We are now discussing the policy of the Dominion government. In 1899, of gold-bearing quartz, we exported $3,272,702. and last year $14,148,543. What have the government done to increase our exports of gold-bearing quartz ? I thought it was due to the energy of the miners, I thought something was due to the men who dug, and delved, and brought up from beneath the surface of the earth these minerals and exported them. But the hon. member for London wants to claim the credit of this increased export for the present government. In sundry ores our exports increased from $48,000 to $144,000 ; of building stone, from $55,000 to $115,000 ; the total produce of the farm increased $29,663,000 ; our exports of animals to Great Britain increased from $8,194,928 to $9,093.317. I would like to know what the government in power has done to cause an increase in the exports of any one of these articles.
Then the hon. member for London stated that our exports of manufactures had increased. I would like to know what this government has done to increase the exports of our manufactures. Have they made it more profitable for the manufacturers in this country to produce the articles of their industry ? Have they made it easier for them to export their products ? Have they found in any part of the world a better market for the manufactures of this country ? Will they point out any new market or any better market that they have obtained for us, any market in which we have better terms than we had before ? Is it the United States ? These gentlemen, when they were in opposition, promised that if they were returned to power they would find us a better market in the United States. Have they done it ? Have they found a market for us in Germany ? No, in Germany and in many other countries, we are now finding it much more difficult to introduce our products than before, and that is one - thing for which the government in power Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
can ciaim credit. The hon. gentleman for London finds consolation in the fact that our exports to Germany have increased in spite of the large increase in duties imposed upon our products as compared with what they were before the preferential tariff came into force.
To say, as the hon. gentleman for London has said, that, notwithstanding the large increase in duties, there has been an increased importation into Germany of goods from Canada, is logically equivalent to saying that we would be better off if every country in the world raised their duties. I do not thinik that even such sophistical gentlemen as those occupying the benches on the other side of the House will agree with the hon. gentleman when he makes that statement. Neither he, nor any other hon. gentleman who has spoken on the other side of the House, has been able to point to a single market that has been procured for the people of Canada by the adoption of this policy. Every one knows that it is now more difficult to find markets for our goods than before. Now, if the government are in any way responsible for the increase in our exports, surely they are also responsible for the decrease. In 1898 we exported $17,313,916 worth of wheat, while in the next year our export of wheat was only $7,784,484. We exported flour, in 1898, to the value of $5,425,760, and last year to the value of $2,791,885. Of barley, in 1897, we exported $566,505 worth, while last year the export fell off to $110,040. Of oats we exported, in 1899, $3,266,388, while in 1900 we exported $2,143,179 worth. Our total exports of agricultural products in 1898 were $75,834,858, and in 1S99 they fell to $68,140,758. The total exports of Canada fell in 1899 to $138,462,037 from $145,594,885 in the year previous. According to the hon. member for London, the government are in some way responsible for the increase in our exports. If they are responsible for the increase in our exports, surely they are responsible for the decrease in our exports. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), or some one of the three hon. gentlemen who spoke on the other side of the House, challenged hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who have spoken, and those who are to follow, to state on what ground we criticise them, to state what our policy is and whit we propose to advocate. We do not propose to emulate them in the extraordinary expenditures they have incurred during the past few years. That is one of the tlings in regard to which we must give hon gentlemen opposite credit for having bnnched out and done something new and original. They have increased the public expenditure. Their adoption of the present preferential tariff is also a change, and these are the principal changes that these hm. gentlemen have made in the manner of conducting the affairs of the country. But, there
are other questions besides these which have been mentioned, and one of the most important, it seems to me, is the transportation problem. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was content, in his speech, to rest upon his oars. It seemed to me as if hon. gentlemen were satisfied to go on for the next five years in the same course that they have been pursuing during the past five years. They challenged us to propose something new, but they did not propose any changes, any new policy, or any retrenchment in the matter of public expenditure. There is a question, as I said before, which appears to me to be more important than almost any question that could engage the attention of this House, and it is the transportation problem. The hon. Minister of Finance would not touch upon it, but it seems to me that this is a question which deserves the attention of the House. It is one thing to grow products and to manufacture articles ; it is another thing to find a market for them. These are two very important things, but what is the use of products and what is the use of markets unless you can carry these products to the markets