government piled up surpluses to the tune of $19,743,527.69, or an average yearly surplus of $3,948,705.58.

But we are reminded that the Conservatives also had their surpluses. True, but as I have just shown, those surpluses were piled up while our import and export trade went on declining, and those results were brought about through violent means, and by protection which kept increasing from year to year, and to such a point that Sir Leonard Tilley, the then Minister of Finance, a truly patriotic statesman, foresaw that the moment could come when the country could no longer bear a greater load of taxation. The trouble .then was that manufacturers would always look to the government for an increase of duties and a further measure of protection, instead of relying upon their own strength and spirit of enterprise, and equipping themselves so as to meet foreign competition.

Before resuming my seat-for I see that I have spoken at greater length than I intended-I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments more, while I say a few words of comment upon the motion of the hon. leader of the opposition. It reads :

Mr. TURGEON.

That all the words after ' that ' in the proposed motion be left out and1 the following substituted therefor :

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

Notv, Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to the hon. leader of the opposition, I may remark that I am reminded here of the fact that, ever since the Liberal party came into power, the opposition members and their organs have kept repeating that the Liberals, after their advent to office, had stolen their clothes, by adopting the Conservative policy. Now, with such a resolution a^ this on record, they will no longer lie able to say that the Liberals have stolen their policy.

It is stated in the motion that the time is come for us to adopt a policy of adequate protection to the labouring classes and to the farming interests. I think it is always the duty of the government to follow a policy aiming at the protection of the agricultural community, for agriculture lies at the base of our social system.

It is always time for the government! enforcing a policy of protection to the fishermen who prosecute such a hard and interesting calling.

We are told that we must adopt a national policy. I think the policy of any country should always be a national policy. France, when framing her tariff, adopted a national policy, adjusted to her geographical position and to the nature of the products of her soil. So did the United States, when they framed a national policy with a view to protecting their home industries. That protective policy they have maintained for forty or fifty years, although they have a very rich soil and vast natural resources, to which advantages should be added a large influx of immigrants, from all countries in the world, who by thousands come in every day and swell the army of workingmen, which means a considerable addition to the consumers of home products.

Great Britain herself also framed a national policy of her own, when adopting free trade with a view to protecting her industries, and when seeking new markets for the over-production of those industries, and for the relief of her own market, which was already glutted.

When the present government framed a policy which I might call a policy of discrimination between extreme protection such as is advocated by hon. gentlemen opposite and free-trade which could not be suddenly introduced into this country without jeopardizing the very existence of our

home industries, thereby depriving our workingmen employed in those industries, which had grown under the fostering care of a protective tariff, of their daily bread and labour, the government, I say, did also, under those circumstances, adopt a national policy. The hon. leader of the opposition and his friends took to the past for examples. They like to look backwards and to see how their predecessors have acted. I am also a student of history and I like to learn the lessons of experience. But we must also look to the future and not content ourselves with referring to past records, to see what our predecessors have done or how they have acted. We must adopt a policy of our own and one that is best calculated to develop our trade, our material resources, our industries and our agriculture. The methods that suited our country fifty or sixty years ago may not suit the present conditions of the country.

A government should learn the lessons taught by history, and look to the fathers of confederation as their guides in framing a national policy ; but they should adjust that policy to the conditions of the country and to her needs. This the present government have done, and they have succeeded in developing our national trade and in bringing about an unprecedented prosperity. The people of this country have full confidence in the policy so far pursued by the government, because they realize that'it is a policy calculated to promote the prosperity of the country.

On these several grounds. I cannot vote in favour of the motion of the hon. leader of the opposition. As I said a little while ago, we should not content ourselves with looking backwards to our past achievements, but we must look forward and entertain the brightest hopes for the future that is in store for us.

Mr. J. R. LAVELL (Leeds and Grenville).

I regret exceedingly I was not able to follow very closely the long address to which the House has just listened. I was, however, able to comprehend a reference which the hon. member (Mr. Turgeon) made at an earlier stage of his address, when, though willing to admit that Providence probably had had something to do with the present favourable condition of affairs in Canada, he thought that the way Providence had helped Canada was by putting the present government into power. I notice that he disagrees with the principle laid down by a prominent fellow countryman of his, a member of the government, who apparently flatly denied that Providence had any part in the change of government when he declared that elections are not won by prayers. If I remember correctly the election address of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) himself. I would suggest that Providence had done very little towards placing him on the government side of the

House. However, apart from that, I think it will not he difficult to show that possibly Providence had done more than the hon. member was willing to admit.

