Mr. COWAN.

I have been pretty patient to-night.

Mr. SPROULE.

Why do I say it was not wiped out in that way ? For this reason :

At the close of the fiscal year of 1895-1896, the parliamentary appropriation for that year had been exhausted and large sums were still owing by the department. With the view of ascertaining the true financial position of the department, two accountants, Messieurs Cross and Munro, were appointed to make certain inquiries, the result of their investigations being set forth in the aunual report of 1897.

What were they to inquire into ? One of their inquiries was to ascertain the exact

amount of the unpaid debts or liabiliaties of the department on the first of July, 1896, oyer and above the appropriation made to parliament for the fiscal year 1895-6 and classify the same. They were to inquire about several other things as well. They then made this report. They said that at the close of the fiscal year 1895-6 the liabilities of the department, in excess of all parliamentary appropriflitions applicable, thereto amounted to the sum of $685,449, increase of these liabilities during the year 1895-96 made it $68,734 more, which made in all $781,152. That was the actual deficit the auditors found.

I asked whether that was wiped out by the savings, and I understood from the reply and the process of reasoning of the Finance Minister that it was. But what do the estimates of 1897 show ? An item was proposed for the Post Office Department of $685,447, or just what the auditors found was the deficit and for which there was no appropriation. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was then looking after the estimates of the Postmaster General, said in explanation of that item :

The Postmaster General is not here at the moment. But I can state briefly what this is. They are the accumulated deficits of the post oflice for the last twenty years. It appears that they have always been out running the constable in that department, and that they have been constantly paying out of one years appropriations, sums which were due in the last year and adding thereto from time to time. They have finally run up to this large sum and the Postmaster General thinks that it is time that should stop.

And he proposed an item of $685,447 for that purpose. And we voted that amount. Was it by any saving in the department that this amount was wiped out ? Not at all. That should for ever set at rest the contention that the Postmaster General, by any exercise of economy, wiped out this deficit. What more did the hon. Postmaster General do ? He sold that year $444,000 worth of Jubilee stamps, which were not redeemable by the post oflice except you used them by way of postage. A large portion of them were never used at all. I sent two sets to Kansas and had an application for more, but could not get them. It was a disgrace, I contend, to this government to take that money out of the people and give them nothing in return. Ordinary stamps were redeemable in cash, but not these stamps. When we find this item of $685,447 voted to wipe out part of the deficit and when we find the Postmaster General realizing $444,000 out off Jubilee stamps, are we to conclude that he is entitled to any great credit 1 1 do

not think it. And I do not think that any gentleman on that side should be inclined to give him credit for great economy in the administration of this department. I am not saying a word against the hon. gentleman for what he has done. Many of the things lie has done I approve of. I approve Mr. SPROULE.

of the reduction in the postage, but while he reduced the postage on letters he increased it on papers. While he reduced on the one hand he raised on the other. But what I find fault with is that he should take credit to himself for good management and for wiping out the deficit and making the department self-sustaining. Whereas, as a matter of fact, as I have shown, lie did nothing of the kind. What did Mr. Foster say in reply to the explanation I have cited of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce ? He said ;

We will accept that explanation. We knew that the hon. gentlemen opposite were going to bring down enormous appropriations, and we suppose that we will have to let them pass.

It passed oft' at that. That is the history of how the post office deficit was wiped out.

We are told that there is economy in every department. We are told that the Intercolonial Railway has been economically managed, but that question has been already dealt with and will be dealt with at greater length by hon. gentlemen on this side in the future.

I would ask : Has the Department of

Public Works been wisely and economically administered ? I could readily give a dozen items as Illustrating the very reverse. Take that vote which was given last year for a public work, the Grand Vallee pier, Which will be found in last year's ' Hansard, ' page 1585. A public work was started there which is going to cost the country $63,000. It was started in a place where there were not a dozen people, where no boat heretofore ever called, where no trade was done, which was nothing but a wilderness. 4nd for what purpose was it started ? Simply to benefit a member of this House who had invested in a timber limit there a short time before. The place, as the hon. member described it the other night, was when this work was begun, a perfect ' terra incognita'-no boats at all, no population, no village, no post office. That wharf, when finished will cost the country, according to the Minister of Public Works, $63,357. If time permitted I could give a dozen examples which would show just as effectively as this does the lack of wisdom and economy which characterizes the administration of this important department. There is no extravagance, we are told; every department is managed wisely and well. Bet me take one example from the Department of Agriculture, and it is quite as striking as the other I have given. The present government had a work to do that their predecessors did several times-'the taking of the census. This government took the census in 1901. The census was taken by their predecessors in 1891, in 1881 and in 1871. The first time the census was taken in 1871, the cost was $511,330. In 1881, the cost of taking the census was $456,904. In 1891, the expense of this service $570,000, only once under the Conservative regime did the

