Mr. FRASER.

Was defeated, and was defeated largely because the hon. gentleman who has just spoken was there. I understand from good Conservatives that if he had not gone there, there would have been some chance for Mr. Foster. The fact remains that the ablest man they had, going into the constituency, with 518 in his favour and with all the power that was brought to assist him, including the leader of the opposition, and the mighty fighting colonel Mr. BRODER.

from Victoria, failed to break the vote of the electors. And I am sure that in the hon. member who has just spoken, the constituency of North Ontario has sent to this House a representative of whom it may well be proud. But the hon. gentleman mentions a particular district where he said the Conservatives had five majority at the previous election and now the Liberals have fifty. And this he charged to the account of alcohol. Are we to conclude from the hon. gentleman's statement that sixty Conservatives could be made to vote for the Liberal party by giving them rum ? It seems to me we have in that an exhibition of the moral condition among the supporters of the hon. gentlemen opposite which is not very much to their credit.

I would like to know from hon. gentlemen opposite whether the present tariff is, in their opinion, the same as the tariff of the Conservative policy. Will hon. gentlemen opposite say that it is ? I pause for a reply. Not one will venture to give an opinion. I want to know where we stand and where hon. gentlemen stand, because I want to be fair.

Mr. COCHRANE.

You are on the floor.

Mr. FRASER.

You are not an authority. Will hon. gentlemen opposite say that the present tariff of the Liberal party is the same as the tariff of the Conservative party when they were in power ?

No.

Mr. FRASER.

Of course it is not. Is it higher or lower ? Again there is no reply! '* An attempt was made by the hon. gentleman , who has just spoken (Mr. Broder) to show that the present tariff is higher than the former one, but if it be, I cannot understand why he had anything to say against it. He also spoke of the surtax as being all wrong, and yet before he sat down, he wanted a high tax imposed against American goods, which after all would be only going on the same lines as the surtax. For my part, I think that the surtax is economically wrong but politically right. It was the only thing the government could do. A gentleman will fight with his fists, and no man who is a gentleman will fight any other way, but even a gentleman, :f ire finds his opponent throwing a stiletto or dirk or using a derringer, will take the first thing handy and knock him down. And in view of the action of Germany against Canada, we had no other resource than to act as we have done.

Another thing the hon. gentleman said was that the conditions in Canada put us at the mercy of the foreign manufacturers. It seems to me that the reverse is the case. The manufacturer in Europe has in many cases to import the raw material before he can manufacture it, then he has to face au average duty of 17 per cent and pay the freight and other charges, and if a foreigner can do all that and still have the advantage

over Canadians, it speaks very little for the enterprise and energy of the manhood of Canada. What does the hon. gentleman think of Canadians who cannot compete under these conditions ? Is it any wonder that before he closed, he should have suggested to the government, apparently in all seriousness, that one of the great duties of a government was to make the home attractive to the boys. How is the government to do this ? By showing the wife how to keep it clean. By showing the farmer how many lickings he should give the boy ? By showing the girls how they should dress in order to make themselves attractive to the neighbouring boys ? What can be thought of an hon. gentleman, who, speaking in the interests of the farmers, gets up and says that the business of the government is to make home attractive to the boys ? Is it any wonder that he should have followed this up by saying that you must trade with some one better off than yourself, if you want to make your business pay. Just fancy the absurdity of saying that before your trade can pay, you must trade with a man better off than yourself. A farmer, for instance, never can make farming pay unless he sells his products to some one richer than himself. And a merchant could not possibly make money, if he purchased from a farmer who was not as well off in this world's goods as himself. Why, Sir, trade knows no distinction. If it pays better to deal with a man who is worth .$10,000 than with another who is worth $100,000. do you think he would not give the preference to the poorer man ? The absurdity of these two propositions that the government should instruct the farmer how to keep his boy at home and that nobody should trade except with some one better off than himself, shows the depths to which a lack of knowledge of political economy will bring even a clever man like the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder).

