Very well. The hon. gentleman does not require any question to be asked. I have read what the hon. member for Peel has said In regard to certain articles coming from the United States, of which he holds that not a single dollar's worth should be allowed to come into the country, and he says that is in accordance with the principle of the amend-

ment which the hon. leader of the opposition has moved. Therefore we are forced, in view of the vagueness of the language of the hon. leader of the opposition, to learn the meaning of this adequate protection from the speeches made by his supporters in the House.

Then, the hon. member for Halton is one of the old members of the House, one of the staunch old Conservatives. He told us in his speech last night:

But we say we will put a Chinese wall right round this country, and we will not allow these Americans to come in here and monopolize the markets of this country.

That is what he understands by adequate protection-a Chinese wall around this country that will admit none of those products.

Thus we have arrived at the real meaning of adequate protection ; we have learned what the policy of the Conservative party under the leadership of the hon. gentleman is to be. If not, it must be denied. It is not the old national policy ; not at all. It is to be an adequate policy that will exclude everything from this country. It is to be a prohibitive tariff as interpreted by the speeches of hon. gentlemen who are following the hon. gentleman in the House, one of whom at least in his presence has reiterated his belief that that is the true meaning of the term.

But why go to the trouble of framing a tariff with hundreds of items in it to accomplish their purpose of prohibiting the Importation of foreign goods ? Why not at once pass a simple Act and say : It shall be illegal from this time henceforth to introduce into this country any goods of which a like kind are produced in Canada. They have not thought of revenue ; there is no expression in the resolution with reference to revenue. The only thing is protection- adequate protection-which is defined to be protection high enough to exclude everything, even if it should require a duty of 100 per cent.

Well, I am glad that we have been able to have this discussion. My remarks have been a little broken up by the friendly interruptions which we have had, but I, of course, must share the responsibility of that. The hon. leader of the opposition was courteous enough to give me an answer when I asked him a question, and I endeavoured to return a like courtesy when any questions were asked of myself. I have my views on the tariff, and perhaps, like some other members in this House, I may not get what I think the very best duty on every one of the 600 or 800 items in the tariff. I am quite sure that when the hon. gentleman forms an administration in the far distant future, he will find among his supporters, possibly among his colleagues, a difference of opinion on some items, because of different interests, and so on. But we are now getting down to a principle. Hon. gentlemen Hon. Mr. PATERSON.

are not fighting for the old national policy. What they are fighting for is away beyond that. It is for a prohibitive tariff that will shut out everything, while we on this side stand where we always have stood, for a revenue tariff, and a revenue tariff is what is now enacted. It is the kind of tariff that we were instructed to frame by the great Liberal convention in 1893. We were to raise our revenues by means of a tariff, and in arranging the tariff we were to take care to do injustice to no class. We have endeavoured to do that. It is a mere play upon words to talk about protection and free trade in this country. Where you have a tariff with'hundreds of items produced in the country, where you have a constant tariff on these items, you of necessity have protection as an incident of that tariff. It cannot be otherwise, unless you put a corresponding excise duty upon the articles manufactured in the country, which no one has ever proposed. What we have contended is, that under that tariff so aranged, we had to care for every interest. We have secured a tariff for revenue. We have obtained money from the people which I believe the people have not felt the burden of to any great extent. You do not hear murmuring in the country. We are carrying on the public business, developing this country at a rate never before known. The manufacturing and farming industries especially are prospering under the operation of that tariff, as they never prospered before. And this is the time, when the country is in that prosperous condition, that you are solemnly asked to declare that it is the bounden duty of the government to have a thorough revision and readjustment of the tariff, and to have it this session.

As the hon. Finance Minister has said, under the operation of the tariff, under changing conditions, which change very fast in our time, not shutting our eyes to what is being done in the course of legislation in other countries, tariff changes may be necessitated. When the time comes when, in the opinion of the government, those changes should be made, they will be made, I believe, in such a manner, as will promote the best interests of the people of this country ; and I think the vast majority of the members of this House, and the majority of the people of this country, will feel that when the revision of the tariff becomes necessary, either in whole or in part-I believe the manufacturers themselves will feel so-that it will be safer to leave that revision in the hands of the men who completed the last revision, than to entrust it to the hands of men whose only policy, as enunciated in their speeches, is to put the duties so high as to shut out every article the like of which is produced in this country. It would be ruin to the manufacturers as well as to all other classes in the country. Every person conversant with the intricacies of a tariff levied on such a vast multi-

tude of articles as our tariff comprises, knows the interdependence of trade, the relation of one article to another ; and in-the framing of that tariff it is necessary not only to provide for securing revenue, but to see that you are not crushing out one class of manufacturers, while unduly helping another class. It is no simple matter, and I venture to express the belief that the manufacturers of this country would feel that it would be safer to have the revision of the tariff, when the time comes for it to be made, whether in whole or in part, accomplished by the men who six years ago, with the aid of their supporters in this House, put in force the tariff that has stood from that day to this, without any material change ; and during those six years there has been such prosperity in this country as never existed in it before.

I have not spoken about that prosperity. It has been alluded to ; but every one knows the prosperity of this country. 'Our Conservative friends admit it, and claim credit for admitting it. What credit is due for admitting that the times are good ? Do we not know that hon. gentlemen opposite are men of truth, and being so, how could they say anything else, than that times are good? We could not have maintained that character if we had said that the times were good when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power.

