1901-03-18

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 75) respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr.	Mc-
Creary.

Mr.  W. M.@: GERMAN (Welland) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 76) to amend the Criminal Code, 1892. He said : Mr. Speaker, prior to the last session of the Dominion parliament all convictions made by police magistrates in cities and incorporated towns had to be returned to the clerks of the peace of the different counties where the convictions were made. Last year, at the instance of some person, an amendment was made to the Criminal Code whereby it was allowed that police magistrates in cities and incorporated towns should not make these returns to the clerk of the peace. It was suggested that in the city of Toronto, for instance, the police magistrate tried obout 7,000 cases in a year, and that it would be hardship to him if he had to make a return of all these cases to the clerk of the peace in the city of Toronto. Though the police magistrate does try 7,000 police court cases in the year, the fact is that under section 55 of the Act, he would only have to make returns in something like 2,000 cases. The way the matter works out under the amend-

meat of last year is this. In each county there are from four to six or seven police magistrates in the different incorporated towns. All of these magistrates make more or less convictions, and try more or less cases each year. They try more now than formerly by reason of the fact that the jurisdiction of police magistrates is extended, so they are able to try almost any case that can be tried at quarter sessions by the consent of the person accused. The result is that a great many trials, under the Speedy Trials Act, with the consent of the person accused, take place before the police magistrates. If these returns are not made to the clerk of the peace, and if it becomes necessary, after the trial, at any time within six months, or a year, or two years, to get a record of the proceedings, it is impossible to know where to find the record. Unless you happen to know before what police magistrate the person accused was tried, you know nothing as to where to go to find the record of the case which you may happen to have under consideration. You inquire from the police magistrate and he tells you, perhaps, that he did not try the case. You, in the same way, apply to the others, and, of course, you will eventually be able to ascertain before whom the trial took place, but it is a great inconvenience to every person who has anything to do with the administration of the law throughout the country. When returns are made to the clerk of the peace you know that there is one central office where all these records can be obtained and that you may go there and find the papers. The clerk of the peace is a government officer. He is bound, under the law, to have a vault for the protection of these papers. Police magistrates are not so bound. They can keep the papers in a secure place if they choose, or they can keep them in an insecure place and allow them to be lost if they see fit, so that you have no regular system of any kind if the amendment to the code made last year is allowed to stand. I think it could not have been very carefully considered, because, otherwise, the amendment would not have been allowed. I think when the matter comes to be looked into it will be found that the ends of justice and the convenience of the public will be best served by having these returns made to the clerks of the peace in the different counties, as was necessary previous to the amendment of the law.
That is the object of the amendment which I propose. I think I am correct in saying that only one police magistrate in the province of Ontario, or in the entire Dominion for that matter, suggested that this change should be made, and I do not think that the opinion of one single police magistrate in all Canada should be sufficient reason for putting the general public, and particularly the members of the profession who have to do with the administration of the law, to a great deal of inconvenience. I


Mr. GERMAN.: believe that when the Bill is considered in all its phases it will be found to be a wise and judicious and proper thing to amend the Act by striking out that clause which was introduced last session of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr. A. MCLENNAN (Inverness).: In the absence of Mr. Stephens, I move for leave to introduce Bill (No. 77) to amend the Railway Act.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Explain.


Angus McLennan: The only explanation I can give in regard to the Bill is that it is in an improved form, the Bill introduced for several years in succession by the former member for West Elgin (Mr. Casey) in reference to drainage along and across railways.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr. S. HUGHES (North Victoria).: Before the Orders of the Day, I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Militia to a matter which has been brought under my notice. Possibly the most concise way to lay the case before the minister is to read a letter which I have received and concerning which I have notified the hon. gentleman. The letter has reference to Corporal H. S. Moodie, and another non-commissioned officer, and I believe this case is similar to that of other non-commissioned officers who have returned from South Africa. A friend writes me as follows :
On leaving St. Johns depot in October, 1899, to join the 2nd (S.S.) Royal Canadian Regiment, Corporal H. S. Moodie was a lance-corporal and was promoted to corporal on board the ss. Sardinian, which rank he held until his return in October last, when he was taken on the strength of the depot with the rank he held in the 2nd Battalion.
On return all N.C. officers who had received promotion while in South Africa rejoined their depots retaining the rank they held in the 2nd Battalion.
Now, an order has been received by the commandant of the depot at St. Johns, Que., to say that N.C. officers who had received promotion while in South Africa would retain their rank as supernumeraries in their depots, without pay, they only to draw pay for the rank they held prior to leaving for South Africa, and any pay they had drawn in excess of the rank pay they were drawing before leaving for South Africa is to be refunded. Sergeant Allen's time expires on the 16th inst., so that he has to go away under this injustice, not having time to get satisfaction or have the wrong righted.
There are two here who are affected by this order, viz.: Sergeant Allen, who was promoted from corporal, and H. S. Moodie, promoted from lance-corporal.
Moodie's case is much more serious, as his term of service expires on the 21st of April, and he intends accepting his discharge.
You may see by this action that all Moodie's good conduct pay is absorbed by having to refund 20 cents a day since rejoining, which amounts to $33.
Moodie had an application in for rejoining the South African Constabulary, and was accepted.
He applied to purchase his discharge; this was refused at the last minute, after he had disposed of all his civilian clothes, and surplus kit at a great loss, and now as he has only a few weeks to serve, the government takes all his good conduct pay he has earned for the last few years, and will then turn him out on the world absolutely penniless.
There are a number in each depot similarly affected.
It is not necessary that I should read the balance of the letter.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman will conclude with a motion to adjourn ?


Samuel Hughes: If necessary I will do so.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It would be more regular.


Samuel Hughes: I shall conclude with a motion to adjourn the House. I would draw the attention of the minister to another aspect of this case. A large number of the soldiers who have been with the regiment in Halifax have recently taken their discharge and they are very dissatisfied because they had to leave in their civilian clothes. Some of them state that the order was that they should not only hand in their overcoats, fur caps and *boots, but also their ordinary kharki uniform. It seems rather hard that the men should be sent home at this season of the year without their overcoats, or without being in position to get civilian clothes. Many of these men, I suppose, disposed of their civilian clothes when they enlisted or returned them to tlielr homes. I saw some of the men on the train in their light kharki uniform; in fact it was a mixture, some having civilian and others military caps. I would suggest to the minister that each man should retain the overcoat and the other parts of the uniform that he had worn for a year. The orders to, the contrary have caused a good deal of dissatisfaction. I do not wish to find fault; in fact I am not sufficiently posted on the details at the present time, but as other men will be returning, I trust that the minister will look into the question. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: I am quite unable to answer at this moment the question which my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) has put. It is true he sent a note to the Militia Department this morning, but I did not happen to be in my office at the time, and as I only knew of the substance of
the note by telephone I have had no opportunity to make inquiry. If the hon. gentleman will be kind enough to send me such portions of the letter as he has read with the name of the writer, I will promise to give an answer at the earliest moment.
As to the Halifax men, I understand from the general that these men have been treated as all men under similar circumstances are treated, and in fact better, because they have been allowed to take their uniform away with them. It is presumed,
I suppose, that when men enlist they have civilian clothes, and that these clothes would be available when they are discharged. We have not only allowed the men to return in their civilian clothing, but we are giving them the uniform they were wearing at the time their services terminated. I will get fuller information on that matter also.
Motion to adjourn the House negatived.



NORTH BRUCE ELECTION.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Before the Orders of the Day are taken up, I wish to bring to the attention of the House an item which appears in the Wiarton Canadian, and to ask a question in connection with it. It is headed :
' Shameful Tactics ; Contemptible Act of the Grit Combination ; Conservative Mail Clerks Transferred to Prevent them from Voting ; ' And reads as follows
The Grit machine has commenced its work in connection with the North Bruce by-election, and the act that has been perpetrated this week by the Tarte-Laurier combination is one of the most contemptible in the history of party politics, but it is one that will be a boomerang-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I wish to call the hon. member's attention to the fact that questions which may be brought up before the Orders of the Day are only questions of privilege. I do not see that the article which the hon. member is reading involves any question of privilege.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you had been good enough to allow me to get through, Mr. Speaker, I was going to show where the urgency came in, and how it was absolutely necessary to bring the matter to the attention of the House at the present time.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The article which the hon. member is reading appears to have reference to an election. It is not a question of privilege.