In proceeding to debate to-night the fiscal policy of the country and the .management of its finances, I do not feel'that X need to apologize for speaking either at this hour or at this period of the debate. The question is an exceedingly important one, and involves many great interests. We must remember that we are still an extremely young country. There are parts of our country yet unexplored, and even those parts that have been explored by the surveyor are still, many of them, entirely undeveloped. Our natural resources have hardly been touched. We cannot in any sense of the word be said to have fully developed any of the great resources' that Providence has given into our charge. This fact was recognized at an early stage in our political history, and as a result the national policy was born, over twenty-five years ago. That national policy has been reviled, that national policy has been abused, that policy of protection, with which I am glad to say I heartily concur, has been spoken of as an old story. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce seemed to think he had dealt with the whole question when, in referring to the amendment and to the address of the leader of the opposition, he said he could almost picture to himself the former leader of the opposition moving a similar amendment to an address some twenty-six years ago. 1 submit, Sir, that the need of a national policy is just as great now as it ever has been in the history of this country. The history even of these later years of prosperity-for I am glad to say we are enjoying a period of great prosperity-our history, I say, only adds to the conviction that a national policy involving protection to Canadian industries, to Canadian labour and to Canadian agriculture, is just as necessary now as ever it was. We have to develop this co'untry in face of the keenest opposition of our great neighbours to the south. I think 1 may say of them that they show a knowledge of Canada greater than that shown by many Canadians. I think we see in the conduct and attitude of the United States a lively recognition of the resources that Canada possesses.

I do not propose to discuss the question as to how far protection is necessary for this country, because that is practically admitted, even by a free trade supporter of the government such as the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards). The party supporting the government have practically recognized the need of protection by adopting it, notwithstanding that the policy of the former government has been changed in some respects. I submit, however, that where those changes have been made they have been in the direction of increased taxa-Mr. LAVELL. .

tion, and have wrought injury to the country, having done more harm than good. But where tile items of the old tariff have been retained the country has benefited in consequence. The present government have actually been putting in force a policy of protection, though not as well administered as that put in force by the Conservative government. It has, however, been put in force under better conditions, and to one of those conditions I wish now to refer.

When the policy of protection was introduced by Sir John A. Macdonald, it was inaugurated in face of keen opposition on the part of a number of the most prominent men in this country. One of those men who had occupied, and yet occupies, a prominent position, and who had been a Minister of Finance in one of the governments of Canada, was an avowed apostle of free trade. At the very time that industries were being started under the influence of that National policy, that ex-Minister of Finance and his friends became apostles of free trade in the fullest sense of the word, and went up and down the country denouncing the new national policy and threatening to overturn it at the first available opportunity, thereby frightening away capitalists ready to embark in manufacturing enterprises in Canada. Moreover, I do not think it requires much effort of memory on the part of members of this House, or of a majority of the citizens of Canada, to recall the fact that in those years the United States was held up before us as the Mecca of all those who desired prosperity. The United States was held up as the one great country, the one great example we were to follow. Indeed they almost paraphrased an expression of the late Oliver Wendall Holmes, who, you will remember, said that good Americans, when they died, went to Paris, and so the prominent members. of the Liberal party in those early days used practically to say that good Canadians, while they lived, should go to the United States. Unfortunately many young Canadians listened to their advice and left their native land. Not only was an effort made by the opposition of that day to prevent money being put into manufacturing enterprises, but an effort was made to discredit Canada, to prevent its development, and to hold up a foreign land as being the best spot to which ambitious young Canadians could go.

I would call attention to the different circumstances unde^ which the fiscal policy of the present government is administered. As I have said, the fiscal policy of the present government differs only in a few respects from the old one. The present government is not confronted with an opposition preaching blue ruin; the opposition of today have done all in their power to encourage manufacturing in this country. Instead of the present opposition holding up the United States as a model to follow, and as

offering the greatest inducements to ambitious Canadians, it has never thrown the slightest difficulty in the way of the development of Canadian industries, but has given every possible encouragement to the government to continue protection to Canadian industries-has always preached that Canada was the best country in which young Canadians could hope to gain wealth and distinction, that Canada was a country of magnificent resources, and required only energy and hope on the part of her people to become one of the greatest countries in the world. I submit, Sir, the attitude of the opposition has been a very important factor in making the fiscal policy of the present government as successful as it has been. It would be useless, it would be wrong, to deny that it is impossible for public men, whether they be members of the government or members of the opposition, to go through this country preaching blue ruin without producing a bad effect. For. tunately, however, the policy preached by the Liberals in opposition was not put in practice by the Liberals in power. In fact,

I do not think it is too much to say, after looking back over the past seven years, that when the Liberals came into power the old Liberal party died. The doctrines preached by the present government and their supporters are so different from the doctrines they used to preach, that we can truthfully say that the old Liberalism passed into history in the year 1896. The result of the change is that, save in a few spots, and save a few spasmodic utterances of men in the House who speak louder by their words than their actions, the old free trade policy has almost disappeared; though, I regret to say that in some respects -and in some matters sufficient of its influence remains to prevent Canada reaping the full benefit of these years of plenty.

I want to dwell rather on the present than on the past, but before dealing with the present conditions, I want to refer to some remarks made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In reviving old times, possibly he revived them in a way he did not intend. I well remember in my early political life that the name of the ex-Minister of Finance wras always associated with the phrase ' blue ruin.' I could not help feeling the other night in listening to his vigorous speech, that it was largely inspired by a brilliant effort of Lis imagination regarding his favourite theme of blue ruin and corruption. His speech was filled with figures, and how he did handle them ! They reminded me of that prominent public man to whom the Toronto ' Globe ' referred as a ' mixer and muddler of figures.'