The hon. leader of the opposition has told us that we have not done a single thing to promote the prosperity of this country-that this prosperity is outside and beyond anything we have done-that it is simply an incident cf the prosperity of the world at large. Well, if my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, thinks that the policy of a government has nothing to do with the prosperity of a country, if that is his view of the action of government, why does he want any change ? Why does he propose any change of policy ? But the very fact that he proposes an amendment to the policy of the government, of necessity indicates that, in his opinion, a change of policy would produce greater prosperity and advancement, otherwise his resolution is meaningless. If it be true that under our present tariff policy, the country is prospering, as it never did before, surely some credit is due that policy. But if governments have nothing whatever to do with the prosperity of a country, then my hon. friend is singularly inconsistent in advocating a change of policy. When pressed to explain what really his amendment meant my hon. friend sheltered himself very jocularly, on one or two occasions, behind what other hon. members had said. He was evidently unable to explain what the word ' adequate ' in his resolution means. He has replied more than once by saying : Well the Minister of Public Works' (Hon. Mr. PrSfontaine), down in Montreal, said that he was in favour of legitimate protection. He seemed to think

that * legitimate ' and ' adequate ' are synonymous terms, and that we must ask my hon. colleague the hon. Minister of Public Works to explain them. Well, I do not agree with my hon. friend. I do not consider the two expressions synonymous.

' Adequate protection,' as defined by the speeches of the lieutenants, as I have pointed out, and as one of them re-affirmed in his presence, means a tariff that will exclude from this country the importation of every kind of article that is manufactured in it.

I would call that illegitimate protection. That is a protection which the government have no right to [DOT] impose. Legitimate protection is not my phrase, but I accept it as a very good one. It is such a protection as, by a judicious' arrangement of the tariff, gives the requisite encouragement to our industries and at the same time furnishes the revenue required to carry on the business of the country. Such a protection we now enjoy, and if my hon. friend's predictions should be true, and we should have an election this fall, the issue will be between legitimate and illegitimate protection. If that be the dividing line, I am for legitimate as opposed to illegitimate protection. I am for a tariff so adjusted that it will secure the requisite revenue and give every legitimate industry in this country the assistance it requires, as opposed to a tariff prohibitory in its nature, and which would exclude every article of foreign manufacture from the country.

Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I ought to apologize to the House for rising at this very late, or rather early hour, to attempt to follow the speech just delivered by the hon. Minister of Customs. It seems to me that I am displaying a good deal of temerity in attempting to follow him at this hour and in the present circumstances. I had not the privilege of being in the House when he began his speech, but I came in very soon after, and the first words that caught my ear were his statement that there was no dissatisfaction with the tariff at present, and his invitation to us to point out when any dissatisfaction existed. Why, has the minister been asleep during the past twelve mouths ? Has he been dozing during the past two weeks since this discussion began ? Has he turned a deaf ear to the statements of several of his own followers as to the amendments they thought necessary? Has he forgotten what was said about salt ? Has he forgotten what his hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) said about lead, and what an hon. member, heading a deputation of his constituents, said not long ago about vegetables ? Has he completely lost recollection of the statements made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) with regard to the necessity of protection against servile labour ? Have the statements made by the hon. member for West Assiniboia regarding the necessity for fur-

220S

tlier protection against inferior horses coming into this country passed from his recollection V And the statement of the hom member for New Westminster (Mr. Morrison) regarding the necessity for protecting lumber and lead ? Has he forgotten the statement of his own colleague from Brantford (Mr. Heyd) as to the necessity of revising the tariff with regard to the duty on binder twine ? When the hon. minister challenges hon. members on this side to point out where the dissatisfaction exists with regard to the tariff, we need only refer him to his own followers. I am astonished that the hon. gentleman should ask such a question because ' Hansard ' bears the indubitable evidence that, not only from this side but from the other side, since this debate has begun, again and again objections have been taken and amendments pointed out and changes suggested with the object of making the tariff more suitable to the needs and interests of the people. Let me recall to the hon. gentleman the statement made by an hon. member who takes second place to no man in this parliament as an authority on trade questions. I refer to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Has the hon. Minister of Customs forgotteu the statements made by that hon. gentleman twelve months ago in this House when the budget debate was progressing ? Has he also forgotten the reasons he gave the other day why a tariff revision could not now be entered upon ? Has he forgotten all these things ? If he has not, I fail to understand how he can rise in his place and invite hon. members on this side to point out where dissatisfaction exists with regard to the tariff.

Sir, the hon. gentleman referred to the wonderful progress which has been made during the last few years, and he pointed with pleasure to the increase in the export trade of this country. We join in the congratulations offered the people of Canada on the substantial increase which has been made in our exports during the past five or six years. But to what is that increase due ? Will the hon. gentleman say that the tariff has had anything to do with giving us the bounteous crops with which Heaven has blessed Canada during the past five or six years ? Would our exports have increased, as they have done, if Canada had been cursed with meagre crops instead of being blessed with abundant harvests ? Will the hon. minister have the temerity to say that the tariff, the particulars of which he has at his finger ends, has had anything to do with the increase in our export trade ? When I took the liberty of asking that question, what did he attempt to say ? He attempted to say that the perfecting of the cold storage system under the benign influence of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) had - helped to promote the export of our surplus products. And when I asked how much of our products had been Mr. CLARKE.

exported under this cold storage system he did not answer. He was not frank enough, I regret to say, when he referred to cold storage, to admit that that system had been introduced by the predecessor of the present Minister of Agriculture in order to carry the perishable products of our country across the ocean. The markets of the United States being closed to them, our farmers were enabled by their industry and xierseverance and pluck to find across the sea a better market than that of the United -States; and the administration of that day, realizing the importance of favouring that trade and giving every facility for carrying it on, made provision for cold storage so that these perishable products might be placed in the markets of the old land in the best shape. Now, if hon. gentlemen opposite take credit for the increase of our exports that has resulted from the cold storage system it is surely not unreasonable for us on this side to expect that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) would have done simple justice to his opponents by pointing out that they and not this government were the originators of this system, and that if it has been an advantage. to the exporters, they as well as this government should receive some credit. The hon. gentleman went on to discuss duties on beets, tomatoes and other vegetables, and to lay down the policy that the Liberal party intend to follow with respect to the tariff on these products. He explained the position of the Liberal party, and quoted from the speech of the late Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) stating that that speech contained common sense ideas. Was it because that hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) gave utterance to these common sense ideas that he was compelled to separate himself from the present cabinet ? And if his speech declaring against additional protection to the market gardeners of this country enunciated the policy of the government, what does the hon. gentleman think of his colleague from West York (Mr. Campbell) who appealed for the suffrages of the people of West York and the market gardeners who are an important element in that constituency upon the ground that he would advocate and strive for a change in the tariff which would give additional protection to the men whose suffrages he sought ?