Mr. MACLEAN.: These men want to vote.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I heard enough of the article to see that it does not involve a question of privilege as that is understood by the rules of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As I understand, I have a right to bring the matter up either as a question of urgency or a question of privilege. I bring it up as a question of urgency, because the election takes place the day

after to-morrow, and the question concerns the right of individuals to use the franchise.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Perhaps there is some misunderstanding in regard to questions of urgency. I suggested the other day that when any hon. member wishes to bring up a question of urgency, it would perhaps be advisable for him to have an understanding with the government as to the bringing up of that question. The general rule is that no question can be brought up without two days' notice having been given. Besides I do not see that there is any great urgency in the question now brought, up, and I think it should not be allowed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the first place, I could not give notice because the matter only came into my hands a few moments ago. Surely I am in order in trying to show why this is a question of urgency.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The question has been decided so far as I am concerned. I do not consider this a question of urgency. The question may have been brought to the attention of the hon. member only a few moments ago, but he might give notice of it, and then it could be brought up at a future day.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Might I rise, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of obtaining a thorough understanding of your decision ? As I understand, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is trying to bring to the attention of the House certain alleged conduct of the Post Office Department, which will result in depriving certain electors of North Bruce of the right to vote the day after to-morrow. The matter has been brought to his attention only a few moments ago. He regards it as a matter of urgency. If it is not brought to the attention of the government to-day, it will be too late to bring it to their attention at all, as the election takes place the day after to-morrow. If, under these circumstances, you decide as you apparently have decided, that the matter cannot be dealt with as a question of urgency in the House, we shall bow at once to your decision ; but it may involve consequences which you may not have fully taken into consideration. I would respectfully suggest, with all deference to your ruling, that the hon. gentleman had no other course under the circumstances than to attempt to bring the matter to the attention of the House at the present time, because, as you yourself will see, it would be idle for him to do so at any later day.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Perhaps there is some misunderstanding in regard to the rule. No question can be brought up before the Orders of the Day except by giving notice of motion. It has been allowed sometimes to bring up questions of urgency, without notice, but they are not regular. Even questions of urgency should not be brought up


Thomas Simpson Sproule: without notice, except with the unanimous consent of the House. I was simply drawing the attention of the hon. member to the fact that I did not think this was a question of privilege, and I did not see that it was of so much urgency that it might be brought up just now.


Mr. MONK.: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to make an observation, is not this a question of privilege ? Would not the alleged fact that certain electors are going to be prevented from exercising their franchise be an infraction of one of the most important privileges of this House ? I have not looked up the point; but it seems to me under the circumstances that it might well be considered a question of privilege-a privilege not of a member, but of the House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: A question of privilege might affect the seat of a member. This question does not appear to affect the seat of any member, and therefore I do not think it should be considered a question of privilege. Orders of the Day.



SUPPRESSION OF THEATRES AND GAMBLING HOUSES IN DAWSON.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: As I wish to lay on the Table of the House certain correspondence in answer to an inquiry by Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, I beg to move :
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence and papers relating to the issue of an order for the suppression of theatres and gambling houses in Dawson City.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon.  E. G.@: PRIOR (Victoria, B.C.) Mr. Speaker, I am not unmindful of the ruling which you have given to-day, nor of the one you gave a few days ago in regard to a matter brought up by myself ; but I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Militia (Hon. Mr. Borden) in particular to a matter which I consider of the greatest urgency ; that is, the uniforms which have been issued to the South African Constabulary, who are to leave here in a few days. At present they are clothed in suits of dungaree or blue jean with woven toques, -which are altogether derogatory to men of their standing. I can assure the government that both the non-commissioned officers and men feel very deeply their being obliged to wear such clothing when being enlisted and whilst in town. It is all right on shipboard, but it is not the style of uniform that Canadians should be asked to wear in town. Especially is it noticeable now that we have the Stratheonas here in their picturesque garb, going about our streets; and these men in the constabulary feel very badly about it. I do not blame
the government, as 1 am informed that the government are not paying these men, hut that it is for the Imperial government to provide them with uniforms as the men are under their pay. But I do think that our government might have made some different arrangements so that the men of the constabulary might be clothed in a more suitable uniform. They certainly should be provided with khaki uniforms and puttees, and at least a small forage cap. 1 am informed on good authority that to clothe these men in a becoming uniform would not cost more than $5,000. and 1 feel perfectly certain that if Mr. Chamberlain or the Imperial government were cabled on this matter they would willingly provide the funds to furnish a suitable uniform. If they would not, then I think that Canada could afford to provide for these men, who, I am glad to say, are as fine a body of men as you could find in the world, $5,000 so that they could go out of the country in creditable shape; they will have to land in Cape Town wearing this miserable clothing, and there they will come face to face with the Imperial troops. They will be a laughing-stock, and I am sure that nobody in this House or this country wishes that. I would make an appeal to the government that they should look into this matter. I am informed that in twenty-four hours these men can be provided with khaki uniforms, and I trust that the Minister of Militia (Hon. Mr. Borden, King's), who, I regret to see is not in the House at this time, will give this subject careful and immediate consideration.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Wilson-asked:
Referring to page 7401 of ' Hansard ' for the year 1899, in which the Minister of Railways said, ' With these two deposits amounting to thirty-four thousand dollars there would be a diminution by that amount in the cost of the work, assuming that the contract being awarded to Connolly, they were prepared to enter into it for this sum '-
1.	In what year and where does this amount appear in the public accounts ?
2.	If it does not appear in the public accounts, has it been returned to the contractors ? If so, in what manner and on what dates ?
3.	If not reported in the public accounts or not returned to the contractors, what disposition has been made of the amount ?
The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair):: 1.	This amount does not appear in the public accounts.
2.	No. it has not been returned to the contractors.
3.	The cheques for the amount have been sent to the Department of Finance. My attention has been recently called to the
fact that they were still remaining with the accountant in my department.


LIGHTHOUSE-HAWK ISLAND, N.S.
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER asked :: What are the particulars and dates respecting the calling for tenders and contract for lighthouse at Hawk Island, county of Richmond, Nova Scotia ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: In the absence of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies), I would answer the hon. gentleman's question as follows :
Tenders for the construction of lighthouse on Hawk Island, Poulamond Bay, Richmond county, N.S., were invited by bills sent to the agent of the department at Halifax, and to the post offices at Poulamond and Arichat, to be put up in conspicuous places. Three tenders were received, viz.: Peter McLean, Cannes, $942; Alex. MeCuish, St. Peter's, $1,373; Edward Doyle, Poulamond, $1,397.
The manner in which the case was dealt with is set forth in the following memorandum from the acting Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Mr. Hardie, dated Oct. 23, 1900 :
The minister approved of the acceptance of the tender of Mr. Alexander McLean, carpenter and builder, Cannes, for the construction of a wooden lighthouse, with outbuildings, on Hawk Island, Poulamond Bay, N.S., for the sum of $942.
Before informing Mr. McLean of the acceptance of his tender a letter was received from him, dated 29th Sept., requesting that the contract might not be awarded to him as he omitted to charge for masons amounting to $167.
As the amount omitted in Mr McLean's tender if added to it would still make the tender considerably lower than the next, which is one from Alexander MeCuish, of St. Peter's, N.S., amounting to $1,373, inquiry was made of Mr. McLean as to whether he would accept the work if $167 was added to his original tender. He writes to say, under date 19th inst., that he will be glad to do the work, but it is now too late in the season to carry it on this fall, and that it would be the last of November before he could get lumber, so that he could not possibly finish the work before the 1st of January. He states that if it would suit to have the work completed on or before the 1st of June he would undertake the work at the price stated, viz, $1,109. The chief engineer recommends that the time extended to the 1st of June and the work given to Mr. McLean at the amount stated, and I concur in his recommendation.
The matter is submitted for the minister's ap-
The minister approved of this recommendation and the contract was made accordingly.


I.C.R.-NUMBER OF HANDS EMPLOYED.
Mr. MORIN asked :: What was the number of hands, including the staff employed by the government, on the Inter-

colonial Railway, on the first day of July in each year during the years 1892-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 and 1900 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: The number of persons, including staff, employed by the government, on the Intercolonial Railway, on the first day of July in each year during the years 1892-3-4-5-6-78-9 and 1900, is as follows :
1892 		
1893 			 4,376
1894 			 4,146
1895 			 3,982
1896 			 4,193
1897 			 4,386
189S 			 4,740
1899 			 5,309
1900 			 5,949


BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA LEASED BY GOVERNMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT-by Mr. Hughes-asked :
1.	How many buildings not public property, are leased, rented or occupied in the city of Ottawa by the Federal government ?
2.	Where are they situated and what rental is paid for each ?
3.	By whom are the buildings severally owned?
4.	Does the government pay taxes on such properties ? If not, who does ?
5.	If no taxes are paid, under what provision of the law is exemption obtained ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: With reference to questions 4 and 5, all property which is leased by the government in the city of Ottawa is not subject to taxation. The government pays no taxes. This is done under British North America Act, section 125.
As to questions 1, 2 and 3, the information had better be moved for in the ordinary way.


CANADA EASTERN RAILWAY.
Mr. WALLACE asked :: 1.	Has any promise, statement or assurance, written or oral, been given by the Minister of Railways and Canals, or by the Premier, or by any member of the government to Alexander Gibson, or to any person, with respect to the intention of the government as to the purchase of the Canada Eastern Railway ?
2.	If so, what promise, statement or assurance has been so given, and when was it given and to whom ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: I am not aware that any member of the government, other than myself, has made any statement or had any communication on the subject of the acquiring of the Canada Eastern Railway as part of the Intercolonial; nor do I believe that any such communication has taken place.
During the past four years, boards of trade in different sections of the province of New Brunswick, municipal bodies and the city


Jean-Baptiste Morin: and town councils of Fredericton and Chatham have declared themselves strongly in favour of the policy of the government taking over the Canada Eastern Railway, and both political parties in the provincial legislature have joined in a unanimous memorial to the government, in favour of the acquisition of this road by the government.
The railway intercepts the Intercolonial at Chatham Junction with one terminus, and crosses at the other terminus the St. John river, at Fredericton, over the new steel bridge, to which the Dominion government has contributed $300,000, which sum, with interest, remains as a lien upon the structure.
From time to time, both publicly and privately, when this question has been brought up by these various bodies and by business men, I have not hesitated to acknowledge that, in my opinion, speaking for myself alone, it would be in the interest of the Intercolonial that the Canada Eastern road should become part of the government railway system, and I have stated that I would, personally, advocate action by the government in this direction ; but I have never made, nor profess to make, any offer to the Canada Eastern Railway Company, or any person in its behalf, for the purchase of the road, nor has the company, or any person on its behalf made to me any offer for the sale thereof.


