Mr. GEORGE D. GRANT (North Ontario).

Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House at this stage of the budget debate, I do not expect to say anything of a very novel character. But I desire to present to the House what I believe to be the opinions and feelings of my constituents on the subject of the tariff and such other matters as are properly the subject of observation. Having recently emerged from an election contest, which perhaps was not wholly unsatisfactory to the gentlemen who are seated around me on this side of the House, I may perhaps he permitted to voice the verdict of my constituents in this place. This Dominion is to be congratulated heartily on the splendid showing which our Finance Minister made in bis annual financial statement. Never before has our material prosperity been so great. I think the country is to be congratulated, not only on! the splendid prosperity which has attended our efforts commercially and otherwise during the past year, but it is to be congratulated on the fact that the government has evinced its determination to adhere to that sound economic policy which I believe lies at the foundation of our commercial success. Let me assure the members of the government that the determination they have announced, (which we never for a moment doubted), meets with the fullest approbation of the people of this country. There is no blinking the fact that during the past year or year and a half there has been a formidable agitation on foot in this country for the increase of our customs tariff, and practically for a return to high protection. That the administration has expressed its

refusal to accede to: the extraordinary, and I may say, selfish demand of a small section of the community, js a matter of satisfaction to the country at large. To my mind, the present was an especially inopportune time for starting an agitation for a return to high protection. This campaign has not only been quite formidable and aggressive, but it has attracted a good deal of newspaper attention. But, Sir, the endeavour to persuade our people that they can enrich themselves by taxing themselves I think will altogether fail. Whilst the great majority of our factories are employed, whilst they have more orders than they can fill, and are paying on an average higher wages than have ever been paid at any time in Canada, whilst our producing powers are enormously increased, whilst our purchasing power too is growing at a tremendous rate, surely I am right in saying that this is an inopportune time to change our fiscal policy. If I may be permitted to refer to the town in which I reside, I may say that there is in that town one of the largest carriage factories in this Dominion. I am told by those who manage that concern that never before in their business history have they had so many orders and never before has such success attended the management of that business. In addition to that, in the same town, there are building at the present time two or three large factories. I have never heard that the gentlemen who are interested in promoting these industries are appealing to the government for further protection for them, nor have I heard that they have embarked upon these undertakings with the idea that higher protection will be granted. I, perhaps, am right in saying that this agitation has been begun and fostered by a small section of the community. Let me express the hope, and I am sure that in this I am voicing the opinion, broadly, of the agricultural interests in this country, that no disturbance shall take place at the present time. Now, Sir, I would depreciate any antagonism between the agricultural and manufacturing interests. I do not know that there is any occasion for antagonism of that sort. These interests are so interdependent, that, broadly speaking, what injures one injures the other and what benefits one benefits the other. I subscribe to that opinion, and yet, who can impute blame to our agriculturists if they strongly express their opinion on trade and tariff matters, when they are face to face with these well organized and financially well equipped gentlemen strongly urging the adoption of higher customs duties* Now, in the recent by-election in North Ontario which, Mr. Speaker, you will perhaps allow me to refer to without being open to the charge of being vain-glorious or boastful, the fight was forced on this very tariff issue. My hon. opponent made that point strongly at one of his first meetings in liis campaign at Uxbridge and these were bis words :

Hear, bear.

Mr. GRANT.

And strange to say, the advocacy of retaliation comes very largely from those who are constantly holding the United States up to us as the model upon which we should form our fiscal policy. It is patent to every reasonable man, Sir, that a fair analogy cannot be drawn between Canada and the United States in regard to the tariff question. We know that the American union is an aggregation of populous and resourceful states, embracing at once both tropical and temperate regions. We are not similarly situated to them. Anyway, if we were looking for instruction or guidance in fiscal or in constitutional matters generally, I for one would prefer to look across the Atlantic to the motherland for sound teaching in fiscal policy.

Hear, hear.

Mr. GRANT.

