lion acres of land for that purpose, as well as large cash subsidies. The Dominion government did so for the Canadian Pacific Railway, and no doubt that road would never have been built unless so aided. (Opposition members- Hear, hear.) We have done so in Ontario, and the other provinces of the Dominion have followed our example. Bounties have been given for the development of special industries in France and in Germany ; bounties by the Dominion government for the development of iron and steel ; bounties by the Ontario government for the development of our iron industry, and latterly the proposed bounty for the encouragement of the beet-root sugar industry.
Then lie goes on to deal with the question of bounty, and proceeds to say :
The object of my argument is to show that it seems to he admitted' all round that a government in modern times has something more to do than merely discharge administrative functions. It has to be the pioneer, if possible, at all events the foster parent, of manufactures and commerce. It has, if possible, to devise ways and means by which the material wealth of the people it represents for the time being may be promoted. It is supposed to stand upon the financial watch-tower, as well as upon the administrative watch-tower, and wherever any great industry lies dormant which the wealth and means at the disposal of the government can awaken, or where any great enterprise can be encouraged for which private capital is insufficient, it seems to be the rule in modern times for nearly every government to put its hand to these varied means of enriching a nation; and, wisely or unwisely, for good or for evil, tax the whole people, in order that the whole people may be wealthy.
Again he adds :
It would be an easy thing for a government to say : 'Give us so much money and we will administer the affairs of the country, see that ofli-cers are appointed .for the various duties, see that cheeks are issued for salaries'-that would be an easy duty. It is another matter for a government to assume the responsibility of leading the nation, or leading and educating the people to apply their minds to the development of industry, and to the fostering of manufactures or to the development of latent resources, or, to any other purpose which may be of more immediate advantage to one or more sections of the country than to the whole country. I think the modern view, although it imposed great responsibility upon the government, is the one we were bound to accept. And I am proud to be able to say that in the province of Ontario, as well as at Ottawa-we have addressed ourselves to the solution, or rather to the discharge, of that duty. In fact, I do not know but the Dominion government, the Conservative government at Ottawa years ago, realized more quickly than perhaps some of us did-(Opposition members- Hear, hear)-what seemed to be the direction- of universal opinion, I was going to say-or rather the direction of all civilized governments at that time, and, realizing that view, they struck out a course which in many respects has been followed since, and has been accepted by some other countries since that time.
These views of the Hon. Mr. Ross certainly do not coincide with those of many of the speakers from the government side of the ,
House. Mr. Ross admits that the Conservative party were the first to adopt that policy of protection which was necessary in Canada, and to which all civilized countries have turned their attention. Let me just refer to another quotation from the Hon. Mr. Ross, and I do so more particularly to show that when the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) says that the Americans have not prospered under protection, he does not agree with his leader in the province of Ontario. The Hon. George W. Ross says :
The Americans have become strong largely by the dominant strain which has permeated American legislation and commerce for the last thirty years, and they have become self sustaining to a great extent; and the British navy has been dominated by the idea, since Nelson's time, that the British navy is invincible. And so will we Canadians, by being imbued with the same spirit of manufacturing our own goods as far as we can, developing our own resources where we have the means, become self sustaining, applying ourselves with energy and tact to whatever comes to hand.
Then he proceeds to deal with the factory question :
A factory means not merely the investment of capital but the employment of intelligent men and women.
He adds further :
We must make special efforts to have the waste places of the country filled up, and its raw materials and products must be manufactured so far as possible, in the country.
To me it seems a good deal of a farce to hear a large number of gentlemen on the government benches make free trade speeches, and then to find another set get up and make protectionist speeches, and to find the government in the position of having adopted, to a great extent, the national policy. But where they have interfered with that policy they have done so to the injury of the people of this country.
A great deal has been said about free trade England. I do not propose to go back into the history of England. We all know that there was a long and interesting period prior to 1840 when England enjoyed the most rigid protection. We know that in 1337-1 think in the reign of Edward III- there were passed enactments for the fostering and encouragement of English industries. We know that from 1337 down to 1846 a most rigid system of protection prevailed in that country. And this very industry, which has been so frequently spoken of here, the woollen industry, owes its present position to that protection. There would have been no possibility of England at that time manufacturing woollen goods for her own people had she not enjoyed the most rigid protection. It was under that policy that the woollen industry of England was built up, just as were built up her other manufacturing industries, until in 1846 they were in a position to dispense with protection and to throw down the tariff wall.