safely and cheaply. This is a great question, and we expected to have a declaration from the government as to what their policy is on this question. The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) brought in a resolution to this House, and it seemed to me that it was a very pertinent resolution, one asking that the government should now take up this great question of the transportation of the products of the country, and lay down a policy upon it. We have been waiting long enough for a policy on this question. The government are spending large sums of money to build up different ports in different parts of this great country, but they have not so concentrated their energies as to mark out some great line of action which should be pursued. It is proposed to expend $5,000,000 in deepening the harbour at Port Colborne, it is proposed to expend enormous sums of money in improving the harbour at Montreal, it is proposed to spend large sums in deepening the St. Lawrence river and making it a first-class outlet for ocean-going vessels, and we have had intimations of money being spent and proposed to be spent in various other directions, but no definite or straightforward line of action seems to have been laid down by the government. It is the duty of the government to state their policy. It is not the duty of the opposition, but rather the duty of the government, if they are earnestly endeavouring to administer the affairs of the country in the best way possible and in the best interests of the country to lay down some definite line of action and follow it out. Whether the expenditure of this sum of money at Port Colborne is desirable or not is a question. According to statements
made by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) the other night, it would seem that grain from the great North-west Territories and the North-western states, can be carried as cheaply by the Booth line to Montreal, or almost as cheaply, as he has any hope of having it carried by the allwater route. If this is the case, if it is true that wheat can be carried as cheaply by the rail line from Parry Harbour, or any other harbour on the Georgian Bay to Montreal, then, these expenditures-and hon. gentlemen require some criticism of their expenditures-of $5,000,000 is unnecessary and unwise, and not in the best interests of the people. It devolves upon the government, not upon us, to find out which of these two great lines is likely, in the near future, to be the cheaper and better line to carry the provisions of the great North-west, that, in time are destined to assume enormous proportions, to the seaboard. It has also been proposed, and it seems to me very feasible, that a line of railway, running in an air line almost from Parry Harbour to Quebec, might be the cheapest way to send the products of the west to the seaboard. If that is the case, then, we ought to devote our energies to immediately developing that line. It devolves upon the government to ascertain promptly whether this line, or whether the line from Parry Harbour to Montreal, or whether the route from Port Colborne to Montreal is the cheapest line and the best line, and when they have made, up their minds which of these is the best, it is their duty to go to work vigorously and put that line in a condition in which it will carrv these products at once. They have been dallying with this question for a great many years. It is a good many years since they proposed to incur this expenditure in the harbour gf Montreal. I think the harbour of Montreal ought to be improved ; certainly it has been a disgrace and a shame to this country that the harbour of Montreal should have been in the condition in which it has been during the past. It cannot in any way compare with the harbours in the United States in facilities for loading or unloading vessels. If the citizens of Montreal are not energetic enough to spend a sufficient sum to make a good harbour in their city, it is the duty of the Dominion government to do so, and I quite approve of such an expenditure. Whether or not Montreal will be the export point for the products of the North-west, it w'U certainly serve a large portion of the province of Ontario and we should have proper docks there. But there are other things to be looked to besides providing cheap transport facilities. We will have to provide safe transport facilities which will enable us to carry perishable products in good condition to distant markets. It is one thing to have the products, another thing to have the markets, but neither is of any use unless we
can place those products in proper condition on the markets. The province of Ontario and portions of Nova Scotia are better adapted for /the production of apples than any other place in the world. I believe that in Ontario and in the Annapolis valley we can grow apples with greater perfection than in any other part of the world, and that is making a very broad statement. In Ontario we have 10,000,000 apple trees, the product of which twill soon be worth at least $10,000,000 a year. If in days gone by these apples could have been carried to the seaboard and thence to Britain, as they could and should have been carried, we would have, not 10,000,000 apple trees in Ontario, but 15,000,000 or
