Mr. FRASER.

Of course they would buy more if there were more manufacturers ; but how does the ex-minister suppose that sixty-five people are going to be made rich by feeding fifteen people, the proportion between farmers and manufacturers ? I say that the more men you have consuming things produced on farms the better ; but I deny these things are going to be brought about by protection, because while admitting that you may aid a few men, you are hindering the great body of the people. Canada for 68

the Canadians, I hear ; but every time it is Canada for the few. I am in favour of Canada for the Canadians. I am in favour of laying tribute on every country under the sun, in order that Canada may be made greater than it is. But I refuse to acknowledge that Canada for the Canadians means Canada for the favoured few. They wish to build up a wall by which the Canadians are fleeced. Is that Canada for the Canadians ? Give every man a fair show, and then the best conditions will be realized.

One thing I wish to say to the right hon. leader of the government, and I say it with all the more ease because he is absent. If he has done nothing else, he has since 1896 done more to cement together all the races and creeds in Canada than all the men in Canada before him. I venture to make this observation, that the Protestants of Canada understand our Catholic fellow-citizens, and have a better and higher idea of them than sometimes in our narrowness we had before, and our Catholic fellow-citizens, I think, understand us better and hold better relations with us than they did before. We talk of protection to help the few ; but the men who can bring Canadians together, whether they be English, Scotch, Irish, French, German, or any other nationality, and cement them together as Canadians, does more than any other man or combination of men can do by any other method. Is there not today a better feeling among our people ? I venture to make the statement, Mr. Speaker, that hereafter it will be impossible to raise the racial and religious cries that formerly prevailed in Canada. I think the good sense of the people of Canada will frown down any attempt of that kind. It may be that some would-be politicians will have to go out of business. Thank God if they do go out of business, when the general community is coming to understand better what will lead to the higher development of Canada. I wish to say this as a Protestant, that the right hon. leader of the government will leave a name for thus doing that will be green in Canada so long as men worship at different altars or trace their families back to the various nations of the world.

The hon. leader of the opposition made a western trip. I was not invited to go with him nor can I speak of what happened from personal observation. But four things followed, which we all know. We know that from the extreme west the first answer that came to that movement which was going to result in the defeat of the government, was the election in Burrard of a government supporter without opposition. The opposition there, even after this visit of their leader to the west, could not muster among them a candidate. Then there came an answer from central Canada, given in the election in North Ontario. Everybody knows the result of that election. Following that came the voice of the far east, in the Yarmouth election, where the Liberal majority

of 250 at the general election was raised to the overwhelming one of 800 or 900. These are the results which followed the preaching of the Conservative gospel by the leader of the opposition. But perhaps my hon. friend was unfortunate in his choice of the gentlemen who accompanied him and they may have spoiled the good he must otherwise have done. The hon. gentleman had occasion to attend a banquet in his own province in the town of Sydney. Here let me say that, and as a rule, Mr. Speaker, we run local politics in Nova Scotia on the same lines as federal politics. On his way to that banquet, my hon. friend passed through the county of Antigonish, where a local election was being held, and despite his presence the Conservative party there could not find a candidate to present himself in their interests. There are the four results which followed this remarkable tour. How can we explain these results ? I would venture to suggest that the condition of the people was such that they were too busy to turn out and take part in politics. Go to a farmer, when he iS busy gathering in the products of the soil or putting seed into the ground, and ask him to attend a political meeting and you will find that he will prefer remaining at home, where he is contented and happy, doing labour that is going to bring him in profits, than to go and listen to the arguments of hon. gentlemen who want to make him dissatisfied with his lot. With the sun shining, with tliet blessing of Providence in his work, with every man busy, he will take no chances, he will not seek to change his present condition, and that) is1 why my hon. friend cannot get followers.

Mr. Speaker, this is a country of vast extent. The conditions that exist in one locality should not be allowed to colour our views of the conditions that prevail generally throughout the Dominion. I made the calculation, and was able to make the statement in Boston, which I now repeat. They were surprised to learn, but it is perfectly true, that neither in ancient nor modern times was there ever a people of the same population as the Canadians, who did as much trade per head as we have done in the last six years. No nation, not even the nation from which we have sprung-the land of all lands, Great Britain-can compare with us in that respect. We have discounted our neighbours to the south, for in those six years we have done 75 per cent more business per head than they. That is the condition of the country, and that being its condition, should not wise men draw from it the conclusion as to what is going to be best for this whole country. I heard an hon. gentleman opposite say : ' I know no

west and no east.' I am glad of it, Mr. Speaker. I do not want any question interjected into the politics of Canada which will disturb our happy relations with one another, but so soon as you propose a policy Mr. FRASER.

which will give advantages to certain people in Canada at the expense of others, you break away from that policy, which recognizes no east or west but takes the country as a whole. But when we learn the important lessons that every interest in the east and every interest in the west are joined, that no man liveth to himself as no man dieth to himself, then we will have laid down the golden rule in Canada and will perpetuate a different order of conditions to that which exists in the country to the south of us.

Men on both sides ask where is all this prosperity we are1 now enjoying coming from ? Even Liberals are surprised that these conditions should not only continue, but increase. Hon. gentlemen opposite are unable to explain, they are lost in wonder, and their wonder is no doubt mingled With regret. But the answer to the question is easy. All the prosperity we are now enjoying comes from the soil. Everything comes from) the soil-God's only foundation for a country's wealth.