I was amused Mr. Speaker, at the elaborate effort made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) in his endeavour to convince the fanners of Canada that protection would be a splendid policy for them. I fear that the hon. gentleman will fail in his mission. I feel confident that he cannot convince the farmers of this Dominion; aye, nor even the farmers of his own historic county of Halton, that his views are sound in that regard. The United States has perhaps the most highly protective tariff of any country in the world, and yet if we compare the condition of the American farmer with the condition of the Canadian farmer, I think the comparison will show that the Canadian farmer stands in a much better position.

Hear, hear.

Mr. GRANT.

I shall not weary the House by quoting statistics at any length, but I have a few figures here which show conclusively that high protection has not been of material assistance to the farmer of the United States, and arguing by analogy, if high protection has not been of assistance to the United States farmer, it cannot be of assistance to the Canadian farmer. In the twelfth census of the United States I find that there were in 1880, 4,008,000 farmers in the United States ; of these 2,984,000 were owners of the soil they tilled and 1,024,601 were tenants of the land they occupied. Twenty years after that, in 1900, there were engaged in agriculture in the United States 5,739,000 farmers and of these 3,713,000 were owners and 2,026,000 were tenants. The logical conclusion from this is, that the proportionate decrease of freeholders and the increase of tenant farmers is indicative of tile fact that agriculture is not prosperous in the United States; else, the increase would be in 67

the opposite direction and there would be comparatively more freeholders and fewer tenant farmers. In 1880 for every one thousand male persons at work on farms there were 422 of them owners, and in 1900 out of every one thousand male persons at work on the farms there were but 423 owners. In 1880 for every 1,000 farmers there were 145 tenant farmers and in 1900 that proportion had grown until there were 231 tenant farmers in every 1,000. In other words, the farm owners remain stationary and the number of tenants increased by about sixty per cent. Sir, that should be an object lesson to the Canadian farmer not to be gulled by the specious arguments of the high protectionist. In 1900 there were engaged altogether in the United States in agricultural pursuits 8,771,000, persons as against 7,075,000 in 1880; this was a remarkable small increase when compared with the enormous increase in the general population of the United States which took place in the two decades between 1880 and 1900.

Now, Sir, let us look for a moment at the position of the American farmer from another point of view. Let us look at the capital he has invested in his industry, and let us compare his return from his investment with the return which the manufacturer of the United States gets from his investment. I find from the census of the United States recently published that the capital invested in agriculture, including lands, buildings, improvements and live stock, amounts to about $20,514,000,000. The income returned to the farmers of the United States on the amount of the capital invested vas $3,764,000,000. The manufacturers had an invested capital amounting to only $9,874,000,000, and from that amount, after having the full benefit of $4,800,000,000 of cash and stock on hand, their returns were $8,370,000,000. Let us deduct $2,000,000,000 of disbursements for labour, working expenses, &c., which the compiler of these statistics, says is a reasonable amount, and we have a let return to the manufacturers of the United States of $6,370,000,000 from an investment of scarcely ten thousand millions of money. Compare the revenue from their investment with the revenue earned by the agriculturists of the United States and I do not think any candid man will contend that in a highly protected country such as the United States, the farmer has an even show with the manufacturer.

I have been unable to obtain complete figures for Canada as a whole, but I have taken those relating to the province of Ontario as giving a fair indication of conditions in all parts of the Dominion. I find, according to a recent bulletin issued by the department of Agriculture in Toronto, that the amount of capital invested in Ontario farms is $975,000,000, which yielded a return in 1900 of $160,000,000, not including what was fed to stock, which amounts to $60,000,000 more. So that hon. gentlemen

*will see that the revenue of the farmers of Ontario has been higher than that of the United States farmers considering the capital invested.

