crease in the trade and commerce of Mexico in that period amounted to 145 per cent as against an increase in the foreign trade and commerce of Canada of 130 per cent showing again that even the old-established Republic of Mexico has been forging ahead more certainly and more surely than this new Dominion of Canada with everything in its favour. The balance of trade in those ten years has also been in favour of Mexico, while it has been against us for many years past. In connection with this it must be remembered that Mexico has a very large debt and has to spend a large amount of money on her army and navy. In fact, her expenditure on these three services amounted to 63 per cent of her whole revenue, leaving only a comparatively small percentage to be devoted to the building up of the country; while the expenditure of Canada on debt and militia during the same period amounted to only about 25 per cent of our total revenue. It seems to me that we should have been able to show far better returns for the great expenditures we have made than

these other countries to which I have been calling your attention.

Another matter referred to in the speech from the Throne is that of the abounding revenue, for which a great deal of credit is taken by the government; and, strange to say, they use that as a further argument to show the prosperity of the country. The Minister of Finance the other day admitted that he had been converted from the opinion which he had formerly held that a surplus is just so much money withdrawn from the trade of the country, which are the words he used a good many years ago. Now, Sir, I think that the Minister of Finance is taking a wrong view of that matter. I believe the view he originally held was the much more correct one. Perhaps I would not go so far as to adopt his exact words, and say that it was so much money withdrawn from the trade of the country. But if that was his opinion at that time, and I have no doubt he held it sincerely, what would he have said to the fact that some sixteen and one-half pockets of the people of this country in nine months above and beyond what was necessary to carry on the business of the country? If he was correct in that view, how much better would not our position have been at the present moment if those sixteen and one-half millions of dollars had remained in the pockets of the people to enable them to meet the financial string ency which we are up against to-day? The Minister of Finance did what to me appeared to be a very extraordinary thing: he drew a comparison of the surpluses and deficits during the last eleven years the Conservatives were in power with his own record in the eleven years in which he has been Minister of Finance, and he actually appeared to boast of the fact that during

millions of dollars were taken out of the

those eleven years he had on the average been out eight and one-half million dollars every year in his calculations as to what would be necessary to carry on the government of this country, while during the eleven Conservative years the finance ministers of those days had only on the average been out in their calculations about a quarter of a million dollars. It seems to me that that is a most extraordinary confession for a finance minister to make. If a chancellor of the exchequer in the old country were to come down to parliament and admit, after having imposed let us say a shilling on the pound as income tax, that he had taken out of the pockets of the people some sixteen and one-half millions pounds more than was necessary for the carrying on of the government, I think he would very soon find that he would have to vacate his job. It would be something the people would not stand for a moment. If he had made a slight miscalculation of two or three millions, he would try to correct that in his next year by taking off or putting on a penny of the income tax.

But is is simply inconceivable to me that any Chancellor of the Exchequer in the mother of parliaments would dare to come down to the British House of Commons and boast that he had in eleven years made a miscalculation to the extent of $9,500,000, or pounds sterling, on the average every year. The principle is an entirely wrong one to apply in this country, namely, to take from the ordinary revenues of the country to meet the expenditure which should be charged to capital account. We are a young and growing country and we should allow the people who are to populate Canada in the future to bear some share of the capital expenditure which we are making in the present day. To-day we are short of cash, yet we find the government boasting that they have taken sufficient money out of the hard earnings of the people to build the National Transcontinental, to meet all charges in that respect and other capital expenditure, and actually to pay off some of our debt; and they are actually

proposing in the speech from the Throne to apply something more than $3,000,000 at

present to further extinguish the debt of the country. I protest strongly against any such step. It would be most fatal policy to send now $3,000,000 more of our cash out of the country for the purpose of extinguishing to that extent our national debt. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said, in his earlier days, that if these surpluses were created in some magic way, it might be well enough; but that every dollar of them was taken out of the pockets of the people without a shadow of excuse.

Allow me also to take up a very few moments more in discussing the high taxation under which we are at present labouring. I shall merely deal with one item of that taxation, the customs duties.

The customs

duties, during the twelve months ending the last day of August this year, amounted to the enormous sum of $58,259,233, while in the year 1897 they only amounted to $19,$91,997. Thus that taxation has actually increased very nearly three times what it was under Conservative administration; and it is an actual fact, to which attention was called by the leader of the opposition the other day, that higher duties are being paid on specific articles to-day than were paid when the Conservatives were in power. It may be that, in some instances, the rates of duty are lower; but it has been the policy of this government to increase the values of articles for customs purposes, so that the duties. which our people are actually paying are higher than they were under the Conservative regime. By various devices and pretexts, which they carefully concealed from the general public, the government have been able to extort from the pockets of the people the enormous customs taxes which they are taking from us at present. In proof of this, let me just mention one item, that of cement, concerning which an expression of opinion was given by Mr. Ashdown, a strong supporter of the government in Winnipeg. Mr. Ashdown, in his evidence before the tariff commission, speaking of those dumping clauses of which the government are so proud, said :—

The operation of the dumping clause, as a rule, injures the consumer and benefits no one except the American manufacturer, who generally raises his prices accordingly.