CORNWALL CANAL SUPERINTENDENCY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PRINGLE asked ;
1.	Is Mr. J. H. Ramsay overseer of tile Cornwall Canal ?
2.	Has any notice of dismissal been served upon him ? If so, when does it take effect ?
3.	If notice was served, what was the reason for serving and what charges (if any) were made against him ?
4.	Was any investigation held ?
а.	If so, was Mr. Ramsay given an opportunity of defending himself ?
б.	Has any successor been appointed ?
7.	If so, whom ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	No.
2.	Yes, 1st March, 1901.
3.	No charges made. For improvement of service.
4.	No.
5.	No. 4 answers this.
6.	Yes.
7.	Mr. Frank Lally.


I.C.R. ELEVATOR AT ST. JOHN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Wilson-asked :
What are the names of the persons employed in connection with the Intercolonial Railway elevator at St. John ? What is the nature of their duties, and what wages do they receive, respectively ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: sons to whom the concession was granted, it was discontinued. It is not now proposed to revive it.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S FOOT GUARDS.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. PRIOR ashed :
1.	What amount has been expended during the past five fiscal years on accoutrements, clothing and arms for the Governor General's Foot Guards, showing each year separately?
2.	What amount has been expended during the same time on the band of the said regiment for clothing, instruments and music, showing each item and year separately?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: This is the statement in detail :
Statement showing amount expended during the past five fiscal years on accoutrements, clothing and arms for the Governor General's Foot Guards.
Accoutrements Issued from Stores.
1896- 7	No issues
1897-	8	
[DOT][DOT]1898-	9	
"1899-	1900-Oliver	equipment	
$1,773	75S.	Sergt.	sword	and belts____	82	50Value	
$1,856 251900-1	No issues
Clothing, including Fur Head-dress.
1896-	7-Issues amounting to	
$ 300 431897-	8	"	"	
2,491	131898-	9	"	"	
5,211	221899-	1900	"	"	
770	601900-	1	"	"	
6,378	97

Less band	 1,163 42
Exclusive of band	 $13,988 93
*Clothing for band-$1,163.42-included herein. Arms Issued from Stores.
1896-	7-325 rifles complete	 $7,475 00
1897- 8	No issues
1898-	9	
[DOT]<1899- 1900	'	
"1900-	1-Forty-four rifles complete.. 1,012 00Value	
$8,487 00
Statement showing the amount expended during the past five fiscal years for clothing, band instruments and music for the band of the Governor General's Foot Guards. Clothing.
1896- 7	No issues
1897- 8-32 frocks	 $124 18
32	pairs trousers	 85 12

 $209	30
1898- 9	No issues
1899-	1900-33 tunics	
$344	0333 caps	
124	31
468	34
1900-	1-33 frocks	
$152	9233	pairs trousers	
93	0633-great coats	
239	80_	
485	78

Included in clothing for regiment..$15,152 35


Mr. BLATR.: Instruments.
1899-	1900-Grant to assist in purchase_$1,000
No other expenditure in past five years.
Music.
1900-	1-One set sheet music	 $2 50
No other expenditure in past five years.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	What is the maximum grade on the Intercolonial Railway between (a) Montreal and Halifax, and (b) Moncton and St. John?
2.	Has the government made an estimate of the sums of money necessary :-(a) to reduce the grades on the Intercolonial Railway to one-half per cent? (b) to double track the line from (1) Moncton to Halifax; (2) Moncton to St. John; (3) Truro to the Straits of Canso or other good port in that locality?
3.	If the cost of any or all of these projects is known, will the government state the amount in each case?
4.	What is the horse-power or tonnage of the most powerful engine running on the Intercolonial?
5.	How many tons of freight, under present conditions, could that engine haul from Montreal to Halifax?
6.	How many tons of freight could a similar engine haul from Montreal to Halifax, provided the line had not more than one-half per cent gradients? -


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	(a) The maximum grade on the Intercolonial Railway between Montreal and Halifax is 65 feet.
(b) Between Moncton and St. John, 45 feet.
2.	Attention has been given to the subject of reducing grades, &c., but no estimate of any entire division of the line have been made. The same may be said with respect to the double tracking of any portion of the line.
(a) No.
(1)	No. .
(2)	No.
(3)	No.
3.	The cost is not known. *
4.	The Consolidation engine, which has four (4) pairs of driving wheels coupled. Total weight of engine and tender is 129 tons.
5.	This engine will haul 1,000 tons weight over the present grades from Montreal to Halifax.
6.	A similar engine could haul 1,450 tons from Montreal to Halifax, provided the line had not more than one-half per cent gradient.


MR. D. J. O'DONOGHUE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. INGRAM-by Mr. Clancy-asked :
1.	What Is the date of the appointment of Mr. D. J. O'Donoghue, and by whom was he recommended?
2.	What amount of salary does he receive annually, and what are his duties?
3.	Did the government pay his removal expenses from Toronto to Ottawa? If so, how much did the government pay?
4.	By what authority did the government pay his removal expenses? If by order in council, will the government lay said order in council on the Table of the House?
5.	If by order in council or otherwise, what precedent has heretofore existed for paying the removal expenses of any new appointment?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1.	On 30th March, 1900.
2.	$1,500 a year as a special officer to decide on a scale of fair wages to be paid employees on government contracts. And claims and other matters referring to the fair wages conditions in contracts.
3.	Government did not pay for Mr. O'Donoghne's removal expenses.
I.	C. R. SECTIONS.


Mr. MARTINEAU asked :: 1.	What are the limits and extent of each of the several sections of the Intercolonial Railway between Levis and St. Flavie?
2.	How far does the St. Valier section extend in St. Frangois, and how far in St. Valier?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The sections run from 4J to 74 miles in length.
2.	St. Valier station is on the 120th section. This section extends from f miles east of St. Michel to li miles west of St. Frangois.


THE UNION MUTUAL, OF PORTLAND, LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GAUVREATJ-by Mr. Talbot-asked :
Whether the life insurance company, ' The Union Mutual, of Portland, Maine,' has deposited in the hands of the government the amount required by law for the security of its Canadian policy-holders?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Yes.


DEPUTY RETURNING OFFICERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GAUVREAU-by Mr. Talbot-asked :
Whether the government are aware that the deputy returning officers in the province of Quebec at the last election-or a large proportion of their number-have not as yet been paid their mileage allowance? What has been the cause of the delay in this matter? Is it the intention of the government to provide an immediate remedy?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The government are aware that there has been some delay in adjusting these accounts. The Auditor General states that out of 2,439 claims received from deputy returning officers in the province of Quebec, 2,133 have been finally dealt with, leaving 306 claims for mileage, about which the returning officers have been asked to furnish explanations. The explanations are being considered as promptly as possible after their receipt.
The delay in dealing with the election accounts was due to the necessity for employing the whole staff of the Audit Office on the preparation of the audit report. Since the report was completed the examination of the election accounts has proceeded without interruption.


INTERCOLONIAL AND CANADA ATLANTIC FREIGHT RATES.
Mr. KEMP asked :: 1.	What was the rate per 100 pounds from Parry Sound to St. John, on export grain carried by the Canada Atlantic and Intercolonial Railways last November and December?
2.	What was the rate per 100 pounds accruing to the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to St. John'as its proportion of the through rate from Parry Sound?
3.	What was the quantity carried?
4.	What is the estimate of the net gain or
loss to the government railway in connection with handling this export grain?	.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Rate per hundred pounds from Parry Sound to St. John, on export grain carried by the Canada Atlantic and Intercolonial Railways last November and December :
Grain.	Average Rate.
On wheat	 9J cts. per 100 lbs.
On rye	10 7 cts. per 100 lbs.
On corn	10 9 cts. per 100 lbs.
2.	The rate per 100 pounds accruing to the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to St. John as its proportion of the through rate from Parry Sound, is as follows :
Grain	Rate.
On	wheat	5-6	cts.	per 100	lbs.On	rye	
6 "3 cts.	per 100 lbs.On	corn	
6-4	cts.	per 100	lbs.3.	The total quantity of grain carried was 395,720 bushels.4.	It has not been the usage on the Intercolonial, nor is it customary on any railway to furnish the public an estimate of loss or gain to the railway in any particular shipment or shipments, nor would it be possible to do so with an approach to accuracy. Many varying elements would need to be taken into consideration for the purposes of such an estimate : such as the capacity of the cars ; power of the locomotive ; the rate and quantity of return freights supplied to the cars carrying the grain ; terminal charges and delays in transport, which more frequently occur during the winter season, before! even an approximate estimate could be attempted to be made.


GRAIN ELEVATOR AT HALIFAX.
Mr. KEMP asked :: 1.	How much did the grain elevator cost, built by the present government, at the city of Halifax ?
2.	How many bushels of grain have been shipped therefrom ?
3.	How many men are employed at said elevator ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The total cost of the grain elevator at Halifax is $159,728.75, outside of value of several lots of land, and including city of Halifax contribution.
2.	763,425 bushels of grain have been shipped from the elevator at Halifax since it was first built.
3.	Two men are employed at the said elevator.