Now, I find that the average income of the United States farmer is $288 a year. I am quite willing and anxious to say that that is not a fair indication of his condition, nor would it be a fair figure to set in comparison with the income of an Ontario farmer, because it includes many small holdings of negroes and involves other conditions unfavourable to such a comparison. But let us take some of the states along our own borders, which are not only adjacent to us, but which are very similar as to soil, climate and other conditions. In the state of Ohio according to these statistics, which bear every evidence of care in their preparation, the average income of the farmer-in Ohio- is $312, in Illinois $425, in Michigan $239, in Minnesota $465, in North Dakota $755, and in South Dakota $605. I think a comparison may fairly be drawn between Ohio, Illinois and Michigan on the one hand, and the province of Ontario on the other. In the year 1900 the Ontario farmers raised $160,000,000 worth of products, and we have in that province in round numbers from 175,000 to 200,000 men engaged in the industry of agriculture. Take the larger figure, 200,000, and by the simple process of dividing that number into the $160,000,000 produced by our farmers, we find that it nets to the Ontario farmer an average of $800 per annum. I think that is a fair statement, I think it is logical, and I think it must lead us to the conclusion that the Ontario farmers, and I doubt not the farmers of Canada generally, are getting a greater return from their labour and their capital invested than their fellow-husbandmen to the south of the international boundary, who are not thriving, but groaning, under the load of taxation which a high tariff imposes. I think hon. gentlemen opposite have a task of great magnitude in attempting to convince the agriculturists of this Dominion that a high protective tariff or adequate protection, term it what you will, is a policy which is conducive to their best interests.

The agricultural community of this Dominion are lacking in one respect, and it is natural that it should be so. They are not well organized. They have not the benefit of combination, which other interests possess, and therefore are unable to make known to the government and those in authority what their views on these matters are. They are only able every five years, or it may be in a by-election occasionally, to express their ideas on what should be the policy of this country. I feel, Sir, that it is only natural that there should be an anxiety on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to convince the farmers and the other primary producing classes of Canada that they are as much interested in high pro-

Mr. GRANT.

tection as those industries which at the present moment are chiefly clamouring for such protection. Stripped of all pretense, Sir, the real purpose of protection is to lessen competition and thereby increase prices. I was considerably interested in the very elaborate attempt which one of the hon. gentlemen opposite made-I think it was the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson)- to prove that the price of the farmers' produce will be enhanced by the policy which he advocates. I followed the hon. gentleman very closely, but I must confess that I was totally unable to find that he followed up his argument in that respect to a successful conclusion. True it is that he was somewhat confused by the lead question, which unfortunately for him, was introduced into the debate, and he found the matter which he had in hand almost as heavy to handle as the lead issue, because he dropped it very suddenly after the interpellation of the hon. Minister of Finance.

I do not know of what value are the opinions of newspapers on matters of this kind; but if the farmers of Ontario have an organ which may be regarded as speaking their views on tariff matters, I suppose the ' Weekly Sun,' issued in the city of Toronto, may be so termed. I have here a small clipping from a recent issue of that newspaper with regard to the present agitation for high protection, which reads as follows :

One of the pocket pamphlets sent out by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association as a part of their protection campaign appeals to farmers to support a higher tariff on the sole ground that farmers have done so In the past. It cannot be denied that many farmers in the past have been sufficiently innocent to support a protective tariff in Canada, nor that many of them are still prepared to vote for the protection system. But this merely shows that they are not yet as keenly alive to their own interests as are the protected manufacturers. They have been deluded into playing into the hands of a favoured or privileged class. But they are gcining wisdom quite rapidly.

In this connection, the very absurd argument was advanced that the prices of farm produce would be increased by the adoption of a protective policy. But if increased duties will raise the prices of our farm produce, if increased protection will give our farmers a better return for what they have to sell, then I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite how is it that in the years 1891, 1892 and 1893, when their party was in power, grain and other agricultural products were sold at lower prices than at any other period in the history of this country. Will they . explain how it was that their policy was so utterly ineffectual during those years, not only in raising the prices of farm products but even in obtaining paying prices ?