I would like to refer just for a moment to the experience of the United States under a low tariff. I find on reference to the New York ' Tribune ' of January 15tli, that in 1855 the United States were still under their old tariff law of 1846. That was a very low tariff, and here is how Mr. Horace Greeley, in the New York 'Tribune,' describes its effects :
The cry of hard times reaches us from every part of the country. The making cf roads is stopped; factories are closed; and houses and ships are no longer being built; factory hands, road makers, carpenters, bricklayers, and labourers are idle and paralysis is rapidly embracing every pursuit in the country. The cause of all this stoppage of circulation is to be found in the steady overflow of gold to pay foreign labourers for the cloth, the shoes, the Ton and other things that could he produced by American labour, but which cannot be so produced under our present revenue system.
Let me also cite the opinion of another authority, Mr. Peter Cooper :
British iron and cloth came in and gold went out, and with each successive day the dependence of our farmers on foreign markets became more complete ; with 1857 came the culmination of the system. Merchants and manufacturers being ruined, banks being compelled to suspend payment, and the treasury being reduced to a condition of bankruptcy nearly approaching that which had existed at the close of the free trade period of 1817 and 1839.
President Buchanan described the condition of things, in his message of December 14th, 1860, in the following language
Panic and distress of a fearful character prevails throughout the land. Our labouring population is without employment and consequently deprived of the means of earning their bread. Indeed all hope seems to have deserted the minds of men.
These quotations are of course not evidence, and it is wise for us to look at the statistics to find the proofs of the statements made by such men as President Buchanan,
Mr. Cooper, Mr. Horace Greeley and the others. We find that in 1846 there were imported into the United States cotton goods to the value of $13,530,625. In 1860, under this low tariff, there were imported of the same goods to the value of $32,560,024. Take the article of clothing. There, was imported in 1864 $847,742 worth, and in 1860 $2,102,296 worth. Then take woollens, with the exceptions of carpets, we find that in 1846 the imports amounted to $9,850,307, and in 1860 they had increased to $35,394,422, or an increase of 360 per cent. Fortunately for the United States a higher tariff measure was brought down. From 1860 until 1890 a fairly high tariff was in force, but in 1890 the McKinley tariff came in. What effect had that tariff on the woollen industry of the United States ? The consumption increased some 17 per cent, while the value of woollen goods imported decreased to the extent of $21,000,000. It has often been said that the
McKinley tariff was a hardship on the consumer. I maintain that that was not the case. For while that tariff protected the manufacturers and the other industries of the United States, the American consumer got his goods at a lower price than he did under a low tariff. That whole question was referred to a very competent committee, consisting of the following gentlemen :-Canon D. Wright, Commissioner of the Department of Labour; General Francis A. Walker, Prof. H. C. Adams, Edward Atkinson, Prof. E. J. James and William Grosvenor. The first man on that committee was an independent on the tariff question. The next three were pronounced free traders and the next two were protectionists. What diu that committee report ? It reported as follows I only quote a short portion of report:
During the twenty-eight months from June 1, 1S89, to September 1, 1891 (the Act took effect in 1896), the_ average retail prices of 214 articles of common consumption among the people declined 64 per cent,-wholesale prices of the same article declined 33 per cent, the prices of agricultural products advanced 67 per cent, and wages advanced on the average 75 per cent.
This report was unanimously adopted by the Senate Committee, composed of both Republicans and Democrats. I say that this report is a most important document. It shows that under high protective tariff, under that McKinley tariff, the prices of articles commonly used and consumed by the people decreased, the rate of wages increased and the prices to the agriculturists increased by no less than 18'07 per cent. The history of the United States of America has been simply this-that parties who gave protection to the country gave prosperity to the country and that those who failed to give that protection brought disaster to the United States. May I be allowed to refer to an earlier period in the history of the American Republic. We know that in 1824 the United States passed a protective tariff. They were bound to increase their protection, because the British manufacturer at that time, owing to the United States low tariff had got possession of their markets. And Henry Olay, who was one of the leading lights of that time, in speaking of the results of a protective tariff- and the protection afforded was a great deal higher than we have in Canada to-day -said :
If a term of seven years were to be selected of the greatest prosperity which the people have enjoyed since the establishment of this present constitution, it would be exactly that period which immediately followed the passage of the tariff of 1824.