expense of taking the census go above half a million. What did it cost this government to take the census in 3901 ? So far they have spent $1,130,000, double what it cost in 1891. This is the record of this government which we are told is a government of economy and ability. But they tell us that there was much more work in taking the last census. Well, they had nine schedules in the census of 1891 and eleven schedules in the last census. But the expense has already been doubled, all but $10,000, and that amount and more will be spent this year. Will the people of the country regard this as wise expenditure V Will they regard it as an example of strict economy ? I do not think they will.

What has the government accomplished ia the way of national statesmanship since they came into power ? What great thing-have they accomplished for the benefit of the people ? Before coming into power they said they would negotiate a trade treaty with the United States. Have they done so ? No ! They tried to negotiate a treaty with France to establish better trade relations between the two countries, but so far they have not succeeded. They tried to improve our trade relations with Germany, and they have brought about a trade war with that country, so that we are shut out of its markets. They tried to negotiate a treaty with the United States, but it was a failure. They tried to negotiate a treaty with the little island of Trinidad but failed. They told us that at the late intercolonial conference we would get a treaty with the Australian colonies. They told us that the granting of the l>referential trade with England was a great achievement. We have had that system a few years and what is the effect of it ? Taking up to-day's paper, I find the following :

London, April 23.-Mr. Harold Cox, secretary of the Cobden Club has written to the Westminster ' Gazette ' with regard to the Canadian tariff policy as follows : ' The main tariff of Canada was deliberately framed to shut out English manufacturers and English goods. It gives greater encouragement to the manufacturers from the United States than from Great Britain. There is no reason commercially, for British gratitude to Canada. The boot is on the other leg.'

That is what the secretary of the Cobden Club says.

Mr. HEYD.

Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) believe that ?

Mr. SPROULE.

I am not saying now, what X believe, but I am telling the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) what the great free trade Cobden Club of England thinks. This is written by the gentleman who pinned the medal on the premier's breast a few years ago because of the granting of the preferential tariff, which, they thought, was a move in the direction of free trade. I am afraid the premier will be humiliated by being compelled to send the medal back

to the Codben Club to be kept for some future free trader.

Mr. GOURLEY.

I heard he had sent it back after the surtax was put on German goods.

Mr. SPROULE.

No doubt he would feel very uncomfortable in keeping it. We have preferential trade, and what has it giveu us ? Members of this government were at the interimperial conference last year, and they went there saying they were going to establish better trade relations with the Australian colonies and New Zealand. Moreover they were going to try and get some consideration in the British market over the foreigner. But they gained nothing. But, while they gained nothing in the way of better markets, they humiliated Canada by declaring that Canada would not consider the question of imperial defence. And Canada stands as the laughing stock of the world, because, notwithstanding our wealth and position and loyalty and everything else, our premier, who was in the band wagon of the great jubilee of our late beloved Queen in 1897, refused to even discuss, on the lines desired, the question of imperial defence. They said Canada was not prepared to pay her share for the defence of the empire. I say this is a humiliation to Canada. We are doing less than we ought to do and are the laughing stock of the world.

Have lion, gentlemen opposite materially cheapened the transportation ? They are always talking of the transportation problem ; have they actually done anything in connection with it ?. If so, I do not know where to look for the record of it. The fast Atlantic service question was really settled when they came into office, the contract having been practically made. But they cancelled it, saying they could get a better one at less cost. But they have made no contract yet. A few years ago we were going to have the bottle-necked ships that would accomplish so much. But it was only hot air from the west. Then, we were to have had a contract at very much less than tile old one. They worked away at that for years. At last they declared that they had failed, and nothing has been ever accomplished. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) says : Oh, we have done a great deal for the people of Canada ; we have changed the system of taxation, giving them a revenue tariff instead of a protective tariff. The lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce, in commencing his address, twitted the leader of the opposition with being inclined to resort to scrap-book literature-with dealing with history of the past. If there was one member of this House who ought to be afraid of scrap-books, it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He seems like Ban-quo in the play of Macbeth. When he hears of a scrap-book, his previous record will not down. Like Banquo's ghost it will come up to confront him. That was why he displayed

so much dread of scrap-boolc literature, because he is confronted by his utterances of the past. In dealing -with the system of taxation, he said :

Under our system the great bulk of the taxes goes into the treasury, under the old regime the great bulk of it went Into the pockets of the manufacturers.