MAIL SERVICE, ALLISTON AND ROSE-MONT.
Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	Who has the contract for carrying the mails between Aliliston and Rosemont, in South Sim-coe ?
2.	What is the date of the contract, or renewal, and the amount paid ?
3.	Were advertisements for tenders issued at date of last renewal, and if so, when ?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND :: 1.	John Joseph Holland is the contractor for the mail service between Alliston and Rosemont.
2.	The contract at present in operation began on the 1st April, 1897, and terminates on the 31st March, instant. This contract was renewed with Mr. Holland for four years from 1st April proximo on the same terms and conditions.
3.	Tenders were invited in 1897, due to be opened on the 19th February of that year. Two were received, from J. J. Holland at $231.75 a year, and from J. H. Johnston at $23S a year. Mr. Holland's offer being the lower was accepted, and a contract made with him at that rate. This is the contract now in operation. The former rate was $238 a year.


LOBSTER LICENSE, ANTICOSTI.
Mr. KAULBACH asked :: 


Is Mr.  M. G.@: Daggett, to whom license was granted for packing lobsters on the Island of Anticosti, an employee in the service of Henri Menier, the owner of the island ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). Mr. Dogget, or Dagget, I am not sure of the name, the person referred to, is an agent of Mr. Menier.


WELLAND CANAL, LOCK 24.
Mr. LANCASTER asked :: 1.	Who was the successful tenderer for strengthening the wall at the head of lock 24, on the new Welland canal, for which tenders were advertised on January 18 last, and what is the amount of the tender accepted ?
2.	From whom were other tenders received, and what was the amount of each respectively ? When was the contract let, and to whom, and for what amount ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The contract has not yet been executed, and until it is, Mr. KEMP.
it would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for.


WELLAND CANAL-QUANTITY OF WATER.
Mr. LANCASTER asked :: 1.	What quantity of water per minute in cubic feet is being passed through the Welland canal at Welland ?
(a) What portion of this is required for the feed of the new canal for purposes of navigation ?
2.	What is the maximum quantity of water per minute in cubic feet which can be passed through the canal at Welland, without being detrimental to navigation, according to the latest reports by the engineers ?
3.	What quantity of water per minute in cubic feet is now passing into the old Welland canal ?
4.	What quantity of water per minute in cubic feet can be passed through or down the old Welland canal ?
5.	What quantity of water per minute in cubic feet was granted the Cataract Power Company by lease, in 1896 or 1897, and what amount since, and when ?
6.	What quantity of water per minute in cubic feet is now passing the guard lock at Thorold ?
7.	What quantity of water per minute in cubic feet is taken from the old Welland canal at Mer-ritton and passed into the hydraulic race ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Some 66,000 cubic feet per minute, (a) Eighteen thousand (18,000) cubic feet per minute are reserved for the feed of the new canal for purposes of navigation.
2.	Some 135,000 cubic feet per minute can be passed through the aqueducts without detriment to navigation, if that quantity could be discharged into the canal from Lake Erie without drawing down the summit level.
3.	Some 45,000 cubic feet.
4.	The quantity cannot be definitely stated until the various structures, upon the canal, are arranged to control and regulate a greater quantity of water than at present flows through it, which quantity can be considerably increased.
5.	The Cataract Power Company was granted the right to draw from the canal 6,000 cubic feet of water per minute. No additional quantity of water has been leased since.
6.	Some 34,500 cubic feet per minute.
7.	Some 9,000 cubic feet per minute.


EMPLOYMENT OF CHINESE OR JAPANESE.
Hon Mr. PRIOR asked :: 1.	Has the government issued orders to their agents in British Columbia not to employ Chinese or Japanese on any public works or government steamers ?
2.	Is the government aware whether Chinese are employed as cooks on any government vessels, in British Columbia ?
3.	If they are so employed, is it the intention of the government to continue their services ?
4.	Is the government aware that there are plenty of white cooks obtainable for such employment ?


Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: No special instructions have been given, but it is understood that "Canadian labour is to be employed on the government steamers where it can be obtained, and we are not aware of any departure from the rule.


CARRIAGE OF MAILS BY CENTRAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILMOT-by Mr. Hughes (Victoria) -asked :
1.	Is the Central Railway, New Brunswick, under contract with the Post Office Department for carriage of mails ?
2.	If so, what are the conditions of such contract, including amount to be paid ?
3.	Have these conditions been carried out, and has any money, beyond amount of contract price, been asked for or paid ?
Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND :: 1.	The Central Railway of New Brunswick carries mails under an agreement with the Post Office Department.
2.	To carry mails daily, each way, between Norton and Chipman, distance 45 miles, payment at the rate of four cents per running mile.
3.	The conditions have not been carried out by the railway company, owing to a bridge disaster at Sargson in August last, but the railway company have substituted a stage, and performed the service. No money beyond agreement price has been asked for or paid.


SOUTH AFRICAN WAR-AXES FOR BRITISH TROOPS.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Has the Canadian government any knowledge of a contract made by the British War Office with an American merchant for the supply of 3,000 felling axes for the British troops in South Africa ?
2.	If so, was the contract made through the government of Canada ?
3.	Who was the American merchant, and what was the price paid ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: The government has no knowledge whatever of any such contract as is referred to.


NORTH BRUCE ELECTION.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before the orders of the day are taken up, I desire to bring to the attention of the House an item which I think reflects no credit upon the government of the day. I will read from an article in the Wiarton Canadian of March 14, and starting out with these headlines :
Shameful Tactics.'-Contemptible Act of the Grit Combination.-Conservative	Mail Clerks
Transferred to prevent them from Voting. The Grit machine has commenced its work in connection with the North Bruce by-election,
and the act that has been perpetrated this week by the Tarte-Laurier combination is one of the most contemptible in the history of party politics, but it is one that will be a boomerang of telling force on the mean and cowardly Grit party who dare not force a fair and honourable contest.
Two mail clerks, Messrs. C. Pearson and R. Nelson, whose homes are in Wiarton, and who have resided here for years, have been sent to London until after the election in order that they may not be able to vote. Both gentlemen are capable and competent officers of the mail service, and during their long term of service no complaint has ever been made against them, but they are Conservatives, and to prevent them from voting for the Conservative candidate on March 20, they tire transferred to another division of the service until after election.
Was ever any act more cowardly ? These gentlemen whose homes, property and interests are in North Bruce, are forcibly disfranchised by a despotic government which dare not allow the people to exercise their free will.
And two other mail clerks whose families, whose homes and whose interests are in London, are brought down for the time being to do the work df these men. I do not know whether it is the Postmaster General, now on his way to Australia, who is responsible for this, or xhe acting Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), but if it is the Postmaster General, it is in keeping with the same tactics we have seen on his part during the late election. If it is the present acting Postmaster General, I respectfully submit that it is no credit to him. To my mind, one of the sacred rights of a Canadian subject is the franchise, he is undoubtedly entitled to exercise the franchise according to his own judgment, no matter whether he is in the service or out of the service, unless he occupies certain positions in which the law specifies that he should not vote. But in this case these parties have a right to vote. Therefore, I respectfully submit that they should have been allowed to remain where they were, and to vote if they felt disposed. I do not know whether they intended to vote or not, but if they felt disposed to vote, they had a perfect right to go and vote without being interfered with or molested. I can only say that if it is the acting Postmaster General who has done this, I would have expected better things of him; but it is quite in keeping with the tactics that have been adopted of late to prevent a free expression of the will of the people in the elections. We have a number of men up in that riding to-day who, I believe, are connected with the old Grit machine ; if they are not originators and manipulators of the machine. They are doing their fine work to the best of their ability, and in addition they have gone further and disfranchised men who have done nothing in the world to incur the displeasure of the government, except that possibly, as they were known to be Conservatives, they might exercise their right to vote the day

after to-morrow against the government candidate.


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND (North Oxford).: Mr. Speaker, the matter was brought to my attention on Saturday last by a telegram from a gentleman in Wiarton-I think it was from Wiarton, from the constituency anyway. I at once made inquiries and gave instructions to the deputy head of the department, that these gentlemen, if they had votes should be allowed to return and vote. I may say that this practice of continually bringing up rubbish out of newspapers, written in the heat of a campaign, seems to be out of place in this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) calls rubbish ?