I am sorry that the hon. leader of the opposition has gone because I wish to make a passing reference to him. This budget debate opened, so far as he is concerned, with a very funny incident. He spoke about certain ministers going to sleep while the Minister of Finance was speaking. That I thought was hardly a remark becoming the dignity of a leader of a great party. But swift judgment followed. Hardly had the hon. gentleman began his reply to the Minister of Finance, than that wide awake member of the opposition, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), fell sound asleep, lulled into somnolence by the sound of the voice of his leader right beside him. But I must, in justice to the leader of the opposition, say that he did not retaliate, but remained awake while his colleague from East Grey had the floor.

What does the amendment mean ? First of all, the amendment declares the present tariff unsatisfactory. Why is it unsatisfactory ? Is it because the tariff is not high enough or because it is too high ? Why, Mr. Speaker, from one end of the Dominion to the other, during every .election since the present tariff lias been put into execution, we have been charged with stealing the clothes of the Conservatives. In this House, on the platform, in the newspapers, everywhere they say : ' You have

stolen our tariff; you have made no change; you said you would but you did not.' Well, if it be the same tariff and is unsatisfactory in the present conditions, how comes it that it was satisfactory- up to 1890, when our conditions were far worse ? Let them explain how that tariff, which at that time they considered the acme of perfection, and an image to be worshipped, a juggernaut at whose shrine they should lay everything precious, should be unsatisfactory to-day. I appeal to any hon. gentleman opposite who reasons, how he can explain the two things? The first statement is that there is an unsatisfactory condition. Does that condition arise from the tariff ? Hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that the tariff is unsatisfactory. I believe it is, and I am glad of it. It is unsatisfactory to some people who want to gain something for nothing at the expense of others. But, if the tariff is unsatisfactory, there is one point I would like some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to explain to me-is the tariff unsatisfactory as compared with the tariff in force under the Conservative government or1 is it unsatisfactory as compared with the tariff they would make if they were in power? There has been no explanation of this.

Mr. CLANCY.

Ask the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes).

Mr. FRASER.

That hon. gentleman (Mr. Holmes) cannot tell me. I am asking hon. gentlemen opposite. I am asking the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) and it will not do for him to shoulder the question off upon some other person, because he finds himself in a dilemma. Reams of paper have been used in preparing . speeches for this debate, and volumes have been spoken in it. But no hon. gentlemen opposite has shown why the tariff was unsatisfactory. They are only able to say two things. The first is : You made a promise that you have not fulfilled. And the second is : The prosperous condition of the country is due io the kindness of Providence. And when these two things fail them, tney do as they have invariably done ever since 1895-aye, ever since 1891, when 1 first came here-they fall back upon one expedient, which they use with enthusiasm, they abuse the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). Do not hon. gentlemen opposite see that they are but adding each year to the laurels of that distinguished statesman ? The only effect of attacks made by every

one of them ftom the highest to the lowest- in ability not in character-is to convince the people that they themselves feel that if by a chance arrow they can hit this target of the hon. minister's reputation, it would bring them distinction and glory.

Now, for my part I am not so particular about being consistent as I am about being right. It is much better for a man to be right than to be consistent. Hon. gentlemen when in power, declared that they were going to reform the tariff. Were they inconsistent in that ? I do not think they were; for, if they grew at all, I could well understand that they would grow wiser.

The second thing is that this is to be a declared policy. Well, dear me, is not everything declared that is said ? AVlio is to ' declare ' the policy ? And when is it to be ' declared ' ? Hon. gentlemen tell us that the protection must be adequate. Here, it seems to me, is the crux of the whole question. AVho is to say what is ' adequate ' protection-is it to be the manufacturers or is it to be the leader of the opposition and his friends ? I know very well that if it is left to the manufacturers, they will make it ' adequate ' according to their own opinion. Herein is the whole of the amendment which we are discussing. It is an amendment to deceive; it is an amendment intended to hold out to every manufacturer the hope that if lion, gentlemen opposite get into power, they will give him adequate protection. And every manufacturer says to himself : ' Adequate,' that is

