Mr. CLANCY.

and I find that in 1900 we exported a total of $59,412 ; in 1901 that fell to $38,320, and in 1902 it had diminished to $20,311. That is the story from commencement to end of the success of cold storage for which so much credit is claimed by this Liberal government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the expenditures and I take the controllable expenditure for which the ministers are accountable. I have made a comparison between the expenditures of the different departments as between 1890 and 1902 and here is the result:

Mr. GGURLEY.

He was familiar with the game.

Mr. CLANCY.

Yes. That speech was made after a conference with the manufacturers had been held prior to the elections of 1896. There was in it an implied threat to the manufacturers, but he did not proceed much further before he sang another tune. He said

However, X wish to say and emphasize the fact that it has never been the policy of the Idberal party as declared by any member of the Liberal party occupying a responsible position if they came into power to destroy at one movement all the manufacturing industries or to so change the policy as to place them in peril.

What do you think of a Finance Minister who tells the manufacturers that they are playing a game, that their business is in the nature of a gamble, and they might look out and be prepared for what might happen, and then immediately after declares that it was not the policy of the Liberal party to so change the tariff policy of this country so as to injure the manu-

Mr. CLANCY.

facturing interests. He went on further to say

I hesitate not to say that if we should to-day by some rash step do that which some hon. gentlemen say that we are bound to do but which intelligent men know that we are not bound to do and would not do, we should not only break down the manufacturing interests of the country, but deal a blow to other interests of a wider and more serious character.

The hon. gentleman has always had the faculty of making startling and alarming declarations with regard to the policy he was going to adopt and then explaining away those threats, so that his friends might go to the country and put any construction on his utterances that would best suit the party exigencies of the moment. Hon. gentlemen have always been in a position- and, no doubt, will try to keep themselves in a position-to use these two sides of the speeches of their leaders, one in favour of protection, and the other in favour of the policy adopted by the Liberal party in 1893, of revising the tariff with a view to destroying every vestige of the national policy. Rut we have now in the House an hon. gentleman-I refer to the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson)-who, according to the statement of his former colleague, the hon. member for St. Mary's. Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has tried within the cabinet to maintain the protectionist policy. I have referred to the hon. member for St. Mary's division. If any man has earned the gratitude of the people of Canada for maintaining in the tariff of 1897 a large measure of protection, that hon. gentleman has earned it. If that hon. gentleman told the truth about the hon. Minister of Customs, of which there seems no doubt, it would seem that the hon. Minister of Customs also was performing his part in the cabinet, under the influence of that strong man, to maintain the protectionist policy as this government found it in 1890. If that is the case, the Minister of Customs also deserves credit for the fact that the tariff was left in the form in which we find it to-day. But the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) cannot accept openly tlie praise that is said to be due to him, because he has put himself under pledge before the country in a different way. He tells the people that he despises the protection, he tells them that protection is an evil. But he tells the people also that the government is obliged to maintain a revenue tariff, a tax gathering tariff-and that it is a tax gathering tariff is proven by the enormous sums it wrings from the pockets of the people-and that, while he would abolish if he could the protection element, yet it is unavoidable that there must be in the tariff some measure of protection. The hon. gentleman has explained more than once the difference of the two parties on this point. He has told, ns that it is the cardinal principle of the Conservative party to give full protection to the country's industries, wrhile it is the policy

of the Liberal party to give barely ami beggarly the protection that cannot be withheld. But we are told now by the hou. gentleman'^ former colleague that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) is in favour of protection, and we are left to Infer that he fought for that principle in council. Will the hou. Minister of Customs rise before this debate closes and say that that statement is not true ? Will he repudiate the utterance of his late colleague ? Will he say that he bore no part in the retention of protection in the present tariff ? If so, will he be able to reconcile that with his declarations that the government did not want protection, but only wanted a tariff to collect taxes? That was his declaration, and that was what lie relied upon for commercial defence against a commercially hostile country alongside which is constantly invading our territory. If the hou. gentleman denies that this was his position I will give him the words of his own utterances. But I know that lie will not deny it, and I do not put that as ail offensive challenge.