James Sutherland: I think, from the first line that the hon. gentleman read, it is plain to see the kind of campaign that his party are running in North Bruce. It indicates the line of policy that they are adopting in this election. I wish to say that politics have had nothing to do with this matter at all. I believe it is in accordance with the custom of the department. They have instituted a new system of examination by which mail clerks are allowed an opportunity of becoming more proficient, and, without respect to party, they are promoted in the department according to their proficiency, as shown in this examination. The department have also adopted the policy of allowing mail clerks who have been in the service for some time, working on a short branch, to have an opportunity of increasing their knowledge and proficiency by being transferred to more important lines. As far as I am concerned, the first I knew of the matter was upon receipt of a telegram on Saturday, not from a Conservative, but from a prominent Liberal, drawing attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman states, and suggesting that these persons should be allowed to vote. I gave instructions that, if possible, arrangements should be made to allow them to vote, so that, there is no party consideration in the matter at all. I do not believe that the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) knew anything about it. On the contrary, the matter occurred simply in the ordinaryi course of the department. I would be very sorry to think that this department wouid take advantage of their position to use their employees in that way. If it is possible, in connection with the service they are performing, they should be allowed to return and cast their votes for whichever party they may choose.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: What I am going to state is not newspaper rubbish that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has referred to, in speaking of


Thomas Simpson Sproule: what the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has read, because, I was in the mids); this election only a few1 days ago and heard for myself from one of the men who was sent from the London division to Wiarton, what had taken place. I may tell the hon. acting Postmaster General that he has done his party very good service indeed by issuing the order which he says he has issued to allow' these men who were sent from Wiarton to London to come back and exercise their franchise. The feeling there was most intense, not only with Conservatives, but, with Liberals as well, and I have not the slightest doubt that if these men were prevented from voting, and no one supposed that the change was made for any reason other than to prevent them from voting, the Liberal party would lose many votes by the action of the government. I was there and I had an opportunity of ascertaining what the feeling was. I feel assured that the Liberals there consider that a great wrong had been done to two very honourable men who, I was told, did not take any part in elections beyond exercising their reasonable right to vote. They were men who were in no way offensive partisans. They were good citizens and those sent from London knew no reason why they were transferred from London to Wiarton ; neither do I suppose those who were transferred from Wiarton to London, could give any good reason why they were transferred. The reasonable assumption was that it was done wholly and solely for political purposes, and the simple designation of this statement by the hon. acting Postmaster General as rubbish, I think, will not go very far in the town of Wiarton, when his words are reported there. One can readily see the intensity of the feeling in that place when even a Liberal had to wire. They found that the matter was operating so strongly against them that a Liberal had to take the matter up in order to break the force of the injury which the action of the government was going to cause to the party in this election. I am very glad, even though the Conservative candidate may not secure some of the Liberal votes that this matter would have brought to him, that this great wrong has been righted and these men are to be permitted to go back and exercise that which is the right of every British subject. I hope there will be no neglect on the part of the acting minister in giving orders that these men shall be allowed to go back and exercise their franchise.


James Sutherland: I wish to make a personal explanation. I did not say that the matter was rubbish ; I referred to the way in which it was written up in the newspaper. It is quite proper, I think, that such matters should be brought to the attention of the department.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: A nice distinction.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Hon. Mr. Fielding :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.
['The chairman of that committee should be in a position to give sufficient time to have the committee meet at least twice a week. I brought the matter to the attention of the hon. gentleman last week, and 1 understood that we were to have regular meetings that often. If the hon. member lor Guysborough is not able to give the necessary time to call regular meetings of the committee possibly some other mode may be found of dealing with the matter. Perhaps he could appoint some one to act as his deputy when he is compelled to be absent from the city, or is not able to And time to deal with the matter himself. But if we are to expedite the business of the House, we must have arrangements made for calling this committee, and we cannot accept as an excuse the statement that the hon. member for Guysborough is prevented from dealing with it. Although I am ready on all occasions to make all reasonable allowances. the hon. member for Guysborough, who is a personal friend of mine, we must\nhave some one as chairman of the committee who is prepared to deal with it. I have heard this excuse given on his behalf, not only in this parliament, but in former parliaments. All I ask is that whoever is chairman of that committee will give sufficient time to it, so that we shall not have to stand up in this House and inquire day after day why meetings of the committee have not been called. I do not want to be put in the position to have to cast reflections on the hon. member for Guysborough or anybody else ; but I do desire that meetings of that committee shall be called, and called regularly, and I think the right hon. leader of the House and the hon. Minister of Finance will agree with me that in asking that I am not asking anything unreasonable. I would also like to ask whether we are to continue the debate from day to day for the present. I understand that we are.']
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, when my right kon. friend who leads the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) gets into what we may refer to as a tight corner, he is very versatile and resorts to various expedients. Sometimes, as in the case of the custom-house officer last year, he even becomes pathetic. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) generally endeavours to get out of such a difficulty by asking a question. My hon. friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright)) generally endeavours to evade any trouble of that kind by indulging in sneers at the opposition. I do not think the hon. gentlemen, at whose speeches the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce saw fit to sneer, need pay much attention to those sneers under the circumstances. The hon. gentleman adjourned the debate at halfpast nine at night, came back next day, told us that there was nothing in the speeches of these hon. gentlemen to answer, and then occupied an hour in endeavouring to answer them. I do not think that there is any particular occasion for the hon. gentleman to adopt that tone with us on this side of the House, because I know of no hon. gentlemen in this House whose armour is more vulnerable at many points than is that of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, and if I thought it was worth while to waste the time of the House with a discussion of that kind, I could very well devote five minutes to the hon. gentleman, but I believe that under the circumstances, the House will justify me in refraining from entering into any discussion of that kind, which is not very profitable, and which does not tend to advance public business in this House. Now, the hon. gentleman, in years gone by, has posed as something of a Diogenes in this country. He went about with a lamp looking for an honest man and a great many of us were inclined to place a great deal of confidence in his assertions in that role. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that, in the way in which the hon. gentleman has dealt with the budget which has been brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance, he has preserved very well the role of a Diogenes. Let us compare, for a moment, a few of the things he said the other day with what he said in days gone by. He told us that everything is very comfortable and very lovely in this country, and asked : Why should there be any change ? He admits that there is a probability of depression in the future, as the
hon. Minister of Finance admits that probability, and he says :
We have had it clearly before our eyes, and we design to regulate our future conduct in accordance therewith.
Just, Mr. Speaker, as if some one skating on thin ice and being warned of the danger would say : I clearly realize the danger and as soon as I fall in I will govern myself accordingly. That is the position of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright). Instead of preparing for the future in these years when our revenue is large, he advocates spending all the money we can get out of the pockets of the tax-payers ; he advocates spending some $8,000,000 more, and then he says : When the hard times come we will regulate our conduct accordingly. I might ask, in passing, why it is that this government which professes to take credit for the good times in Canada during the past four years, proposes to allow this anticipated depression in business to take place. Why does not this government, which has brought these prosperous times to us during the past four years, take good care that no depression should come to this country ? That is a fair question to the hon. gentleman when he takes, as he is inclined to take, credit to his government for these good times.
The hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) contrasts the trade of Canada during the past four years with that of former years. There is one matter I might have expected the hon. gentleman to deal with which he neglected to deal with, and that is : That during the four years from 1893 to 1896 under a Conservative administration our imports from England amounted to $145,000,000 ; while during the past four years under a Liberal administration our imports from England amounted to $143,000,000, or to be exact, there was a decrease in the last four years as compared with the former four years of $2,214,000. On the other hand the imports from the United States during the four years from 1893 to 1896 amounted to $224,000,000, and during the past four years they amounted to $343,000,000, a total increase of $118,000,000. Now let us see what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) said about matters of that kind no further back than 1897, when speaking on the Trade and Navigation Returns (Budget debate ' Hansard ' 1897, page 1244) :


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: These returns show that, in the very last year of their term of office, we exported to England, apparently, $66,000,000 worth of our products, we exported to the United States $44,000,000, we bought from England $32,000,000, and from the United States $58,000,000 worth. There, if you will, is a genuine practical discrimination to an enormous extent, against England and in favour of the United States, under the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite.