Now I ask the people of this country if that is so ? He says :

If we have to-day an exceedingly unfair and oppressive system of taxation under which we were practically putting two dollars into the private pockets for every one that went into the public treasury, I might see my way to deliver myself of some public criticism. There are the strongest possible grounds for believing that since we came into office the exodus is stopped and the tide of immigration has been flowing into our country to the tune of 125.000 to 200,000 a year.

Where are they now ? Referring to the leader of the opposition lie-said :

He has paid no attention whatever to the difference between the real taxation inflicted on the people under a protective tariff, and the actual taxation inflicted on the people under a revenue tariff, even if it be a high one. The difference is this, that substantially the great bulk of the taxes go into the treasury under the present tariff, whereas, under the administration which preceded ours, an enormous percentage of the taxes which the people of Canada had to pay did not go into the treasury but went to swell the profits of private individuals.

Is that so ? Now, I take up the Trade and Navigation returns, and let me give one illustration of the working of the tariff called protective under the old government under which, as he says, for every dollar that went into the treasury two dollars went into the pockets of the manufacturers. Now I take the importations of those lines in which the farmers are interested : Cultivators, drills, seed drills, harrows, harvesters, horse rakes, mowing machines, ploughs, reapers and such like. These are manufactured in Canada. Under the old system, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce is right, for every dollar of revenue that went into the treasury, and that was collected by customs duties, two dollars went into the manufacturers pockets. Now, take the last year the Conservative government were in power, I find that 9,321 articles were imported on which a duty of $70,000 was paid. In 1902, under a tariff exactly the same in every particular, the same duty as in 1896 on every article, this government took out of the people of Canada $417,000 in duties as against $70,000 by the Conservative government-the same system, the same duty, the only difference being that one was called protective, while the other is called a revenue tariff. And yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce says that under the Conservative government for ever dollar that went into the treasury two dollars went into the manufacturers' pocket, whereas in 1902 no-

Mr. SPROULE.

thing goes into the manufacturers' pocket but all goes into the treasury. How can any one believe that ? If a duty of 20 per cent and 25 per cent in 1896 was a protective duty, is it not a protective duty to-day ? If it enabled the manufacturer to put two dollars into his pocket for every dollar that went into the treasury, does it not enable him to do the same thing to-day ? Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce think the people of Canada are so stupid or so gullible as to believe such a statement ? Is that logic or is it not ? I need not deal with corn and other items. I merely give this as an illustration, as an example, of the hon. gentleman's style of reasoning.

Now he says : We have stopped the exodus from the country by our system, and we have done a great good in that respect. Is it true that they have stopped the exodus V How do we know whether the exodus is stopped or not ? We know it by the Trade and Navigation returns of the United States, which show the value of settlers' effects going into that country every year from Canada. Now, if the exodus was stopped there would be no settlers' effects going in there, because it is only goods taken in by men who actually settle there that are taken account of by the Trade and Navigation returns of the United States. I find by those returns that in 1897, $1,275,000 worth of settlers' effects went into the United States accompanied by people who went there from Canada to settle. In 1898 there were $904,000; in 1S99, $1,037,000; in 1900, $1,144,000; in 1901, $1,042,000; in 1902, the very last year, at a time when the exodus has all been stopped, according to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, there were $1,278,000 worth of settlers' effects crossing the frontier from Canada to the United States, accompanied by Canadian citizens who went over there and settled in that country.

Would that not include effects of settlers who come to our ports from England and other places ?

Mr. SPROULE.

They say not. Only from Canada. Now I find that this very year there is a considerable exodus going on, largely to the New England States, where manufactures are plentiful. Very naturally they go to a country that has varied industries and which offers employment in so many lines. If our protective tariff was accomplishing for Canada what we think it ought to accomplish, provided it was high enough, it would build up our own industries and keep our operatives at home.