Further on he said :

The duty on importations of cement amounts this season to nearly forty-eight per cent since a duty was put on the sacks. This is on actual importation and on the values approved by the customs.

Then he added: It is an outrage. I do not think that any one in this House had any doubt whatever, when the duty was placed on the sacks in which cement was imported from the United States, that it was intended to work out, as it has done, in an increase in the duty on the cement itself. Therefore I consider I am right in saying that the government have increased the duties by various pretexts, which they have endeavoured, and with some success up to the present, to conceal from the people. These same dumping clauses, as Mr. Ashdown has said, are forcing the Canadian consumer to pay to the foreign manufacturer more than the foreign manufacturer is willing to supply his goods to this country for. It is a policy in favour of the foreign manufacturer and against the Canadian consumer and its effect has been to lead to higher prices. The increase in prices may not be entirely due to the action of this government, but a considerable portion of that increase is in a measure due to their policy. I find that the average customs taxation per family in Canada in 1896 only

amounted to some $19, while this year it amounts to nearly $50, and in the words of the Minister of Finance it has been taken out of the pockets of the people without any shadow of justification.

Allow me also to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) upon the admission he made the other evening that the principle of protection has been in the tariff ever since he knew it and that it is there still. I am glad that he has at last come to the point of making that confession, because we find the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) session after session reiterating the same old speech in which he professes to show that this government have carried out in their entirety the policies which they laid down in their platform of 1893. That platform definitely laid down this policy in regard to the tariff :

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

*

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.

The promise was clear and definite in regard to the elimination of the protective principle from the tariff, and so I hope we shall hear no more about the government having carried into effect the promises which they made in the year 1903. The present Prime Minister made several speeches prior to the elections in 1896 in which he defied pretty clearly the policy of the Liberal party and showed clearly the meaning of the Liberal tariff plank. At Winnipeg he said:

I came before you to-night to preach to you this new gospel of freedom of trade. I denounce to you the policy of protection, as bondage, yes, bondage, and I refer to bondage in the same manner in which American slavery was bondage.

Later on, speaking at Montreal and Quebec, he let it be clearly known that the intention of the Liberal party under their tariff plank was to have free trade as it exists in Great Britain. He said:

Upon that question I need not tell you we stand at the very antipodes of the Conserva in protection; all their hope is in protection. tive party. The Conservative party believe The Liberal party believes in free trade on broad lines such as exists in Great Britain, and their immediate object is a revenue tariff, a tariff to be derived from customs but which will levy no duties except for the purposes of

revenue.

Speaking at Quebec the Prime Minister said:

customs tariff for revenue only. Upon the I have told you that our object is to have a question of protection there can be no com

promise. We stand here against protection and in favour of a customs tariff based upon the principles of revenue and nothing else. The system of protection has been the bane and curse of Canada. The Liberal party believe in free trade on broad lines such as exist in Great Britain.

He went on further to say:

We will tax for revenue, but not one cent for protection. When we are in power we will relieve the people of protection which is a fraud, a delusion and a robbery.

Thus he set forth most clearly that the intention of the Liberal party was, as we have always believed it to be and as the people of this country believed it to be, to produce just such a customs tariff as they have in the old country, a customs tariff which under the name of free trade raises a considerable revenue by means of the taxation of certain luxuries and certain ne

cessaries of life, but does not afford any protection whatever.

Therefore, Sir, I say that after the confession of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) the other day that the protective system is still embodied in the tariff, we expect the Liberal party to accept the situation which they have themselves admitted, that they have failed to carry out the promises which they made to the people of this country in regard to that question. As an example of an attempt to explain away a difficult situation, the statements the other evening by the Finance Minister as to what was meant by the Liberal tariff platform exceeds anything I have ever come across. He said that their meaning was that they endeavour to reduce the tariff but with due regard to existing industries. That is his explanation of the meaning of the tariff plank in the Liberal platform of

1893.

made

In the Northwest the Liberal party press have always posed as free traders and they have always declared that the Conservative party are high protectionists. The speeches which were delivered the other day by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) must have convinced the Liberal press of western Canada that such contentions are absolutely at variance with the facts.