What are the facts to-day ? In the year 1896, we exported to England, $108,000,000 worth ; we exported to the United States, $69,000,000 worth ; we bought from England $45,000,000 worth and we bought from the United States $110,000,000 worth. Therefore, while the balance of trade (if you may use that expression) in our favour as between ourselves and England was $34,000,000 in 1896 ; it is $63,000,000 now ; and while the balance of trade against us with the United States was $14,000,000 in 1896, it is $41,000,000 in 1900. Yet, while the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) stated in 1897 that the facts then constituted a genuine practical discrimination to an enormous extent against England ; he now stands up in this House and tells us that a very much worse ' genuine practical discrimination ' against England is perfectly delightful and pleasing to him and does not call for a word of criticism or a word of explanation. The view of the hon. gentleman in 1897 is borne out by what was stated in a leaflet published by the Cob-denite Club of London, England, which says :
In spite of the preferential tariff the percentage of American goods entering Canada has continued to increase, and the percentage of British goods to decline. The tariff has therefore failed absolutely to effect the purpose for which it was intended.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us look for a moment at the financial statement on which the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding), congratulated himself and the country to such a very great extent. He has shown us that during the past four years we have had a net surplus of $14,095,194, and he shows us by his estimate for the coming year a surplus of $6,350,000, or a total surplus during these five years of $20,445,194 ; and in addition to that, taking into consideration his estimate for the current year we will have an addition to the debt of $8,796,373 ; so that he will have expended not only his entire surplus but he will have expended on capital account more than $8,000,000 besides.
Now, my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) referred to the surplus which Sir Leonard Tilley was able to present to this House in 1882, and also in 1883 ; but the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) did not show to this House as I propose to do, what the opinion of the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) was with respect to these surpluses in 1882 and 1883. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) congratulates himself upon the surplus now, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) congratulates the country. In 1882 it was not so. An editorial utterance of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in 1882 in the columns of the ' Morning Chronicle ' (Halifax) was as follows :	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: If these surpluses. were created by the government in some magic way there may be in them a cause for thankfulness to Sir John Macdonald and his followers, but when it is considered that every dollar of the surplus is money taken out of the pockets of the people without a shadow of an excuse, money not required even by the reckless expenditure of the government, there is not much cause for rejoicing.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Robert Laird Borden: Are we to believe the congratulations tendered to the country by the Finance Minister in 1901, or are we to believe the criticisms of Mr. Fielding as editor of the * Morning Chronicle ' in 1882 ? If the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has abandoned the views which he entertained in 1882, perhaps at some future time in this debate, he will explain to the House when he abandoned these views, and the reasons on account of which he did abandon them. But that is not all. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) went at the surplus again in 1883, and this is what he said about it in the columns of the Halifax ' Morning Chronicle ' :
That millions of dollars should be unnecessarily taken yearly from the consuming classes of the country, and this without being absolutely necessary, is a cardinal principle of the Finance Minister's, to which even his best friends do not unreservedly assent.
Perhaps the best friends of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) who is Finance Minister to-day, do not unreservedly assent to his present proposition. He continued :
They see that a surplus of millions at the capital is just so much money withdrawn from the trade of the country. How long can the Dominion stand the drain ? Certainly not many years longer.
In view of the depression which the Finance Minister says is probably coming upon this country, how many years longer does he think the country is going to stand this drain ? But, Sir, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) is not alone with regard to that. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) has told us :
Taxation is an evil that nothing but the requirements of government can justify.
Then he now stands up and tells us that he expects a surplus of $6,000,000 and upwards during the current year, and at the same time he says that there is not the slightest necessity for any change in this budget, that everythings is happy, delightful and comfortable, and he asks the opposition to suggest to the government some particular class of goods from which the duty should be removed, some burden of the people that should be lightened. Well, it was not always so with the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). In days gone by he took the position that the doctor was not required to prescribe until he was called in to attend his patient, but now the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cart-
wright) thinks that the doctor should be called upon to prescribe before he is invited to the bedside of the sick.
Well, I will give the hon. gentleman a suggestion with respect to the taxes. Let us look at what the taxes on the people are. In the first place, there is a tax on tobacco, which is very large, and which has been increased by hon. gentlemen opposite. I find that we take out of the people, in taxes on tobacco, in customs, $486,000, and in excise $3,281,000. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that possibly the duty on tobacco, which was increased by them, might be reduced at least to the former amount. I find that in taxes on sugar a very large amount is taken from the people. During the present year, on sugar below 16 Dutch standard, no less than $1,828,000 was taken from the people ; and I desire, in passing, to mention to the hon. Minister of Finance that his taxes on sugar were considerably increased in 1898. In that year he took from the people in taxes on sugar $1,324,329, and in 1900 he took in the same way $2,286,123, an increase of nearly $1,000,000. The hon. gentleman admitted at the time that the additional tax which he was placing on) the people amounted to at least $250,000. My hon. friend from West York (Mr. Wallace) suggested that it would be at least $600,000 ; and, if we are to judge from the figures which I have just placed before the House, my hon. friend was well within the mark in making that statement. Will the hon. gentleman explain why we have not some remission of the sugar duties ?
But, Mr. Speaker, we had some suggestions from the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce in days gone by as to taxes which should be lightened. In 1882, referring to Sir Leonard Tilley's surplus, he used this language :
I ask how it was got. $1,100,000 was derived from two of the most odious and oppressive taxes which were ever imposed in any civilized country before, under similar circumstances at least, the taxes on breadstuffs and fuel. If he really wants to relieve the people, let him remove the taxes on breadstuffs1 and coal.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance in the legislature of Nova Scotia, in 1885, took occasion to move this resolution :
That while it is as a rule inexpedient to deal with Dominion questions in this House, in view of the obnoxious character of the duty on bread-stuffs, the House must firmly protest against the imposition of such duties.
Now, I find that last year the government took out of the people in taxes on bread-stuffs $371,000 and in taxes on coal $1,309,000. These duties were maintained by the Conservative party in the past, and fought for by that party all over this Dominion, on the principles of the national policy- that the people of Nova Scotia were bound to submit to duties of that kind for the good of the country as a whole, and that the 51
people of Ontario were bound to submit to them for the same reason. But hon. gentlemen opposite are now in power ; here are their promises and pledges before them ; and here is a surplus of over $6,000,000 ; and will they be good enough to explain to the House why it is, if those were good principles in 1882 and 1885, they are not good principles now ; or why it is that, holding those principles, if they do continue to hold them, they have not seen fit to lighten the burdens of the people ?
Further than that, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce distinctly stated in his speech-although he differed in that respect from the hon. Minister of Finance- that this is not a protective tariff, but a revenue tariff. If this is a revenue tariff, on what principle does the hon. gentleman uphold the maintenance of this surplus ? On what principle does he contend that under a revenue tariff we should come down with a budget which produces a surplus of $6,000,000 ? Is a revenue tariff designed to produce a surplus of that kind ? I do not pretend to be so great an authority on economic questions as the hon. gentleman ; but I have always understood that a revenue tariff was designed to produce a revenue fitting for the requirements of the government; but here is a tariff which is to produce a revenue in excess of the requirements of the government by no less than $6,000,000. The hon. gentleman says it is a revenue tariff, and yet he says there is not the slightest occasion for making any change in it.
I do not intend to occupy further time with respect to the remarks which have been made by the hon. Minister of Finance or the ihon. Minister of Trade and Commerce ; but I desire to come to the resolution of which I have given notice. There have been in the past two political parties in this country, with somewhat divergent views upon the tariff question. Since 1878, and indeed since before 1878, the Liberal-Conservative party has been maintaining the principle of protection to Canadian industries. Since 1878 the Liberal party has not had any one uniform principle of trade policy. Sometimes they have put forth the view that free trade should prevail in this country, sometimes that a revenue tariff should prevail, sometimes that we should have unrestricted reciprocity with the United States, sometimes that we should have commercial union with the United States. Since they got into power in 1896, they have to some extent modified the tariff, but I have never yet heard any authoritative statement from the hon. gentlemen occupyingl the treasury benches as to whether or not they still adhere to their free trade principles, or the free trade principles of some of them, or whether they have become avowed protectionists. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has challenged us to put our policy before the House.