just what I want. The manufacturer of cotton will say : * Adequate ' protection for me is so and so, and I am to have it, for here is the resolution; the party voted for it; and I have heard them say that they are the same yesterday, to-day and to-morrow-therefore, I am to have 'adequate' protection as I understand it. Will hon. gentlemen opposite tell us who is to be the judge of this adequacy ? My own opinion is that they thought that by using this word ' adequate ' they would gain the same end as their former leader Sir John A. Macdonald did in 1878 when he said that the change in the tariff that he proposed would not be an increase but a readjustment. That took. Surely, a lot of people who do not understand this phrase-* adequate protee-tection ' will be led to understand that it means- something in their interest. 1 said that hon. gentlemen opposite must believe that the present tariff is either the same as or different from the last tariff. I believe it is different; I know it is different; and, if hon. gentlemen opposite would utter their true thoughts, I think they would acknowledge that it was different. If it were not different, of course, every speech made on the other side would be a waste of time and energy. The only thing for hon. gentlemen opposite to do, if they think the present tariff is the same as the last, is to show that they were wrong in their last tariff and that the present government is Mr. FRASER.

wrong in the existing tariff and ought to have gone further, and that if they get the chance they will go further.

Mr. CLANCY.

Oh, oh.

Mr. FRASER.

Surely that is as plain as -anything in the world can be. Rut let me repeat it for the sake of the hon. member for Bothwell. If hon. gentlemen opposite say that the tariff of the present government is the same as the previous tariff, then they must show that this 'adequate' protection means to go further than the late government went and further than the present government has gone. Because, if the protection given by the present government is not ' adequate ' and their tariff is the same as that of the late government, there must be something

Mr. CLANCY.

Nobody said that.

Mr. FRASER.

Now, I have got my authority. So, this tariff is not the same as the tariff of the late government. Therefore, the present government has made a reduction. So, let us not hear anybody else say anything about our having stolen the clothes of the hon. gentlemen opposite. AAre have the hon. gentleman for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), for whom I have the highest respect, declaring that the tariff of the late government is not the same ns ours. If the tariff is to be changed, is it to be lower than that of, the present government, or is it to be as high or even higher than the tariff before 1896 ? AVe know pretty well that hon. gentlemen opposite do not propose to go back to the old tariff, for the manufacturers will not accept that, as they want more. Now, if this is a lower tariff than the former one, that matter is settled.

Mr. CLANCY'. But it is not settled that it is a lower one.

Mr. FRASER.

AVell, I have heard of repudiation, but never of repudiation within so short a time. I never knew a man to repudiate himself within five minutes. I distinctly cited the hon. member for Bothwell as an authority. But now, when he sees the effect of his admission, he wants to go back on it. But 1 know he will not go back on it in quiet moments when he talks it over with me, but will feel as bad as any man can for the wretched position in which he finds himself. I wish to emphasize what the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant) says. AVe had a crusade inaugurated by the manufacturers and assisted by the ex-Minister of Public AVorks (Hon. Mr. Tarte). But I venture to say that never was there a movement more ill-timed. AVhy, you cannot talk to people now of changes in the tariff with any hope of gaining their attention. They know, and all the statistics show it, that they never received as good wages before. I want to make the statement distinctly, and any hon. gentleman who lives in a place where it is not true can say so far as his locality is

concerned, that never in the history of Canada was labour so difficult to obtain, and never in the history of Canada did labour receive, one man with another, as high a wage as it does to-day.

Now, how are you going to help them to do any better ? Is the labourer, or the farmer, or the fisherman, or the lumberman fool enough, when he knows he is better off than he ever was before in this world, to go and take the plunge that bon. gentlemen want him to take in order to find something better ? Men take a plunge when they are so bad off that they cannot be any worse ; but sensible men who know that they are in a better position than ever before will let well enough alone, and will say : We are not going to take the plunge, even though these distinguished statesmen run the risk of being found shivering, cold and naked on a foreign shore, as they were up to 1896. The time is all wrong for any such a change. I read a letter the other day from a Mr. Wilson, I think his first name is Thomas, who sent me, with the letter, a paper that was designed to teach the farmers of Canada. He also wanted to teach me, because he said : Here was a paper he was issuing to teach the farmer. They start out to instruct the farmers. Very well, North Ontario gave them the first answer. We also had an election down in Yarmouth, where one of the most tremendous majorities ever given in Nova Scotia gave them another answer. Do you think, Mr. Speaker and lion, gentlemen, that we are to Be taught the truth by men who believe in that which is not the truth universal ?