Now, while this government were pledged to a large reduction in our tariff, they have practically maintained the tariff of the Conservative party, except in so far as the preferential feature is concerned. Let me say
a word in this connection, concerning the cotton industry. In the town in which I have the honour to live, the town of Cornwall. we are interested in that industry, manufacturing there, very largely, coloured cottons. Under the late government, we had a protective duty of 30 per cent. Hon. gentlemen opposite and their supporters, when in opposition, attacked the Conservative government on account of that duty of 30 per cent. Those engaged in the manufacture of cottons were spoken of as ' Cotton Barons ' and, from one end of the country to the other speeches were made attacking the cotton industry. But when these hon. gentlemen came into power they did not cut down the tariff. As a citizen of Cornwall, I felt very thankful for that. On the other hand, the government increased the duty by 5 per cent, making it 35 per cent, and then they brought in their preferential tariff. But I say that that preferential tariff is an injury to the cotton industry, and it is no .wonder that three of the largest cotton manufacturing concerns passed their dividends within the last year. I have only to look at the returns to find that over $4,000,000 worth of cotton goods were imported into this country under the preferential tariff last year. And, of the class of cotton goods manufactured in our town, over $2,000,000 worth were imported. I quote these figures from memory, but I believe they are substantially correct. Now, it must be plain that that is a great injury to the cotton industry of the country. Prior to the preferential tariff coloured cotton goods came largely from the United States of America. Under the preferential tariff these goods are coming in from Great Britain, and they are coming in at prices which make it almost impossible to compete with them. One hon. gentleman on the other side, speaking in this debate, said that the woollen mills were running night and day. Our cotton industry may Jje running full time, but they may not be making any money, owing to the competition from outside.
We have also the hon. member from West York (Mr. Campbell) who I must say. ought to support this amendment. If he is correctly reported, he made a very strong protectionist speech at a banquet of the Manufacturers' Association in the city of Montreal. Referring to the large importation of agricultural implements, this Is what he said :
If we can have these goods manufactured in the Dominion and the duty were raised, it would mean that this $2,500,000 worth of goods would be made here ; and the actual fact of such manufacture being established would mean an increase of, say, 25,000 to 30,000 in the population. As it is in this line, so would it be in other lines. The tariff is going to be revised before long-I hope this session.
Now this is a very strong utterance, and what does it mean ? Is it a farce ? Are they playing with the people ? One branch
of the government supporters are going out in the country and saying : We are going' to have an increase in the tariff;. Another branch of the government supporters are going out and saying, where it suits them, we are adhering to our principles, and intend to reduce the tariff gradually. The Minister of Finance says there will be a revision next year, and we cannot assume that he will increase the tariff. The only assumption possible is that he will reduce the tariff in accordance with the pledges made by himself and other members of the government. I say that this is a farce. The people of this country ought to know definitely what the position of the government is in regard to the tariff. Are they going to reduce it, or are they going to increase it ? Where the government find an industry is seriously affected by the preferential- tariff, are they going to step in and give that industry -the protection that it needs, so that it may have a part in the prosperity of this country ? I say. Sir. that we require a declared and settled policy in regard to this tariff question.
The government have taken great credit for the increased imports into this country from Great Britain. In 1900, according to the first plank in their platform as laid down in 1893, where they promised to wipe out the national policy, &c., they issued a 'manifesto to the people saying that this preferential tariff had resulted in largely increased sales of British goods to Canada. Now, Sir, I do not think that it is in the interests of the Canadian workmen that that tariff should have the result of largely increasing the sales of British goods to the people of Canada, especially of that class of goods that we can manufacture ourselves. And this manifesto was issued before the,full reduction of 33J per cent had been made in favour of British goods. I would like, Mr. Speaker, for a moment to refer to the woollen industry. -I find in the ' Canadian Manufacturer ' of January 3rd, an article on this British preference, and after dealing with statistics, and showing the large increase of importations of woollens from Great Britain, it says this ;
As herein shown, notwithstanding the tariff preference, our import trade with Great Britain is, as compared with our whoie trade, fallen behind, not only in manufactures of metals hut also in textiles, it is fair to enquire why the preference, for which we receive no quid pro quo should be continued. It has no effect whatever upon our imports of metal goods, and is therefore only valuable as a sentiment, which, in trade, does not count for much, but it most seriously and adversely affects our Canadian woollen industry, and for that reason if for no other, it should he cancelled, or very materially modified ; and one very important feature of any modification it should include is a reciprocal preference on the part of Great Britain and any other British country with which Canadians desire to do business.