Sir, the hon. gentleman (Hon. air. Paterson) wants to know every particular of the policy which hon. gentlemen on this side of the House would adopt if they were called upon to administer the affairs of this country. Has he any right to ask for that information in view of the experience which the Liberal Conservative party has had during the last six or seven years ? I do not think it would be advisable for the leader of the opposition to give further particulars. ' Once bitten twice shy ' is a good old adage. The gentlemen occupying the treasury benches coming into office six or

seven years ago, after denouncing the national policy which had been established by their predecessors in 1879, realized they could do nothing better than leave the national policy as they found it, and the only change, practically, that they made in the tariff was whatever change resulted from the introduction of their so-called British preference. And why should they expect hon. members on this side, who are not charged with the responsibility of administering the affairs of the country, to give particulars of every change which they would make in the present tariff if they were called upon to assume the responsibility of carrying on the affairs of Canada ? The hon. minister is very anxious to ascertain the position of the leader of the opposition respecting the duty on agricultural implements. He dwelt long, he even laboured to get this information, and challenged the statements that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) was alleged to have made in his recent tour in the North-west. It was my good fortune, Mr. Speaker, to accompany my leader on that tour, and I well recollect the meeting at which these questions were asked him. It is unnecessary for me to corroborate the statements that the hon. gentleman has made, for the word of the leader of the opposition will be taken anywhere throughout the Dominion. But if it were necessary I could corroborate every word that has fallen from the lips of that hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) tonight. It seems to me that it was most unfortunate for himself that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) should bring the question of the duty on agricultural implements before the House in this debate. It was fresh in the minds of many of those with whom we came in contact during our recent tour in the west that when the Liberal party were appealing for their suffrages to that particular portion of the Dominion, their rallying cry was ' vote for McCarthy and free agricultural implements.' Was that part of their policy in 1896, and if so, has it been carried out ? Have they fulfilled the pledges they made to the electors of that part of the Dominion, and given them free agricultural implements which they declared would be such a boon to that portion of the country ? No, they have not ; but, on the contrary, they have increased the protection which the manufacturers enjoyed. They have given them additional protection by minor changes which they have made in the duties on articles coming into this country which enter into the manufacture of these implements. The hon. gentleman declared that since the Liberal party came into power they have been fulfilling their pledges of reducing the burdens resting upon the people. By what method or policy have they succeeded in reducing the burdens of taxation which they found resting upon the shoulders of the people ? I shall not weary the House at this late hour 70

by reading many figures. But let me draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that the increased taxation imposed upon the people, the taxation derived from the customs and excise, during the past six years, as compared with the previous six years has been equal to twenty-six per cent per annum. And the end is not yet. If we compare the taxation of the people in the first year of the Liberal administration, 1897, which amounted to $28,648,626, with the taxation levied during the last year, 1902, which amounted to $43,308,111, we find that the increase of taxation in these five years, notwithstanding the pledges which these hon. gentlemen made again and again to the people of this country, has been no less than the enormous sum of $14,740,485, equivalent to an increase of fifty-one per cent, xind this is the way the hon. gentleman and his colleagues have fulfilled their pledges to the people and reduced the burdens of taxation. I shall not follow the example which has been complained of by the /hon. gentleman by quoting from statements which he made as far back as 1876. But, with his permission I will make a quotation from a speech delivered by him in this House in 1894. I need not apologize for making a quotation not quite ten years old. The quotation is valuable because it clearly proves that the hon. gentleman had then some idea how best to measure the taxation which was being imposed upon the people by the government of that day. He is reported in the ' Hansard ' of 1894, volume one, page 356, as follows

The hon. gentleman said that the taxes we had in 1878 were heavier than they are now. That is a very strange statement for any one to make. I want to give hon. gentlemen opposite what I consider is a true way of measuring this, because the mere assertion made on one side of the House or the other will carry no weight. I would ask those hon. gentlemen to turn to page 11 of the Trade and Navigation Returns, prepared, not by Mr. Laurier or by the member for South Oxford, but prepared by the government themselves, and what is that statement. One of the columns shows the amount of customs duties paid per head of the population. That is the way to measure your taxation. Take the taxes of 1878 and see how much was paid by the population then. You will find it was $3.13 per head. Take the sum this last year, and it was $4.26 per head.

That is the statement'made by the minister as to the best method of ascertaining what burden of taxation was being laid upon the people by the imposition of the customs and excise duties. In 1893 the customs taxation was $4.26, as the hon. gentleman then stated, but in 1896 that taxation had fallen to $3.90. What has been the record since then ? The taxation under the administration of these business gentlemen has increased, in customs from $3.90 to $5.90 per head; and in excise from $1.56 to $2.05 per head. Sir, the average taxation per head per annum during the past five years shows an increase

of no less than 17J per cent. The taxation per head In 1897, the first year of the Liberal administration, amounted to $5.57; the taxation per head last year, 1902, was no less than $7.95, an increase of $2.38 per head, or 421 Per cent. This Is one of the ways in which hon. gentlemen have fulfilled their pledges and have relieved the taxpayers of this country of some of the burdens which they found resting upon them.

I do not know that there is much more to refer to in the speech of the Minister of Customs except his reference to the preferential tariff, and also to the German surtax, which I will refer to a little later on, with the permission of the House.

Will you finish with me now, as I wish to go out ?

Mr. CLARKE.