20,000,000 trees, and the farmers of Ontario as well as Nova Scotia would have a crop at the present time infinitely more profitable than /the ordinary grain crop. Where apples can be grown successfully, then, if they are marketed at a reasonable price as they can be in England, they are infinitely more profitable to the farmer than either grain or dairy products. If the steamship people will not provide proper facilities for carrying apples, and if the railway companies are also neglectful, then the duty devolves upon the government. During the last ten or fifteen years the apple men of Canada have done all in their power to induce the railway and steamship companies to provide suitable arrangements for carrying this perishable product in good condition. It was impossible to move the steamship, companies, because the apples are harvested at a time of the year when an enormous quantity of other products are going forward, when the steamers are all loaded to gunwales and the steamship owners cared little whether they carried apples or not, and so they snapped their fingers at the apple men. Finally the Fruit Growers' Association, as well as individuals, asked the government to do something, and I shall give the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) credit for making an effort. It is a small thing that has been done and it was done at the last moment, but I am not one to refuse credit where credit is due, although the little that has been done is but a small part of what ought to be done and what could be done. I would remind the House that the quantity of apples exported from Canada is no small item. During the past ten years we have shipped to Great Britain $18,000,000 worth of apples. Now, as the export price of these apples regulates the price in the home market, if we had secured the price in England that we would have secured had they been landed iu sound condition, it would have increased the price of all the apples sold in this country. We lost no less than $5,000,000 on the apples exported, and as the amount exported was not more than one-third of the quantity grown, then we must have lost $15,000,000 on the total apple crop of this country, which hon. gentlemen will see Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
means a large sum to the farmers of Canada. It is not only the immediate loss but the prospective loss that has to be considered. The farmers became discouraged because of the low price they received for their apples in consequence of the bad condition in which they arrived in England. Some years the apples rotted on the ground; some years they sold for 40 and 50 cents a barrel in the orchard, when, if they could be properly exported to Great Britain, they would have brought from 75 cents to one dollar a barrel. The year which was particularly unfortunate in this respect was one of the most unprofitable that our farmers ever experienced for their grain and dairy products, and if they had obtained 25 or 50 cents more per barrel for their apples, it "would have been a God-send to them. However, they obtained such a low price for the apples that they became discouraged, and neglected their orchards1 and to-day there are thousands of acres of orchards in Ontario that are going to waste, the initial reason being that in the years when we have a large crop, the apples cannot be exported to England in good condition. In order to show the great loss to Canada from the defective facilities for carrying our apples across the ocean, I shall read from the report presented to a committee of this House two years ago by Professor Robertson. I may say that Professor Robertson was induced to make this report on account of a bundle of actual reports of sales of large quantities of apples which I had the honour to send him. I was trying to induce the Minister of Agriculture to take action in this matter, and I sent these account sales to Professor Robertson, who states in this report :
With that letter came a bundle of account sales of last fall which accorded so thoroughly with this, that Mr. Smith inclosed them to me. I made a careful summary of them, which I will give to show the condition in which our apples arrived in England, not a few barrels, but in large lots. Dealing first with that lot of Nova Scotia apples, all that is on the one set of account sales sent by forty-three shippers and sold in London. There were 950 barrels sold as tights, five barrels of slacks and nine barrels of wets.
The House will see that nearly all these apples shipped from Halifax on a certain steamer arrived in a sound condition. I wrote to the manager of that /steamship line to find out how it was that the apples he carried landed in good condition, while the apples carried on other steamers were half rotten, and the statement he made to me was, that his vessels were specially constructed for the shipment of apples and the captains were instructed to look after the ventilation of the holds, and to see that the appliances for ventilation were properly used on the voyage. Professor Robertson further says :
Taking the shipments of Canadian apples last fall, which are Ontario mainly, a few perhaps from Quebec, sold in Liverpool by two different
sets of salesmen; taking a quantity of 14,416 barrels going by seventeen different steamships and sent forward, as near as I can make out from the brands, in about 185 different lots- the brand is sometimes so much like another brand that it may have been the same-but that is a very wide range, you see, of data from which to make a calculation. There were nearly 15,000 barrels on seventeen steamships sent forward in 185 different lots.
The account sales show this, that out of the total quantity there were only 5,928 barrels sold as tights. There were 2,793 slacks, 2,446 slightly wet, 1,997 wet, and 1,252 wet and slack. That is to say, rather more than one-half of the apples shipped in these lots were sold as slack, slightly wet and wet. The difference in price realized by these apples is very great. The only way to get any fair information on this is to take a lot of apples sent by one ship and pick out the apples of the same class sold as tight, and the others of that variety sold as slacks or wet. Going over the list and taking out the apples of the same variety under these conditions, the slack on the average sold for 2 shillings and 7 pence less than the tights. The slightly wets for 3 shillings and 8 pence less than the tights, the wets for 7 shillings and 3 pence less than the tights, and the wets and slacks for 9 shillings and 11 pence less, or nearly 10 shillings, and of these wets and slacks there were 1,252 barrels.