Now, what is the position of the lion. Minister of Finance in asking for delay in the revision of the tariff ? He says that the manufacturers are more perplexed to find space and workmen than to find reasons for increases in the tariff, that what they fear is the fierce competition from outside from a period of depression, in the narrowing of our trade that, as everybody knows,i must follow the present great expansion-that they are more frightened of what is to come than of what is here now. He tells us that what the manufacturers are frightened of is a condition of things that does not now exist. He tells us that they look to the future and seek to provide against the possible evils of the future. In effect the hou. Minister of Finance tells us that the time to lock the door is not when we are secure, but when the burglar comes and rifles our money boxes, and when he stands there armed and ready to defend himself against attack. We have now a tax gathering tariff. That is the design of the tariff in the minds of bon. gentlemen opposite; if it affords protection, according to their cardinal tariff doctrine, that is an evil feature of it. But what -of the future ? The overflow of American markets is coming into Canada. I am within the mark when I say that the overflow of production of the United States is greater than the whole of our production in Canada. The hon. gentleman tells us that our manufactories are expanding and that the difficulty is anything but lack of orders. But our own manufacturers are not filling more than half our orders. If we had protection, we should find the space and the workmen, and should supply all the wants of our own people. But we have this evil of an invasion from the outside growing steadily, an evil which it may be impossible for us to eradicate by hostile

tariffs if we do not act in time. We have immense quantities of American goods coming into Canada; our people are being trained and educated to buy American goods and use them; we have the agents of American concerns in Canada, camping here by the score; we have even Canadians being enlisted in selling American goods who ought to be enlisted in selling Canadian goods. And when the evil ripens under the influence of reaction from the present good times, we shall be without a single weapon of defence against the invaders. The waiting game is the one that the Minister of Finance recommends to us-to wait for possible reciprocity; to wait for something to come in relation to the preferential tariff.

I do not wish to detain the House over this preferential tariff business. If I were to read from the speech of the Minister of Finance, I could only show that he faces both ways upon this question as he does upon the tariff, tie tells us that, if the British people do not give some concessions in their market, he is prepared to repeal the preferential tariff. But then he asks, notwithstanding that, whether it would be in the interest of the people of Canada to repeal it. The hon. gentleman always show's the faint heart. He stands at the cross roads and does not know which wray to go. He tells us that, if the British government do not take a certain course, he will take the other. But then his heart fails him, and he asks the hesitating question : But

would it be in the interest of Canada ? He tells us that it is well to use their own tariff weapon against the United States. But when he thinks of our great North-west he asks : But what would such a course cost

ais ? He lays down the principle that in every case, a protective duty is paid by the consumer in the enhanced price of the article. I deny that experience has ever shown anything of that kind, I deny that in Canada, at least, beyond a mere momentary spurt, protection has ever raised the prices of goods. Take machinery with regard to which a mean appeal is made to the people of the North-west Territories, made upon such small things as binder twine, barbed wire and farm implements. Is there an lion, gentleman representing a constituency in the North-west who will say that even if a duty of $10 w'ere put upon farm implements, a farmer in the North-west would find it any serious handicap, such does not follow as a result of the duty. Yet the Minister of the Interior tells us that the tax upon farm implements is a great burden to the people of the North-west. Well, to-day we have the Minister of Finance undoing every particle of the legislation that he put upon the statute-book in 1897, retracing his steps, showing his own blunders regarding binder twine, probably making the proposal of giving a bounty of three-eights of a cent per pound on importations of the raw material, and he thinks that will cause the

binder twine to be made in Canada after it bas been made free and tax our own people for it. But by whom was it made free ? It was made free by a blunder of tbe bon. gentleman opposite, made free in vain. Tbe people of Canada bare never profited by it. We have lost that much revenue, and tbe American people came into Canada and took possession of our market, and made our manufacturers join tbe combine. To-day tbe manufacturers of Canada are in a combine with those of the United States, and we are importing 14,000,000 pounds of binder twine out of tbe eighteen million pounds we consume in Canada. We are importing 14,000,000 pounds that ought to be made in Canada by Canadian workmen.