I want to ask, what helped the exodus. We are told that we have 125,000 to 150,000 immigrants coming into Canada, and that we had a very heavy exodus when the Conservative party were in power. What helped to make that exodus ? The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said that

the loss of Canada in those eighteen years during which the Conservative party were in power amounted to millions. Every train going to the United States was crowded with settlers and their effects. Why was every train crowded with settlers and their effects ?-because every Reformer in Canada became an immigration agent for the United States, with the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce at the head of the bureau. Am I justified in saying so ? I think I am. Why do I say so ? When I look at the ' Economist ' and read that letter written by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce years ago, to tell the people of Europe what a bad country Canada was, how heavily it was taxed, how the people were bled white by taxation, that it offered no inducements for people to come and settle, that it was the place above all others in the world for them to avoid, is it any wonder that people were deterred from coming ? At that time the Conservative party had eleven principal agents at work to get immigrants to come to this country and they spent $120,000 during the last year they were in power on immigration. To-day the government have no less than forty-four principal agents drawing from S1,000 to $4,000 a year, most of them receiving large amounts for expenses in addition and they have also 275 agents in the United States on commission working in the interests of Canada. When we were endeavouring to get immigrants to come to this country we had every Reform member of this House acting as an immigration agent for the United States, saying that the people of that country were happy and prosperous and that they were getting rich while we were getting poorer and poorer. It was not enough to confine their operations to the continent of America, but the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce had to write about the condition of Canada to the * Economist,' so as to prevent immigrants coming to us from Europe ; and what did he say :

But it is not equally well known on your side of the Atlantic that it has become painfully apparent for some time back to every one who has been at pains to examine the evidence which has accumulated on the subject, that, even in that comparatively short space of time, this most ill advised policy has resulted in a tremendous exodus of the very choicest portion of the population of Canada.

Talking to the people that we were trying to get to come here, he told them that the people were leaving the country because of the policy of the Conservative party.

And in a very grave depreciation in the selling values of farm lands and of town and village property throughout all the older sections of the Dominion, including Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.

This has been accompanied, as is usual in such cases, by an immense increase in the aggregate indebtedness of the Dominion in the shape of

large additions to its federal, provincial and municipal debts, and also to the mortgage debts incurred by private individuals and liabilities incurred for the construction of railways-by far the greater part of all which obligations are held abroad.

Briefly, in these thirteen years, there has been a great displacement of wealth, caused mainly by artificial legislation, but (as regards the older provinces) absolutely no increase at all in the collective wealth of the community. Two or three cities, and perhaps a score of towns, have increased considerably, and a few hundred individuals (who have been privileged to tax their fellows for their private advantage) have grown rich by this system of legalized robbery ; but the great mass of the population, and notably the agricultural class, are distinctly poorer and less prosperous than they were twelve years ago.

This he was saying to the farmers, mechanics and labourers of England, that we were trying to get to come here, and whom we were telling that there were greater advantages here than those which they enjoyed In the bid country. Is it any wonder we did not get immigrants to come to our country ? I think not.

In one word, if the assertions and official statements of the present government are to be relied on, and these 900,000 immigrants, did really come to Canada as they assert, what between immigrants who came to Canada and who have quitted it chiefly for the United States, and the loss of its own natural increase which has disappeared in the same direction, the Dominion has lost not less than one million and a half of people in the last ten years.

As to the amount of taxation, the agricultural class has been simply bled white.

This is told to the farmers of England whom we were asking to come over here that they might better their condition.

Over and above the taxes actually paid into the Dominion treasury to be expended for so-called federal purposes they have been mulcted during all these years under the proctective system of at least an equal amount which is either totally wasted or goes into the pockets of a very small number of protected manufacturers.

The exact a,mount levied, or to speak more accurately, pilaged, in this way can hardly he estimated ; but it is known not to be less than a sum fully equal to the entire amount credited to the treasury.

Such an amount of taxation levied for thirteen years is a very formidable burthen for a country like Canada to bear.

It would be well if this were all, but unfortunately, the economic results of protective system adopted by Canada in 1879, grevious as they are fade almost into insignificance compared with the moral and political pollution it has brought in its train.

No moral or political pollution to-day-not at all. Then, to continue this article :

It is not merely the policy but the fixed determination of the Liberal party in the Dominion of Canada to overthrow this system at all hazards ; and, after very full deliberation, they have come to the conclusion that the best and probably the only really available method which presents itself for the purpose lies in introduc-ing-tbe system of perfect continental free trade

or unrestricted reciprocity with the United States.