This is a statement that ought surely to be convincing. Here was a large quantity of apples going forward in which it is shown that the loss incurred was more than 75 cents a barrel. Therefore, I think I am within the mark when I say that the loss in the last ten years on all the apples grown in Ontario which have been shipped to the old country has been 50 cents a barrel.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic: SECOND READINGS.
And so on. I could give a very large number of instances of the same kind. Now, I will give a few instances in which the holds of the vessels were ventilated, to show the difference in the condition of the apples :
Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) to do something to compel the railway companies to carry these apples and other perishable products of the farm, in ventilated cars. We load our apples and other per-
This season. It is possible that a few barrels may be slack owing to the carelessness of packers. I know it has often been charged in committees where this matter has been discussed and even outside, that the fault is altogether with the packer. I am bound to deny that statement in toto. I know that there are some packers who are green at the business and who do not pack properly; but they form a very small percentage, I believe not over 5 per cent of the whole. There may be a larger percentage of packers who foolishly think that by putting small apples in the middle of the barrels, or putting in apples of an inferior grade, they may make some money; but that does not affect the conditions in which the apples arrive. A barrel of apples, with big ones at the end and little ones in the middle, will go across the ocean as well, so far as being wet or slack is concerned, as a barrel of the best apples grown. go that the charge made against the packers of apples is not in accordance with the facts; but the statements which I have given prove that the fault lies with the steamship companies, and partly with the railway companies. I know that Prof. Robertson has shown that apples have landed in Montreal in such a condition that the temperature inside the barrel showed eighty-five degrees. These apples put In the hold of a vessel where the temperature may be ninety or one hundred before they get across the ocean, are certain to arrive in bad order. They would arrive in worse order from the fact of their being landed in Montreal in that heated condition. It devolves upon the
ishable products, that do not require to go into cold storage cars, into box cars which have no ventilation whatever, and in which the heat is ten to twenty degrees greater than the temperature outside. If the railway shippers and the growers of apples have asked the railway companies time and again, as they have done, to provide better cars and the companies refuse, it is the duty of the government, particularly of the Minister of Agriculture, to see that these railway companies provide suitable cars. It may be asked how would we provide ventilation. Well, there is a number of appliances that could be utilized which would enable the railway companies to have the temperature inside the cars at least as cool as outside. These appliances cost very little, and it only requires a little pressure from the government on the railway companies to make them do this. This matter might perhaps come within the jurisdiction of the railway commission proposed to be established, but in any case it comes within the province of the government, and the hon. the Finance Minister might very well have considered this question of transportation, which is of infinite importance to our people, in his budget delivery..
Let me say a word with regard to some of the questions brought up by the hon. gentleman who preceded me on the opposite side. If there is one department, which the government claim credit for having carried on economically, it is the post office. I do not know that during the last election there was any one department that they did really dare to claim having carried on economically except the post office, and concerning the management of that department, there has been a great deal of boasting. I am bound to say that it has not been carried
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic: SECOND READINGS.
on so badly as some of the other departments. What are the facts ? The hon. the Postmaster General takes great credit for having reduced the postage from three to two cents and for having, in spite of that reduction, a deficit less than that which existed under the Conservative administration. The hon. gentleman prides himself on that as an admirable condition of affairs, but I must take exception to his claim. In the year 1896, when the rate was three cents, the receipts were $2,964,014. In the year 1898, when the rate was still three *cents, the receipts amountd to $3,527,809, or an increase in two years of $563,795. Then *the two-cent letter rate came into operation, and the receipts decreased ; but it is fair to assume that if the three-cent rate had remained in force, the rate of progress would have been maintained. Hon. gentlemen opposite claim that the progress of the country has been greater than it was in the previous two years, that the imports and exports and the trade of the country generally have been greater in these two years than in the two previous ones, and it is fair to assume that a greater amount of money would have gone into the post office had the letter rate not been reduced. Under the three-cent rate, the receipts increased $563,795 in two years, and had that rate continued we would have had receipts amounting to $4,091,604, but instead they were but $3,183,784 or a falling off of $907,620, caused by the reduction in rate. In other words, had the three-cent rate remained in force, instead of having a deficit of $461,000, we would have a surplus of $446,000. These hon. gentlemen, however, say that this is not a bad condition of affairs. They say that we have relieved the people of this amount of taxation. They say that we have taken from the people $900,000 of taxes . and that it is very satisfactory to know that we did not require that amount of money ; but a few minutes later the hon. gentleman said that he expected during the coming year lie would have to borrow at least $1,000,000 in addition to the enormous revenues which he is wringing from the pockets of the people. Well, if he had allowed the three-cent letter rate to continue, he would have had about $1,000,000 extra, and would not be under any necessity to borrow. However, if this decrease in the letter rate were really a relief to the people generally, it would perhaps be a good thing, and even as it is, I am not going to severely criticise the step taken. But I want to point out that we have lost $907,000 by that reduction, and further, that the saving made has been made by business men. Personally, it has saved me some hundreds of dollars annually, but 999 other men, who only send a few letters every year, have saved but a few cents, and that amount must come sooner or later out of the pockets of the people. It is idle to say that because our revenues are sufficient to meet our expenditures this year,
we do not need that $900,000. Surely, when we have a debt of something over $260,000,000, it does not lie in the mouth of the Finance Minister to say that we do not require any money ?