What was the position of tbe Minister of Finance upon that question? Why, it was tbe most extraordinary declaration ever made in this House, that a minister of tbe Crown should come down and say, I have not found a remedy for tbe evil, but I propose, before this session closes, to find a remedy-in other words, giving us to understand that be was going to change the tariff in some way. But what is the shift tbe lion, gentleman proposes to make ? He proposes to take out of the pockets of the people by means of a bounty the sum that is charged by tbe United States, to take it out of the pockets of Canadians in order to make good that loss that he inflicted upon them by taking away the protection. They not only take away the protection from the industry, but they have made binder twine higher, and they have deprived Canadian workmen of tlie opportunity of making binder twine that is now niade in the United States. There is no mistake about who pays the money that goes in bounties. It comes directly out of our pockets. They take away protection largely from a large class of iron goods. The Minister of Customs declared, when the tariff was being revised, that they gave these bounties in lieu of tbe protection that they took away from the manufacturers in that class of goods. In other words, money that ought to have been paid by foreign countries, is now placed upon the heads of Canadians to be paid out in the shape of bounties in order to sustain that industy. It is just another one of their procession of blunders. It is the same with binder twine. But who pays the duty ? We are told the consumer pays the duty. Why should we seek for reciprocity with the United States, I ask hon. gentlemen, if the American consumer pays the duty ? I appeal to the hon. member for North Norfolk, who now wants reciprocity with the United States to sell our wheat there ? According to the Liberal doctrine it is the people of the United States who pay that duty. If they do pay that duty, what is the difference between that and a duty on a binder coming from the United States ? Why should we seek to get a preference in the Mr. CLANCY.

British market ? Let the British taxpayer pay the duty, we are not paying it, according to hon. gentlemen opposite. How do lion, gentlemen reconcile the two positions ? Do they mean to say that every dollar that is put on by customs duties to defend our interests, and for the purpose of giving protection to our own Canadian people has the effect of raising the price ?

I ask hon. gentlemen who represent the North-west Territories what compensation they have for the taxes put upon them. In 1S96, we collected per head in taxes, $7.57, and in 1902 we collected $10.81. We are collecting $3.24 a head more than we collected in 1896. I ask hon. members who represent western constituencies what they have to compensate them for that. Do they still maintain that the old tariff taxed them to the extent of the duty upon the goods they consumed in this country ? If They do, then let them make their peace with their leaders. But not only are we paying an excess of $3.24 a head in taxes in 1902, but we have a prospect of paying $4.23 a head for the year coming.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to consider this reform tariff. The hon. Minister of Customs, who pays great attention to this matter, says the tariff has been reformed. Well, this is the way it has been reformed. We imported in 1902 $118,000,000 of dutiable goods, and of that amount, just $16,615,000 came in under the reform tariff of 1897. That is the extent of the burden lifted from the people, when the taxes went all into the treasury, when it was no longer the case that two dollars out of three went into the pockets of the manufacturers and the favoured few, and the other dollar went into the treasury. We have the tariff reformed to the extent of $16,615,000 out of $118,000,000, or about 14 per cent of the whole tariff was reformed. That has been a splendid reduction. That has been the new policy, if I may call it so, of a revenue tariff, of lifting the burdens, of changing the currents of trade ; that has been the new Liberal tariff policy. But it has another side to it, Mr. Speaker. Out of that $118,000,000 that came in last year coming under the general tariff of 1897 of dutiable goods, there were $34,542,000 raised. Is that a reformation of the tariff ? I do not think hon. gentlemen will say so. I do not speak at all in regard to the preferential tariff, because I have no hesitation in saying from my place in this House and in the presence of hon. gentlemen who are merchants and who know, that the people never derived one farthing of benefit as consumers from the preferential tariff. We, therefore, speak of the reformation where it existed, if it did exist, of the decreases by that reformed tariff of 14 per cent and the increases of that reformed tariff of no less than 29 per cent. Who got the benefit of the reductions? Was it the general consumer ? No. these reductions were made in the interest of the

manufacturers generally. Tlie manufacturers got the benefit. I do not object to the manufacturers getting the benefit of the reductions if the amount was not taxed back upon the people in the form of bounties to make it up. The value of the goods on which reductions were made to help the manufacturers, and I do not object to that, was $7,222,632. I shall not enumerate the goods, but if the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) is sufficiently interested and curious, I will read it over for him.

Hon. Mr. HAG 6ART. Read the list and it will be on record.

Mr. CLANCY.

The list is a very considerable one.

An lion. MEMBER. Read it.

Mr. CLANCY.

Does the hon. gentleman want it read ?

Yes.

Mr. CLANCY.

I shall read it, but I shall ask the indulgence of the House if I do not conclude at six o'clock. I see the hon. Minister of Customs smiling. The first item is one in his interest and it is labels of all kinds.

