Mr. SPROULE.

Can the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) give us the figures with regard to the United States ?

I believe my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) asked that exact question at this exact moment last year. I should have remembered that and brought the figures.

Mr. SPROULE.

Let me say that I never asked the question in this House before. It may be that the late Mr. Wallace, then representing West York asked it.

And my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is that gentleman's worthy successor in several respects. I have not the figures here. But we know that the imports from the United States increased. We know that the trade with the whole world has increased.

Hear, hear.

We cannot help it, Sir, trade in all directions is increasing under the rule of this beneficent government.

Mr. MACLEAN.

We got that information from the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton).

Then, why does my hon. friend want it again? What are we wasting time for ?

Mr. MACLEAN.

We hope that the Minister of Finance has profited by it.

The hon. member for North Norfolk brought forward the fact prominently. I regret that it has not made a deeper impression on hon. gentlemen opposite. This question of how far the imports from Great Britain have been affected by our preferential tariff has been more or less, a matter of debate. I remember that, in the last session of the British parliament, that distinguished statesman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, in the debate on the sugar duties, during which reference was made to the Canadian preference, said, in terms very gratifying to all Canadians, that, while they appreciated very much the step that Canada had taken, the value was to be looked for, more in the good feeling that had been manifested than in the material results to trade.

Hear, hear.

My hon. [DOT]friends opposite say : Hear, hear. I suppose they think likewise, and if they think likewise, what becomes of the statements that have been made for some time now that the increased imports under the preferential tariff are destroying some of the factories of Canada ? I am afraid my hon. friends are trying to blow hot and cold on that matter. I cannot find out whether they want that trade to increase or not. At one moment they complain the trade is not increasing under out preference, you will fiud a column of statistics in the Conservative papers designed to prove that there has been no increase at all, and the next thing we are told is that the preference is ruining the factories of Canada. However, coming back to my friend, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, I felt at the time that the statement, while made in good faith and made in terms which will be pleasing to all Canadians, was based upon a misconception of the situation. In the first place, the actual increase of trade as shown by the figures I have given, is very considerable. Then there is another point to which I fear Sir Michael's attention had not been drawn. In view of the severe competition which is now going on between the United States and other manufacturing nations, if, with the preference of one-tliird in favour of Great Britain, we have only been able to increase British imports to a small amount, what would have happened to the trade if there had been no preference at all ? Sir, I have no doubt in the world that but for the British preference, that advance in the imports from Great Britain would not have existed at all, there would not have been any increase in the imports from Great Britain. There is not much doubt but that, without the change this government made in the tariff, the imports from Great Britain would have continued to drop as they did from the year 1895 down to 1897.

There was one incident during the past year which calls for mention in the Budget speech. In the Tariff Act of 1897 there was the following clause :

Section 18. Whenever the Governor in Council has reason to believe that with regard to any article of commerce there exists any trust, combination, association or agreement of any k!nd among manufacturers of such article or dealers therein, to unduly enhance the price of such article, or in any way to unduly promote the advantage of the manufacturers or dealers at the expense of the consumers, the Governor in Council may commission or empower any julge of the Supreme Court or Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any superior court in any province of Canada, to inquire in a summary way into and report to the Governor in Council whether such iru.it, combination, association or agreement exists.

2. The judge may compel the attendance of witnesses and examine them under oath, and require the production of books and papers, and shall hare such other necessary powers as are conferred upon him by the Governor in Council for the purpose of any such inquiry.

3 If the judge reports that such trust, combination, association or agreement exists, and if it appears to the Governor in 001111311 that such disadvantage to the consumers is facilitated by the duties of customs imposed on a like article, when imported, then the Governor in Council should place such article on the free list, or so reduce the duty on it as to give to the public the benefit of reasonable competition in such article.