The question of surpluses is one that seems to vex exceedingly hon. gentlemen opposite just as that same question has for many

years, in the province of Ontario troubled the opposition in the legislative assembly of that province. I am not aware that our hon. friends opjjosite can be accepted as very competent authorities on surpluses. I am not aware that surpluses ever graced their regime to an extent that would entitle them to talk very learnedly on the subject. However, as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) has described this administration as the great tax gatherer, I would like to know what the result would have been, had the policy which he advocates been in force during the year .1902, for instance. Had the same degree of prosperity obtained- which is not at all likely-there would have been collected in duties or taxes, if you will, some $15,000,000 more than were actually paid into the treasury. If the resolution of his hon. leader (Mr. Borden) means anything, it means that hon. gentlemen opposite, had they been in power, would have extorted, to use a pet phrase of theirs, this much larger sum from the consuming public of this Dominion. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) was moved almost to tears the other night when he spoke of how this government wrung taxes out of the mass of the people. There was a wail in his voice, there were tears in his tones, which reminded one of the lamentation of Jeremiah. But when we come to compare the speeches of these hon. gentlemen with one another, we find most singular inconsistencies and contradictions in their comments on the budget. The hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy) saw fit to criticise the expenditure of the Post Office Department. Did he criticise that expenditure on the ground that it was unwise ? Not at all, Sir. What he criticised the hon. Postmaster General for was because he did not spend sufficient money last year. He used these words, or words to this effect:

If the hon. minister had generously recognized the increased needs of this country for post office accommodation, his deficit would have been as large as the Conservative deficit was in 1896.

The expenditure of last year, 1902, was $3,8S3,000. If we add to this the $781,000 deficit of 1896, we have a total of $4,664,000, which is an increase of $999,000 over the expenditure of 1896. This would be an expenditure of aver 25 per cent in one department above the actual expenditure.

Now, in order to meet the needs of the country, there should have been an increase of expenditure in one department of 25 per cent, that same remark of the hon. gentleman would apply to all the departments. Twenty-five per cent on our total expenditure would be $12,500,000, or the total expenditure of this country, which the hon. gentleman implies would be warranted by its increased needs, would amount to $62,500,000. The hon. gentleman in fact replies to his own colleague from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), who criticised the expenditure 67*

of the government as injudicious, extravagant and altogether burdensome for the country.

In my opinion, the majority of our people are convinced that a protective tariff would prove wholly inadequate to enhance the prices of our agricultural products. Another objection which, I believe, the people of this country will take to the amendment of the leader of the opposition is that the policy he advocates will increase the cost of the necessaries of life. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), argued against the proposition last night. He said that if we would only impose a protective tariff, those whose business was protected would be so patriotic that they would not increase the price of their commodities. Well, Mr. Speaker, human nature is human nature wherever you find it, and in my opinion, if we gave the opportunity, by protection, to raise the prices of manufactured goods, there is not much doubt that an increase in prices would inevitably follow. To show that in expressing this opinion, I am not talking rank heresy, let me quote from the speech of an hon. gentleman, whose authority our hon. friends opposite will not question, especially on fiscal and trade matters. On the 27tii March, 1894, as reported on page 198 of 'Hansard' the Hon. Mr. Foster, the then Minister of Finance, used this language :

Another objection that has been made to the national policy and to the protective principle in it that the cost of many manufactured goods has been enhanced to the consumer on account of the rates imposed. Now, Sir, I grant that argument at once to a certain extent. I say that in the initial years of a national policy with a protective principle in it, it will have the effect of enhancing the cost of goods and that at the first the cost of goods will be very closely up to the measure of the protection which was given.

And he went on to make this remarkable statement, which, I think, fully answers the argument of the hon. member from Halton (Mr. Henderson) :

If it does not have that effect, why should it ever be adopted at all, and what is the good of it ?

That was his opinion on the effect of protection in enhancing the values of the commodities we use. I give the opinion for what it is worth. I am not speaking now to the supporters of the government, but I would ask hon. members opposite whether they do not accept the opinion I have just quoted as a very definite and authoritative one ?