I wish in conclusion to refer briefly to the speeches bearing upon that particular phase of the amendment now before the House which refers to rural free mail delivery. I feel that the country is indebted to the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) for the extraordinary amount of information which he has been able to lay before the people of this country in dealing with this most important question. has evidently devoted an immense amount of time, energy and industry, to the preparation of that information, and I consider that the facts that he was able to lay before the House certainly deserve some

He

answer and some consideration at the hands of the members of the present government. I would like also to congratulate the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Gilbert McIntyre) upon the statesmanlike way in which he dealt with that question. He and the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Wilbert Mclntyre) who I think dealt with it from an extremely narrow point of view-both appeared to agree that the postal facilities in the west were not what they should be, and I most cordially endorse that statement. With the extraordinary revenue which the Post Office is making out of the people of this country it is a scandal and a disgrace that the postal facilities in the newer settlements in the west are not better then they are to-day, and I hope that some part of the much boasted postal surplus will be immediately applied to the relief of the people in the west. But it does not necessarily follow that giving rural free mail delivery in the more densely populated portions of Canada would interfere with the extension of postal facilities in the Northwest.

The evidence adduced by the hon. member for East Lambton went to show that

rural free mail delivery in time became selfsupporting and was really a factor in adding to the postal revenue of the country. The two improvements in my mind could go on side by side. I commend the proposal that there should be a system of rural free mail delivery most heartily to the consideration of the present government. If they refuse to take it into consideration I believe the people by their votes at the elections, which we believe are likely to take place in the near future, will state most definitely and positively that they believe equal postal facilities should as far as possible be given to the farmers as are given to the people who reside in our cities and towns.

At

Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE (Montmagny). Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate, after the numerous amendments that have been proposed to the address in reply to the speech from the Throne, I feel that I would not be doing my duty if I gave a silent vote, and I shall therefore explain the position I intend to take on the address. the opening of this session we are generally informed of the proposals which are to be presented to the House. We have seen part of the policy of the government in the speech from the Throne, and I may add that there are matters which will come up in the House that are not referred to in the speech from the Throne. The subjects dealt with in that speech might, I think, be divided into two groups, the things that are good for the country and those that are not so good. Amongst the many good things which have been presented for our consideration by His Excellency, I notice with pleasure that the government propose to initiate many liberal measures, such, for instance, as old age pensions, an amend

dents show that before this scheme is adopted it should be discussed thoroughly, because as I have just said, it seems to me it would be impossible to accept it without sacrificing some part of this coun try's autonomy.

But the chief point, I think, in the speech from the Throne was the reference to the Imperial Conference, and I am glad to be able to congratulate the Prime Minister on his having saved Canada's autonomy at that conference. He championed colonial autonomy against some jingo and imperialistic attempts by other members of the conference upon the freedom and liberty of the colonies.

Mr. FOSTER. What one?

Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE. I think the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Deakin, was one and I think there are some others. But I am not an Australian and have nothing to say as far as that colony is concerned.

But at the same time we have seen a new

scheme launched at the Imperial Confer ence, which is now before the public as a great point of interrogation, I refer to what is called the All Red Line. What it is, we do not know yet; but I hope that if it comes before the House this session it will

be thoroughly discussed. At first sight it seems to me that the Canadian parliament would be subsidizing an Imperial scheme, and would be sacrificing some portion of Canadian autonomy. For instance, we have at present in Ottawa interviewing the government a delegation from Ireland asking that if there is to be an All Red Line it should start from Ireland. The very fact of this delegation coming here shows the physical impossibility of establishing such a line without sacrificing a certain portion of our autonomy. If the Canadian parliament were to express an opinion as to the point where this All Red Line should start from, the Australian parliament might express another opinion, and the Imperial parliament itself might express an altogether different opinion, and where would

Then we find the French treaty is mentioned in the speech from the Throne. Of this I will say but little. We are told that trade follows the flag. I think capital follows the trade also. The treaty, although not perfect, is a good one. It should tend to encourage French immigration to this country and capital also along with the trade. Everybody knows that of all countries in the world there is in France the greatest amount of surplus capital available for starting new enterprises in various parts of the world. I cannot say that the treaty is altogether perfect. I think I could agree with my hon. friend from Huron (Mr. Thomas Chisholm) who the other day objected to the introduction of absinthe or imitations of cognac. But these are small defects which could be easily remedied. I think the country will profit from the treaty, and so far as that goes, it is a credit to our Canadian diplomats.

But the speech of His Excellency also refers to some things which are not quite so favourable to the country as was the attiference, and the French treaty. First of tude of our Premier at the Imperial Conall, we are told that the country is in the midst of a financial crisis, though that is

not as bad as in the United States.