When the section was first submitted to the House, it provided that the Governor in Council should be the body to determine when the combine existed. On further consideration, however, it was deemed unwise for the government to take to itself so large a power. It was thought that in a matter of so much importance it would be better, even at the cost of some delay, to make use of the judicial machinery for the purpose of inquiry and to limit the authority of the government to action after the report of a judge. In several instances complaints were made to the government under this clause, but upon examination they did not appear to come within the provisions of the section. A few mouths ago, however, complaint was made by the Canadian Press Association in terms which were found to come within the intention of the section. It was alleged that the manufacturers of news printing paper had formed a combine for the purpose j of unfairly enhancing the price of the ar-tide. The matter was referred under the provisions of the section to Mr. Justice Taschereau, who held a protracted inquiry, heard all parties concerned, and finally reported that the complaint of the Press Association was well founded. Thereupon, the government, exercising the power given it by the section, determined by Order in Council to reduce the duty on printing paper such as is commonly used for newspaper purposes, from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. To distinguish between news print and other papers, it was decided that the reduction

Hon. Mr. FIELDING.

should apply to all printing paper of the value of 2i cents per pound or less. That, of course, means not the value in Canada, but the value for customs purposes-the value at the place of production abroad. It has been represented to us that while the purpose of the government will be effected as respects the daily journals, the proprietors of which buy in large quantities, it may not cover the case of the weekly papers, which do not buy in such large quantities. The Press Association is to furnish us with further information on that point, and if it be found that the words used in our Order in Council do not properly effect the object in view, an amendment will have to be made. I liave no doubt that the results of this inquiry will be of material advantage to the publishers of the Dominion in the making of their arrangements with the Canadian paper manufacturers. Beyond this immediate result, however, the proceedings are interesting and important, and they will serve to remind other manufacturers that if they make an unfair use of any advantage which is given to them by the tariff, a remedy is open to those who will take proceedings under this section of the Tariff

We have again been approached by a large and influential delegation representing the. Ontario Beet Root Sugar Association to ask that a bounty be granted on the production of beet root sugar and a similar application came from Prince Edward Island. A new suggestion is offered by some of the parties connected with the movement, that the industry he encouraged by a considerable increase in the customs duty on sugar. I regret that we are obliged to take an unfavourable view of both these proposals. Sugar is an article of prime necessity, universally used in Canada, and already we have a considerable customs duty. Such an increase of the taxation on sugar as was asked would hardly prove acceptable to the sugar consumers of the Dominion, and should not be adopted without urgent reasons. Nor are we satisfied that even the best interests of the beet sugar industry would be promoted by the granting of the aid that is asked'. We have to remember that some years ago Canada undertook to encourage the beet sugar industry by the granting of bounties, and that the results were not satisfactory. The capitalists who invested their money lost it, and everybody concerned In the movement suffered a severe disappointment. Naturally, in the presence of that fact, we should be more than usually careful in entering again upon a policy of granting bounties for this industry.

It is represented that the advantages of the province of Ontario, and I suppose the same will be claimed for other provinces which are raising the question, are much greater than were possessed by the eastern townships for raising beet sugar, and it is also claimed that such an

advance lias since been made in the manufacture of machinery and in the methods of manufacturing beet root sugar as to ensure the success of the enterprise now. I think there is something in that and that the conditions which exist to-day are such as to give that industry a fair trial if it is naturally adapted to the soil of Canada. Our customs duty, which runs as high as $1,26 per 100 lbs. or a cent and a quarter a lb. on the highest grade of sugar, while it is designed for revenue purposes will provide an incidental protection for beet root sugar produced in the country. The competition from foreign beet sugar is likely to be less keen hereafter as it seems to be settled that the continental bounties on this article,which have so long had a disturbing influence on the world's sugar trade, are about to be abolished. In addition the Ontario government have granted a bounty of half a cent a lb. for two years and of one-quarter of a cent a lb. for the third year, but limited to $75,000 per annum, and I understand that at least three factories are at the present moment in the course of construction in that province. They are certain to go on-one of them is already started-and I am inclined to think that a fourth is in a fair way to being erected. In addition to that the establishment of the industry is no longer problematical but it is a certainty in the North-west Territories. Gentlemen have come in from the south and are erecting a refinery in Lethbridge. With the aid which has been given in the way I have described, with the incidental advantage derived from the customs duty on sugar, with the abolition of the bounties on continental sugar, with the advantage of the Ontario bounty as respects factories in that province, and with the further advantage we have given the beet root sugar industry of the free admission of machinery and structural iron for the purposes of beet root sugar factories, I am inclined to think that there are sufficient inducements to enable the promoters to give the industry a fair trial if it is adapted to the soil of the country. I think it would be a mistake if we were to give further aid which might result in encouraging the erection of a large number of factories which might come to grief. I think it is better to encourage the industry in this moderate way, to have three or four factories in the province of Ontario and one in the North-west Territories established so as to give the industry a fair trial than that we should encourage the starting of factories all over the country which might end in disaster.