Let me say a word, Mr. Speaker, about that great question which has agitated the people for the past twenty years-the question of protection. It is somewhat amusing at times to see the frantic efforts made by hon. gentlemen opposite to prove that they are still free traders. I must say that I was rather amused by that great financier, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). He has been accused of having renounced his principles, and he made a huge effort to-day to show that he had not renounced any of his principles. He admitted that in 1878 he had proposed an increase of duty from 17J per cent to 20 per cent, but he pleaded that 20 per cent was not a protective tariff and that he had not in any sense renounced his principles when he proposed an increase of 2i per cent.
Now, the hon. Minister of Finance, in his budget speech, said that during the four years' administration of the gentlemen now in power, the duties had been reduced by 2-30 per cent and he maintained that that reduction changed this from a protective to a revenue tariff. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce maintained, only yesterday, that even with an increase of 21 per cent, his position was not altered but he was still a revenue tariff man. This point has been discussed a good many times, but, if the House would bear with me for a few moments I would like to say a few words upon it. I want to prove that hon. gentlemen opposite, in spite of their actions, at one time declared themselves free traders, and that they still say that they are free traders or believers in a revenue tariff only. In 1893, at the convention that I have already mentioned, one of the planks in the platform was as follows :
We denounce the principle of protection as radically unsound and unjust to the masses of the people, and we declare our conviction that any tariff changes based on that principle must fail to afford any substantial relief from the burdens under which the country labours. This issue we unhesitatingly accept, and upon it we await the fullest confidence the verdict of the electorate of Canada.
The present Prime Minister said at that same convention :
We will tax for revenue, but not one cent for protection.
Would he say that he is not imposing today one cent of taxes for protection ? The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that none of our taxes now were imposed for the purpose of protection ; but I do not think there is any other hon. gentleman on the other side who feels the necessity of maintaining his free trade principles who would go so far as to say that our tariff
was a tariff for revenue and not one cent for protection.
Taxation is an evil that nothing but the requirements of government can justify. When we are in power-and I don't want to sell the skin of the bear until the bear is shot ; yet X think the Tory bear is about to be skinned- we will free the people from protection, which is a fraud and a delusion and a robbery.
Has he done it ?
For it is robbery to take money from one man to give it to another.
On another occasion he said :
I will not be satisfied until the last vestige of protection has been removed from the soil of Canada. Our great reform is to put away from the soil of Canada the last vestige of protection.
Once more, he said :
If the Liberals are successful, they will cut off the head of protection at once, and trample on its body.
The present lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) said :
We have been attacking this policy year by year. This is an accursed system, a system accursed of God and* man.
The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce on one occasion said :
I say our protective system was a huge mistake, in so far as it was honest at all, and in so far as it was not honest, it was a huge scheme of robbery.
Again, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said :
I stand by the declaration I have made, that protection is nothing less than a deliberate, legalized and organized robbery; and, more than that, if they do not stamp it out, it is a very high road to political slavery first and industrial slavery afterwards.
Again, he said :
Our policy from first to last has been to destroy the villainous system of protection by free trade, a revenue tariff or continental free trade.