Mr. Speaker, an hon. gentleman who spoke yesterday, whose name I do not know, but whose face is quite familiar to me, because,

I think, I saw him in the northern part of this province some weeks ago, said that the agricultural constitutencies of this province of Ontario would support the protective policy. In proof of this he stated that

these constituencies had returned a majority of those sympathizing with protection and supporting the opposition in this House. Speaking numerically, it is true that the elections of 1900 had this result as regards the province of Ontario. But since the general elections of 1900, there have been appeals to rural constituencies both in Ontario and in other provinces; and I find sitting around me on this side of the House gentlemen elected from rural constituencies since the general election of 1900, and those constituencies, I think, expressed their opinion on this question with no uncertain sound. I think the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Stewart) represents a rural constituency and has been elected very recently. So does the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Christie) and the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Law). And, speaking more particularly for the province of Ontario, I think that verdicts have been given on this subject1 by \such rural constituencies as West Durham, West York and Russell. An hon. friend reminds me that I must not omit the signal victories in Terrebonne, Two Mountains and Maskinonge. I believe I am quite within the mark in saying that the rural constituencies of Ontario and of the Dominion are unalterably opposed to the re-enactment of high protection, and 1 believe that they will be strongly re-enforced by their brethren in Manitoba, the North-west and British Columbia. To sum up, I conclude as I began, that it would be entirely a mistaken policy for us, at this moment, when prosperity is high within the Dominion, when our factories are working overtime, when our workmen are getting a better return than they ever did for their labour, when our finances, as disclosed by the annual statement are in such a magnificent position, to change our fiscal policy. And, for this reason I am constrained to vote against the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition. And I have this further reason, that, if this resolution means anything, it stands for an increase of duties all along the line, and for an increase therefore of the burdens the great consuming public-and to that I am opposed.

Mr. ANDREW BRODER (Dundas).

Mr. Speaker. No doubt any hon. member attempting to speak, on the budget at this stage of the debate will find it difficult to make his remarks interesting to the House. In the first place, I wish to congratulate the hon. gentleman (Mr. Grant) who has just taken his seat on his maiden effort; and I am sure all here will agree with me in saying that experience will do him good, as it has done most of us. The hon. gentleman made some reference to the condition of things in his own locality, and I will take the liberty of dealing with this briefly before I proceed to the general discussion of the question before the House. The hon. gentleman instanced the condition of a cer-

Mr. GRANT.

tain carriage factory in the adjoining county to his own, at a place called Orillia. But he did not tell you that this very class of manufactures have had increased protection from his political friends. He did not tell you that the duty on cutters and sleighs had been increased by 5 per cent since the hon. gentlemen opposite came into power and that the duty is now 35 per cent on carriages as it was previous to the assumption of office by this government. He could not take great credit for the tariff under control of his friends, and that to admit, as everybody admits, that this class of goods does not come in under the boasted preference. The hon. gentleman also referred to the verdict of the people in sending him to this House. It may not be a very kind comparison to say that his presence here shows the mistakes the pepole often make ; when his constituency might have had a better man-there is no doubt about that. Now, in reference to the polling section in his own county that made the greatest change in its political complexion during the late contest, it is to be remembered that there is a certain company there making wood alcohol, who sell their product to the government for $1.40 per gallon when it can be bought in the open market for $1 per gallon. These parties had a protection from the old government of $2.25 per gallon, and they have had this increased by hon. gentlemen op-p site to $2.40 per gallon. Another feature of it is that this company had a five-year's contract which was about to expire at the time of this contest. These gentlemen naturally went into the contest with a great deal of vigour on behalf of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Grant), and, since the election they have been down to get their contract renewed. But the minister, under the circumstance, dare not renew it yet. The five year's contract they had they got without tender. The poll there, in the previous election gave a Conservative majority of five. This was changed to a Liberal majority of fifty-by alcohol. So much for the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Grant's) reference to his own locality. There is one other point which I must as well refer to, when dealing with the hon. gentleman's remarks. He referred to the flags around the room when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) whom I am glad to follow as my leader was banqueted. Well, there was nothing indefinite about those flags; everybody knew what they were and what they meant. But no man under heaven could tell what flags to put up if hon. gentlemen opposite were being banqueted. What about the legends of ten years ago ? Would that be around the fences and on the barns and on the big stones along the road, if hon. gentlemen opposite were appearing to the people to-day ? No. we hear no more of them.

Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).

Oh, oh.

Mr. BRODER.

Canada takes seventy-five cents. And, Sir, this surtax is the outcome of the mistake the hon. gentlemen opposite made in putting that preference upon the statute-book. They cannot withdraw it now, because if they do it will be misunderstood in England, and will do a great deal of harm. Much better if it had never been put upon the statute-book.