When we properly appreciate that fact, we will, irrespective of party, do) what we can, not to hurt the manufacturers or any one else, but to increase the general prosperity of east, west and middle. We in the east must understand that the wealth of the country, as well as its population, is going in the next twenty-five years to be centred in that mighty west beyond Lake Superior. Shall we do anything that will injure the new settler going into that country or tend to make his burdens too heavy ? Shall we not rather see that while he pays a fair share of taxation, he shall have every advantage that ought to be given him. The future is partly in our own hands, under the beneficient power which rules over all. But let us at least join in this sentiment, that while Canada remains as she is-and long may she so remain-that while Canada remains connected with the mother of heroes and lions we shall follow in the footsteps of our motherland rather than deck ourselves out in the wretched, effete garments worn by the republicans in the country to the south of us. I fear not for the future of this country. With better ideas of our relations to one another as fellow-citizens, with more moderate and broader views of the religious and racial sentiments of the people, with every man at work the best he can to make this country prosperous, Canada is bound to go ahead with greater strides even than in the past few years. We can never suffer, as other countries have suffered, because while there is not more than 5 per cent of our good agricultural land now in use, we will be always able to supply these products which men must have, whether times be good or bad. And as the good work and policy of the present government become more and more appreciated, as the beneficial effects of their administration become more and more felt,

our lion, friends opposite will find that not even the magic lantern displays of the hon. member from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) in an election campaign will enable them to lead the Canadian people away from their loyalty to that noblest Canadian, the right hon. Prime Minister, and those who are glad to follow his leadership, and who at the same time are quite ready to tell him when he is wrong. We have refrained from doing that, because there was no occasion. And join with all the members on this side-and I am sure that the members on the other side will join with us too in their heart's best sentiments-in believing that the interests of Canada are safer in the hands of the present government than they have been in the hands of any government that has ever held power in this country.

Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).

Mr. Speaker, in view of the amount of industrial unrest and strife in the country at this time, I think that one remark made by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Eraser) should not be passed unnoticed. He has asserted that labour is harder to obtain in Canada to-day than ever it has been before, and that wages are higher in Canada to-day than ever they have been before. I will not deal with that saving clause, for we could come to no agreement on that, at all events. But I do say that labour is not scarce in Canada to-day, and that wages are not comparatively high. The man who earns wages estimates those wages by their purchasing power ; and to-day wages purchase far less than they did two years ago. This is not simply an assertion of my own, for financial concerns have declared it and proved it all over the country. Dunn & Co. published the fact last fall that, in the last two years, taking the country over, the prices of commodities-that is, the cost of living-had increased from 25 to 35 per cent. That is practically a reduction of the earners' wages to that extent. So far as the west is concerned, the increase in the cost of living is even higher than that, and with the influx of immigration and the general prosperity, it is no exaggeration to say that the cost of living is 40 per cent more than it was three years ago. Then, I say that wages are not relatively high. As to the matter of labour being scarce, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser), in his remarks on that point, simply voiced a general opinion in this country at the present time, an opinion which has been encouraged and generally accepted, but which is not in accordance with the facts. In this House we have had a proposition to increase the salaries of judges, the higher cost of living being recognized ; and in the other House, among other labour matters, they have been discussing the matter of raising the wages of the lieutenant governors. One of the senators, in urging this increase, gave it to be understood that he was not encouraging? or promoting a strike on behalf of the lieuten-68$

ant governors in Canada. Now, if that hon. gentleman should be unsuccessful ; if there should be a strike or a walk-out on the part of the lieutenant governors of Canada, this government will see whether the labour market is overcrowded or not. I am sure it will put them in a very different position from any they have been in before, if they have trouble in finding men to fill these offices.

In this debate, as in other similar debates in previous sessions, the question of what constitutes a surplus has been brought up. There seems to be a great variety of opinions on the subject. In some years there has been a question of whether we have had a surplus or not. Owing to the matter of bookkeeping it can be argued in either way. Sometimes our revenue has been less than our ordinary expenditure. But sometimes our ordinary expenditure has been less than our revenue, though the whole expenditure is greater than the revenue ; yet we are told on such occasions that we have a surplus, because some of the expenditure has been charged to capital account. For my part, I see no great objection to having a capital account for the Dominion apai't from the consolidated account. But if we are to have a capital account, then the items that are to be charged to it in all the departments should be specified and known and thoroughly understood. It is now at the option of the heads of the departments to say what expenditures of their departments shall be chargeable to capital and what to consolidated account. And of course, the heads of our departments wish to make as good a showing in the House as possible. While this state of affairs exists we are bound to take the total expenditure of the country and call that the expenditure. Whatever revenue there is above that may be called a surplus. But, even on that line of reasoning, we have a surplus this year.

I can see no room at all for arguing that matter. But there is one point I have not seen brought up before, and that is that if we have a surplus we have no proposal for reducing taxation. And this brings up the question of the government's fiscal policy. If it were a policy of high protection for the industries of the country, the matter of surplus would not make much difference, for surpluses would not often exist. But if we have a revenue tariff, then I say this matter of surpluses demands attention. There is one course for the coming year every time there is a surplus. The imperial government have had their budget brought down since ours. Finding that the war expenditure having ceased, they have a surplus, the announcement of that fact is immediately followed by statements of the reduction of taxation. We have not received any such promise as that. And I draw the conclusion from this that the fiscal policy of Canada is not in the future, even if 1 it has or has not been in the past, to be

established on any principle either of protection or revenue tariff. That means that the government are going to be guided by the forces or influences that are brought to bear upon them in framing their policy. And that is why it seems to me very important that the members of this House, as representing the several constituencies of the country, should make their statements of where they stand on this question of protection or revenue duties. The hbm member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte), in speaking early in this budget debate, made this reference to the North-west:

Now let me say one last word about the North-west Territories and Manitoba. One of the influences, perhaps the main influence, which has prevented the revision of the tariff comes from the North-west Territories. That I happen to know.