Mr. SPROULE.

The right to import machinery free of duty will soon end.

It will eud on the first day of April, but we propose to extend that for another year. Perhaps I ought to say that there has been some objection on the part of Canadian

manufacturers to the granting of this privilege of free admission. They say that this machinery is now largely made in Canada and they do not see why we should go abroad for it. I think, however, that the reason on which our previous action was based a year ago still holds good. The argument then used was that where the promoters of an enterprise of that character wish to make a contract for machinery it is an advantage to them to be able to make a contract with one manufacturer, so that he can take the contract for the whole of the machinery, make it where he pleases, be held responsible and guarantee that the machinery will be sufficient for the successful operation of the factory. We have concluded not to propose any changes in the sugar duties, or any bounty on beet root sugar, but to extend for another year the term in which certain machinery and materials for the erection of beet root factories may be admitted free. This privilege will therefore be extended to the fii-st day of April, 1903.

We do not propose to make any changes in the tariff this session. I do not for a moment claim that the tariff is perfect. I think, that, on the whole, it has proved a very good tariff. Indeed, when we recall the circumstances under which our tariff revision took place, when we remember the very complicated and difficult probleril with which we had to deal, we may well congratulate ourselves upon our success in devising a tariff so well adapted to the requirements of the country, a tariff under which Canada has prospered in a greater degree than in any previous period in her history. I have occasionally pointed out fhe desirability of a reasonable measure of tariff stability. Nothing would be more likely to unsettle business than a practice of introducing frequent tariff changes. Hence, we have resisted applications for many small changs and we think it well to do so to-day. But I would not have it understood that this view can always be held. As time passes, conditions change in our own country and it will be well for us to take note of this, so that we may adjust the tariff accordingly. Nor is that the only reason that might require some change. Conditions arise in other countries of which we are obliged to take account. [DOT]We do not propose that we shall stand still and that this tariff shall remain unchanged, but we think the time is not opportune for making changes at present.

There are several reasons which operate in our minds against entering upon a policy of tariff changes to-day. We have just completed the taking of a census, and while some of the results are available others of much importance have yet to be prepared. Among these are the returns of the operations of our industries. In considering the tariff in relation to the industries of the country, it is desirable that we should have

before us, with ample time for consideration, the industrial statistics of the recent census.

Mr. SPROULE.

What about the market gardeners of West York who have been living on promises ?