Mr. Speaker, the bon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) said there was no progress in this country under the national policy. Without being too local, I would say in regard to the town of Cornwall in the county which I have the honour to represent, that our increase in population from 1881 to 1891 was 2,337, or 52 per cent. That was due almost entirely to the policy of the Conservative party in protecting the Industries of this country. People with capital had confidence in the future of Canada, and they invested in large cotton Industries in that town. But apart from that case, what do we find throughout the country ? We find that from 1881 to 1891 there was an increase in the number of manufacturing establishments in this country of over 51 per cent, find there was an increase in the amount of capital invested in industries of 114 per cent ; and we find the number of employees Increased 44 per cent. Now it is Idle for the Minister of Agriculture to go Into constituencies in this country and say that if the woollen industry cannot exist on a 23 per cent protection it should be wiped out. I say the woollen manufacturers have invested over $10,000,000 of capital in Canada, expecting that the government would give them reasonable protection. I think it is the duty of the government to see that these woollen manufacturers have sufficient protection to put them on an equal footing with their foreign competitors.
I do not intend to deal with the financial question, which has been already covered so completely by the numerous speakers who have preceded me. I will, however, say this, that while the members of the present government were very much horrified at an expenditure of $38,000,000 per annum, they seem to be delighted now at an expenditure of $62,000,000 to $63,000,000 per annum. We find that during the last four or five years, from 1897 to 1901, their total expenditure was $250,550,003, and their total revenues during the same period were $228,670,960. There Is a total deficit of $21,879,043 -during that period of great prosperity, a period of world-wide prosperity. Not only did this country enjoy prosperity, but there was prosperity in every section of the habitable globe. During that period, with such a buoyant revenue, it was the duty of these gentlemen who found so much fault with an expenditure of $38,000,000, at least to have avoided a prodigal expenditure which left them with a deficit of over $21,000,000 during that period of five years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said here from the agriculturist standpoint. Nobody recognizes more clearly than I do that agriculture is the largest and most important industry of this country, and in it are engaged more people than In any other single occupation. I was surprised
to bear the bon. member for West Huron saying that tbe agriculturist of this country was not benefited by protection. Then if be is not benefited by protection, wby do not tbe government remove all protection from the agriculturist of this country ? When I turn to the ' Hansard ' for 1890, I find that there were tremendous importations of fresh meats and other meats; I think that, year 33,000,000 pounds of American meat came into Canada, notwithstanding that we then had protection in favour of the farmers, and the Conservative party advocated an increased protection on meats coming in from the United States. We find that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce opposed it. He voted against it, and every member of the government voted against it, but, when they came into power they dared not reduce it. They left it just as it was framed by the Conservatives in 1890. If protection in favour of the agriculturists of this country is a curse, why do not hon. gentlemen remove it ? They have removed the protection from three or four articles, and they have removed it to the detriment and injury of the agriculturists of this country. We have a number of hon. gentlemen coming from the western portions of this great Dominion. I may say I am always pleased to hear them speak and advocate their views, but, these hon. gentlemen, instead of being sectional, should be guided by broader lilies. They should be national. They must not think that they have all the interests in the west. They have great and important interests, they are going to assist in making this a wealthy country, but their history will be largely the history of the United States. We remember the days when Illinois and the western states were all opposed to protection. We find to-day that in the western states the population has changed. We find that the manufacturers have had to remove to the west to be near the agriculturists of those states. Let me just quote a word from a very able author in connection with the agricultural condition of the United States. Before I quote that I would like to say that in looking at the report of the bureau of statistics of the United States, I find this statement from the chief of that bureau :
Following on the rapid advance in the population of the western states, large and diversified manufacturing enterprises of this country have moved steadily towards the west.
I believe, and I firmly believe, that if the policy advocated by the Conservative party were carried out in this country you would see large manufacturing industries established in Winnipeg to supply the people of that great western country and the articles that they require would be manufactured by Canadians for the Canadians in the west. The statement has been made that the agriculturists of the United States have not prospered under protection. I say Mr. PRINGLE.
that statement is untrue, that statistics show us that the progress of the agriculturists of the United States has been greater than the progress of the agriculturists of any other nation under the sun. Wealth in the United States has increased at an enormous rate. Mulhall, whom I do not think any one will accuse of being a protectionist, in his ' Industries and Wealth of Nations,' in 1896, says :
The growth of American agriculture in half a century has been unparalleled in any age or nation.