I do not propose to go fully into these figures in reference to the census. I will leave that to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), who has already promised to deal not only with them, but with the explanation given by the hou. Minister of

Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright). But, I think it is unfortunate that the government, which is supposed to be a unit, cannot be a little more in accord in the figures that it gives to the country. We heard from the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his budget speech, referring to the census, while regretting the very small increase in the population, that there was no doubt that the large increase had taken place since 1896, and we heard a vigorous, lengthy and complicated speech by the ban. Minister of Trade and Commerce on exactly the same lines. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce started from 1891, as indeed the hon. Minister of Finance must have done, in order to make such a calculation as that. It is rather unfortunate that they had to wait for eleven years before attempting to make a calculation of that kind, and it is almost as unfortunate that they could not have persuaded the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) to foresee that they were going to make a statement of that kind. I admit that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, and he probably is fully aware of the facts, cast doubt on the truth of the figures given to us by the government, and so, possibly, we should not lay too great stress on the figures given to us by the hon. Minister of Customs, but, he has been accustomed to give a statement of the duties collected, and a statement showing the amount of these duties per head of population. I notice that this year he lias left that calculation out of his report, but, he kept it up until last year, and in that report he shows a continually increasing population. Indeed he shows that according to his calculation the population increased more from 1891 to 1896 than from 1896 to 1900. I am not going to lay any stress upon these figures. I merely have pointed to them to express my regret that such a great difference of opinion between the various members of the government in reference to these figures should exist. In the case of the hon. Minister of Customs the figures are practically incorporated in his report, which is laid on the Table of the House and published by order of the government. In the case of the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce the figures as yet remain simply statements, or possibly, visions of the imagination. Surely, all the figures given to us by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce show very little more than imagination on the part of that hon. gentleman. His argument respecting the Ontario end of the census has been contradicted by the Ontario municipal census, and as to his argument respecting the figures from the province of Quebec. I do not think that those of us who were in the House when he made it. will easily forget the impressive, dignified and dramatic manner in which he

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

Did the kon. Minister of Trade and Commerce pretend that it was a census of the whole population ?

statement shows that the enumerators in 1891 raised in twenty-one counties 40,-!?ore names than were recorded three months previous to the census by the parish priest.

l'ou will notice that he bases his whole argument on the census taken by the parish priests of the province of Quebec, and shows us that the parish priests in these twenty-one counties had enumerated some 40,000 people less. He places these returns, one of which, and only one of which, I have a**cl which is now in my hands, on the Table of the House. I do not know how many of the hon. members of this House have read these returns, and if they had not disappeared from the Table within about half an hour after I read this one, I n ould have had the pleasure of hunting up a few more, because, even although they aie written in French, it is not such an unknown tongue, I believe, as not to be understood by the majority of the members of this House. I am now going to read one or two paragraphs from this return, which is.the return for the counties of Drummond and Arthabaska, in which reference is made to this parochial census. Apparently some letters had been written, which letters have not been returned to the House, i do not know what questions were asked but I gather from this that the principal question was in reference to a comparison between the parochial census and the census of 1891. In answer to that question this return, placed on the Table of the House by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and under his authority, says distinctly in words that cannot be'mistaken :

Mr. LAVELL.

Mr. LA\ EEL. I have already read from 1 speech of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce in which he based his whole charge on the discrepancy between the parochial census and the official census taken by the Dominion of Canada, and here in his own return, laid on the Table of 'the House, is the statement that the parochial census is simply a census of those in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church in the province of Quebec. I cannot pre-sunie for a single moment that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce takes it tor granted that no person should be included, if he lives in the province of Quebec, m tile census, unless he is in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. 1 might better trust that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has not adopted the advice which he gave to the members of this House that they should procure some French member of this House to translate these returns for them, and I can only con-elude that from his own imagination of what they contain, he has made that argument to the House and based his charge against the officials of this country. I do not know how far the other returns refer to this matter, but surely, when one of his officials makes such a distinct statement, I think it must be convincing to the House as being correct that this parochial census only contained the figures to which I have referred, and I believe the House will agree with me that it entirely disposes of his argument and that a retraction and almost an apology is due from the hon. gentleman to the people of Canada for making any such charge.

I am not going more fully into his figures save to refer to one point in that address where he exulted in a denunciation of his former opponents and where he laid particular stress on the fiscal policy of the Mackenzie government and comp'ared it very favourably with the fiscal policy pursued