Now I wish to say that the government have failed to study the conditions and requirements of this country. Anybody who looks out into the history and commerce of other commercial nations will see that whenever one country is in a position to take commercial advantage of another country it invariably does so. As the outcome of that principle, we find Germany invading the_ English market, the United States invading the English market. And what about the position of Canada ? Our conditions are such that we are left largely at the mercy of foreign countries. The government have failed to study our conditions, and to give to the people of this country that remedy which ought to be within the reach of any executive in this country.

Now, I wish to refer to another matter, and the strange thing about it is that not one of the members of this government has made any allusion to it. I refer to the statement made by the ex-Minister of Public Works, who charged certain men, with his knowledge and with his consent, and who were within the range of his eye in this House, with going behind the backs of the people to the manufacturers of Montreal, and making an agreement with them that their interests would not suffer, that they would be protected, if they would give them their support, and they did give them their support. Now, Sir, that statement is made of public men who go around the country preaching free trade as they did. and free trade as it is in England. I heard the right hon. gentleman who leads the government, in my own constituency, make the statement that the goal was free trade as it is in England, right in face of the fact that they had gone behind the backs of the people and made a direct bargain with the manufacturers of Montreal. Not one of their supporters on that side of the House condemned that sort of thing in a public man, not one minister has dared to get up and dispute that statement made in the House several days ago.

That is a condition of things that ought not to be possible at the hands of any government in Canada. That is why we have seen so much wabbling and swinging about on this tariff question. These hon. gentlemen are tied hand and foot to one set of men and they have promised the other set. We ought to have a stable tariff and a stable lot of men, not a set of men without a settled principle, or without any cohesion in their party, not men of the kind who get up and defend the policy that suits their own Mr. BRODER.

localities, men who get up and condemn protection and yet want it before they sit down. This government is all things to all men. This man and that man must be satisfied. They go back and tell their followers that it is all right that they made such and such a statement in the House and that the government did not dispute it. They will be able to go back and fool the people if possible, without any settled principle or policy, and Sir, if there is one thing more than another they want to get rid of it is their past history. I would if I belonged to them. If I had a past history like theirs there would not be anybody gladder to see the book closed than I. There will be no mile stone to mark the spot where it lies after the close of that book. The time ought to come in this country when public opinion Will not condone such treatment at the hands of any set of public men. I wish to refer to a matter which implements the question we have been discussing. There has been a great deal said about the farmers interests and about the manufacturers interests and it is a strange thing that hon. gentlemen opposite hold up these two classes of men as being distinct in their interests and in their endeavours to do some thing for the country. The man who stands up and says that the interests of these two classes are one is, as a Canadian, doing his country more good than the man who tries to create discord and strife between them. The interest of the farmer lies in the success of the man who by his enterprise provides a market for the consumption of the farmers product. The city of Toronto alone consumes more of the agricultural products of Canada than Canada ships to the United States. If you take the western and southwestern states you will find that where there are the largest centres of population, built up largely by the manufacturing interests, the farmers in the surrounding localities are more prosperous than in localities where there are not these centres of population. If we are to repeat in any sense the history of that country in opening up our west we must have a policy which will build up centres of population. I am quite willing to admit that the conditions are not exactly the same. They have factors in their make up in the United States which it is impossible for us to have. For instance, the great corn belt in the south western states never can be repeated in our own North-west but we have a soil the fertility of which has never been equalled in any country in the world. I refer to its capabilities, to its lasting qualities, not being exhausted by cropping, and while they have been able to build up the great business of the farmer of feeding his cattle and hogs and exporting them to the foreign markets of the world we ought to be in a position to largely repeat the experience of those people in our western country. I see no reason