Mr. Speaker, I look upon that as a very valuable statement, and one that should be gratifying to the representatives and to the people of the North-west; and I think the other parts of Canada can put that on the credit side when they are considering the matter of expense in connection with the North-west. X am free to say that last year when this subject was under debate, I feared that this year there was going to be a different story to tell, and that we were going to be face to face with a demand for higher duties ; and if the west has been the main cause, or a material cause, in restraining that sentiment, I think we can well be satisfied, and we can say that we have done something for the good of the country as a whole. That brings us to a consideration of the influences that are going to guide the policy of the government in the future.' Naturally, as has been pointed out before in this debate, those influences and those interests which make the most profit out of a protective tariff are the very ones that are the most in evidence, and that are the most persistently and powerfully before the government. The producer, the farmer, the worker, naturally cannot get his views nor his influence easily before the government. In view of these facts, it seems to me more important than ever, for the sake of good government, in order that the sentiments of the whole people may be carried out, that representatives of the people who come here should get up and state exactly what they think themselves of this question, and what they hope for in the future.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there were some announcements made in the budget speech which I cannot help looking upon but as of a protective character. I cannot form any other conclusion. I regret most that anything in the nature of a threat should be held out to Great Britain that probably the British preference may be repealed. Sir,

I always was a supporter of that preference^

I believed in it. I thought there was a good deal that was right and sound in that position. I did not consider the preference was

Mr. PUTTEE.

made for Britain's benefit, though I knew it might have some effect there, that it might commend itself to the people of Great Britain ; but I believed that it was adopted primarily for our own benefit. I believed it had an effect beneficial to our own people. I believe that the operation of the preferential tariff with Great Britain has been a distinct advantage to this country, and that we should retain it, and retain it for that purpose alone. And it would seem to me somewhat ungracious now to make a threat to Great Britain to repeal it in certain eventualities. Probably there was not sentiment in the first place that dictated that preference, I prefer to believe that there was not. I accepted it myself as a Canadian business proposition, and as such I intend to stand by it.

Then, Sir, another thing of a distinctly protective character is the German surtax. I regret very much that its effect will be probably more disastrous in the immediate future to the Canadian consumer than it will be to Germany, though in the long run as a retaliatory measure, Germany will suffer the most from it. But in view of our considerable imports of sugar from Germany, and our rapidly growing imports of structural iron, the imposition of this surtax will not be to the benefit of the Canadian consumer in the near future. Both as regards sugar and structural iron, the surtax will have a protective effect. Then another announcement in the budget speech was that a duty would be put on steel rails. Two years ago the Finance Minister announced a bounty on steel. Previous to that we had a bounty on iron, and I believe that the bounty system is the most honest protective system. When the country deliberately hands over cash to any company or individual as a bounty, the people know what it costs, what it is, and what it is worth, and just how much the tax amounts to. To that extent I think a bounty system in regard to these industries is far preferable to an import duty, which becomes a tax to the consumers. But, Sir, I cannot see any warrant or any necessity for offering $7 a ton on steel rails. When the industry gets into a position that it can supply the market the duty will go into force, and the effect will be to increase the cost of steel rails to railways. Seeing that it has been the policy of the country to assume to a great extent the burden of the construction of railways by granting bonuses the result will be that we shall be asked to grant larger bonuses. It would have been a more honest and straightforward proposition to give a straight bounty. In regard to binder twine, which at first appears to be a protective proposition, I think there can be but little objection to that. I would myself have preferred to see the burden placed upon our binder twine manufacturers lifted by a straight bounty given to them, equal to the amount of the rebate

given in the United States on all twine manufactured there.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the amendment that has been moved to the motion. It states that the operation of the present tariff has been unsatisfactory, and that what is wanted is a declared policy of such adequate protection In Canada to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures, and industries, as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians. There is a difference of opinion as to what is meant by adequate protection, mutual preference, and all these propositions that we hear so much of in this House. I see no need of quibbling over the meaning of the words at all. I think the men who make these motions give us clearly to understand what they mean. Of all the amendments that have been moved to the budget since I have been in this House, they mean this one thing, higher tariff, more protection to the manufacturers. I am bound to deal with it as such and I am bound to vote on it as such. This amendment states that it would give protection to the labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries, although it has been pretty fairly demonstrated on both sides of the House that protection to the agricultural industry is something that is beyond us and that it is an illusion. It is just something to talk about and nothing more. If the industries of this country were to be so much protected that from very shame an attempt was made to protect the farmer in the same way, I say that his last state would be worse than his first, I think the proposition to protect the farmer by absolutely debarring from this country all kinds of products that are in any way similar or identical to our native products is a proposition that is an absurdity. The fact that agricultural products are imported into this country means that there is some vital necessity for them in some parts of the country. Let us take the example of bananas and the like, for instance. They come into this country. Nobody wants to exclude them ; all we want to do is to cheapen them. If hay and the like is imported it must make for the benefit of the farmer, as the importation must be made to supply a shortage in some district at a particular time. The very fact that he needs hay badly enough to make it necessary to import it would indicate that he should be allowed to import it to the full extent required. Such an exchange of products must be a benefit to our farmers as well as to the people on the other side of the line who trade with them. Now, I come to protection as regards labour. I listen always very attentively in this House when I hear the apostles of high protection approach this subject. I have never heard them do more. I have never heard them go into the subject. I have heard them assert that protection does benefit the labourer. I have never heard them explain how or point to any instances where it has really done so. My conclusion is that it does not and that it is not calculated so to do. The statement though of all hon. members who stand for this policy is that protection is for the benefit of the labourer. It was perhaps put as pithily as it has ever been in one sentence uttered during the debate of last year by one hon. member who said :

The basis of the national policy is to give our industrial classes work.

I am prepared to admit that, but that is very nearly its limit. What is there in this proposal merely to provide work ? Is it more work that a man wants ? We want, they say, to give him lots of work, and long hours of work. Apply that logic to the farmer and see how its suits his case. The protectionists say to the farmers : Work is a good thing, you want work, you are fortunate that you can work, what you "-ant is work, go and work-work-work. You are fortunate for you do not have to get the permission of another man to work. You can employ yourself. Do not come here bothering about legislation, transportation and tariffs, leave that to us and go to work-we have given you lots of work. How does that sound ns applied to the farmer ? It is just the same when you apply it to the workingman. When you tell him that all he wants is work he replies that it is the conditions, made to a certain extent by governments that affects the results that he gets from his work. He does not want so much work, he wants a better living and a better opportunity to enjoy life. After all that is the furthest extent that hon. gentlemen who support protection for the benefit of the worker can go. They say that the national policy provided work for the industrial classes. Then, they say : We want the reservation of the Canadian market for the Canadians. However, that sentiment may be approved, however nice the sentence may sound, what they mean when they introduce a protective resolution to that effect is to reserve the Canadian market to the Canadian manufacturer. What is there in that sentiment to appeal to the farmer ? He wants a great deal more than the Canadian market. This country needs a great deal more than the Canadian market. I have heard it said that without high protection it would be made a slaughter market. If this tariff wall is put up it will be a slaughter market for the Canadian farmer and the Canadian workingman all right enough. I am aware that in this country as well as in other countries there are some men who are entitled to and do speak for labour who believe in protection. I often wondered how this was so. and what reason they could give to themselves for their opinions. I have followed tills cry in Canada for protection on behalf