Now, protection may be a good thing for one man. It may be an admirable thing for me, if I am a manufacturer of hats, and if I can get the whole market for hats in Canada. That is only protection run mad. That is a good thing for me if I am making hats. But surely it is not a good thing for every man who has to buy a hat. The truth of the matter is that we are joined together in this country, as people are in every country, in such a manner that the interests of each must be respected and conserved, so that what I give to assist one man should be repaid to me from another man, or by any number of men that are assisted. That is equity. They never made a bigger mistake. They were going to give this information to the farmers, but the farmers were too busy at work, and laughed at them.

For myself, I want to say distinctly that the present policy must be maintained. It may require some changes. Taxation ought to be adjusted to suit all, and where one manufacturer has an advantage over another, or one consumer pays more than another, an equitable adjustment must be made. I care not whether we have a protective policy or a revenue tariff policy, no one manufacturer has a right to an advantage over another, and no purchaser has

a right to purchase to the disadvantage of another. We must move, but no advance should be made to give protection to one class over another. We must move in an opposite direction. Let each man start fair in the race for life. As much as any other man, I want to see our manufactures increased, I want to see improvement in the character of their goods, in the enlargement of their output, but it must not be by making others contribute to that end. I would as strongly oppose the farmers, the fishermen, the lumbermen or any others getting an advantage over the manufacturers. We are building up a mighty west. This year a population as large as four constituencies will be added to this great land ; and I commend the words of the Minister of Finance to our energetic friends the manufacturers in that connection. If they spent their time in improving their method-increasing their skill-enlarging their outlay and securing every available market, instead of paying for costly delegations, illogical speakers and ineffective attempts to teach farmers wiser than themselves, they would find a better disposition among all classes to assist them and more tolerance for their just claims. They have, by their unwise course in raising this issue at a most unreasonable time, done more to discredit themselves than they can repair in the near future. Those who tbll them, kindly but firmly, these truths, are their best friends, and have their and the country's interests at heart more than the men who seek to gain the impossible by loudly proclaiming that with the nearly 17 per cent advantage they have, they still must call on the country to implement, by subventions, what, if rightly utilized by energy and skill, would be able to meet every competition and overcome it. I am satisfied the crusade so loudly proclaimed had not the sympathy of a large number of our best manufacturers.

I know hundreds of these men who come up here thinking that this government could be imposed upon, and that their loud cries might be taken as representing the actual condition of things in the country. At the same time the largest manufacturers in the country were doing better than ever they did before, and saying as plainly as possible that this unwise method of attempting to rush protection at such a time as this would be fraught with the disaster that it met, and well met. Now, I am accused of being against the manufacturers because I firmly say what I believe is in their best interests. No such a thing. yVe have man) ufacturers in Nova Scotia and in all the pro-1 vinces, but if after all the protection that ! was said to be given by the hon. gentlemen opposite, after eighteen years of that protection, and from 1896 to the present-take it as you will, either the same system or a very small change made, some gentlemen say a certain percentage of one per cent- if after all that time they have not gained

the experience, as I believe the largest number of them have gained, to conduct their business with profit to themselves, I do not think a large majority of the people of this country should be compelled to contribute to increase their gains. Why, Mr. Speaker, I was talking to one of the greatest manufacturers of Canada who was asked to go to a meeting of the men engaged in the trade in which he was himself engaged. He laughed and he said : Why, there will be nothing given. I am a protectionist, but they cannot get anything ; and do you know I have come to the conclusion that we ought not to get anything, and I will tell you why. Each one got up at that meeting and said : We want such and such protection. Immediately another gentleman sprung up and said : What, would you kill my business ? For that would kill my business. Then a third got up and said something else. We were all engaged in the same business, or utilizing the same article in different directions. Now, that showed me that these men are not agreed among themselves. 1 know nothing of what these delegations said or wrote. But I have a little evidence myself of a man who joined a delegation to come here to get protection and who, when he went home, wrote a friend of mine, not in this House, saying that the very thing he had to ask for by coming with the others, to make them think he was with them, would be the very thing he did not want. Oh, for a sensible condition of things, under which we would cease this attempt to make it appear that a country 4,000 miles in extent, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and running close to our neighbour's for all this distance, is going to become a greater country by imposing more duties. If we must impose duties, let it be to pay for the benefits we receive. I object, Mr. Speaker, and I will object so long as I live, that the government shall be asked to give its sanction to any other man, excepting our regular tax-gatherer, who pays the money into the coffers of the government, levying taxes on the people of Canada. I will object that any man should have the authority to, in his own interests, take that which belongs to the people. The amount of it makes no difference. It is worse, of course, as it gets larger, but even if it is only a cent, it is wrong. I know that no human being can make a tariff that is uniform. I know there is no government in the world that can be perfectly equitable, but there are lines upon which we can go. Just fancy the farmers, who are at least from 65 to 70 per cent of the whole population of Canada, going to be made rich by feeding less than 15 per cent of the population, which represents the whole number of manufacturers who are engaged in manufacturing in Canada. Is that not a nice proposition ?

The hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson), a farmer of the farmers, spoke the other day. Fancy sixty-five such men Mr. FRASER.

as that-practical, gcod farmers-becoming wealthy by feeding fifteen manufacturers. There is one thing certain; either the sixty-five farmers are not good farmers or the fifteen manufacturers eat too much-that is all. One or other of these two things must be true. Now, the hon. member who spoke last said that he wanted all Canada joined together, and he did not want one class to be against the other. Did he not see that the very position he was taking of calling for more protection for the manufacturers had all the elements of setting class against class ? Do you think the farmers, the fishermen, the lumbermen and the miners are going to sit down quietly and permit the government to grant benefits to one class which they belive are going to be injurious to them ? No, the present tariff has worked well. Frankly, I think we might have gone further.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Just explain about the $7 per ton on steel rails.

Mr. FRASER.

Well, the explanation I give of that is this : If the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) had heard the last speaker he would have got his answer, when he said he never thought it was intended to be given. I do not say that. But the hon. gentleman has his answer from his own side of the House. It ought to be a more satisfactory answer than I could give. I happen to come from a country where the people are largely fishermen, farmers, miners and lumbermen. I do not want for them special advantages and they do not want them. They have never asked me either individually or altogether to see that they receive protection for lumber or that their fish should receive special protection, or that their farm products should receive special protection. The truth of the matter is that the farmers themselves are to blame. If I were inclined to set farmer against manufacturer I could easily do it. I could say, for example, that if the farmer will permit delegation after delegation to importune members of parliament on both sides of the House while he sits still this clamour may be more successful than he imagines. I do not say that the farmers should come here, and they do not come here, and ask that there should be largely increased duties imposed upon the articles which they produce, but they should see that they should at least be treated so as not to be made to contribute a dollar more thau they ought to in order to pay for carrying on the business of the country. The position of hon. gentlemen opposite is a marvellous one. Hon. gentlemen invariably say that the present tariff has nothing to do with the Liberal party's being in power and that the result is all due to Providence.

I believe that it is largely due to Providence. I believe, that, except and in so far as the government can make the conditions of life such that the products of labour shall

receive the greatest reward, by the least possible tax, the government cannot bring about the condition of things that makes a country prosperous. But, must we go into ancient history, as hon. gentlemen have done, I have heard hon. gentlemen opposite speak about the time of Mr. Mackenzie, and I have noticed that they have gone back to the time of confederation and waded through the whole of our history. What about the time when they invariably described everything good in this country as being due to the national policy. The national policy was the only thing that made this country what it was, and if the national policy were destroyed disaster would result. Is there an hon. gentleman in this House who has not heard an argument of that kind ? I have been a little on the political platform and I do not remember ever having met with a Conservative who has not used that argument. One of the principal sinners is the hon. member for Botli-well (Mr. Clancy), who took a leading part in that same direction. If it was not a good argument then it is not a good argument now, to say that the government does everything for the country and that everything in the country depends upon the government. I am down on that kind of paternalism, and I think we are weakening the respect for government by looking to it to do everything. Hon. gentlemen ought not to have said a word about the present condition of things, or they ought to have made a repentance worthy of the occasion. They should have said : We were wrong before and we are right now, or we were right before and we are wrong now. I care not which. If they say that the government has nothing to do with the large increase in the prosperity of the country they were wrong before and they should repent. I am glad that the government has withstood the movement for higher duties. Oh, the cheers that would have greeted us from the other side of the House if the government had capitulated and allowed itself to be stampeded into protection. Hon. gentlemen would have given us no assistance. If this is the same tariff that they had why should they be against the government ? What is the meaning of their opposition, of their attempt to defeat the government if the government has accepted their tariff and is carrying it out ? If hon. gentlemen opposite have settled the whole tariff and if the prosperity of the country is owing to their tariff why do they complain ? A more unsatisfactory state of things could never exist. If protection has been adopted by the Liberal party why should the Liberal party have their opposition ? Why not say : Now, you have been converted to our views,- let us all join together because we all think the same as to the policy of Canada ? Will hon. gentlemen opposite say that ? Do they not perceive that the country must see through them ? Do they not see that they