No, I want to come back to the hon. gentleman later on, I want to keep the good wine and the best wine until the last. In making his budget speech, the Minister of Finance congratulated the country upon the prosperity which exists at the present time. We do not dispute that prosperity, we congratulate the hon. gentleman upon being able to make such a good statement, and we hope that that prosperity will continue for a great many years to come. But there was one statement made by the Minister of Finance in his opening sentences to which I would like to draw the attention of the I-Iouse. He said :

Two years ago, after several years of rapid progress, there was anxiety in the minds of many observing men. Some indeed, thought we had already entered upon a period of depression. Others, and among them I count myself, felt that while we were not likely to have any period of severe depression, we might reasonably experience a check upon the very great prosperity of recent years. However, as it turned out, all these fears were unnecessary.

Sir, if these gentlemen can lay any substantial claim to credit for the creation of prosperous times in the Dominion, would they not be grossly derelict in their duty to the people of Canada if they did not perpetuate a policy which would give us a continuation of that prosperity for years to come ? Why did the hon. gentleman hesitate ? Why did he fear that there might be a set-back, why did he fear that this prosperity might not continue ? He intended to make no change in his tariff when he made that statement; and if that tariff was the perfect instrument he claimed it was, if that tariff has contributed to the prosperity of this country, if it has been one of the main causes which have promoted its prosperity, why should the hon. gentleman have any forebodings as to a period of depression following in days to come ? The position which we have taken, which we have had no hesitation in taking, is that the splendid, the phenomenal prosperity, if I may use the word, which has obtained in this country for the last six years, has been due primarily, and practically

speaking, entirely, to the revival of business the world over, notwithstanding what the Minister of Customs has said, and also to the abundant crops with which Canada has been blessed during that period.

In the course of his speech, the Minister of Finance made reference to what has been accomplished by the Postmaster General in his administration of the Post Oflice Department. We have no desire, certainly I have no desire, to rob the Postmaster General of any credit to which he may be entitled for his administration of the affairs of the Post Office Department; but I have this to say, and I say it without hesitation, that in no department of the public service to-day is there so much dissatisfaction existing among the employees, in none does a feeling so strongly prevail that they are not getting fair-play or justice, as in the department of the Postmaster General. I say, Sir, that occupying the dual position which he, does, the position of Minister of Labour as well as that of Postmaster General, he is especially bound to see that every grievance, every reasonable complaint which has been made to him, and which is being constantly made to him, shall be inquired into and redressed. It is a matter of greater importance to the people of Canada that we should have the benefit of an efficient postal service, than that the hon. gentleman should be able to make the two sides of the ledger balance to a cent at the end of the year. If the hon. gentleman has accomplished that feat, if he has made the receipts balance the expenditure, how has that been done ? It has been done, as has been pointed out, by special efforts ; it has been done also by the enormous increase which has taken place in the correspondence of this country, due to the general prosperity which has obtained. But the hon. gentleman has not hesitated to levy upon the newspaper proprietors of this country a new tax. He has compelled them to pay a tax which was not in existence when he assumed office. That tax, which is certainly a burden upon the readers of newspapers as well as upon the makers of newspapers, has undoubtedly been a reactionary measure, and a burden upon the people of this country. He has also lessened the privileges which the people enjoyed by raising the parcel post and the book post. Where four ounces were formerly sent for one cent from one part of Canada to the other, now only two ounces are sent. So when the Finance Minister gives credit to the Postmaster General for the administration of the affairs of the post office, we ask him to state how it has been accomplished, and we ask him to tell frankly the story of the additional burdens which have been placed upon the shoulders of the people to enable the Postmaster General to do what he has done.

The Minister of Finance made a reference in the course of his budget speech, to the prosperity which obtained on the railway

Mr. CLARKE.

system of the Dominion. He referred to the fact that there was a small credit balance in the operating expenses of the Intercolonial for the past twelve months. Sir, during the past five years every railway in the Dominion of Canada, every railway on the continent of America, has substantially improved its position. Every railway company has been practically at its wit's end to find power and to find cars to handle the freight which has been offering. Notwithstanding the fact that the times have been propitious, notwithstanding the fact that business has largely increased in the maritime provinces owing to the development of the steel and coal industries, what is the position of affairs in regard to the administration of railways by hon. gentlemen opposite? Is it one that the hon. Minister of Finance can point to with any degree of pleasure or satisfaction, notwithstanding the fact that there is a small credit balance at the end of this year's operations ? Let me make a comparison, Mr. Speaker, of the last six years of the operation of the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway with the operation of these roads during the six years previous. The past six years have been fat years ; the previous six years were lean years Yet, notwithstanding this fact, these roads were operated by hon. gentlemen opposite, and the showing which they make at the end of these six years' operation is one that hon. gentlemen ought not to take any credit for. It is one that they ought to he heartily ashamed of. What are the facts ? From 1897 to 1902 inclusive, the capital expenditure on the Intercolonial road reached the enormous sum of $13,041,282, and on the Prince Edward Island railway the capital expenditure for the same period amounted to $849,260. The expenditure on both these roads on capital account during the past six years amounted to $13,890,542. What were the operating results of these railways ? From 1897 to 1902, the net loss on the Intercolonial Railway was $487,971, and on the Prince Edward Island Railway $39S,792, making a total net loss for the past six years in the operation of these roads of no less than $886,763. Notwithstanding this period of prosperity, notwithstanding the enormous increase in the traffic during the past six years, these two roads did not earn enough by $886,763 to meet the operating expenses. Is that a condition of things that the government can felicitate itself upon or compliment the country upon ? I repeat that it is a most disgraceful condition of things, and one that ought to he put an end to as soon as possible. Compare the figures of the previous six years with those which I have just presented. From 1891 to 1896, the capital expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway was $2,827,391, and on the Prince Edward Island Railway $8,300, making a total expenditure on capital account for that period of $2,835,691. The operating results were a net loss 70*