Compare that with their statement lately, giving the reasons why they made a reduction in the duty on British goods.

That is what they were asking for then. Look at their loyalty to England to-day. Out of goodness of our heart and out of generosity we give that preference to England in recognition of the splendid freedom she has given to us. We did it out of the generosity of our heart and because of our overflowing loyalty. Then, they wanted unrestricted reciprocity that Hon. Mr. Blake said if adopted, would lead to annexation. It goes on to say :

One thing, I think ought to be clear to all intelligent Englishmen, and that is, that it is utterly impossible that Canada can prosper under her present conditions-isolated and in danger of being still more completely isolated, from trade and commerce with the entire continent to which she belongs geographically, losing her population at the rate of one million and a half in ten years (if the official statements of the present government are to be relied on) and subject, at the same time to a system of taxation and of organized political corruption such as you have happily been strangers to since the days of Walpole or Charles II.

The Liberal party of Canada and, indeed, the great bulk of the people of the Dominion, wish well to the mother country, and it is very far from their desire to do anything which in the long run can injure her interests ; but their duty in the premises is plain. As Canadians they must consult the advantages of Canada first

And he declared for a policy of unrestricted reciprocity or continental free trade with the people of the United States. That was written to the ' Economist ' by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, written to a country where we were trying our level best, with a very small expenditure of money, to get immigrants to come out to this country, when we were endeavouring to show them that we had a better country, and that it offered better opportunities for battling with the conditions of life than any other country. Yet, the hon. gentleman, in this article, declares that such is not the case. Is it any wonder that we did not get immigrants to come to this country ? Now, I take up the writings of the hon. gentleman to the ' North American Review ' declaring that the country is so burdened with taxation and debt that no man can succeed in Canada and that the United States is the only place where people can succeed. What was the situation during the time that the Conservative party were in power ? I say that at least there were seventy-five immigration agents in this House who were immigration agents always for the United States and never for Canada. They went about preaching the same doctrine and they had thousands of their friends outside. The bureau was here headed by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Hon.

Mr. SPROULE.

Mr. Blake, whose portrait adorned an immigration pamphlet that was distributed in the state of Kansas with his speech in the House of Commons added to show the people of that country that Canada was the last place in the world to go to. This pamphlet contained speeches of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce decrying Canada, saying that Canadians were bled white and that Canadians were kept in bondage worse than any slavery they ever had in that country. It was then said that there was an exodus, and that the people were fleeing from the country.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why are immigrants coming to Canada to-day. It is because every member of this House is an immigration agent in the interest of Canada. There never was a Conservative, who in power or in opposition, would decry his country. In power or out of power, the Conservatives stand up for Canada, and you will not find in the ' Economist ' or the ' North American Review ' or in any other publication, an article from a Conservative decrying his own country and telling the people to go to the American republic where they could amass wealth, rather than to Canada where the farmers were bled white and the inhabitants kept down by heavy taxation. It was left for the Minister of Trade and Commerce and for other Liberals to denounce their country in that way. I repeat, Sir, that every member of parliament to-day has a good word to say for his country, and that amongst the people of Europe and amongst the people of the United States their object is to create the impression that Canada is a happy country to live in. I know it to be a fact that in many Reform constituencies in this country the Reformers believed their member when he told them that Canada was the last place in the world to live in, and taking him at his word they left in such large numbers that many of these Reform members got defeated when they returned for election. That was notably so in South Grey, which was a Reform constituency, but which at the last two elections went Conservative for the reason that the Liberals, believing their member that Canada was a bad place to live in. cleared out to the states and left the Conservatives who had faith in their country, in the majority. Every Canadian member of the parliament, I repeat, is to-day an immigration agent for Canada, whereas before 1800, every Reform member of parliament was an immigration agent for the United States, with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) at the head of the bureau.

We were told. Sir, when the Liberals came into power that their fiscal policy was going to be that of a revenue tariff. But what is their policy to-day. It is a very peculiar policy indeed. In the budget speech of 1897 ('nansard,' page 1,111) the Minister of Finance said :

I shall have something to say which will show that in respect of our relations with Great Britain, and in respect of our relations with any other country, that is willing to meet us on equal terms, we shall be prepared to offer a measure of tariff reform, of the most substantial character, which is not contained in this tariff I am going to read.