of tlie manufacturers very closely. I have followed all their assertions that they are interested in the workers who work for them, and I have found that there is only one time when the manufacturer as a rule displays his interest in the workers, and that is when he wants more protection. Outside of that everything that the workingman goes into, that he puts time and his money into, in order to improve his own position, is looked upon coldly by the manufacturer and he has then no help or assistance or sympathy for the labourer. Yet, in this one matter that means so much to the manufacturer, the worker is told to believe that the manufacturer is looking after his interests. The story is not plausible enough to stand investigation. It does not stand the wear when it is on the statute-book. It is not in the interest of the worker to have high protection to give to the man who has to pay him practically absolute power to fix the price of all things he has to buy. It is not good logic and it is not good business for the man who works in the factory, or on the farm, or in the mine. But, the manufacturer is a wise man. He has two strings to his bow. It is generally supposed to be evidence of wisdom to have an alternative route. It reminds me of the darky whose business was coon-catching. lie had traps set both ways and when asked the reason for this he said it was to catch them both coming and going. That is what the manufacturer does. He wants to catch the workers both coming and going. He wants protection for the article he manufactures and he wants the fullest freedom in the employment of his labour. He wants the privilege not only to bring in labour but he wants the government to spend more money yet to import labour. He wants the freest of free trade and he wants a bonused trade in the one thing he buys, the labour of his fellow-man. He wants a bonus against the one thing the workingman has to sell; that is his labour, and yet he wants to have protection for the article he is going to make and going to sell. It is a scheme that works both ways; the traps are set both coming and going there, Mr. Speaker, and for my part I think that these extremes in both ways make for his undoing.

I want to deal for a little while with the form and extent and methods of our present immigration system. There is a great deal of immigration at the present time; there is a tremendous call for it; prosperity seems to need many immigrants. A few days ago, the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) prompted by the action taken by the Toronto Trades and Labour Council, put a question to the ministry, the gist of which was : Whether Mr. W. T. R. Preston the

Canadian immigration agent in England stated that mechanics were simply unobtainable in Toronto owing to the great demand for skilled labour in that city. In Mr. PUTTEE.

reply to that question the acting Minister of the Interior (Hon. Sir William Mulock) stated : Instructions have been sent to immigration agents to confine their efforts towards promoting the immigration of agricultural classes. Now, Sir, I have been interested in this matter and I have gone to the minister, and I know that the policy of this government is to encourage the immigration from foreign countries of agricultural labourers and those who till the land. But I want to state most emphatically to the government and to the acting Minister of the Interior, that this agent in London is not in sympathy with that policy of the government to encourage only agriculturists to come to Canada. I know as a matter of fact that that is the policy of the government, this year, last year, and for years, and the minister has told us emphatically that the government would not adopt the policy of encouraging mechanics to come to Canada. I know as a matter of fact that instructions to that effect have been sent to the government agents in the United States and more especially in England.

Mr. CLARKE.

Are these instructions ignored ?

Mr. PUTTEE.

but the demand is now almost filled, owing to the enormous influx. In the cities the demand for artisans will be, in most cases, fully met by the supply, while there is over-supply of unskilled labour, except in cases where strikes are pending. Wages, no doubt, seem high, compared with those prevailing in England, but this is not because of any scarcity of labour, still less does it show that the labourers are particularly well off. It is due to the high cost of living, especially in the matter of rent and fuel. Living has gone up 25 per cent in the last year or so and numerous strikes are pending in all parts of the country in the attempt to raise wages to subsistence point.

. Under the conditions we' would advise intending immigrants to exercise the greatest caution before coming out, especially those with families, unless they have capital. With a view of preventing^ English workingmen from being duped or victimized, the Winnipeg Trades and Labour Council send this warning and hope that you will give it due publicity.

It is signed on behalf of the council by the president and the acting secretary. Now, I submit, knowing some of the facts, that that is a fair and fairly moderate statement; but if the gist of that should be telegraphed across the ocean, it would be denied by the government agent in London to-morrow, as other statements have been recently.

Now, Mr Speaker, in connection with this question of protection, I wish to refer to the speech of the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte). It will he in the recollection of the House that he touched upon more really interesting matters than most of the other speakers have done since ; but at the same time, a most peculiar strain * to be heard in a Canadian parliament ran through his whole speech. The greater portion of the speech was a glorification of the United States, and by the same reasoning a condemnation of the national policy of Canada. If his theory was right, what condemned the national policy was that it was just one-half too low down, so far as protective duties were concerned ; and he referred to some authorities on the other side of the line in justification of his remarks.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I in no way follow him in the deductions he draws from the policy followed in the United States in its effect on the workers. I say again, and he did not prove the contrary, that the protective tariff does not necessarily, and even does not at all, affect the standing or the standard of life of the worker. One Instance of that is very pronounced in the United States to-day. Their cotton industry is protected by about 50 per cent. During the last two years there has been a great movement in that industry. Villages and towns in the state of Massachusetts and the adjoining states which depended entirely on the cotton mills, are now closed up. The cotton mills have gone What did they go for ? Not because they wanted more protection ; they got about all they could get. They went because they wanted cheaper labour, though it was as low as would maintain a decent standard of living in the Mr. PUTTEE.