on the Intercolonial Railway of $519,287, and on the Prince Edward Island Railway of $430,497, or, for the two roads, a net loss of $949,784. The country was burdened by an additional debt through the operation of these roads and through the expenditures made on capital account during the period from 1891 to 1896 of $3,785,475. What is the net result to the people of Canada from the operation of these two roads for the past twelve years ? We have an indebtedness placed upon our shoulders of no less a sum than $18,562,780, and four-fifths of that burden has been laid on the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country by the hon. gentlemen opposite. Is that a satisfactory condition of affairs ? I say it is not and that it is one which the hon. Minister of Finance cannot derive any pleasure from or compliment the country upon. That is one phase of the transportation problem which these hon. gentlemen have not attempted to solve. That question appears to have dropped out of sight notwithstanding the fact that it is one of the most important problems awaiting solution at the hands of the people of this country. Since the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) abandoned his colleagues, practically they have given up the idea of making an attempt to solve that problem, and some statements have recently been made that they propose to refer the matter to a commission. They have not attempted to solve it, or they are not capable of solving it, or they would try to solve it; but they are appointing a commission to try and solve it for them. The suggestion was made two or three years ago from this side of the House, and made in all humbleness and respect, that there should be a commission appointed at that time to make a thorough examination as to the best means of perfecting the transportation facilities of the country and report to the government upon it. Nothing has been done up to the present time, except to make the announcement that the government propose to appoint a commission, which means practically that they cannot solve this problem, that they have not the ability to deal with it. and so they have asked a commission of gentlemen to take the matter out of their hands, to relieve them of the responsibility of dealing with the transportation problem and of making a report to them as to what is best to be done in the interests of the country. That is the way this question is being solved by these hon. gentlemen. They had a solution of the fast Atlantic project in their hands when they assumed office in 1896. They abandoned the contract which was then awaiting their signature. They refused to sign it. They refused to call the fast Atlantic line into existence. They told the people that they were going to give them a new type of ,vessels, bottle-nosed or bottle-necked vessels which would be much steadier boats and by which they were going to save to the people $250,000 per

annum in the subsidy to this line. But what have they done towards giving the people the benefit of this fast line across the Atlantic ? Nothing. I believe there was an announcement made two or three months ago that the government proposed to call for tenders for this fast Atlantic line; but, I presume, a commission will need to be appointed to tell these hon. gentlemen how they should establish the line.

But, they have some desire to pose as a naval administration. They propose to do something to establish their record as men of light and leading respecting naval affairs ; for the announcement has been made that, instead of giving a reasonable and moderate contribution towards the maintenance of the imperial navy whose ships are on every sea to protect our commerce, they propose to establish the nucleus of a navy on their own account. They propose to place cruisers on the lakes and on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. If they do not succeed better in the administration of this naval force than they have done in carrying on the business of the country it will be a very serious matter ; and the taxpayers will look with alarm if the affairs of the proposed naval department are placed under the control of my Lord High Admiral Prfifontaine. who occupies the position of hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

The hon. Minister of Finance took credit to himself for the enormous surplus which he hopes to have ou the credit side of the ledger at the end of the present fiscal year. The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) very naively and very suggestively asked if it is a revenue tariff that is in force in this country, why it is that no suggestion is made, nothwithstanding this enormous surplus which the government will have at its credit at the end of the fiscal year, for reducing the burdens of the people ? Surely, when this business administration have a surplus of $13,000,000 at their credit the taxpayers of this country have a right to expect some reduction in the burden of taxation which has weighed so heavily upon them during the past .twelve months and as a result of which this enormous surplus has been raised. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce nad *something to say in days gone by regarding surpluses. The hon. gentleman is quoted in 1900, as follows :

I ask how it (the surplus) was got ? $1,000,000 was derived from two of the most odious and oppressive taxes which were ever imposed in any civilized country before, under similar circumstances at least-the taxes on breadstuffs and fuel. If he really wants to relieve the people let him remove the taxes on breadstuffs and coal.

The Minister of Trade and Commerce and his colleagues have an opportunity of proving that they meant what they said when they declared that the tax on breadstuffs and fuel was the most oppressive and the most odious tax that coulld be imposed on Mr. CLARKE.

a civilized community. From the report of the Trade and Commerce Department of last year, we find that no less than $437,496 was raised by a tax on breadstuffs, and that $1,652,993 was raised by a tax on coal. Of this $13,000,000 of surplus, not less than $2,090,490 was raised as a result of the tax on breadstuffs and coal, and yet not a suggestion has been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) or by any of the ministers that this odious and barbarous tax should be removed and that the consumers of this country should get the benefit of its remission.

This afternoon the hon. member for Hal-ton (Mr. Henderson) was told by one of the ministers that by reason of the increased duty put upon tobacco in 1897 by this Liberal government, no less than $1,335,753 additional taxes were collected from those who use the weed during the past twelve months than would have been collected had the Conservative tariff remained in force and the same quantity of tobacco been consumed. Tobacco is solace and comfort and consolation of the working classes after their hard day's work, and would it be an unreasonable thing for them to expect that a portion of this extra tax which this government (whose pledge it was on coming into office to make Canada a cheap country to live in) placed upon tobacco, should be remitted to them.

Hear, hear.

Mr. CLARKE.

The Minister of Customs made reference to the enormous expansion that is taking place in the trade of this country. I do not admit for one moment that the fact that the imports and exports have increased, is of itself an infallible test as to the prosperity of a country. It seems to me that if we manufactured some of the goods which we import and thereby reduced the volume of our imports ; and if we exported less than we did, because of a market for our produce, the prosperity of the country would be greater although the volume of its trade might not be so large.

Hear, hear.

Mr. CLARKE.