cannot impose upon the people by any artifice of that kind. One word more, before it is six o'clock. There was a good deal said about the surplus. Now, in a perfect condition of things, when there is no debt there should be no surplus, because if there is no debt and no interest to be paid, the people should not pay a dollar more than is required for the purposes of paying the expenses of the government. But a surplus in rich years such as we have had, when used by the government as it has been used, it is all right. Instead of borrowing six million dollars a year as the Conservatives did, this government is spending a great deal more money for the good of the country and they are using the surplus for that, so that we will not need to borrow that money and pay interest on it for all time. Another thing is that the government are paying off this year $5,000,000 of the debt and we will never have to pay it again.

Mr. CLANCY.

Does that include the sinking fund ?

Mr. FRASER.

The sinking fund goes on, but there is a difference. The present government put money in the sinking fund, but the late Conservative government was a sinking fund altogether, until they sank out of sight in 1896.

Hear, hear.

At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. FRASER.

At the risk of repeating myself, I wish to state distinctly again, in order that it may be answered by hon. gentlemen opposite, the difference between the present tariff and the tariff of the past. Is the present tariff the same as the tariff of the late government ? Is it less or is it more? If it is less, would the Conservatives bring it up to where they left it, or would they advance it further ? It is no use talking about what this man or that man on either side may have said ; it is the existing tariff that we are discussing now. Reference has been made to the United States, and surely if there is any country in the world which might indicate that prosperity can spring from a high tariff the United States would be that country. But here is a curious condition of things. What is the condition of things in the New England states, the home of manufacturing on this continent. I hold in my hand a monthly paper called the ' New England Illustrated,' published by George H. Chapin, of 257 Washington street, Boston. It gives a description of farms that are for sale in New England, the home of the highest protection that any country ever had. I will read this choice description of a farm which is ' No. 22,472 ' and the numbers go | up to 40,000. Hqre it is :

Quarter mile lake front ; 160 acres ; 1,000 cords wood ; cuts IS tons hay ; 150 apple trees; 25 varieties grapes ; pears ; plums ; cherries ; cranberries; aqueduct spring water ; good seven room house, newly painted and papered, piazza ; barn 40 x 40 cellar ; open and box stalls, double boarded ; carriage house ; blacksmith shop with bellows, anvil and tools ; good repair ; high location ; 400 sugar trees ; salmon and trout fishing ; could sell lake front cottage lots.

What do you think all that cost in the chosen home of protection ? Why $900 part cash. If there is any country in the world where you would expect farms to sell well, it is in New England, but the heading on this list is ' Abandoned Farms.' Where is the home market ? I may be told that the growth of the western part of the United States has made it impossible for New England farms to keep up, and there may he some truth in that, hut in the older provinces of Canada the same rule would apply, for we are now being fed from the west. But do you think you can get a farm like that in any part of Canada for $900. Now what is the condition of the labourers in the United States ? John Burns, who is the highest authority on the question of labour iu Great Britain, has recently described the industrial conditions in the United States as ' hell with the lid off.' Is that where the hon. gentlemen opposite want to go ? John Burns knows more about the labour question in Great Britain, and I think in the world, than any other man, and that is his idea of the industrial conditions in the United States. Every one knows who has read about the strikes, and the industrial wars and the trusts that there exist conditions in the United States which have made thoughtful men fearful of the future, and some of them have predicted that within a quarter of a century or less there will be such an industrial war as can be wiped out only by blood. We do not want such conditions in Canada.