Well, Sir, we are putting our policy before the House, and we shall be very glad indeed to hear what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has to say about it. Now, although according to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, they have not altered the protective features of the tariff, nevertheless we have had some changes, and we have had some warnings from these gentlemen. I will not trouble the House with going over all those warnings, but I will mention just two of them. In 1897, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said this :
And lastly, what my free trade friends will remember and lay to heart, we have turned the ship's head in the right direction and towards
the open sea.
That is, towards the open sea of free trade. Well, we shall be very glad indeed to know from that hon. gentleman, who apparently has not always been permitted to lay before the country his real views on points of this kind, whether the ship's head is still in the direction of free trade. Then my hon. friend the Minister of Finance told us :
So far as protecting the industries of this country is concerned, eternal vigilance must be the price of protection.
In other words, the industries of this country are not to know from day to day whether. they have protection or not ; the working men are not to know from day to day whether those industries will continue. They are not to know whether or not they shall be driven into exile into other countries to seek work or whether their wives and children will have bread in this country. But something, which the hon. gentleman describes as ' eternal vigilance,' is to be the price of that protection which the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce says does not exist; and indeed we cannot find the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce agreeing upon the quality of the present tariff in any two speeches they have ever made in this House. I may say in passing that only on Thursday and Friday last these two gentlemen were in exact contradiction to each other. The hon. the Minister of Finance said, speaking of the delegation who had approached Mr. Chamberlain on the subject of Imperial preferential trade :
Mr. Chamberlain told the delegation courteously, but firmly and emphatically, that the thing could not be entertained for a moment unless they were prepared to give up their protective tariff against Great Britain. That was the basic principle of Mr. Chamberlain's statement, and these gentlemen were not prepared to give that up nor would I have been prepared to give it up had I been in their place.
That is the statement made by the Minister of Finance, and against that we have the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which he has reiterated over and over again. If, he said, any one maintains that this is a protective tariff, I differ with him. Which are we to believe ? Is Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
this a protective tariff, as the great financial authority of the government at present tells us, or is it only a high revenue tariff, and ! not a protective tariff, as the former great financial authority of the government tells us ? Is the government at present a government which submits in its budget a tariff for revenue only or a government which brings before this House a tariff which does protect the industries of this country ? I leave these two hon. gentlemen, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to settle between them their differences on that point. I am not able to reconcile their statements, and can only leave it to the House to determine what they mean.
I will not weary the House with quoting what has been said by the right hon. gentleman who leads the government (Et. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce on this question in days gone by. The right hon. gentleman told the country at Winnipeg :
I come before you to-night to preach to you this new gospel of free trade.
I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman-and I will sit down and let him reply
if he desires-whether or not he comes before the House to-day to preach the gospel of free trade. I pause for a reply. The hon. gentleman does not seem inclined to give me any information on that point. He said :
I denounce to you the policy of protection as bondage.
Does he still denounce the policy of protection as bondage ? He went on to say :
Yes, bondage, and I refer to it as bondage in the same way as American slavery was bondage. Sir, our policy is freedom of trade, such as exists in England, such as is practiced in Great Britain.
Will the hon. gentleman rise and say that his policy is freedom of trade such as exists and is practiced in Great Britain.
The hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not backward in those days. That hon. gentleman has been a very considerable figure in political life in Canada for a great many years, and I am glad to say that I believe he has spoken for the right in many cases, and I wish I could say that he had persevered. But he then told us that a protective system was a huge mistake, and in so far as it was not honest, it was a huge scheme of robbery. No doubt, in so far as it was not honest, it was a huge robbery, but the question is in what respect was it not honest? Does the hon. gentleman think that the protection which the Minister of Finance tells us exists in the tariff is a huge scheme of robbery? What are the hon. gentleman's views on that point? He said further :
Our policy, first to last, has been to destroy the villainous system of protection by free trade, revenue tariff or continental free trade.
But the Minister of Finance tells us that protection exists in the tariff to-day. Will the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce then tell the House that it is his policy to destroy that villainous system of protection or is he content to believe that everything is happy and pleasant and comfortable, and that there is no need for a change ?
1 shall not take more time in discussing the past utterances of these gentlemen, but I will say that the policy outlined in the resolution of which I have given notice, and which I propose to move, is the same policy, in its main essential features, as that which was laid down by Sir John Macdonald in 1876, 1877 and 1878. It is a policy designed to protect the industrial interests of Canada. It is a policy intended to give work to the workingmen of Canada, to prevent our factories being closed, to prevent our people being forced to seek work in the United States, and to assist in developing the industries of this country. It is a policy, at all events, whether it be wrong or right, by which the Liberal-Conservative party is prepared to stand, and I shall ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to tell us where they stand. I shall ask them to frankly and clearly say whether or not the government has now abandoned its policy of free trade and revenue tariff and believes in protection, or whether, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has told us, the ship's head is still pointing towards the open sea.
The next branch of my resolution deals with the preferential tariff. In 1897 our chances were temporarily thrown away by the right hon. gentleman who leads the House, for a certain phrase which he used. He spoke of granting an advantage to Great Britain on account of the splendid freedom which she had granted us. Well, we all realize that Great Britain has granted us a splendid freedom, but did not the right hon. gentleman, when he promised the people of this country that he would obtain for them preference in the British markets, did he not know then that Great Britain had granted us a splendid freedom ? Had that fact dawned upon him only when he arrived' in London, and did he not remember the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who said that we owed Great Britain nothing but forgiveness for the wrongs she had committed against us by her blundering. We had in 1897, a magnificent opportunity to obtain from England some advantage in her markets. We did not obtain that, and, of course, it is too late for us to discuss with advantage what might have been. The practical question now for us is, what can be. The hon. the Minister of Finance is very ready to fling across the floor of this House the question whether or not we are prepared to repeal the British preference. Well, it is very difficult sometimes, and might be regarded as 51*
very offensive, to ask or to take back that which has been given away.
The Liberal-Conservative party have never said that they proposed to repeal that preference; but they have said that they would never rest satisfied until, in addition to that and as compensation for that, we had obtained a preference in British markets. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question with regard to that also. Suppose, as some business men throughout the country think may be the case, that additional preference which he last year gave to British goods should result in destroying some of our industries, in closing up some of our factories, in paralyzing a portion of the business of this country, what would the hon. gentleman do about it ? He may not be prepared to answer that question now. It is just as legitimate a question as the one he put to us. It may be that there will be difficulties in this country, it may be that there will be very great difficulties in this country, on account of the step which the hon. gentlemen have taken. The only thing that we can say is that we shall have to deal with these difficulties as best we may, but deal with them in such a way as not to offend or to lessen the sentiment of . unity of the empire which is so strongly impressed not only upon the people of this country, but throughout the entire British possessions. Now, I do not want any misunderstanding so far as the position of the party which I have the honour to lead in this House is concerned. I am prepared to stand for the unity of the empire, for the integrity of the empire, as strongly as any member of this House. I am prepared, for that purpose, to advocate and support the claims of any government that will spend its last dollar and send its last man in support of the integrity of the empire against any foe that may threaten disruption. But, Sir, I do not attach as much importance to some things that have been said in this House with respect to the effect of sentiment in the mother country on matters of that kind as has been expressed by some hon. gentlemen opposite. Why, they would have one believe that the British workman foregoes liis pipe and his beer every evening in order that he may go out on the streets to find some goods of Canadian produce or manufacture that he can buy. But the extraordinary part of it is that when you turn to these hon. gentlemen and say:	If sentiment has such a remarkable effect upon the mind of the British consumer as that, how is it that Britain will refrain from giving us a preference in her markets ?-then these hon. gentlemen turn to you and say:	It is
of no use to talk about that, the Briton, in matters of trade, is absolutely cold-blooded and devoid of sentiment. The Briton, apparently has sentiment when he goes out to buy his goods, but when we talk about a reciprocal advantage by means of an adjustment of his tariff which could be effected

without additional burden upon the British people

The PRIME MINISTER, Oh, oh.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)-there is uot the slightest sentiment in the Briton at all. My right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) laughs at that.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I may say to my right hon. friend there have been business men in this country and in England, who have, probably, as good a practical grasp of the situation as my right hon. friend, and who say that the thing can be accomplished ; and, unless he is prepared to set himself above the opinions of these leading business men, he cannot say that this thing is impossible.
Now, is there any possibility of obtaining this preference ? So far as its benefits are concerned, I need not say one word. The right hon. gentleman himself has admitted the great benefit it would be to Canada. Every hon. gentleman who has addressed this House, every gentleman of any importance in public life who has spoken in this country on the subject, has admitted the great practical benefit it would be to the people of Canada if we could obtain an advantage in the markets of Great Britain. I will not weary the House by adducing arguments on that subject, because I believe that the advantage of such a preference is incontrovertible. But I will say a few words with regard to the possibility of obtaining it. Now, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance made a statement on this subject which is quoted in the Morning Chronicle, a Liberal organ in the city of Halifax, in its issue of the 28th of August, 1900. And this is what he said on that occasion :
There are three points which Sir Charles Tup-per would like to make, but in not one of them is there any foundation for his efforts. He continues to talk about the Conservative party obtaining a tariff preference for Canadian products in England ; that is to say that Great Britain would impose duties on foreign foodstuffs while admitting those of Canada free. This is an old cry with Sir Charles Tupper, but no one knows better than he does that it is arrant humbug.
That was an interview which the hon. gentleman, I think, gave to some person in Montreal. Now, I wish to point out to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and to the House that If this is ' arrant humbug,' there are a great many business men in this country and in England, who have been guilty, with Sir Charles Tupper, of believing in this ' arrant humbug.' The maritime Board of Trade, a body which represent 1,200.000 people in the maritime provinces passed tuis resolution :
Resolved that in the opinion of this board mutual preferential trade within the empire would greatly tend to cement the unity of the empire, vastly assist in developing resources of the several colonies and dependencies thereof, Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
hold a restraining influence upon emigration, directing it from foreign countries to countries within the empire, and conduce to an equitable system of commercial intercourse between the empire and the nations of the world.
I suppose that these men, who are shrewd, level-headed business men of the maritime provinces were not dealing with what they supposed to be ' arrant humbug.' The Boards of Trade of Toronto and Montreal have passed similar resolutions. On the 17th of March, 1896, the right hon. Prime Minister said :
My hope is-nay, my conviction is-that on the 23rd June, the Liberal party will be at the head of the polls, and that it will be the Liberal party with its policy of a revenue tariff that will send commissioners to London to arrange for a basis of preferential trade.
And any one who reads the speech of the right hon. gentleman on that occasion cannot doubt that what he was talking about was mutually preferential trade. So, as far back as 1896, the right hon. gentleman did not regard this proposition as ' arrant humbug.' Then, the premier of Ontario, (Hon. Mr. Ross) said-and he has dealt on more than one occasion with this subject, but I quote from his utterance of a few months ago :
I see no reasons why Canadians should hesitate o look to Great Britain for some encouragement *nd response on her part. True she admits our products free of duty, but then she confers a imilar favour upon foreign nations.
Have we not a right to expect that her own subjects, though living abroad, will be treated more favourably than the Magyar or the Russian or the citizens of the United States.
So, it is quite clear that the premier of Ontario, even so late as 1900, did not regard this project as one that involved ' arrant humbug.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) allow me a word ?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not, in an interview in Montreal or elsewhere, characterize preferential trade as ' arrant humbug,' but I said that for Sir Charles Tupper to pretend that he could obtain it through the Conservative party and by his methods was ' arrant humbug.'


Robert Laird Borden: Then, I will read again what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) said :
There are three points which Sir Charles Tupper would like to make, but in not one of them is there any foundation for his efforts. He continues to talk about the Conservative party obtaining a tariff prefereence for Canadian products in England ; that is to say that Great Britain would impose duties on foreign foodstuffs while admitting those of Canada free. This is an old cry with Sir Charles Tupper, but no one knows better than he does that it is arrant humbug.
I did not read it all, but I will read it all
now, so that there may be no mistake about the hon. gentleman's meaning.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is none.


Robert Laird Borden: No, and this further language will make it perfectly plain :
Everybody who has had a correct view of English public opinion has been and is still aware that such tariff legislation in Great Britain for the present or the early future is impossible.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I thank the hon. gentleman for reading it all.


Robert Laird Borden: What the hon. gentleman was talking about was an agitation in favour of preferential trade, and characterizing it as ' arrant humbug.' If it did not mean that, it meant nothing. Why could not the hon. gentleman in the same way characterize this resolution which I have read as an arrant humbug ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So it is.