Then he goes on to say :
In 1840 the United States produced-
And he gives the quantities. He also gives the production in 1850, showing that there had been a marvellous increase. I am not going to detain the House by giving these figures. This promient authority in the United States says :
While the great manufacturing industries of tt^e United States were in process of creation, instead of diverting capital from the development of agriculture there is a consensus of opinion that the artificial system of promoting manufactures has contributed more to the rapid opening up of the fertile land of the western states than any other cause.
The statement - has been made that wages are lower in protectionist countries than in free trade countries. I am not going to weary the House by giving statistics in regard to that matter, but I have taken the trouble of going into the tables, and I find that wages have increased in every protectionist country while they have diminished in free trade countries. I find that in the United States the increase has been very large. Take journeymen carpenters, for instance; between 1840 and 1860 they received $1.25 per day, and subsequent to 1SU0 the price ranged from 81.25 to $1.75 a day. In 1891, when the McKinley Bill came into force, wages ran from $3 to $3.25 per day, and this has been the history of all protectionist countries. I am now going back for a moment to the woollen industry in the United States. I find by looking at the statistics that the imports of woollens during the twelve months ending December, 1894, amounted to $16,809,872. In 1895, under free trade, or rather, under a lower tariff, because it was not free trade, the imports amounted to $60,319,309. We find that when the Gorman-Wilson tariff came into force in the United States that the manufacturers found it was utterly impossible for them to compete with the foreign product. Some mills were built at Bradford, England, solely for the purpose of supplying the people of the United States with woollen goods. Subsequent to the repeal of that law these mills were closed, the machinery was brought to the United States of America and woollen goods were manufactured for the Ameri-
can people. I would like to give a few figures from the industrial census of the United States for 1893, showing under this low tariff the injury to the business and people of the United States. There was a decrease in labour of G04 per cent, a decrease in wages of 69 per cent, and a decrease in business of 47 per cent. The number of hands out of work was 101,703, and the total loss in the weekly wages was $1,202,000. There was an average decrease in the rate of wages of $2.35 per week. There was a loss in wages of over $300,000,000, in round figures. A very good barometer as to the condition of the country is the number of failures, and in looking up these figures I find that under Cleveland in 1894 there were 12.721 failures and that under Harrison in 1894 there were 10,034, Cleveland's extra industry of the sheriff in that respect being 2,687. I say that, go where we will, under present conditions, there is no market to gain on the face of the globe. Other nations are not only producing for themselves, but are also looking for foreign markets. I am not going into all the figures of our imports except to say roughly that we imported from the United States during last year $119,000,000 worth, a part of which were necessaries and a large portion of which were dutiable goods-I think about $65,000,000 worth-and as I have heard it stated in this House, I believe that $40,000,000 worth of these goods could be manufactured by our own people in this country. X referred a few moments ago to the importation of cotton fabrics, and I find that the correct figures in regard to the importation of printed, dyed and coloured cottons, which were imported in 1901, and which came into direct competition with the product of the Canadian coloured cotton mills, are as follows : We imported from Great Britain $2,494,503 worth, or 24,165,332 yards of coloured cotton fabrics. Our total importation of cotton fabrics from Great Britain in 1901 amounted to $4,841,165. From the United States w'e imported $1,368,696 worth, so that the total importation into Canada of manufactured cotton goods for the year 1901 amounted to $6,209,861 in value. It is whispered that the large mills at "Valley-field have been promised an increase in the tariff. I hope they will get it, because I believe that it will be very largely in the interest of the country if the tariff on cotton goods could be increased; at all events increased to shell an extent as to put Canadian manufacturers on a par with the manufacturers of foreign countries.
The House will pardon me if X say a word or two with regard to the increase of wages in the woollen industries. We in this country want to see our artisans and our factory employees receiving fair wages. We want to see them get reasonable wages, for If they do not they will not stay with us, but will depart for the United States, which is a high; protected country and where the
wages are high. Look at the relative wages paid in the United States and in England. I now refer to the woollen industry, and I find that in Massachusetts the spinners get $6.00 per week as against $2.43 in England ; the wool sorters get $11 per week in Massachusetts as against $7.29 in England ; the overlookers get $15 a week in Massachusetts as against $8.26 in England. In the mechanic and repair shops we find that the carpenters get $13.50 a week in Massachusetts as against $6.80 in England, and the machinists get $13.20 in Massachusetts as against $7.29 in England.
The following table will show the relative wages paid in Massachusetts and in England