by the Conservative government between 1878 and 1890. He made tne distinct statement that the policy of the Mackenzie, administration enabled the country to tide over the period of depression between 1875 and 1879 better, than did the . policy of the Conservative party enable the country to tide over the period of depression immediately preceding the advent of the present government to power. That was a mere assertion. It is incapable of proof. The majority of the members of this House are able to remember those two periods of depression, and I question if there is. a man on the government side who is bold enough to say, from his own experience, that the depression between 1892 and 1896-was as severely felt as. the depression between 1875 and 1879. That is more especially the case when we compare the conditions existing in Canada with the conditions existing in the United States during these two periods. We have figures to strengthen our memories as to this fact. In the first period of depression under the Liberal government, there was on an average 4J per cent of the paper at the banks overdue, while during the period of depression between 1892 and 1896, there was only 11 per cent of the paper at the banks overdue, and that very slightly differed from the amount of overdue paper in the years immediately proceeding and succeeding. We know also that periods of depression are unfortunately marked by business failures, and we find from the official returns that between the years 1875 and 1879, the total liabilities involved in the failures amounted to $133,138,000, while during the second period of depression under the Conservative government-when the business of the country was far and away wider and more extensive-the total amount involved in the failures was only $75,603,000; very considerably less it will be noticed than during the former period to which I have referred. In order that it may not be said that that was because of -reasons peculiar to Canada, I may say that in the United States which was practically under the same fiscal policy during these two periods, the total liabilities of the failures between 1892 and 1896 were far in excess of the total sum involved in the period between 1875 and 1879. The fact of the matter is that the fiscal policy introduced and maintained by Sir John Macdonald and Ms successors- the fiscal policy which is practically identical with that now advocated by the Conservative party in Canada-created business interests within Canada, and rendered us less dependent on foreign countries. While of necessity, we were affected possibly inductively 'by the currents of trade in other countries, yet we were not affected to the same extent as when we were so entirely dependent on our neighbours to the south as we were during the regime of the Mackenzie government.

But, Sir, notwithstanding the statements that were made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), we find that the more the situation under the national policy is analyzed, the more does the national policy prove to have been beneficial to Canada. One would imagine from the arguments of lion, gentlemen opposite, that the foreign trade of a country is the only index to its prosperity. A very slight consideration of the question will show how utterly fallacious that argument is. When the national policy was first introduced, it was, so to speak, the development period of trade in this country. The home trade was far more important to us than the foreign trade. We had been importing large quantities of goods, and one of the reasons for the creation and development of the national policy was that these goods might be made within our own country, so that our home market might be supplied by Canadians; so that Canadian produce might be sold to Canadians; so that Canadian manufactures might be sold to Canadians, and so that the wants of Canada might be supplied within ourselves. It was not foreign trade, but development of the home trade that Canadians were seeking, and that was the principal object of the national policy. It may be worth our while then to look at the conditions of the trade of Canada in the early seventies. All admit that in 1873 and 1874 we were commencing to get well into the hard times, but still our foreign trade in 1874-'which was distinctly a more disastrous year than 1873-our foreign trade in 1874 was in excess to our foreign trade in 1873, while at the same time the balances in the post office savings banks were going down rapidly. The foreign trade of Canada in 1874 amounted to $204,146,000, but the balances in the savings banks went down until in 1877 they reached the low figure of $2,639,000. Four years after that, when the benefits of the national policy were just beginning to be felt, the deposits in the post office savings banks -had risen to $6,208,000, but our foreign trade was only $175,000,000; or, $28,000,000 less than it was in the disastrous year of i874. I cite these figures to show, not that the foreign trade of a country is no index to. its prosperity, but to show that taken alone it cannot be relied upon as proof in that connection. It is a good thing to have an increased foreign trade when the home trade is healthy, and in some lines, yes, in many lines the home trade of Canada is now healthy and progressive. But I will ask hon. members of this House to examine carefully into this matter. The hon. member for Guysborough in his speech lauded the policy of this government with respect to the iron and steel industry. We may safely take that as a good example of a healthy industry; and why is it healthy ? It is because the policy inaugurated by the Conservative govern-

ment with relation to iron and steel was maintained and continued by the present government; and continued in a way that it could not be affected by the preferential tariff; because the protection to the iron and steel industries is through bounties which are not at all affected by that preferential tariff, which I might almost call the thin end of the wedge of free trade. The same thing might be said of the other industries of the country that are in a healthy condition. They are in a healthy condition, because simply of the fact that the present government in their tariff tinkering did not interfere with the protection that had been given these industries by the Conservative government.

But there are some industries in Canada that are not in a healthy condition now, and one of these about which we hear so much, is the woollen industry, which is 1 may say essentially a home trade. The iron and steel trade ds partially a foreign trade and the exports of iron and steel add considerably to the increase of our foreign trade. The iron and steel trade is not affected by the preferential tariff, but tbe woollen trade which is essentially a home trade is affected by it. Not only is tbe woollen manufacturer injuriously affected by tbe preferential tariff, but tbe Canadian farmer is also injuriously affected by it, and it is with that phase of tbe question which I propose to deal. I call attention to the fact that the importation of cheap shoddy goods is rendered possible by the preferential tariff. These goods come into this country with a nice finish, and they come into direct competition with goods made from Canadian wool which are better in quality, but which have not as fine a finish. What is perhaps more important is, that these goods come into competition with the goods made by the mills which handle Canadian wools. The natural result of this is that these mills have been injured, and the price of Canadian wool has steadily declined ever since 1896 until now when it is almost a drug on tbe market. That is a straight example of the interdependence of one industry in Canada on another. It is all very well to talk about protecting the classes, but protection to Canadian industries is a thing, that affects the whole country. Protection to our Canadian woollen industries, is just as much protection to the Canadian wool grower as it is protection to the Canadian woollen manufacturer. The farmers of Canada lose by tbe reduction in tbe price of wool which is due to the preferential tariff, just as much, and indeed more possibly, than do tbe manufacturers whose business is interfered with toy it.

