Liberal party that these results have been attained. Time and again hon. gentlemen in the Conservative party have asked us to point out what the Liberals have done to bring about this wonderful progress. Well, Sir, if time permitted I could easily point out many things they have done. We know that the Minister of Agriculture, for instance, has done a great deal to increase the volume of our exports of cheese, butter and other' articles that come under his purview. Those of us who are engaged in business cannot fail to witness the great increase of our trade with Great Britain in those lines.
Now I wish to deal with some remarks of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) who undertook to reply to the Minister of Finance. He spoke in regard to the duty of kerosene oil, and stated that the Liberals ought to have taken that duty off years ago. I would like to know how that tallies with the remark of the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) who, in this House to-night, gave lengthy reasons why the duty should have been retained on kerosene oil. There are two distinct statements from the Conservative side that cannot be made to tally at all. So far as I am concerned, I shall be glad to go back to the people of my province and tell them that this government has reduced the duty on kerosene oil, because I know it will result in benefit to our people. The people in my riding were told in the last election campaign that when the Liberals came into power they promised to reduce the duty on kerosene oil, but instead of cutting it down by one-half they only reduced it by one cent a gallon. Now, I am glad to find that the government have seen tit, in the interest of the farmers and the labouring classes generally, as against a few rich manufacturers, to make a further reduction in the duty of kerosene oil. In other ways also I think this government have dealt, with questions affecting the public people in a way that is commendable. Although I do not think it is necessary to protect the woollen industries to any great extent, still I am glad that the government have granted some relief to some of those industries which, I am told since I came here, are suffering. At the same time I wish to say that I believe that if those depressed woollen industries had adopted modern methods and modern machinery they would have been able to hold their own as well as some other woollen manufacturers in Canada are doing to-day. I could name woollen mills that are prospering to-day and were quite satisfied with the tariff as it'stood before this last change. I have noticed that the Conservatives are greatly given to finding fault. If the duties are lowered they find fault. We are told to-day that taking the duty off binder twine had a bad effect. That question has been so fully dealt with thata- I am not going to enter
into it. X have also noticed that when the duty was slightly increased the Conservatives found fault also on that score. Tobacco has been mentioned time andj again, but I think the Minister of Inland Revenue has made a very satisfactory explanation in that regard this afternoon.
I need not take up the time of the House in talking about that at any further length. I notice that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) produced a table showing the increase in the exports of home products from 1896 to 1903. The increase in seven years was 3108,251,674 or $15,464,525 per year, and he claimed that that was not a satisfactory showing. But, let us look on the other side of the question. In 1878 the total value of domestic articles exported was $67,989,800. It increased in 1888 to $81,382,072 or an increase in ten years of $13,392,272, being $2,072,253 less than one year under the Liberals. In 1896 it had increased to $109,915,337, showing a total increase in 18 years under Conservative rule of $41,925,537, or an average increase per year of $2,329,193. The hon. member for Pictou also claimed that the Liberals are adopting the Conservative policy excepting the cautious financing of the Conservatives. I do not think it necessary to dwell at any length upon that point for the reason that that is also a question that has been fully dealt with. If the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Mr. Tarte), had been in his seat when that hon. gentleman made his statement, I think he would have smiled as he had some experience as to bow the Conservatives managed the finances of the country in years gone by. The Liberals have so managed the affairs of this country that notwithstanding the fact that the expenditures have been increased in nearly all of the departments, we have yet to hear from the Conservatives in this House or in the country any great attack on the Liberals on account of then- expenditures. They know full well that any extra expenditure will be accounted for by the fact of there being greatly increased revenue. What are the conditions prevailing in Canada to-day ? There is full employment for willing hands at high wages. Our manufacturers are prospering as they never prospered before. Mortgages are being paid off as they never have been before and savings bank deposits have increased very largely. Has this prosperity which Canada is enjoying been worldwide ? The Conservatives have claimed that it has been world-wide, but my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) has very clearly pointed out that such is not the case. We have only to go to Germany, Russia, Australia and even the Lnited States to find that the measure of prosperity which Canada is enjoying has not been world-wide. I was very pleased indeed to hear the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance that a commission would be appointed to
revise the tariff at an early day. I think this is a very practical way of dealing with the affairs of this country. I do not know that anything better could be done. As has been pointed out, the Conservatives some years ago, appointed a commission to deal with this matter which was not satisfactory, but I think we have already learned that the commissions appointed by the Liberals since they came into power, have produced good results, and I think we ought to feel quite satisfied that in the different provinces we can make some suggestions to the hon. Minister of Finance when the time comes, that will be valuable to him and beneficial to the country. Hon. gentlemen opposite would, no doubt, like us to adopt a policy of high protection, but they are not willing to grant that any changes should be made from time to time, claiming that the policy of high protection should be, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unchangeable. I think that changed conditions require that the tariff should be modified or changed from time to time. Sir, a policy of moderate taxation and general good government such as the Liberals have adopted and which has increased the total volume of the trade of Canada from $230,000,000 in 1896 to $459,000,000 in 1903, should satisfy all true Canadians who place country before party. As has been pointed out by my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Canada of to-day is as far apart from the Canada of 1896 as the Canada of 1866 was from the Canada of 1896. I think that very aptly illustrates what has been done since the Liberals obtained power in 1896. Fault has also been found with the preferential tariff as arranged by the Liberal party. It has been claimed that it was not made absolutely perfect and that it did not anticipate every possible contingency from the outset, but hon. gentlemen opposite do not dare to question the advantage it has been to us in setting an example to the world. Several hon. gentlemen have already dealt somewhat fully with that question. I am only going to say that if nothing else ever came from that preferential tariff than the advantages we are experiencing to-day, I would consider that it had achieved very great results. Its advantages are well known to those who have had any experience in exporting to the markets of Great Britain. During the last three or four years, or since this preference has come into force, the products of this country have received a much greater share of attention in Great Britain than they ever did before. I have had a good deal of experience in shipping to the markets of Great Britain the products of this country, and I am proud to say that we have been able to reach a higher point for our cheese and butter than has been reached in almost any part of the world or by countries, at any rate, which have been shipping to the markets of Great Britain. I also know that no person need
Copp, Marcil (Bagot),
Costigan, Marcil (Bonaventure),
Demers (Ldvis), Mignault,
Demers (St. John), Monet,
Erb, Mulock (Sir William),
Gauvreau, Reid (Restigouehe),
Gervals, Ross (Ontario),
Gibson, Ross (Rimouski),
Girard, Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Gould, Ross (Yukon),
Heyd, , Sinclair,
Holmes, Smith (Vancouver),
Hughes (Kings, P.E.I.), Stephens,
Johnston (Cape Breton), Talbot,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Turcot,
Laurier Turgeon, and
Sutherland (Oxford), Haggart,
Cartwright (Sir R.), Tuppper (Sir C. H.),
Roche (Halifax), Lennox,
Sutherland (Essex), MacLaren (Perth),
Power, Johnson (Cardwell),
Johnston (Lambton), Lancaster,
McLennan, Sovth (Wentworth),
Thompson (Haldimand), Boyd,
Tolmie, M< Inicsh.
Amendment negatived. Mr. HASZARD.
Motion agreed to on division, and House went into Committee on Ways and Means.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic: TOTAL REVENUE.