But there is a crisis in the country, and something should be done to relieve the

situation. First of all, I think that the banks are somewhat to blame. I think the

government should put some capital in the banks, and relieve some of the uneasiness which is felt to-day. I have seen the suggesit has in the country they would put tion that if the government paid the debt so much more money into circulation and relieve the banks to some extent. I think also that something should be done to prevent the banks from sending Canadian money to the United States to favour wildcat schemes, when that money is urgently needed for circulation in Canada. The difficulty is that when the money goes abroad we cannot get it back again when we want it.

we be?

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. An All Green Line should start from Ireland.

this matter. Last year my hon. friend for Quebec county (Mr. Robitaille) made a very learned speech on this subject, and we discovered from his statements that although the government should have had an engineer to supervise that work according to its contract with the Quebec Bridge Company, no such engineer was there. We also heard during the debate last year about graft in connection with that company. Nothing has been proved so far, but this much we know, that the bridge has disappeared, and that no satisfactory inquiry has been made into the accident. The public mind is still in a state of tension and anxiety, and will not be satisfied until we have a complete and searching parliamentary inquiry and investigation.

Another suggestion in His Excellency's speech which surprised me more than anything else was that we should rejoice over the increase of immigration into this country, and that the immigrants have come mostly from the British Isles. I think, Mr. Speaker, I have made my position on the immigration policy of the government quite clear. I am opposed to bonusing immigration, because it can have only the one effect of securing quantity and not quality.

When I raised that question last year in the House I must admit that my words did not carry very far. I must admit that I had no great success. I must admit that my policy was challenged as being that of a little Canadian,—and as such I was proud of it. But, what has happened since? The motion that I had the honour to bring before the House has been taken up by the press of the country, and since then there has been throughout Canada a strong current of opinion against the bonused immigration policy, and to-day we hear that it is time for Canada to stop bonusing immigration. The policy followed to-day especially in Great Britain has had no other effect than to hypnotize immigrants and to bring them to this country under false pretenses. We have been advertising our country as a patent medicine and the result is that all the diseased have come to our country, diseased in body, diseased in mind and diseased in soul, and I cannot think we will succeed in making sound Canadians out of them. The British immigration, which I think ought to be the best immigration that we can have in this country, has been spoiled by the policy of bonusing and canvassing immigrants, and to-day we see in almost all the English press of this country reports that in the west. in the province of Ontario as well as in the province of Quebec, the immigrant who came from England has no means of securing work or engaging in business in Canada, because there is no need for him. By bonusing immigration to this country we have brought about no other result than to spoil the very best immigration which could be brought to this country. I think that should be

stopped. I think that this policy of advertising Canada and of bonusing booking agents and steamship companies should be stopped immediately in the best interest of our country and in the interest of the future of our country. There is no use of bringing to Canada the scum of the continent, or even the scum of the British Isles. Blood may be thicker than water, but there is one thing after all that is more important to every Canadian. It is not the maxim that blood is thicker than water, but that Canada is for the Canadians and that Canada should be looked after be fore any other part of the empire. We have seen the result of the labours of those employed by the agents of the government. We have seen that the Church Army have been calling on ex-convicts drunkards, tramps, hooligans, and people from the slums who are diseased in mind and body to come to Canada. We have denounced that system, and I see that the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada have denounced that system. I see they have denounced also the Salvation Army. It was insisted upon that an investigation take place.

Whether by his department

The Department of the Interior. -or the Department of Labour, it mattered not, and that if, as a result of the investigation, it was found that the allegations made were well founded, the granting of moneys to the Army, as well as the grant toward the maintenance of one of its institutions in England, should immediately be stopped.

That has been found out after investigation. But, what have we also seen? We have seen that in Vancouver there were riots. These riots are said to have been started by men who are not Canadians but who are Americans, and who had no other idea in mind than the creating of a disturbance in Canada. I think not. I think that these riots were not started by anybody from the United States. There may have been some agitation coming from the United States, but that agitation came from the labour leaders who are united with the labour men of Canada, and who want to protect white labour, it may be of the United States or it may be of Canada, and I am one of those who believe sincerely that British Columbia is for British Columnbia, and that it should be a white man's country. It is true that we have sent one of our ministers to Japan. Is the treaty between Great Britain and Japan one that has been passed by Canada? I do not think it is. It is a treaty which has been passed by the Imperial government. I think it is time to apply what has been said of our country, that if we are daughter in our mother's house we should be mistress in our own, and if Canada does not want to have any Japanese immigration we should not look first to a treaty of which we had nothing to say, but we should urge