Let me deal for a few minutes with this preferential tariff. If I am not mistaken,

It was the member for Guysborougli (Mr. Fraser) who said that no man on this side of the House dare oppose the preferential tariff. I do not know- why he gave utter-'

Mr. LAVELL.

ately-and I say this advisedly-they did not do that with sufficient completeness ; and the result is that their tariff, while not benefiting- Canada or Great Britain in the slightest degree, has, in certain lines, worked a great injury to Canada. These figures show, if any figures can,-I will not vouch for them after the reflection thrown upon official figures by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, from whose returns I have taken them, but I give them for what they may be worth, and, probably they are approximately correct-that so far as encouraging trade between Canada and Great Britain is concerned, the present tariff, with its preferential feature added is absolutely worthless. And it is more than worthless in the other lines I have mentioned. I have said that, so far as it is based upon Imperial sentiment, I sympathize with it; but, as an expression of Imperial sentiment it is fallacious. We have seen what that sentiment demands, but this preferential tariff [DOT] is used as a mere excuse for refusing to bear our clear responsibility as citizens of the empire. We claim Imperial citizenship, and that claim is one of the reasons alleged for the introduction of this preferential tariff. But it is a paltry thing on the part of Canada as a whole to consider that, by passing a bogus preferential tariff, we have done our duty to the empire. It is interesting to note that in a recent report to the United States government as to its military establishment, it is shown that the people of the United States are spending upon that service over $90,000,000. I notice that, according to the estimates of the Minister of Militia and Defence, our total expense under this head is something like $2,000,000. And, even last year when the Halifax provisional garrison and the special services in South Africa took up something over $900,000, our expenditure was a little over $3,000,000. The population of Canada is, at the very least, one-fifteenth as large as that of the United States, while even this unusually large expenditure to which I have referred on our part is only about one-thirtieth of the expenditure of the United States on military service. I mention this to show that those lion, members of this House who have spoken of our getting no benefit through British connection are a long way out in their figures. If we compare our expense with the expense for the defence of the empire as borne by the people of Great Britain, instead of comparing with the military establishment of the United States, I think we are compelled to recognize that Britain is bearing a very great burden which ought to be shared by all those who benefit by Imperial connection. And we do benefit by it. Most certainly, in the matter of militia and defence expenditure we do not bear nearly the burdens that fall upon the people of the United States, whereas, considering that we cover an enormous territory with a small population. we might reasonably expect to bear a Mr. LAVELL.

much greater expense, per head. Thus, in the matter of dollars and cents, Imperial connection has meant very much for us. It has meant very much more in other ways. I admit that, while we have great and serious difficulties to face, it would be wrong and improper to burden ourselves with too heavy a task financially. I admit further that, in sudden emergency and under popular pressure, we have done something-and I am glad we have done something-to contribute to the defence of the empire, and to take part in the wars of the empire. But we seem to consider that so far as financial burdens are concerned, we have done our duty. I infer from the estimates as they are now before us this year that the present government believes that no further expense should be borne by Canada in connection with Imperial defence, save only, so far as our own shores are concerned, and that only partly. I do not think that the citizens of Canada as a whole heard with any pride that we were still willing to offer our citizens to Great Britain for service in South Africa, but we cannot afford to spend a cent to send them to the country in which they are to serve. We can spend money on wharfs to improve the property of some members of parliament, or we can go on building post offices in friendly villages, but we cannot spend a cent on the defence of the empire. We can squander hundreds of thousands of dollars on an elevator to add to party strength, but we cannot spend a cent to add to the strength of the empire. I would like to have analysed some of our expenditures, just to show that we could succeed in getting a very large fund, without placing additional burdens upon the people of the country, to go towards Imperial defence.

I think that an analysis of the expenditure might be an object lesson to some of the supporters of the present government regarding their former expressions of economy. However, the Big Ontario Policeman has been lost in the Department of Trade and Commerce, and our friend Mr. James McMullen has gone to what he himself called the home for incurables. Apparently, there does not seem to be any lion, gentleman _ on that side able to criticise the expenditure. I have already spoken longer than I intended to and I shall not attempt to do it now. But I submit that, while, undoubtedly, provision must be made for the public service, vastly greater economy should be shown. It is one of the difficulties of the opposition that, in criticising the proposed expenditure of the government as foreshadowed in the estimates, they feel that they are in danger of criticising items that must benefit the country generally. Criticism must, in nearly all cases, be devoted to the methods and details of expenditure after that expenditure has been made. I submit that an analysis of the Auditor General's Report, and an analysis of the expenditure generally in nearly all