northern states. They left almost in a body; but before going they sent their emissaries to several of the legislatures of the southern states, and secured the repeal of their laws against child labour and their factory laws. The cotton industry is now centered In the southern states, and In that industry there is to-day a condition of child labour that is almost incredible. All through the states ns well as through this country there is quite a movement on against the dirty little cigarette ; but this question of child labour in the cotton mills of the south is not attracting the attention or getting the assistance of these people who are so interested in the children and the workers. The manufacturer does not necessarily seek protection for the sake of benefiting those who work in his factory ; not by any means. The hon. member for St. Mary's division referred to a speech made by Mr. Andrew Carnegie at St. Louis. I think it was very unfortunate for that hon. gentleman's argument having the object of commending protection to the worker of this country, that his first quotation should be made from a speech by Andrew Carnegie. That gentleman has profited well from protection in the United States ; but his workers cannot say the same. Industries that were under his control in the states not many years ago. under a tremendous protective system, were selling armour plate to build the American navy at three times its cost. That is the kind of protection Andrew Carnegie believes in. It has been wonderfully successful from his point of view, and the hon. member for St. Mary's division quotes his opinion in this House as an argument for Canada adopting as adequate protection as they ha^re in the states. Mr. Carnegie says :

The manufacturer on a large scale can afford to make many contracts in distant parts of the world, and even some at home, at a direct loss in times of depression, knowing that, upon the whole, the result will he less unprofitable by running full than running short time or stopping. Hence, those possessing the most profitable home market can afford to supply foreign markets without direct profits, or even at a loss whenever necessary.

That is a nice doctrine.

Politicians give far too much attention to distant foreign markets, which can never amount to much ; and far too little to measures for improving conditions at home, which would increase the infinitely more important home market.

Yes, the home market bound up and delivered absolutely to men of this stamp. That is the policy of Andrew Carnegie. Even though you sell cheaper outside, even though you sell at a loss outside, take It out of your own people, take it out of your own workmen. Of course, where else could it come from ? Sell cheaper to foreigners and make all you can out of the people at home, and in this way, within the last thirty years, immense fortunes have been amassed in the United States by means of

the highest possible protective tariff. What has protection done in the United States during the last thirty years ? It has built up a plutocracy. It has enabled a few to amass fortunes, it has created an aristocratic class in that short time more powerful than the ruling classes in Great Britain. What it took centuries to do in Great Britain has been done in thirty years in the United States. High protection has taken from the American people the heritage of that vast continent which should belong to them. It has enabled the wealth produced by the people to be used for the enrichment of a class which is fast becoming all powerful, and which to-day is not only running industries, but owns the government from the bottom to the top. I do not know that we need that kind of aristocracy in this country. But that is what we have been developing, and what we would develop much faster, if we were to adopt the tariff of our prosperous neighbour to the south.

My hon. friend asked me what about the lead duty. I am glad he put that question, because I had omitted to refer to it, in dealing with the effect of the western settlement on this question, as it was put forward by the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte). Of course in the west and other districts, there will always be some industry that wants protection. But I submit that, as compared with the mass of the people, those interests are very small, and this very item that my hon. friend has referred to is unimportant compared to the general interests. The lead

men are asking for protection. What do

they base their demands on ? That they cannot produce lead ? No, not at all. Blit they base it on this plea. They say : You have increased by protection the prices of everything we consume. You practically have burdened our trade, and we want equal protection with these other people. Sir, go on that line and you will never see the end. You will finally attempt to protect the farmers, and the farmers' last condition will be worse than the first.

Mi\ BBAIN. Is the hon. [DOT] gentleman in favour of an increased duty on lead ?

Mr. PUTTEE.

The hon. gentleman would not think I was a politician if I gave him a direct answer.

Mr. BLAIN.

I am in earnest. And I ask the hon. gentleman if he is in favour of an increased duty on lead.

Mr. PUTTEE.

All through this debate 1 have noticed that on one side of the House and the other, these straight questions have been put in order to try and get a man to commit himself. When I started to speak, I said that I did believe it was the duty of men representing constituencies to commit themselves on these questions, but they have not done so. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that I am not in favour of the

duty on lead and shall vote against it, if proposed.

Mr. GALLIHER.

At the same time, you want your miners who mine that lead to be paid exceedingly high wages '!

Mr. BENNETT.

He wants Chinamen.

Mr. PUTTEE.

I have found out in my experience that it is not a protective duty which enables mine owners, any more than others, to pay higher wages. They do not pay higher wages on that ground. The workingmen and miners have found out that labour organizations alone have the power to increase wages. That is my answer to the hon. gentleman. That is a fact, and in view of the matters< that are in the public mind at present, it would be well for hon. gentlemen to digest that fact. When certain Bills come down from the other House, that will be a good time to discuss those matters. Before I leave this question of the manufacturers double traps-traps that catch coming and going-I want shortly to refer to a further lesson which shows the whole-hearted goodness of the manufacturer when he comes to deal with the worker. I refer to the lesson we had during this last week in the city of Ottawa. 1 have heard the most extravagant, unreliable and unwarranted statements-as statements tending to make trouble between the workers and the employers, statements that should properly be called demagogic-made in Ottawa by men who want higher protection. I have been astounded at the statements and the speeches made and the spirit shown in this city by the Manufacturers' Association last Monday. They showed very plainly their attitude towards the workers, they told the government that they wanted free immigration. They want the government to spend more money bringing in more immigrants. They said : We want you to

understand that we want an immigration policy for the cities. That was the statement made by these men who want protection for the benefit of the worker. , Is not their pretension of interest in the worker a piece of hyprocrisy ? Not only are they desirous of having traps to catch both coming and going, traps that give them power to tax and power to intensify competition in labour, but they want to spike the guns of the labouring men. They are seeking to have our labour organizations practically outlawed. They are endeavouring to have these organizations divided in order that they may the better crush them. Why are they doing this ? Because we have the power to increase wages and the manufacturer, though he asks for protection, does not want to increase wages and does not intend doing so unless he cannot help it.