And if the trade of this country has increased, we may also remember that the trade of the United States has increased, that the trade of the other colonies has increased, that the trade of other nations has increased, and that the trade of the motherland has substantially increased during the past six years. Again I ask the gentlemen on the treasury benches ; What changes have they made in the fiscal system which they found in operation in 1896, which have caused this large development in our export and import trade ? Sir, the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) in his eloquent advocacy of the policy of protection to our legitimate industries, made a statement on the floor of this House that has not been answered ;

ti statement that the Minister of Customs has not attempted to answer ; a statement that no minister who was a colleague of the Hon. Mr. Tarte has attempted to answer ; a statement that no member supporting the government has attempted to answer ; a statement that they cannot answer, and will not answer, because it is known far and wide to be a fact. This is the statement of the Hon. Mr. Tarte to which I refer :

I say it openly, I say it from the bottom of my heart, that I fully expected that the Liberal party, with which I have been connected during the last ten years, would carry out the policy it was understood in 1896 they would carry out.

I draw the attention of the Minister of Customs to this language of the ex-minister :

I am weighing my words. I know what arrangement, what understanding took place between some public men. I know what took place. I do not divulge any secrets. I know what we did in the election of 1896 in Montreal. I see within the radius of my eye public men who, at our request, came to the city of Montreal, went to the manufacturers, with the knowledge of the leaders of their party, and told them not only would the tariff not be disturbed, but it would be changed in the right direction when the proper time came. Ther" was no secret about that. I shall not give names. There are men who hear me-I am sorry there are not more on those benches- who know that I am perfectly right.

Has any hon. gentleman wbo bas been a colleague of the ex-Minister of Public Works during the past six years anything to say about that statement ? Is any one of them prepared to contradict it ? Are they all dumb ? Is that statement a fact, or is it not ? I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a fact.

Hear, hear.

Mr. CLARKE.

I say that the same tactics which the ex-minister tells us were adopted in Montreal, were pursued in the manufacturing centres of the province of Ontario. Were these the tactics of honourable public men ; were they the tactics we would expect to see adopted by gentlemen who made the professions which these Liberal ministers made ? What has the Minister of Customs to say to the allegations of liis late colleague ? Are they correct ? Is it a fact that the men now on the treasury benches who rung the changes from end to end of this Dominion, denouncing the national policy, declaring that the people of this country were being bled white as a result of this policy-is it a fact that these men went into the centres of industry throughout the Dominion and taking the manufacturers to one side, gave them assurances, that should they come to power no changes would be made in this much maligned national policy ; but that instead, in the course of time, additional protection would be given them if they only voted for and supported the Liberal party ?

Hear, hear.

Mr. CLARKE.

They appealed to the people as the great tax reducers, and they pledged themselves to the people that if they came into power they would wipe the last vestige of protection out of the tariff that was placed on the statute-book in 1879. Has the Prime Minister or his colleagues anything to say regarding this allegation which has been made in parliament by an ex-minister, respecting their laches, respecting-shall I use the word- their perfidious conduct towards the great body of the taxpayers of Canada ?

Hear, hear.

Mr. CLARKE.

Was it not a perfidious course to pursue, to tell the horny-handed sons of toil from one end of Canada to the other, that the national policy was inimical to their best interests ; that they were groaning under the burden of taxation which that policy imposed upon them ; and, at the same time, that these Liberal statesmen should go from factory to factory and pledge themselves to the captains of those great industries, that if they got on the treasury benches no change would be made in that abominable tariff which would in any way hurt the manufacturing industries of this country ?

Hear, hear.

Mr. CLARKE.

And, Sir, if this government can take credit to-day because our industries are prosperous, is not the secret of this prosperity found in the statement made by the member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) ? And if our industries are prosperous, it is because the government forgot or ignored the pledges they made to the people of Canada. They declared in favour of free trade ; they declared in favour of the abolition of protection, while in the same breath they gave assurances and pledges to the manufacturers, pledges that they have since fulfilled to the letter, namely : that the manufacturing industries would have their first consideration. If our industries are prosperous, Mr. Speaker, surely then it is because these hon. gentlemen, if they had any convictions, had not the courage of their convictions, and were afraid to destroy that principle of protection which they found in the tariff and which they denounced as the national policy.

Hear, hear.

Mr. CLARKE.

But the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Tarte) went further. He said :

_ The revision of the tariff in 1897 has placed it about 2 per cent less than it was before.

That tariff averaged about 30 per cent in 1896 and these gentlemen who were to cut out every vestige of protection, had the temerity to reduce it to 28 per cent:

The revision of the tariff of 1897 has placed it about 2 per cent less high than it was be-

fore. We did not do more than that ; and when my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce was this afternoon denouncing the former tariff, the tariff that I supported myself, when he was telling us that the tariff enacted in 1879 and kept on the statute-book up to 1897 had simply allowed the manufacturers to pocket the money of the people, I was saying to myself, if it was so, I do not know what it is now, because there is not much difference in the two tariffs ; the present tariff is about the same thing.

And the hon. member for St. Mary's is right, because the duty collected on dutiable goods In 1896 was 30 per cent, while the duty collected last year was 27 33 per cent; and this reduction of 2-67 per cent includes the goods brought in under the so-called British preference. Imitation is the sincer-est form of flattery ; and these hon. gentlemen, while professing to be revenue-tariff men and free traders, paid the greatest possible compliment to their predecessors by adopting their tariff as soon as they had the opportunity of doing so.

If I may trespass on the indugence of the House a litte further, I would like to say a few words on the operation of the British preference and as to its effect on our imports. At the opening of the Colonial Conference in London last summer, the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain made the following statement in reference to the British preference given by Canada :

So long as a preferential tariff, even a munificent preference, is still sufficiently protective to exclude us altogether, or nearly so, from your markets, it Is no satisfaction to as that you have imposed even greater disability upon the same goods if they came from foreign markets, especially if the articles in which the foreigners are interested oome in under more favourable conditions.