Surely these utterances are sufficient, combined with those that we have heard in this House, to convince the most sceptical that these hon. gentlemen were, at any rate, at that time, staunch believers in free trade or a tariff for revenue only. They have been in power for more than four years. Have they carried out their principles ? Are they establishing a revenue tariff, or a free trade, or continental free trade ? No, the tariff to-day, in its main and essential elements, is a protective tariff as much as any tariff as ever existed in this country. The duties may not be quite so high, but that fact does not destroy the protective elements in the tariff. It is not necessary that a duty should be a certain amount to make it protective. I maintain, and (I think that every hon. gentleman who has made a study of political economy will agree with me, that the system we have is a protective system pure and simple. It is true that hon. gen-Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
tlemen opposite have tinkered witn the tariff. They have cut off a frill here and a flounce there, to make the people believe that they are carrying out to some small extent the principles that they have advocated. But in its principles the tariff is a protective tariff. And that tariff is being carried into effect by gentlemen who do not believe in it. Are they the men to carry out the principles of protection ? Is it not right that the people who believe in protection should carry it out and not the party who have professed, all their lives, as the Minister of Commerce professes to-day, that they do not believe in it, but believe in a policy of free trade 7 The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce told us one of the main distinguishing features of a protective tariff. He said that a protective tariff was one that reduced the revenue while a revenue tariff was one that increased the revenue. Let us consider this. Surely the hon. gentleman will not deny that the United States is a protective country ; surely he will say that the duties levied there are based upon the principles of protection. Yet, what do we And ? In 1894, the United States imported $257,645,702 worth of dutiable goods; and in 1900 they imported $463,759,330 worth, or nearly double the amount imported in 1894. Yet, the Minister of Commerce would tell us that the United States have a revenue tariff because it increased the customs revenue of the country.
Now, let us go over some of the items of our tariff and see if they are protective. The hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) said that he could point out 140 items the duty on which had been reduced. I challenge the hon. member for London to take the tariff for 1897 and the tariff before that and go over them with me, and I will undertake to show an item on which the duty was raised for every item that he can show on which it was lowered. True, they made a reduction on some items coming from England after that date. Take a few items and see whether they are protective or not. We bring into this country $21,700 worth of fresh salmon, the duty on which is 25 per cent. Is that-for protection or for revenue ? We bring in $292,974 worth of furniture, the duty on which is 30 per cent- and this is an item which is not affected by the preference, because furniture comes almost entirely from the United States. Is that duty a revenue or a protective duty ? We import lamp chimneys to the amount of $117,915 from the United States, and none practically, from Britain. The duty on these is 30 per cent. Is this a revenue duty ? In rubber boots and shoes, our imports are $57,591, on which a duty of 25 per cent is charged. Pronged forks-of these we import $10,986, the duty is now 25 per cent. It was 35 per cent. And this reduction, they console themselves, makes it a revenue duty instead of protection. Surely no hon. gentleman who is really in
earnest will maintain that the reduction by 10 per cent of a 35 per cent duty makes it a revenue instead of a protective duty.
Let us take the item of biscuits, $19,781. The duty was raised by 2j per cent. I do not know whether it was done in the interest of the Minister of Customs who has a large biscuit manufactory in Brantford, but certainly in that respect we do not get any benefit from the preferential tariff. Then, tallow candles, $31,275; carriages and buggies, $43,014. These receive no advantage from the preferential tariff, and they pay a duty of 35 per cent. Thirty-five per cent upon cutters, 25 per cent upon the old farm wagons, $78,033 ; 25 per cent upon farm wagons and drays, $26,203 ; 25 per cent on sleighs, $5,684-all these goods are bought from the United States and get no benefit from the preferential tariff. 'Bicycles and tricycles, 30 per cent, $496,129'; childrens' carriages, 35 per cent, $19,914; carpet sweepers, 30 per cent, $28,826 ; clothes wringers. 35 per cent, $13,255, all from the United States, none from England. Bituminous coal, duty 53 cents a ton, $3,609,389. They did make a little reduction of 7 per cent a ton, and therefore they think they have converted themselves from protectionists into free traders.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic: SECOND READINGS.