Now, I wish to deal a little more closely with the matter of protection to the workmen. Can it be done ? It has never been expounded by the men who ask for protection for their industries ; but can it be

done ? Now, I take it that as a matter of fact the imposing of protective duties is not a simple matter. Of course it is simple enough for a deputation to come to Ottawa and wait on the government with the request that the taxes be increased to a certain figure on certain articles, with a view to giving protection to that line of manufacture. But to actually fix the duties is not nearly so simple a matter as that. If you were to get the experience and opinions of those who have held the position of Finance Minister in this country, I fancy you would find that, in the matter of fixing duties they have to go very minutely into all these matters, they have to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the details of the private business of the parties interested, in order to learn the proper and equitable way to arrange those duties. I suppose there was something of that iu it when the Manufacturers' Association wanted to submit their schedules to the government in private. There were matters in connection with their business which they did not wish to make known to everybody. Now, can you protect the labourer with your protective tariff 1 Well, yes, you can. Whether it is wise to do so, or not I do not discuss at this stage. But I for one will never believe in the honesty of the manufacturer or other person who asks for high protective duties for the benefit of the worker, unless he is willing to have included in the schedules a minimum wage in the industries concerned ; so much protection, so much wage ; so much increase in protection, so much increase in the wage. If protection is for the benefit of the people, let it be so arranged that the people shall secure that benefit. Of course there will be trouble in so arranging it. You will have to go thoroughly into the man's business. As I have said, a man does not object to it as interfering with his business when inquiry has to be made with a view to making good his demand for increased protection. But when you come to ask for a minimum rate of wage, either through the union or through the government, he wants to run his own business, and does not want to have outsiders prying into his affairs. But, in a protective tariff, it is only when there is a properly digested scheme providing that, in every industry which the tariff is calculated to protect, it shall really protect the people and give a minimum wage with an increasing rate according to the amount of taxation, that I would be prepared to say that you have applied protection to industry for the benefit of the worker. Then, we shall hear from the farmer in a different strain.

Now, the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) dealt with this question as widely and as fully as he could, and put forward his policy. He put forward a proposition that I knew him to have Mr. PUTTEE.

entertained in the past, and that is outlined in this excerpt from his speech :

It we give cheap transportation between the west and the east why should we not supply the west with our goods ? We are prepared to increase our transportation facilities by rail and by water. Let us combine this Dominion solidly together. National unity follows commercial intercourse. We are settling the west with foreign elements. Let us have as much intercourse as we can with those foreign elements. Let us trade together, let us unite the country solidly together by a strong Canadian tariff and by a scientific system of transportation.

The hon. member takes his stand as an easterner, and speaks to the west and says : Help us to get absolute control of this market-Canada for the Canadian manufacturers-and we will give you railway facilities. What is the method adopted by the government of Canada in giving railway facilities ? It assumes a good proportion of the cost of construction by giving a bonus to the railway companies. So, what does this proposition mean ? It means : You

give us power to tax you on everything you buy, then all of us will join to give money to the railway promoters, and then we shall all be better off. Certainly the people of the west will not be better off. There is nothing in that for the west. That is not a proposition that need be made at all. The west does not want transportation facilities as a gift or as a toy ; it has got to have transportation facilities for the benefit of the east, as well as for its own benefit. It must have transportation facilities, if this country is to progress. And so the question comes : How are we to get these facilities ? Are they to be provided by bonusing again ? Are we going to accept this proposition to give the eastern manufacturers the power to tax us on what we buy, and then all of us give more in bonuses to the transportation companies or rather to the promoters of transportation companies. No, Mr. Speaker. I believe with the hon. member for St. Mary's division, that the question of transportation is one that demands immediate attention ; I believe that it is high time that the government of this country should take hold of this question, no longer leaving itself to be the shuttlecock of circumstances, but with a firm hand direct the preparation of the channels in which the export and import business of the country is to run. I believe that this country would heartily endorse and support a policy that was inclusive, that was strong, that was wide and big enough to meet the whole circumstances, a policy of government construction and ownership of a transcontinental railway. I believe that the situation could be met now by the extension of the Intercolonial Railway through to the coast, or by the construction of an independent line, constructed, owned and operated by the government from ocean

to ocean, and with a policy for business purposes, and large enough to meet all the wants of the west in the matter of branch lines. And I am reminded that the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) dealt with this question, speaking in the same way in this debate as he has dealt with it in the west. He has avowed himself in favour of the government road, if we could only get it. But he said that we could not get it, and proceeded to drop tears because our government is based on wrong principles and because we are not fit to own and operate railways. There is too much corruption. So, much as he regrets it, he has to part with his principles of government ownership, and, perforce, must favour the bonusing of other railways.

Now, I admit, I insist even, that this question of control must be attended to before we undertake a system of government ownership. That is necessary in the interest of the public undertakings we have at present in hand. It is a reflection on the power of the people of Canada to govern themselves that this question o'f patronage and corruption should enter into all our undertakings. The present railway system and other public utilities operated by this government would all be better operated if they were taken altogether out of the influence of members of parliament, so that it would be useless for any man to approach a member of parliament to get a situation on the government road or in any government enterprise. What could be accomplished has been shown in Great Britain, where there is no connection at all between members of parliament and patronage. We have had lately in this country one or two illustrations of how this matter could be arranged ; and, though I am no great admirer of the present party system, at the same time I believe it could be made a benefit to both parties in this country if they would get together and come to an agreement in the matter of a commission. Both -sides of this House could get together and formulate a scheme that would put the Intercolonial, the customs, the post office, the printing bureau and every other public institution out of the influence of members of this House. I say that some such arrangement as that must be arrived at before we can undertake government ownership of railways. I believe that a system of government ownership could be successfully undertaken, and the more comprehensive it was the more heartily it would be supported by the people.

We are going to have more transcontinental roads. They are not going to be built for colonization purposes, but for purposes of profit as business enterprises. All sorts of statements will be placed before this government by the promoters of those roads who will ask for aid. I imagine that there are good grounds for believing that public moneys are paid to promoters that do not go into the construction of roads.