Was Mr. Chamberlain justified in making that statement, or was he not ? What are the facts ? In 1902 all imports from Great Britain entered for consumption in Canada had a duty of 17-12 per cent levied on them. In the same year all the imports from the United States entered for consumption had a duty of 12-54 levied on them. In other words, the duty levied on all goods imported from England was nearly half as much more as the duty levied on all the goods imported from 'th/e. United Statesi. The duty levied on dutiable goods imported last year from Great Britan was 24-02 per cent, while on dutiable goods imported from the United States it was 25-18 per cent. That is all the advantage the British manufacturer got In the markets of Canada, while he had the disadvantages of distance, insurance and time. That is the extent of the preference which these hon. gentlemen have made so much ado about during the past five years ; and I have shown the appreciation in which the preference is held by the gentleman best qualified to speak on it. The officials of the British Board of Trade also made a statement respecting the operation of the pre-

Mr. CLARKE.

ference in which they endorsed the position taken by the Colonial Secretary. This is what they said :

The period which has elapsed since the first application of the preferential tariff has not been long enough to enable any certain inferences to be drawn as to its effect in encouraging or diverting trade, especially as the period has been an abnormal one, marked by great general revival of trade throughout the world, accompanied by large oscillations of prices of some of the principal articles which figure in the Canadian import and export tables-notably coal, iron and steel, and corn. There has also been a rapid growth of gold production in the north-west of Canada, practically the whole of which, so far as it is exported, goes to the United States.

The hon. Minister of Customs, in the course of his speech to-night, flippantly referred to the statements that had been made about the general revival of trade throughout the world ; yet here is a high authority on that matter, which I think he will hardly dare to call in question. Further, Sir, this remarkable statement is made by these same officials :

We may look at the figures in another way, i.e., by comparing the percentages of the total import trade of Canada which came from the United Kingdom before and after the introduction of the preferential tariff, respectively. The result is to show that the continuous decrease which has been taking place in recent years in the proportion of imports from the United Kingdom into Canada has not been arrested by the operation of the tariff. The percentage proportion in the year 1900-01 (during which the preference of one-third was in force) was 23J. In the three preceding years 1897-8 to 1899-1900 (during which there was a preference of one-eighth, to 30th June, 1898, then one-fourth), the percentage was 241.

These are statements which have not been, and I think, cannot be gainsaid by hon. gentlemen opposite.

Now, Sir, let me go back into what my hon. friend the Minister of Customs would call ancient history. I do so merely to show that history is repeating itself. In the first years of confederation, during the period from 1868 to 1874, inclusive, our average imports for consumption from Great Britain amounted to $50,709,791, and from the United States they averaged $34,759,154. During the five years that the Liberal party were in office, from 1874 until the introduction of the national policy in 1879, what was the trend of our trade as between Great Britain and the United States ? The imports from the United Kingdom decreased during their period of oflice by no less than 17i per cent per annum, while the imports from the United States increased 38 per cent per annum, as compared with the imports from those countries during the period from 1868 to 1874, prior to their coming into office. Now, take the whole national policy period, the period about which so much has been said in the course of this debate, and what is the fact ? Taking that whole period of seventeen years, from 1880, when the

national policy came into force, until 1897, when it was abrogated by bon. gentlemen opposite and replaced by their tariff, the average annual imports from the United Kingdom were $40,826,435, as compared with $41,805,689 for the period when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office, and the imports from the United States had increased from $48,089,257 to $50,123,811.' Taking the entire national policy period, from 1880 to 1897, inclusive, the imports from the United Kingdom declined 2J per cent, while the imports from the United States increased 41 per cent, as compared with the imports from those countries during the period from 1875 to 1879, when the Liberal party were in power. In this connection it may be pointed out that the average decline in imports from the United Kingdom and the average Increase in imports from the United States, both occurred during the years from 1894 to 1897, inclusive, a period of unusual depression in Canada and the United States ; for from 1880 to 1894 the average annual increase in imports from the United Kingdom was almost 3 per cent, while the average annual increase in the imports from the United States was less than one-sixth of one per cent, as compared with the imports for the years from 1875 to 1879.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it may be said that Canada was not making any very great progress, if its progress was to be measured by its imports from the United States and from the United Kingdom respectively. But, Sir, Canada was in a formative period at the time. The national policy had been pronounced the policy of the Conservative party and placed on the statutes ; and if our imports from the United States and England were practically stationary during that period of seventeen or eighteen years, we were consoled by the fact that we were laying the foundation of great industrial institutions, and that during that period the yearly output of those industries had increased some $200,000,000 or $300,000,000. If our imports from the United Kingdom and the United States were stationary, I repeat we had the consolation that we were establishing permanently our industries in Canada, that we were developing our own resources, and providing,' to a certain extent at least, a home market for our agriculturists, and giving steady employment at good wages to an ever-increasing body of artisans from one end of Canada to the other.

Now, look at the record of the last five years since this so-called British preference has been on our statutes. From 1898 to 1902, the average of our imports from the United Kingdom was $41,314,999, and from the United States, $102,571,37S. From 1898 to 1902, the period during which the so-called British preference has been in force, our imports from the United Kingdom have increased 1-18 per cent while those from the United States have increased 105 per cent

as compared with the period 1880 to 1897. That is the record which the tabulated statements of the Trade and Navigation reports present. Is there anything in that picture which the hon. gentleman has any reason to proud of ? Does the increase of 1T8 per cent in the imports from the United Kingdom justify the statements made from year to year on behalf of the government, as to what they have accomplished in arresting the decline in our importations from the United Kingdom, especially when we consider that in the same period our imports from the United States increased by more than 100 per cent ? Whatever consolations hon. gentlemen can take from the figures I have quoted from the public documents, prepared by the officers of the government, they are certainly welcome to them. If time permitted, I could make statements respecting the exports of British and Irish produce during the last fifteen years, which would show conclusively how misleading it is for hon. gentlemen opposite to make comparison between the trade of Canada in the period from 1896 to 1902 and the preceding period from 1891 to 1896. The condition of things which existed in the Dominion and throughout the world from 1S91 to 1896 was an abnormal one. It was a period of general depression practically world wide. In 1894, the magnificent country to the south of us, the United States, was in the midst of a commercial upheaval-a commercial revolution and depression-and we had the spectacle of an army of unemployed men marching on the capital to endeavour to get some relief by legislation. Is it fair to take the trade of the country during such a period of depression and compare it with its trade during the period of buoyancy, expansion and prosperity now existing, not only in Canada, but throughout the civilized world ? I am sorry that time will not permit me to refer to the statement of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) regarding the necessity of our seeking privileges in the American market by a renewal of reciprocity negotiations with our neighbours to the south ; but I wish to refer for a moment to the question of preferential trade. Let me remind the House that those who are competent to speak on the subject- the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tairte) who has been a consistent protectionist all his life-have both declared that the only change made in the old tariff by the present government amounted to not more than 2 per cent, and that was accomplished by the granting of the so-called British preference. The hon. Minister of Finance said in the course of his budget speech :