If there are any people who have been living on promises that is what they were accustomed to do for eighteen years and they will find it very easy. A further reason against present change is that we are having certain negotiations with other countries in regard to trade of a more or less formal character. We are not without hope that we will be able to broaden the scope of our treaty with France, though of that I am not in a position to make any definite statement. Much has been said in regard to our relations with Germany. My impression is that there has been a misconception on the part of the German authorities as to the position of Canada. Our position on this question is strong in respect to Germany, but that is no reason why we should Ignore the German side of the matter. I admit that there is a colour of excuse for the position which Germany has taken. As I have pointed out on a previous occasion, Germany has two tariffs, one for the world generally, the other, known as the conventional tariff, for those countries which have commercial treaties with Germany. I suppose many hon. gentlemen will say that this is sound policy. Germany had a treaty with Canada, or Canada participate!! in an imperial treaty with Germany, and under that treaty Canada had the advantage from what is called the conventional tariff as respects Canadian products. Canada put an end to that treaty for her own purposes, for good and sufficient reasons. Not one party in Canada, but all of Canada, reached the conclusion that this treaty was not in the best interests of Canada, or of the empire, and it should come to an end. Our sister colonies took the same view on the subject. But it was admittedly the action of Canada above all others which brought about the denunciation of the German and Belgian treaties. When we ceased to have that treaty with Germany, when we ceased to extend to Germany certain privileges which she had enjoyed, Germany withdrew from us the privileges of its conventional tariff. Canada thus came into the class of non-treaty countries, the products of which were subject to the higher tariff. Let us not deny that from one point of view there was some colour of excuse for the German action.

But a more careful examination of the question must lead to the conclusion that the action of Germany, while it might have had an appearance of fairness, was based upon a misconception of the spirit and purpose of Canada's policy. It is true that we have withdrawn from Germany tariff privileges which she formerly enjoyed. But Hon. Mr. FIELDING.

it is necessary to point out that the privileges which Germany lost were not privileges which rightfully belonged to any foreign nation, but privileges which properly belonged to the family circle of the British Empire. Germany might reasonably ask that her products have as fair treatment in our markets as the products of any other foreign country. But she ought not to demand that her products should have the same treatment as the products of our mother country and our sister colonies. Public men in Germany appear to have received the impression that the action of Canada was in some way a discrimination against Germany. Such is not the case. Canada has been quite willing to give to the products of Germany the same treatment as is given to the products of any other foreign nation. That, it seems to us, is all that Germany can reasonably ask. We are inclined to think that the action of Germany has been the result of a misunderstanding of the Canadian policy, and we have therefore been disposed to exercise a large degree of patience in having the matter very clearly put before the German government. We are hopeful that our representation of these facts will in the end bring about a better understanding of the matter. Our trade with Germany is not at present very important to us; although what is called the balance of trade is against us, the value of our exports to that country has been increasing rather than diminishing. Nevertheless, at a time when we are stretching out in all directions for extension of our trade, it is not well to despise the opportunities which might come to us under fairer arrangements with Germany. Besides, the principle involved in Germany's action is important, and on that account, as well as for the possibilities of a larger trade, we should make every effort to have the matter settled in a satisfactory way. There are those who have advocated retaliatory legislation as the only means of settlement. We are hopeful that better results may be obtained by a patient presentation of the facts. Another and stronger reason against immediate changes in our tariff is the present position of our trade relations with the mother country and with our sister colonies. We are about to participate in two important conferences to take place in London. One of these has been called at the suggestion of our government for the special purpose of considering the possibilities of enlarging the trade between Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The other conference is of a broader character and has been called by the Imperial government. The ceremonies attending the coronation of the King will take to London representative public men from all parts of the empire, and the Imperial government desires to avail Itself of the opportunity to discuss various matters, including questions of trade and commerce affecting the interests of the empire. Canada will

be expected to take an active part in the consideration of these questions, and at the close of these conferences we shall be in possession of a knowledge of the disposition of other portions of the empire which will undoubtedly be valuable to us in the consideration of any proposed tariff changes. I do not underestimate the difficulties in the way of bringing about such trade relations within the empire as are desirable from the Canadian point of view. However, it is our duty to avail ourselves of the opportunity to discuss these matters with the public men of the other parts of the empire and to use every effort tu bring about such improved arrangements as would be beni-ficial to Canada and to the empire.

For these reasons we postpone for the present the question of tariff revision. When the moment for revision arrives, the public of Canada may rest assured that the government will undertake the work in the spirit of moderation and caution that has prevailed in their past actions in tariff affairs, avoiding the extremes which almost always find advocates, and having regard to what is best, not for particular industries or particular sections of the country, but for the interests of the people of the whole Dominion.

The Budget, Mr. Speaker, has friendly relations with the Saints.