But the roads that are going to be built hereafter will not be for colonization purposes, but for business purposes. Every cent of money that goes into the construction of roads in the North-west will return a profit as a business undertaking. Now, as the producers are going to pay the dividends on those roads, let them be owned by the government. We will have to pay the freight and the interest, why not take the operation of the roads into our own hands and guide this business for the public advantage ? It seems to me that once the idea was grasped by the people of this country that these great public services could be put beyond the reach of political influences, the people would eagerly accept the scheme. What would be better to overcome and end the many grievances that are recurrent in the North-west with this tremendous increase in the business of grain transportation, than for the government to own the roads and handle all the grain directly, doing away with the private elevator system altogether ? I.ast year the Minister of Railways expressed his regret that his best year had been spoilt by a combination of the coal mine owners, and that he had to pay exorbitant i>rices for coal. The surplus he expected had been reversed in consequence. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were lost through the combination of the coal men. You get a transcontinental road owned by this government, and you would then have your own coal mine in the east and your own coal mine in the west. I advocate this because these men who advocate higher protection tell me that they are doing it in the interest of the man who works, that they want to ensure him steady employment, good wages, a good standard of living. Well, this is the way to procure him those benefits. If you want to guarantee to the workers of this country steady employment, good wages and fail- conditions, let the government take hold of the business for the general benefit.

Then, what about the binder twine question ? That has been up every session I have been here. I think it has been wisely dealt with at the present time. But why should we not manufacture all the twine that is going to be needed in this country ? It is going to be needed in increasing quantities, it is already a big item. We manufacture already a portion of it in the penitentiaries, but why should not the government take hold of the entire business ? We find the manufacturers telling the government this session that they are face to face with ruin. Buy them out, and put in plant extensive enough to supply the demand of the whole Dominion from year to year, and I will dare to say that the consumer will get it cheaper, and get it better in the long run, than the farmers get it in the United States. Mr. Speaker, these things are not impossible, they are not- impracticable. We have some very good institutions already

in this country, but over in the old country these matters are carried on successfully. There is no better, and I think no bigger, institution in the world than the royal arsenal at Woolwich, carried on absolutely by the government, entirely divorced from political influences, with good wages and eight hours a day. It is not impossible for the people of this country to do the same thing if they take hold of it in a proper way and in a proper spirit. This is my answer to those gentlemen who want more protection for the sake of giving steady employment, better wages and better conditions to the working people.

Mr. R. LEMIEUX (Gaspe).

I intended in the course of this debate to speak in my own language, but as the debate has been so protracted, I think I should not weary the House by a long speech in French, nor do I intend to speak in English more than a few minutes. I thought this evening, after hearing the very able speech made by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser), that I should reciprocate with him. After listening to the noble words which fell from his lips addressed to the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) I thought I should thank him in English, from the bottom of my heart, for the very kind feelings he uttered. My hon. friend the hon. member for Guysborough said, in concluding his speech, that the right hon. Prime Minister had done more for the peace, union and harmony which should reign in a mixed community like ours than any other public man in the past. Indeed Sir, he spoke the truth. It was said a few years ago by that great statesman, Mr. Gladstone, that the Manchester school in England had given the world what was terme

Mr. PUTTEE.

friend the whip of the Conservative party Mr. Taylor). I was under the impression that the issue which he discussed had been settled long ago. For instance, he spoke of the Manitoba school question, and with no uncertain sound he raised his voice and addressing himself to the members of the government, he asked : Have you settled the school question ? Let me say that I have grave doubts as to the sincerity of my hon. friend. I well remember the attitude he took in 1896 when the Remedial Bill was brought before this House. The then whip of the Conservative party was very anxious that the Remedial Bill should not pass, although he was saying to his friends from the province of Quebec that he favoured the measure. Indeed, the question should not have been put to the members of the government. He should have turned to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and to the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Cas-grain) and he should have asked my two distinguished friends, where since 1896, have the friends of the Manitoba minority been. They, in the province of Quebec have agitated that question year after year in the public press as well as in their speeches, in fact they made the whole campaign of 1896 on this question-and yet they have raised their voices in this House to ask the government for the settlement of that unfortunate question.

Mr. MONK.

Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) allow me to ask him if he states that the Manitoba school question has been settled to the satisfaction of the minority.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

I will answer like a good Canadian. I will not speak as my hon. friend does, that is by stating one thing in the province of Quebec and another in the province of Manitoba. In the province of Quebec my hon. friend says that the question is not settled, but we hear of him speaking at a banquet in the city of Winnipeg in the presence of his leader and of his friends of the Conservative party there, and reading his speech as carefully as 1 can, I find nothing concerning the Manitoba school question. But I will now answer his question. To my mind the question is not fully settled, but I will add, and he knows I am speaking the truth, that in a mixed community like ours, life is made up of honourable compromises and honourable concessions. I will say further that time is a great healer, and if to-day, the Manitoba school question is not settled, at least from what I have heard with the exception of the city of Winnipeg the school law works fairly well.

I trust that the majority in the province of Manitoba, when the time comes, and without any trouble, without raising any racial or religious issue, will bring a settlement that will satisfy the minority as we, in the province of Quebec have acted towards the Protestant minority, and as our friends in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince

Edward Island have acted towards the Acadian minority. But my friend from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) also raised another old issue. He spoke of the plebiscite and asked the government if they had settled the question of prohibition. I would be very sorry for one that prohibition should exist, because I believe with the majority in my province, that things should remain as they are. But, I wish to protest against the remarks which fell from his lips. The hon. gentleman stated that we in our province, had been brought to the polls under the dictation of two or three members of the cabinet and that if we had been left free, probably we would have voted in favour of prohibition. In the province of Quebec we are against all excesses, the vote which was taken on the plebiscite was the true expression of the popular sentiment. We do not believe in prohibition by the statute-books, in the province of Quebec. But, let me say this to my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor), and if he does not take my word for it, he can have the word of his leader from the province of Quebec (Mr. Monk). In Quebec, with the exception of the large cities, the municipal councils are at liberty to grant licenses for hotels and restaurants, and in three-fourths of the municipalities this privilege is not used, and though we are against prohibition by statute, we are nevertheless in favour of temperance by moral suasion.