Hon. gentlemen opposite have frequently endeavoured to assure themselves and others that the imperial authorities were ready and willing to give us a preference.

That is what the hon. Minister of Fin-

a nee said in his budget speech, and he went on to say :

We remember how it was stated that Mr. Chamberlain practically offered us a preference and that we had declined to have it.

If that view was entertained by the people of Canada, who was responsible for it ? If that was a misconception, upon whose shoulders are we to lay the blame ?

Let me quote three or four sentences from what was said by the right lion, the First Minister, at London, Ontario, in June, 1890. which will explain, better than I can do it myself, how this misconception arose :

Now, the statesmen of Great Britain have thought that the governments of the colonies have come to a time when a new step can be taken in their development. What is that ? That there shall be a commercial agreement between England and the colonies. That practical statesman, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain has come to the conclusion that the time has come when it is possible to have within the bounds of the empire a new step taken, which will give to the colonies in England.a preference for their products over the products of other nations. What would be the possibilities of such a step if it was taken ? We sell our goods in England. We send our wheat., our butter, our cheese, all our natural products, but there we have to compete with similar products from the United States, from Russia, and from other nations. Just see what a great advantage it would be to Canada, if the wheat, cheese and butter, which we would send to England, should be met in England with a preference over similar products of other nations. The possibilities are immense.

In the paragraph just read Mr. Cham-lain is called a practical statesman. In this one he is called the new and progressive secretary of the colonies :

Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, the new and progressive Secretary of the Colonies, has declared that the time has come when it is possible to discuss that question. But, Sir, if England is going to give us that preference, England would expect something from us in return. What is it she would expect ? England would expect that we would come as closely to her own- system of free trade as it Is possible for us to come. England does not expect that we should take her own system of free trade, such as she has It ; but I lay it before you, that the thing the English people would expect in return is that, instead of a principle of protection, we should adopt the revenue form of tariff, pure and simple. These are the conditions on which we can have that boon.

_ I repeat that if there is any misconception in the public mind as to what the situation was with respect to the mutual preference between tlie colonies and the empire, the responsibility rests entirely on tlie right bon. gentleman, wlio made statements such as I have quoted when campaigning throughout the country in 1896. He went to England, but unfortunately got no preference. We gave a preference to England in our market but got no preference in the English market in return. This is his explanation. He said:

There is a class of our fellow citizens who ask that all such concessions should he made for Mr. CLARKE.

quid pro quo. The Canadian government has ignored all such sentiments. We have done it because we owe a debt of gratitude to Great Britain. We have done It because It is no intention of ours to disturb in any way the system of free trade which has done so much for England. The colonies had already granted certain concessions to the mother country, but they asked for no quid pro quo, no pound of flesh. What we give you by our tariff we give in gratitude for the splendid freedom under which we have prospered. It is a free gift. We ask no compensation. Protection has been the curse of Ca.nada ; we would not see you come under its baneful Influence-for what weakens you must weaken us. [DOT]

Again the right hon. gentleman said :

It would be a boon for a time, hut how long ?

He was referring to a mutual preference.

But how long will it last? Would it be an advantage in the long run ? That is what men who think beyond the .passing moment have to ask themselves. Suppose England did such a thing and abandoned her free trade record. She would inevitably curtail the purchasing power of her people and do you not think we should suffer from that, we who alone have natural resources enough to feed your millions from our fertile lands.

I have too great a belief in English common sense to think they will do any such thing. What we have done in the way of tariff preference to England we have, as I said, done out of gratitude to England, and not because we want her to enter upon the path of protection. We know that the English people will not interfere with the policy of free trade, and we do not desire them to do so. We know that buying more goods from England she will buy more from us and so develop trade, and the moment the trade is developed Canada is benefited.

So. after all, the First Minister believed- for be would not make a statement he did not believe to be true-that notwithstanding tlie fact that we got no direct benefit as a result of this preference, we got a substantial indirect benefit and Canada, after all, would be the gainer by giving the preference. I am trying to interpret accurately the statement the right bon. gentleman made. He emphasized that statement in Bowmanville in 1899, after the preference had been two years in operation. This is wliat he said :

The merchants of England, the men who have to buy articles in the markets of the world, no longer go to the United States to make their purchases. They come to Canada, and this is the direct result of our preferential tariff.

Now, we have good reason to compliment hon. gentlemen opposite if this statement can be borne out, if our trade has enormously increased and Canada has been benefited. But we have the right to bold them to account, if that preference has brought us great benefit, if, for no good reason, they have abrogated it. The government claim to have shown that this preference was beneficial to Canada, and, that being so, they must give good reason why they have decided, as shown by the statement of the Minister of Finance, to absolutely abandon

that policy-for that Is what the resolution of the Minister of Finance means, if it means anything. Having quoted the First Minister, I am going to take the liberty of quoting somewhat extensively from a speech delivered by the Minister of Labour, the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock). This speech has been very nicely printed, and I believe it was sent by thousands through the mail under frank during the by-elections in the different constituencies.