Importations in 1902 of Goods on which the Duty was decreased in the Interests of the

Manufacturer.

Great Britain.

United States.

Other Countries.

Labels, fruit and vegetable

Straw-board

Sulphuric acid

Acid sulphate

Lubricating oil.. .

Crude oil

Olive oil

Shoe tacks

Iron or steel nuts and washers.

Files and rasps

Steam engines and boilers....

Iron and steel goods

Fjlectrotypes and stereotypes..

Lead pipe

W atch eases

Cases for watches, jewels, &c

Cane, reed, rattan

Glucose or grape sugar

Jeans and sateens

Rove

Wool yams

Enamelled oil cloth

Window shades in pieces

Nitro-glycerine

Slate for mantels, roofs, &c. .

10,807

101

9,638

1,188

10,617

34,998

1,404,912

4,929

2,457

4,111

19,441

217,735

352,697

2,040

59

55,735

7,571

4,525

15,771

52,282

40,568

10,578

3,880

90,839

76,657

347,024

2,983,020

9,386

3,087

97,711

4,315

38,044

103,437

84,268

176,428

4,208

22,944

49,981

13,538

18,058

6,394

583,460

30

159

49,646

64,908

1,276

10,201

2,078,304 4,395,876 748,454Great Britain $ 2,078,304 United States 4.395,876 Other countries 748,454 $ 7,222,632

Then, when we take the goods on which the duties were reduced we will find that these reductions were concessions to the United States. Perhaps the hon. gentlemen opposite want to know what these concessions were. The articles ou which the duty was reduced in 1S97 were Indian corn, Indian corn meal, wheat and wheat flour.

Mr. COCHRANE.

For the benefit of the farmer ?

Mr. CLANCY.

Yes, for the benefit of the farmer. These hon. gentlemen claimed that the duty was taken off corn for the benefit of our farmer. The duty was lowered on wheat for the benefit of the men in the large centres like Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto, and other industrial centres which buy enormous quantities of wheat and while hon. gentlemen opposite were pretending that they were lifting the burden off the consumer they were placing a heavier

burden on the Canadian farmers. The value of the Indian corn, corn meal, wheat and wheat flour imported under the reduced duty and which duty was reduced for the benefit also of the people of the United States was $1,898,318. There was another concession made to the people of the United States from which the people of Canada derived no benefit of $878,087 on coal oil. Will any hon. gentleman say that the reduction of one cent a gallon on coal oil inured in the slightest to the benefit of the consumers of Canada ? It resulted in bringing in the Standard Oil Company with which the oil producers of Canada have been forced to join hands, an Institution which they dreaded ; but with which they have been forced to join and now we have the oil producers of Canada acting in concert with that foreign combine and putting up the price of oil. Then, there was another concession to the United States in the matter of barbed wire to the amount of $826,846. We have brought in that amount of barbed wire under this reduced duty. The barbed wire factories in Canada are practically all closed up. The workmen who should look to Canada for a day's labour and a means of earning a livelihood have been sent to make barbed wire in the United States. We are not only sending our Canadian workmen to the United States, but we are sending our Canadian money to buy the barbed wire which is now made in the United States. As I have said we gave a concession to the United States in the matter of barbed wire of $826,846. But, we gave still another concession of $1,507,344 in the matter of binder twine. I shall not discuss that again ; I have only to say that this concession was made in the interest of the United States workmen and it was one of those stupendous blunders that hon. gentlemen have made and the country are now paying for this blunder.

Mr. COCHRANE.

The people have been paying more for binder twine ever since.

Mr. CLANCY.

Yes. I wish now to point out what has been the l'esult of the raising of duties on goods imported into Canada. I appeal again, to the hon. Minister of Customs. He does not seem to suffer in this and I shall not have his sympathy so much. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to give the House the list of goods on which the duties were raised under this reformed tariff. They were raised mainly upon the necessaries of life notwithstanding the declaration of the hon. Minister of Finance that he made in this House that he proposed to adopt the policy, or the platform, enunciated at the Liberal convention of 1893 that the duties on the necessaries of life should not only be reduced but that these goods should be made free. Well, this is how they have been made free. The list is as follows : Mr. CLANCY.

Who pays the increased duty on woollens ?

Mr. CLANCY.

On wcollens ?