Hear, hear.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

If the popular verdict is the criterion by which the policy of the government is to be judged, then, Sir, this government enjoys the full confidence of the Canadian people. Since the last session of this House, we have had by-elections in Maisonneuve, a manufacturing constituency, in Terrebonne, in Argenteuil, in Maskin-onge, and in Two Mountains. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) made the fight of his life in these constituencies. He fought bravely, as he usually does. He came surrounded by his friends of the Conservative party and the issues or rather the 'issue,' for there was only one-was the tariff question. In these constituencies of the province of Quebec, as in the constituency of North Ontario, the electors declared themselves in favour of the fiscal policy of the government. Sir, I think that the defeat of that remarkable man, Mr. Foster-one cannot deny his ability, and he would have been an ornament to the House had he been elected-the defeat of Mr. Foster proves that this country is not in favour of any change in our tariff policy. The hon. leader of the opposition went to that constituency and he travelled from township to township making speeches, but notwithstanding all his efforts, in that Conservative stronghold, my young friend (Mr. Grant), whom I was pleased to listen to and to applaud this afternoon, carried the county by a very large majority.

We have been told that the Liberal party had played a mean trick on the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). We have been reminded several times during this debate, that we did not carry out the policy which we promised in 1896, and some one hinted-I think it was my hon. frien'd from Dundas (Mr. Broder)-that during the elections of 1896 some work was done behind the scenes by the leaders of the Liberal party, and that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte), together with the premier, went to the manufacturers and gave a pledge that the tariff policy then existing would remain in force. Well, I was perhaps too young to know what was going on behind the scenes, but I went around the province of Quebec with my leader and with the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and I can say boldly that they fully agreed on the tariff issues of the day. But let me refer to this book ; it is the report of the Liberal convention of 1893, and I find that so far back as 1893, the hon. member for St. Mary's was present at that convention, being sent there by his then electors of the county of L'lslet. Opening this book at page 71, I read this :

The Tariff-We the Liberal party of Canada, in convention assembled declare :-

That the customs tariff of the Dominion should be based, not as it is now, upon the protective principle, but upon the requirements of the public service ;

That the existing tariff, founded upon an unsound principle, and used, as it has been by the government, as a corrupting agency wherewith to keep themselves in office, has developed monopolies, trusts and combinations ;

It has decreased the value of farm and other landed property;

It has oppressed the masses to the enrichment of a few :

It has checked immigration ;

It has caused great loss of population ;

It has impeded commerce ;

It has discriminated against Great Britain ;

In these and in many other ways it has occasioned great ipublic and private injury, all of which evils must continue to grow in intensity as long as the present tariff system remains in force.

That the highest interests of Canada demand a removal of this obstacle to our country's progress, by the adoption of a sound fiscal policy, which, while not doing injustice to any class, will promote domestic and foreign trade, and hasten the return of prosperity to our people.

That to that end, the tariff should be reduced to the needs of honest, economical and efficient government.

That it should be so adjusted as to make free, or to bear as lightly as possible upon, the necessaries of life, and should be so arranged as to promote freer trade with the whole world, more particularly with Great Britain and United States.

We believe that the results of the protective system have greviously disappointed thousands of persons who honestly supported it, and that the country, in the light of experience, is now prepared to declare for a sound fiscal policy.

The issue between the two political parties on this question is now clearly defined.

cial subsidies not to forget that tbe provinces to-day are looking towards the federal government to lend them a helping hand. If confederation is not to end in legislative union, we must give the provinces the ways and means to exist. It is admitted to-day, after the conferences which took place in 1887 and 1902 that the provinces with their present limited revenue are hardly able to meet both ends. I listened with much pleasure to my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Kemp) yesterday. He spoke of the preferential tariff and blamed the government for having given Great Britain a preference. Sir, let bygones be bygones. We, In this country, enjoy a responsible government, and the electorate is the supreme judge. We went before the country in 1900 and the country replied that it was satisfied with the preferential tariff. But my hon. friend says that if this government had been willing to accept the responsibilities which arise from naval defence and our participation in the wars of the empire we would probably have had the mutual preference which we were seeking.

Mr. KEMP.

I did not say that I desired this country to participate in the wars of the empire outside Canada.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

I understood my hon. friend to have said so, but of course I am ready to accept his word to the contrary. At all events, after the colonial conference which was held last summer, having read the manly answer given by my hon. friend the premier, to the proposals made by the colonial secretary, I think we should all agree that our representative did his duty. Sir, we are loyal to England. We give her the benefit of a preferential tariff. We have asked for reciprocal concessions. Whilst Mr. Chamberlain appeared to favour such a policy we find that in that respect he is somewhat isolated among the public men in Great Britain. If I were not afraid to weary the House I could quote Mr. Mor-ley, Mr. Bryce and Sir Michael Hicks-Beech on this point. It is admitted to-day that we cannot have, on the basis of protection any reciprocal trade with Great Britain. If we cannot have that mutual preference, we must fully concur in the language used by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. If Great Britain will not give us a preference then we will consider what action we shall take in the interests of Canada. Again I say that we must all approve the answer given by my right hon. friend the premier at the colonial conference. We are not ready to accept all the burdens which Mr. Chamberlain and some of his friends would like to impose on this country. As I said a moment ago, we are loyal. We are ready to do our duty to the empire, but we shall do it of our own volition. We shall do it ' proprio motu.' We will never sacrifice any of our political rights and we will never barter our political Mr. LEMIEUX (GaspS).

independence to suit the purposes of some ultra-Britishers. In a word we are and intend to remain good British subjects, but before all we are Canadians, and 1 may add that Canada belongs rightly not to a favoured few, but to all Canadians.

Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (South Leeds).

Before the hon gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) takes his seat, I wish to make a personal explanation. I know we would not wilfully misrepresent me. I understood him to say that I had opposed the Remedial Bill. I wish to inform the hon. gentleman that such is not the case. If he will read ' Hansard,' he will find that I both spoke and voted for the Remedial Bill. More than that, I stayed up night and day trying in every way to have the Bill passed. I always contended that the minority in Manitoba had constitutional rights, and that those rights should be recognized. By the settlement which has been made, they did not secure a recognition of those rights to which they are entitled under the constitution of our country.