He told us here that he would read two tariffs, one not much different from the tariff of the Conservatives, but as they were pledged to tariff reform they would give a substantial measure of tariff reform in relation to those countries that would trade freely with us. Further, in answer to a question by Sir Charles Tupper, the Minister of Finance said :

I stated that the tariff I am about to read to you is the general tariff, but that before I conclude, I shall be prepared to make a statement in relation to a special tariff that will apply to Great Britain, and any other country which is prepared to accept the conditions that that tariff imposes.

There are men, well meaning men in Canada-Liberals, some of them, let us admit- who say that we should meet the Dingley Bill on the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a dollar for a dollar. Such is the demand of many men in Canada to-day, but we submit it would not be wise to adopt that policy. We submit that it is a wiser policy to wait and see what shall be the outcome of the present uncertainty in the United States in relation to their trade policy and of the negotia-ions which we are willing to enter into with respect to reciprocity. We submit, that pending such negotiations, and pending the settlement of the American tariff question, and a clear understanding of what will be the effect which their policy may have upon the affairs of Canada, it is the part of prudence that we should to-day hold our hands and not extend to that country the measure of tariff reform which we would be anxious to extend if they would meet us on liberal terms.

But there are those who say that if we do not care to deal with the tariff in its relations with the United States to-day, we ought not to disturb our existing tariff at all. I have heard it argued that what we should do is to let our own tariff stand as it is to-day. I cannot subscribe to that doctrine. The Liberal party has pledged itself to give tariff reform and the country expects the Liberal party to fulfil that pledge. And if the events across the border have taken such a course as to justify us in withholding action in relation to our trade with that country, that is no reason why we should not proceed to deal with tariff reform in its relation to those countries which are

prepared to deal with us X have to

tell the House that it is not the intention of the government-speaking of the question generally, and not, with reference to any particular article-to propose any great reduction in the tariff as applied to those countries which are not disposed to trade with us. We propose, therefore, to have a general tariff, and that general tariff will be, to a large extent, the tariff of to-day-but the tariff of to-day freed from some cf its enormities.

His tariff reform or the reform part of his tariff was the preference clause, and he offered it to every country in the world who would accept it. He told us afterwards that

it only applied to England and to-day he threatens to take it away from England. He tells us that his general tariff was to a large extent the then existing tariff of the Conservative party, and if that be the case, it is the tariff of to-day because there have been practically no changes made in it since. If, as the Liberals claimed before 1896, the tariff policy of the Conservative government put $2 into the manufacturers' pocket for every dollar it put into the treasury, how can our fiscal policy of to-day be a revenue tariff, when as the Minister of Finance has told us it is practically the same tariff as that in force during the Conservative regime. -In 1902, the Minister of Finance said :

There are several reasons which operate in our minds against entering a policy of tariff changes to-day.

That is what the Minister of Finance said two years ago. This government gave ns the preferential tariff and that was the only substantial change they made in the tariff, and let me ask what has been the result of that, England says it has done her no good; Canada finds it has done her no good and to-day the Minister of Finance threatens to repeal that great measure of tariff reform. As a reason for not changing the tariff in 1902, the Minister of Finance said : That

the census was not taken; that he hoped to get a better treaty with France, and that he thought Germany would change her mind and give us better treatment in her markets. Well, Sir, we have seen that Germany has not changed her mind. Another is the present position of our trade relations with the mother country and her colonies. Two important conferences are to take place ; one on the question of trade and commerce, affecting the empire ; and. second, a conference with New Zealand, Australia and Canada. For these reasons we postpone for the present the question of tariff revision. That-was in 1902. We come down to 1903. and he still does not propose to give any more tariff reform. What reason does he give to-day ?

Coming now to the question of the tariff. I have two clauses to propose which will affect the tariff in certain directions, and I shall ask for some amendments to the free list. Of these I shall speak presently. With these exceptions

__and they are important exceptions as respects

the clauses referred to-we do not propose any change in the schedule rates of dutiable goods. We are not unmindful of the fact that there has been some agitation for a general revision of the tariff, but we think there is nothing in the present circumstances of the country which calls for this, and there are some strong reasons why any extensive changes in the tariff schedules would be inopportune.