The position which I take on reciprocity, Sir, is the position taken by this government. I believe that reciprocity would be a good thing under proper conditions. I am not going to seek reciprocity from the United States, or make them think by word or deed of mine that we need it more than they do. The truth of the matter is that the question of reciprocity is up to the Americans now. I remember being in Boston last fall addressing tbe lower province men's society, at which there were three members of Congress and two senators present, and I took the opportunity of telling them that they need not expect to have Canada, because we would not go with them, hut that they could have reciprocity. I speak for the lower provinces when I say that we want reciprocity, but. we do not want their wretched fiscal system which hon. gentlemen opposite want to copy. They forced ns into looking for markets in other parts of the world by their treatment of our products, and now we have, by the British Mr. FRASER.

preference, these markets, and so they have to come to us looking for reciprocity. The hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) talked about our going to Washington to get a banquet. Well, two reciprocity delegations went from Canada to the United States, Joseph Howe, the brightest man that Nova Scotia ever produced, and probably one of tbe brightest men that Canada has ever produced, spoke in reference to the very thing the late government did as a ' comedy of errors.' Then, Sir John Thompson went The hon. member said that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) was going to a dinner. When the late leader of the Conservative party went there, he did not stay long enough to get his dinner, because he was only there three minutes.

One of the most amusing features of this discussion was brought out by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart), who joined protection and transportation together. Now, that is something that I cannot understand. How are you going to have very much transportation if you are going to exclude foreign goods ? You spend millions in providing the best means of transportation in the country to take goods out ; what are you going to bring hack ? Are you going to bring back a shipload of money ? Every one knows that money will not come back ; every one knows that goods must be exchanged for goods. If you put a tariff wall high enough, nothing will come in, and if nothing comes in, nothing will go out. One of the most absurd ideas possible is to join protection and transportation. What is to become of tbe great granary of the west, which is to be Britain's future granary, be our transportation facilities ever so good, if we put up a tariff wall high enough to keep all foreign goods out ? Transportation goes with a moderate tariff ; transportation and a revenue tariff will go together, but never transportation and protection.

I need scarcely say that I was very much pleased with the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance. I was pleased with it for a number of reasons. I felt proud that lie was able in so lucid a way to place tbe financial condition of the country before us, favoured as be was with conditions such as have never existed in Canada before I was proud of him as a Nova Scotian. I was proud of him as Minister of Finance, instead of having to apologize, as the late Minister of Finance had to do for our little business capacity, be was able to show what splendid things this country was doing. I may say also that my pride in him was increased by the fact that when our opposition friends found themselves in a dilemma, they had to go to Nova Seotin to get a man to save them from utter ruin, though I do not think that the high standing of even that hon. gentleman can prevent that ruin.

We are spending more than we did before -why ? Because we can' afford it. Hoes any man blame the farmer whose condition

is twice as prosperous this year as it was last year, for spending more ? Is he not going to have a better house, provided with all those appliances which will make it a more comfortable home for his wife and family ? The merchant who makes 20 per cent this year, where he only made 10 per cent before, can make an addition to his house. As it is in business, so it is in the country. While we are spending more, the people can pay that much more easily than they did the lesser amount that was paid under the late government. The people know that, and they do not feel it ; and when the increased revenue is being applied to the building of great public works and to the reduction of the debt, the people are willing to contribute. But even while we are getting a greater revenue which we are spending in the interests of the country, the taxation which is producing that revenue is 10 per cent less than it was before, taking one article with another. The late Minister of Finance himself said that the tariff was only reduced one per cent, from 19 per cent to 18 per cent. That is not a fair way of putting it. The tariff rate was reduced from 18 per cent to 16 per cent, a reduction of two in the rate of duty, which is really a reduction of nearly 10 per cent.

It may not be out of place for me to say something about the present conditon of the country and the condition in which it was left by lion, gentlemen opposite. The marvel to me is that these hon. gentlemen do not consider the changed conditions. The present government found the country with deficits and almost in the throes of a revolution-class against class, religion against religion, and everything that would make for the worse condition of Canada rather than for its better condition What happened ? We are to-day exporting nearly $100 per head for all the people of Canada, besides living much better than we did before. These are the conditions that exist to-day, and every man sees them. I was told by a manufacturer not long ago, one who only wants what is fair, living in a city of 40,000 or 50,000 population, that he actually cannot get men to work. Is that not a state of things for which everybody should be grateful.

Mr. PUTTEE.

What city is that ?

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

Except the farmers would buy more.