departments not in all I am glad to say- would show that there is what might perhaps be very mildly called recklessness and extravagance which in a business house would bring financial ruin very soon. I submit that the enormously increased expenditure cannot be justified by public needs, and we can well afford to restrict that expenditure and do our work as citizens of the empire fairly, and not make a jug-handled preferential tariff an excuse for not doing our full duty. A little while ago, I referred to the unfounded attack-for it was an unfounded attack-made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce for party purposes upon the honesty of the census officers of 1891. But surely it was even a worse insult to the people of Canada as a whole that the government should proceed upon the assumption that Canada will give freely her sons for the empire, but cannot give one cent to feed them, or one cent to carry them to the scene of war, or one cent to look after them after they leave her shores and are engaged in fighting, not the battles of the motherland so much as the battles of the colonies of the motherland, simply because of the avaricious grasp that some of her citizens have on all the monev that even prosperous years can pour into her treasury. This is a point upon which one could easily grow warm. Canada will show the true Imperial spirit that she ought to show by following the lines proposed by the opposition in regard to fiscal matters and contributing towards Imperial defence. Let her use her resources carefully. Let her see to it that her development is not interfered with from outside. And let her spend her revenues in a way to benefit the country rather than individuals. Let her see to it that her own producers are carefully and well protected by legislation, and this done, let her bend her energy to trade within the empire. And lastly, when she has that growing strength which comes from self development, let her contribute towards Imperial defence in a manner commensurate with her resources, and let her no longer consider the giving of a jug-handled preference as a fulfilment of her duty. I submit that the present policy of the opposition is really an Imperial policy. It represents the development of one of the greater parts of the empire, it proposes that we should develop our own strength, our own resources ; and then, it is perfectly consistent with this that we should show our Imperial interests in a legitimate way by properly sharing the burdens of the empire.

Mr. W. S. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).

Then there is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whose whole life time has been devoted to financial matters. He gave us an admirable speech the other evening, of some three hours length, a speech that I listened to with the greatest interest and attention. I am prepared to say it is the best speech I ever heard on this matter, though I cannot agree with some of the things he said. Now are we not to be influenced by the opinions and statements of gentlemen like these ? There are few of us who have had time to get down to first principles, and to build up a theory for ourselves, and probably if we did build up one it would not stand. So our opinions are to a considerable extent moulded by those with whom we come in contact. But after I have heard all these wise men who have been a long time in parliament, I get bewildered. Such was the effect upon me of the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He is a gentleman who, his friends say, has had a great many different kinds of fiscal policies, and he announces the one he holds to-day. I do not exactly understand what it is, it is a kind of quasi protection, I think. He has hardly sat down before up pops the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards), who says that the ideas of the hon. member for North Norfolk are the veriest nonsense, that he does'nt know what he is talking about. Then the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) announces his policy, which X suppose is the policy of the independent party of which he poses as leader. Then the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has a little theory of his own. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the position we poor unfortunate fellows occupy in coming into the House at the eleventh hour-there having been some 80 new members who came into the House last year-after hearing the diverse views of all these wise men, no wonder we get a little bewildered.

I propose to make a refeence to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think a fair test of the importance of a speech is the attention that is paid to it by those who are opposed to the principles enunciated by a speaker. I have sat here listening from day to day, and I notice that nearly every member who has spoken from the opposition side has had something to say about the speeech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That fact proves to me that it was a speech of considerable importance. There was one part of it that interested me particularly, and that was a reference to my own county as one of those in which there had been a great increase in industries between 1881 and 1891, due to the national policy. I was a little astonished at first by the statement that there were forty new industries in the county of Huntingdon, but I began to get a little light when he stated subsequently that there were forty basket fac-Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).*

tories. I remembered that there was an Indian reserve at the western part of the county of Huntingdon called St. Regis, and that the Indian ladies, commonly called squaws, are in the habit of making baskets, and selling these baskets on the boats and cars, and taking them around the country and disposing of them among the farmers. Those were the forty basket factories that were established in the county of Huntingdon under the national policy. One thing that pleased me was to learn that in those forty basket factories there were forty-five people working ; whereas in the county of Antigonish, there ivere seventy carpet factories that only employed sixty-nine persons. So I thought we were ahead of Antigonish. Now speaking seriously, it seems to me that where a thing of that kind occurs in a census I could believe almost anything else regarding it. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Leeds and Grenville (Mr. Lavell) has been quite fair to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in referring to his remarks on the census. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said this with regard to the stuffing of the census in the province of Quebec :

Every hon. gentleman who knows anything of the customs of the people of Quebec is aware that in that province the parochial clergy every year make a very accurate census of all their parishioners, and I am informed of all the people within their particular cure.

Now the fact is that when the cure goes round to take the census of the parish, he not only takes the Roman Catholic people, but he takes Protestants as well.

Mr. LAVELL.

Then the returns are false, are they ? I read from the returns.

Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).

The hon. member spoke of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I am speaking of him also. But we have another test. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, after stating that 40,615 more names were found on the census than were recorded three months previous by the parish priests, says :

I am willing to admit that there will always be a slight discrepancy between such a census and the census taken by the government enumerators. I believe the parish priests do not enumerate those who are absent at the time, and there are some other slight differences; but our census of 1901 corresponds with these parochial censuses within 8,000 souls.

Now they took the government census in 1891, and they took the parochial census of three months previous, and they found there were over 40,000 more on the government census than on the parochial census. They took the government census of 1901 and the parochial census of 1901, and they fouud there was a difference of 8,000. The parochial census was taken in the same way in 1891 as in 1901; and there is where the Minister of Trade and Commerce found a difference of 32,000, as between 8,000 and 40,000. I

think it is fair to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that X should make this explanation.