wliy hon. gentlemen opposite, or some one wlio will take their places, should not have a policy to build up large centres of population in that country. The government are failing to see the importance of developing the great resources of that country and putting them solidly into national channels as they ought to do. What do you find when you go west of Lake Winnipeg ? Between Lake Winnipeg and the Pacific coast there are no less than eleven railways leading directly out to the United States. This question of transportation, a question which we should have some definite plan in order to carry out the development of this great country, ought to settled by the executive. It is impossible to overlook the fact that there is no settled policy in reference to the transportation of that country. Some hon. gentlemen may say, and some of them have said, that it makes very little difference in building up that country whether a railway runs through the United States or where it runs so long as it handles our business. That is not the proof of history. Take little Holland, for instance; the transit trade of Germany has made Holland what it is and if Germany were to divert that traffic Holland would be at her mercy. Little Holland cannot compare with our great west but this country ought to have a well defined plan in reference to transportation and this plan ought to lead to a general result in the interest of the people instead of a continuance of the practice of diverting trade to a foreign country. It is rather a strange thing but it is true that of every dollar earned by a railway seventy cents of that dollar goes back to the people in labour and material and thirty cents goes for other purposes. Will any one tell me that the carelessness of the government in allowing railways to have their outports in foreign countries is not injurious to Canada ? Most decidedly it is. Hon. gentlemen have no policy on that question nor have they any policy of the tariff except the Macawber like policy of waiting until something turns up.

There has been a great deal said about the cold storage business. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) ought to be here now. It is rather significant that the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sif-ton) and the hon. Minister of Agriculture are out of their seats just now. The census business is not in a very satisfactory condition and the results of the cold storage system have not been so satisfactory as they might have been. If there is one thing more than another that should have been characterized by careful and judicious guidance it was the cold storage business. What ought to have been a great blessing to the farmers of this country may be easily made otherwise. To hear hon. gentlemen talk in the country you would imagine that every farmer in the whole Dominion had been made prosperous because there is cold storage controlled by the hon. Minister of Agriculture. They have frozen the poverty out of the poor fellows and they are all rich. I have taken the following figures from the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce. They show that the exports of poultry, dressed and undressed, were as follows ;-

1900 $210,822

1901 145,158

1902 238,047

We heard a great deal about what was going to be done with small fruits. Well, here is the result of the exports of small fruits

1900 $ 59,412

1901 38,326

1902 26,311

I venture to say there will be less this year. It has not been the success it should have been. The hon. Minister of Agriculture, as reported in ' Hansard,' said a year ago that the bulk of the cheese went by ordinary freight and not in cold storage. Now why? One reason is that freights are higher. Another reason-and underlying this reason is a most serious question for the farmers of this country, and I in all honesty call the attention of the government to it, for I do not think the Minister of Agriculture is able to grapple with it-another reason is that they take our cheese comparatively green, but a few days old, and the government propose to put it into cold storage. If they put cheese in cold storage while the process of curing is going on they check that process by the too low temperature, and instead of the cheese curing as it ought to cure, the acid permeates it and the cheese becomes bitter. The cheese business in this country is in a very precarious condition on account of the manner in which they propose to handle cheese in this cold storage outfit. Any reasonable man would say that cheese of that nature should not be put in a too low temperature, but that it should be put in a higher temperature in order that the process of curing may go on. When it is sufficiently cured, then it is possible to put it in a lower temperature. That is the reason why the shippers of cheese are not willing to risk cold storage. Butter, of course, is in a different position, because that process has not the same effeet on butter, but rather the contrary effect, because it stays the process of decomposition that takes place, and the butter is kept sweet. I want to call the attention of the government and of this House to the fact, that cold storage is not accomplishing what it ought to accomplish in the interests of this country. It is merely experimental. The government have no settled policy for instance as to what to do with apples or small fruits, or cheese, or butter ; and, Sir, the great increase in the revenue, and the great increase in the business of this country lies more at the door of the energy and dominant purpose of the business community of Canada than it does to the government.

Mr. FRASER.

Hear, liear-or any government.

Mr. BRODER.

Yes, or any government.

Mr. FRASER.

Hear, hear.

Mr. BRODER.

Particularly the government we have now.

Hear, hear.

Mr. BRODER.

Let me refer to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) said some years ago. It is a matter of history but you cannot stop us from reading history whether you like it or not. The hon. gentleman said that the government were flies on the wheel, and they are flies on the wheel now.