That is what he says to-day. Now, what has been the tariff policy of hon. gentlemen opposite ? The only substantial change they made was in giving the preference to England. But that has resulted in a commercial war with Germany, which may

extend beyond Canada and even to England. It has resulted in our being shut out of the German market and our trade with Germany being circumscribed. It has done England no good, it has done Canada no good, and now hon. gentlemen opposite threaten to repeal it. That is their trade *policy for the present. What is it for tie future ? The Finance Minister has stated [DOT]it: no change. What has it been all along? It has been procrastination, and it is procrastination to-day. They know that some of the industries of the country are waning for want of encouragement, but they are doing nothing.

The great beet-root sugar industry, which is rapidly springing up in Canada, wants more protection, wants a little bounty. That is an industry above all others for the farmer-why ? Because $60 out of every $100 spent in that industry goes direct to the farmer. But those who are engaged in that industry want an increase in the tariff on sugars coming into the country, and for the want of this they are handicapped m carrying on their business. We are told that unless they get some consideration in the tariff their industry is likely to go down instead of becoming one of the great established industries of the country. There is a large amount of money invested in it to-day, and there is going to be much more in the future if it is given the assistance it requires. Canada,' is admirably adapted to that industry. There are hundreds employed in it to-day, and there will be tens of thousands in the future if it is granted proper encouragement. But procrastination is the thief of time, and the present Minister of Finance will give that industry no consideration beyond allowing its machinery to come in free for another year.

Then, look at the lead industry of British Columbia, in which there were over 1,000 people employed last summer. The men engaged in that industry declare that unless something is done for them, it must be closed down. I was in British Oolumoia last fall, and I saw there some of the most valuable lead mines, I suppose, in the world, one with over 300 men employed; but they had to shut down because there was no profit in the business. If the government would put a duty on lead and give them a small bounty, that industry would go on and flourish. The 1,000 men and more indirectly employed in that industry must be thrown out of employment, or turn to some other occupation, or go across the line to find employment in the lead mines of the United States which they ought to And at home.

We are told that the government are going to put a duty of $7 a ton on steel rails, but I think they are going to do it in such a way that it will not do any good. I think that duty is right, and I commend the Finance Minister for it. I was up through the factory at Sault Ste. Marie last fall. It is a most valuable factory, and I Mr. SPROULE.

for one would go farther than the Finance Minister. He says :

We will give this duty if the quantity is sufficient to supply the demand and the quality is as good as can be got from other countries.

Even if the quality were not quite as good, I would give the duty.

Who would buy the rails if the quality were not as good ?

Mr. SPROULE.

The Canadian people would buy them.

They will not. They have refused to buy theui.

Mr. SPROULE.

Who ?

It is within my knowledge that the quality of rails made has not given satisfaction,' and the railway companies have objected to diem on that ground.

Mr. SPROULE.

I understood that the price was pretty high, but I saw that they got a contract for the Temiscamingue Railway only a few weeks ago.

I hope they will do better, and I think they will.

Mr. SPROULE.

The rails I saw them turning out at Sault Ste. Marie last fall seemed good ; but, I am no judge of rails.

Lest I might be misunderstood, I believe they are taking steps to improve the quality of the rails, and I have no doubt they will' make good rails in the immediate future.

Mr. SPROULE.

I hope they will, and I commend the Minister of Finance for offering to give them this assistance. That is what we like to see. That is what will build up Canada; and this is a suffering industry that cannot continue unless it gets some support.

Then, the hon. Minister of Finance says he is going to assist the binder twine industry, he has not told us how. I hope that whatever means he advises will be effective. A few years ago, he took the duty off and helped to kill the industry without doing any good to the Canadian farmer.

Then, he proposes to license foreign-built vessels. I do not object to that.

With regard to certain lines of industries the government are not giving the relief they should give. We are told that the woollen industry is suffering very much to-day. I believe it is, and a change in the tariff would tend to build up that industry, and enable it to employ hundreds and thousands of operators which it cannot employ to-day. Procrastination is killing it.

But the Minister of Trade and Commerce says ; You cannot do anything with your tariff to help the farmer. He says, speaking to the leader of the opposition :

We sell about $20,000,000 worth of cheese, chiefly in the English market. I suppose we consume about two million dollars worth in Canada. I would like to/ know how the hon. gentleman would protect us in that. We sell nearly as much bacon and hams. I would like to know how he will protect us In that.

Let me. tell the hon. gentleman how we could protect the Canadian farmer. The late government protected him by passing a tariff law which shut out the spurious cheese of the United States. This cheese was coming into our country and being shipped over to England as Canadian cheese, and in this way it was destroying the reputation of our product, but the late government put on a high tariff.