Now, as I said before, I get somewhat bewildered by hearing so many contradictory statements from each side of the House. So I think the best thing for me to do is to follow my own! opinions. One thing I cannot understand is how the increase of duty is going to cheapen articles to those who have to purchase. That has always troubled me. I was talking the other day to a manufacturer down at the Russell House, and I put him this question : What about those who have to purchase ? He said : The increase in duty

does not necessarily increase the price of the article. Well, we are all human, we like to get all we can for what we have to sell, and buy as cheaply as possible. And I have not that confidence in the philanthropy of the manufacturers of this country to believe that they ar-e 'going to give us goods any cheaper than they can afford to, and whatever duty is put on they will add to the price of their goods. Their idea seems to be that if you can put the tariff high enough to keep the goods out of the country the internal competition, as they say, will regulate the price ofi the articles. The government had to pass a Bill to regulate the matter and we had a little experience last summer in connection with the paper combine. I think we will find some combines existing in regard to other things, and that if they have a chance they will charge their own price for the goods. X think that argument is fallacious. I do not think it will hold water at all and I think that what we want in Canada is a cheap country to live in. I live in a purely agricultural constituency. We have no manufactures of any kind of our own, but, when I say that I will also say that X do not believe in parish politics. I do not believe in taking the view merely of our own counties, and when the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), in his speech, was pleading for the woollen manufacturers, I could not help believing that that hon. gentleman being largely interested in woollen manufactures was probably not thinking so much of thp general good of the Dominion as of the dividends which would come to him from the industries in which he is interested.

With 23J per cent of protection on woollen goods, I cannot see why the manufacturers cannot make a fair living. And here I would just like to say that there seems to be an idea abroad that it is only those people who are engaged in manufacturing that have capital invested in anything. Is not the farmer a capitalist in the same sense ? Has not the farmer his capital invested in his stock, his farm and his implements, and should the farmer not get a fair return from his investments the same as the manufacturer of goods ? We have a newspaper 65

in the county of Huntingdon. It is quoted a great deal by the organs of our friends opposite as a Liberal organ which is not satisfied with the action of this government. I refer to the Huntingdon ' Gleaner/ While I do not agree with everything the ' Gleaner ' says, there is no question at all but that the editor of the ' Gleaner ' is a man of great ability and one who gives a great deal of attention to these matters. He issues an almanac each year instead of a holiday number in which he gives a resume of what has happened during the year. He has a good deal to say of the extravagant way in which the government of the Dominion is carried on, and although he says a good deal about the extravagance of the Liberal party, the only consolation we have is that he said far worse things about the extravagance of the Conservative party when they were in power. He gave us an estimate of the return farmers get from their investment, and I think Huntingdon is about equal to any other county in the Dominion. I think we have fairly good farmers in the district of Beauharnois, which includes Huntingdon, Chateauguay and Beauharnois. His estimate was that the return farmers get from their investment is about 2 or 2$ per cent. I was staggered a little at that statement. 1 made some inquiry among the farmers of that locality and verified the figures he had given us. He gave the average produce of the farm, specifying what the farmer had to sell, what it cost to work the farm, and so on, and he reduced it to the fact that the return the farmer gets is not more than 2 or 2\ per cent on his investment. Would the manufacturers of woollen goods be prepared to accept a dividend of that kind ? Or, would the manufacturers of cotton goods be prepared to accept that, or would they want more ? I was reading in a paper a few days ago, on this particular question, a paragraph, and I was wondering if there was any truth in it. Dealing with the statement that factories were not able to make a fair dividend, the reason was given that the owners did not keep their factories up to date in the way of machinery, and it was said that they found it much cheaper to run their factories with old machines which are obsolete and out of date, and to come to the government and get more protection, thus enabling them to pay dividends with old machines which are out of date and not equal to those in use in Great Britain and the United States. That paragraph said :

Grandsons inherit factories originally representing investments of millions of dollars and instead of throwing on the junk pile the machinery installed by their grandfathers they continue to operate them by the old antiquated method. -

It was to me rather a staggering statement, and yet, in conversation with a man who is

interested in a woollen factory, I had this statement made to me : Some new blood

had been brought into the directorate of a woollen mill and amongst the directors was a man who had had a good deal to do with machinery in other lines. He found a certain machine in operation in this mill, and he thought it would be better to replace it with another machine. After some difficulty he got the directors to consent to put this old machine out and to put another machine in. The machine that was put out was as good as it ever was but it was out of date. The new machine that was put in cost $6,000, and this gentleman told me that it earned $7 a day more than the old machine, which hon. gentlemen will admit is a pretty fair return for an investment of $6,000. Our manufacturers should equip their factories with machinery as good as that employed in the United States, Great Britain and other countries. The great industry of this country is agriculture. There is no question about that. The census of 1901 was certainly disappointing to us all. I have talked to a great many people on that subject. A good many people expected a population of at least 6,000,000, but I hfive not found any person who expected a population of less than 5,500,000 ; yet, we fell short of that. What we want in this country is population. We have the great wheat fields of the North-west Territories waiting for the people to till. We have western Ontario as well as new portions of the other provinces being opened up, and after all what we want is more population. What would be an inducement to offer people to come to Canada ? A number of immigrants are coming from the United States. These people have some means, and they are coming in and settling in the North-west Territories. But, the large mass of the people who come are from the congested parts of Europe. Some of them come because of religious or civil persecution, but the great majority of them are poor men who come in the hope of bettering themselves. One of the things we ought to do, and it would be an inducement to immigration, is to make this country a cheap place to live in. I cannot for the life of me see how, if you are going to protect these manufacturers and enable them to charge the highest price of their goods, how you are thereby making it a cheap country for the consuming masses of the people. Although there is a large amount invested in manufactures there is an infinitely larger amount invested in other pursuits, and I think the people ought to have the advantage of being able to secure cheap goods. I am in favour of a vigorous immigration policy. I am just as loyal as the hon. member for Leeds and Grenville (Mr. Lavell), I served 26 years in the militia, I was out in the Fenian raid and I got my medal. I am just as loyal as loyal can be. There is no question about that. I think if the government Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).