On hard coal it is the same as it was under the late administration. Duty on electric motors, 25 per cent, $120,299;'railroad engines and locomotives, 25 per cent, $398,118; steam engines and boilers, 25 per cent, $103,187; fanning mills, 25 per cent, grain crushers, 25 per cent, windmills, 25 per cent, $15,537 ; portable engines, 25 per cent, $74,703; portable saw-mills, &c., 25 per cent, $15,779 ; threshers and separators, 25 per cent, $78,264; sewing machines, 30 per cent, $154,753; axes, 25 per cent, $41,547; typewriting machines, 25 per cent, $91,898; saws, 30 per cent, $73,297; jewellery, 30 per cent, $393,382; boots and shoes, 25 per cent, $427,906. Here they bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods, and not one cent of preferential tariff in their favour because they are all brought in from the United States, no similar goods are brought in from Great Britain. Lubricating oils, under 25 cents a gallon, 5 cents a gallon, $81,422; wall paper, 35 per cent, $70,137. I might go on and enumerate a long list of other articles that we bring in from the United States on which the duty is highly protective. There is the matter of coal oil. The hon. member for London took great credit to the government for reducing the duty on coal oil from 7 to 5 cents. I want to draw his attention to a little slip he made, the duty on coal oil was not 7 cents under the late administration but 6 cents, and these gentlemen changed a protective duty of 6 cents to a free trade tariff of 5 cents a gallon on coal 50
oil. Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce dare to stand "up in this House and maintain that a 5 cent duty on coal oil is not a protective duty ? Will he dare maintain that it is a revenue tariff or approaches it in any sense ? I do not think that with all his courage, and everybody knows he has a great deal, and it requires a great deal of courage for an hon. gentleman in his position to swallow the principles that he has advocated for twenty years, but even he will not dare to maintain that a 5 cent duty on coal oil is a free trade or a revenue tariff duty. I do not object to these duties that are protective, I maintain that in many cases they are not high enough. The difference between hon. gentlemen opposite and hon. gentlemen on this side of the House is simply that we believe in the principle of protection, and if we were in power we would carry it out to the full extent, while our friends opposite do not believe it but still they are carrying out the principle in such a manner as to make it odious to the people, if they can. Now, I think enough has been said and will be said to convince the people that the hon gentlemen occupying the treasury benches are carrying out the principle of protection simply and solely for the sake of maintaining themselves in power. Sir, I make the statement that it is no credit to the hon. gentlemen who are administering the affairs of this country that they are carrying out a protective principle which they do not believe in, simply in order that they may maintain power. It is no more creditable to those hon. gentlemen to carry out those principles in order to maintain office than it is to the wretch who, at election times, is willing to sell his principles for a five dollar bill. We know that during the last campaign there were many thousand electors, many hundred of thousands, I fear, who were willing to sell their principles, and that is one feature of the financial administration of this government which a portion of the people of this county appear to relish. But not many relish an increase of $16,000,000 in five short years to the total expenditure of this country. But there is a feature of the financial administration of this government which they exhibited a few days prior to the 7th of November, and which a small portion of the people relished to an immense extent, to such an' extent that, combined with the abominable race cry that was raised in the province of Quebec, it enabled the hon. gentlemen to put themselves once more in the seats of power. I say that they have no right to claim that they have the endorsement of the people of this country for their extravagant policy during the last five years, and their proposed extravagance in the future. They have no ground to claim that the people have condoned their faithlessness in changing their free trade or revenue tariff policy to a pro-
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic: SECOND READINGS.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate, and in doing so, I would like to give the House notice, that on Monday, I will move an amendment to the resolution that the Speaker do leave the Chair. The motion which I will make will be this :
That all the words after * that ' in the proposed motion be left out, and the following substituted therefor :
That, in the opinion of this House, the welfare of this country requires a pronounced policy of adequate protection and encouragement at all times to the labour, agricultural, manufacturing, mining and other industrial interests of Canada;
That, in the opinion of this House, the adoption of a policy of mutual.trade preference within the empire would prove of great benefit to 50i
the mother country and to the colonies, and would greatly promote the prosperity, unity and progress of the empire as a whole, and that the present time, when the Commonwealth of Australia is laying the foundation of its fiscal system, is particularly opportune for taking prompt and energetic steps towards the furtherance of this object.
This House is further of opinion that equivalent or adequate duties should bo imposed by Canada upon the products and manufactures of countries not within the empire in all cases where such countries fail to admit Canadian products and manufactures upon fair terms, and that the government should take for this purpose all such available measures as may be found necessary.
I hope the right hon. gentleman will have no objection to the debate being now adjourned.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic: SECOND READINGS.