have any money to spend they should devote it to the prosecution of a vigorous immigration policy. I have heard the statement made that the immigrants brought into Canada have cost the country $8.40 apiece. I think if we can get good immigrants to come and settle in Canada even if it costs us $8.40, or $10 apiece, we should get them. I am in perfect sympathy with the mother country in the trouble which she is having in South Africa, and whether it is our duty to pay for the men that we are sending to help her, I am not going to express an opinion at the present moment, but, I would like to see this government engage in a more vigorous immigration policy and make an effort to fill up this country. It is not my intention to quote any figures. You know it has been said that figures never lie, but it is also said that some people who are not very veracious sometimes figure. The figures are all of the same class, they are all taken from the blue-books, but different conclusions are arrived at from these figures. It depends largely which side of the House the member sits who is quoting them. A great deal has been said about the imports and the exports to and from the United States and Great Britain and other countries, and as to whether the imports or the exports are greater or less, but hon. gentlemen do not seem to be able to agree. One hon. gentleman says that because the imports exceed the exports it is a good sign, while another hon. gentleman says that it is a bad sign. They go jumbling things all around, and I made up my mind that I was not going to quote figures at all.

Let us look for a moment at the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), because the hon. the Speaker told us a few days ago that we were to talk about the amendment. I notice that very few hon. members have had much to say about that amendment. They have wandered very far afield and have talked about almost everything but the amendment. Some hon. members, however, did speak about it and one thing they seemed to stumble on is that they want adequate protection. I notice that in the amendment hon. gentlemen propose to protect everything. I think the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) came very near the mark when he told us the other day that there was no way in which to protect the farmer. The only way I know of in which to protect the farmer is to make this a cheap country to live in. I observe that the amendment proposes that we shall protect the labourer. If we increase the tariff, for instance, on woollen goods, how much of it will the manufacturers give to the labourer ? Although I am a free trader, I would like to make a bargain with these people. I would like to ask them if they would give half of the increased price they get for their goods to the men who are working for them.

If they will not give half, I would be willing to make it 25 per cent, and try to strike a bargain with them at that figure. I am afraid the labourer would not get any of the increase. I am afraid it would be taken out of the pockets of the purchasers and that it would go directly into the pockets of the manufacturers. I say here, that so far as the policy of the present government is concerned it does not come near enough to free trade for me; but it comes a great deal nearer to it than the policy proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite, and therefore 1 am prepared to support the government in their policy as it is, and to hope for better things. However, I will speak a word of warning. If there is any revision of the tariff it must be down and not up, or otherwise the government will find that there are a great many members on this side of the House who are not at all satisfied, and who will speak their minds out if they have occasion to, notwithstanding that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and others seem to veer around in the direction of protection. Hon. gentlemen opposite are always twitting us on this side of the House with not being united, and that sort of thing. Do they think we are mere machines who come here to vote in a certain way '! Are we to lose our individuality, and our | independence, because we are members of this parliament ? I hope I will never come to that stage. I am prepared at any time to express my individual views with regard to any matter that comes before us. Whether it is entirely in accord with the party with which I am identified or not, 1 am prepared at all times to express my views on public matters. I may err in judgment, but at all events I will be independent while I am in this House, and state my views as to what I believe to be in the best interests of this country.

Mr. GEORG 13 TAYLOR (South Leeds). It was not my intention to say anything on the budget, but the gentleman who was to follow the hon. member for Huntingdon is not in his seat, and as the Minister of Finance has made up his mind that the House must sit until eleven o'clock, I will try to interest him until that hour, unless he consents to my moving the adjournment of the debate and making my speech to-morrow.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.

S. Fielding). The threat of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) that he will go on with his speech is one that we should seriously consider. If I am correctly informed, an agreement has been come to, so far as these things are possible, that this debate will be brought to an end on Tuesday next. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is aware of that.

Mr. TAYLOR.

The arrangement is that the division will be taken at the Tuesday sitting of the House, but of course that may run into Wednesday morning.

Yes, of course. That being understood, there is no object in sitting to an unreasonable hour now, and if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tay-ior) wishes to adjourn the debate, I will offer no objection.

Mr. TAYLOR.

Then I will move that the debate be now adjourned.