Robert Laird Borden: He could just as well characterize the statement of the right hon. gentleman who leads the House as arrant humbug. These hon. gentlemen seem to forget that their leader stated so far back as 1896, not only that this proposal to obtain a preference was not an arrant humbug, but that the Liberal party were going to send commissioners to London for the purpose of obtaining it. Will hon. gentlemen cheer the characterization of their leader's words as arrant humbug ? They do not seem so ready. The present premier of Ontario says again :
Have we not a right to expect that her own subjects, though living abroad, will be treated more favourably than the Magyar, or Ithe Russian, or the citizens of the United States?
Is that arrant humbug ? Hon. gentlemen seem to differ in their views, according to the person or the body which expresses a sentiment on this question. Then, Sir, there is another statement which I shall bring before this House, the statement of a gentleman who holds a leading position in the commercial life of the city of Halifax, and who was a delegate from Halifax to the Congress of the Chambers of Commerce in London, in 1900. On the occasion of a very full and exhaustive report of the proceedings of the conference with respect to this matter, he had this to say :
If the support of the powerful Australian Commonwealth could be obtained, it would have great influence with the British public, who are slow to adopt untried innovations in matters of trade, but on the other hand, will always listen to reasonable arguments if supported by solid facts and figures. Jf at the next congress, to be held four years hence, the colonies were practically unanimous a very long step would be taken towards the solution of a very difficult question.
That gentleman happens to be a Conservative, but I do not think any one in this
House who knows hii i will say that he is not a moderate and i i.rewd man, of great ability and excellent j Mlgment with regard to all matters of tra fie. Now, there has been some expression of public opinion in England with regard to matters of this kind. The Liverpool Journal of Commerce, in the latter part of last year, had this to say with regard to this subject:
. . . There is, however, a peaceful alliance which it is the country's duty to her colonies and to herself to make, viz. :	a commercial
alliance, and it behooves everybody with a stake in the country and a desire to see Britain flourish and maintain its commercial and shipping supremacy and its integrity as a nation, to do all in their power to encourage by all legitimate means reciprocal trade with the colonies, preferring the products of the labour of their enterprising brethren who are striving to bring honour and glory to the common flag by extending its sphere and increasing the value of the territories over which it floats.
Now, that is a fairly strong expression of opinion on this point.


Mr. HEYD.: What does it mean ?


Robert Laird Borden: It means that it is desirable for Great Britain, as I understand it, to adopt in the early future a policy of reciprocal trade, granting to the colonies a preference and receiving from the colonies a preference in return. Now, Sir, the Saturday Review, in October last, had this to say on that subject:
If the modification of the public attitude towards Cobdenite views goes on during the next twenty years at the rate it has proceeded during the preceding twenty, there will be no difficulty ir. getting a party strong enough to effect commercial union within the empire by means of preferential rates.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: After twenty years.


Robert Laird Borden: The Saturday Review at that time had not had the pleasure of reading the hon. gentleman's speech delivered on Friday last. No doubt if it had had the benefit of his views, this particular paragraph might not have been written ; but being in entire ignorance of what the hon. gentleman was going to say some months afterwards, that periodical published what I have read. Now, Mr. Boyle, the United States consul at Liverpool, reported to his government as follows :
Beyond question, during recent years there has been a great development of sentiment in favour of an Imperial preferential tariff, and I do not hesitate to say that this sentiment has a far stronger hold, not only among the masses of the people of Great Britain, but even among the politicians, than the party newspapers and party leaders concede. It is a significant fact that for the last two years this question has been discussed more than any other at meetings of chambers of commerce and trade organizations of Great Britain and her colonies.
It is clear that this consul, in making that report to his government, did not have exactly the same view as that which has been

expressed by the bon. Minister of Finance, that to consider any such question at the present time is merely arrant humbug. The Imperial Trade, Defence and Anti-Free Imports League has issued a pamphlet, in which they say :
If the incoming government fails to pass measures of fiscal reconstruction, giving the wheat, lumber and fruit of Canada, the wool, wines and minerals of Australasia, the tea and rice of India, and the products of South Africa an advantage over competing goods from foreign sources, it will amount to a criminal abandonment of the best fruits of the intertrading power of the empire.
And only in the latter part of last year, the United Planters' Association of Southern India passed the following resolution :
That considering the critical condition of the tea and coffee industries, this association do communicate with the India Tea Association, the Ceylon Planters Association, the Indian chambers of commerce, and the leading firms of merchants and brokers interested in tea and coffee, &c., in this country and in England and her colonies, with a view to ascertaining whether a movement in favour of a commercial combination of Great Britain and her colonies and India against the world (which would by a system of differential duties, afford some protection to British-grown products and manufactures) would receive support
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to weary the House by giving these extracts, but I feel It is my duty to do so. What I am asking In this resolution is that the House Should declare that this is an opportune time for bringing that matter forward and influencing public opinion throughout the empire with a view to obtaining it; and I am showing the House as well as I can that there is some opinion, not only here, but in England and in the other colonies in favour of this movement ; and that it will not be merely a forlorn hope. We remember the attempt which was made in 1894 to induce the British government to denounce the German and Belgian treaties. We know that at that time we were told in so many words by the British government that those treaties would not be denounced, that it was not prudent to denounce them, and questions of trade were dealt with, and the volume of the trade of Great Britain with Germany and Belgium on the one hand, and with the colonies on the other hand, was pointed out. These same questions are agitated now, and are referred to as affording an answer to any suggestions that we should make the attempt. But we know that the attempt to have those treaties denounced was successful ; and we believe that if this government and the other colonies of the empire were to put their shoulders to the wheel and make a vigorous attempt in this direction at the present time, we have at least some prospect of success. And if there is some prospect of success, why should this government sit silent and make no allusion to it in the speech from the Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Throne and in the budget speech, and simply say that it is arrant humbug and is not worth attempting ?
Now, there was a recent article in the ' National Review ' which dealt with the subject from another standpoint, from the standpoint of the necessities of the British government at the present time. What was said in that article is this :
Beer and tobacco are already so heavily mulcted that they cannot carry greater imposts. Whence, then, are we to get the millions which will be needed if our national position is to be rendered secure? I answer that the political fads of the '50's and '60's and '70's must be discarded by a new administration. The condition which rendered them useful and salutary have long since passed away; yet such is the force of routine, such that inertia of mind to which allusion has been so often made, that men are still enslaved by them. And we shall have to fight for our lives, we must neglect no weapon. A tariff offers us at once a means of raising funds for naval armaments, of obtaining allies and of weakening the enemies who are plotting our fall. With a tariff, too, we can consolidate the empire.
This article shows that at least there is some volume of public opinion in England in favour of this view. Mr. Ford, the correspondent of the New York ' Tribune,' in commenting on this article uses the following language :
A reaction against free trade in England is now more likely to happen than a revolt against protection in either America or Germany ; and the consolidation of the empire, the great cause of Imperial federation may be the justification for the renunciation of time-honoured policies.
Then, we hear that the great Australian Commonwealth is now laying the foundation of its fiscal system and if we are to believe what we see reported in the public press we are to understand that that commonwealth is likely to adopt a moderate protection platform. We are also to understand that it is likely to adopt a system of a preferential tariff in favour of the United Kingdom, not of merely giving the United Kingdom a preference without any corresponding advantage, but a system by which England will be asked to give to Australian products similar advantages in the English market. In view of this movement in the Australian Commonwealth, is it not the duty of Canada, having regard to our own interests. to join with Australia in doing that, so that all the colonies of the empire may present their views to the mother country at the same time and in that way to assist in bringing about what all of us think to be so desirable ?
There is another suggestion which I have to make to the House. We know the condition of affairs in the British West Indies. We know that the trade of these countries has fallen off very considerably during the past few years. We know that the trade of Canada with the British West Indies has fallen off very considerable. In looking over the figures I was very much surprised
to see to what a remarkable extent our trade with the West Indies has fallen off since 1895. I find that in 1895 our total trade with the West Indies was $8,081,622, while in 1900, it was $3,976,172, showing a decrease of $4,705,450. Our exports to the West Indies were, in 1895, $3,887,602, and in 1900, $2,870,343. Our imports from the West Indies were, in 1895, $4,794,020, and in 1900, $1,105,829. I believe the figures which the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) presents to the House in the Trade and Navigation Returns relate to the entire West Indies. As far as I understand they are not confined to the British West Indies, and the figures I have just quoted are taken from his comparative statement. Now, on the contrary, I find that the trade of the United States, so far as the British West Indies are concerned, is increasing. In 1895 the trade of the United States with the British West Indies was $18,708,500, while, in 1900, it was $22,230,974. Both exports and imports have increased, while on the other hand there does not seem to be a very healthy state of affairs in respect to the trade relations between Canada and the West Indies. The point I am coming at is that the best possible solution of the difficulties that the British West Indies are labouring under, is the adoption of a preferential tariff throughout the empire. During the year 1899, Mr. I. C. Stewart, of Halifax, a very enterprising journalist who was interested in the trade of Canada with the West Indies, made a tour of the West India Islands and investigated the cause of the decline of our commerce with the British West Indies. He came to the conclusion, after carefully studying the subject in the different islands and after discussing it with the leading business men in the different islands, that a remedy might be found for that unfortunate condition of affairs. He believes that preferential trade within the empire would settle this difficulty. He says:
For a time I found it difficult to make up my mind as to what should be done, and I seemed to be inclined to despond of any possible aplu-tion of the trouble, but, as I thought more deeply on the matter, it occurred to me that we might help to develop this trade by assisting the West Indies to find a larger market. If we could not give them that larger market ourselves, and recalling the important place that Canada now holds in the councils of the empire, it began to impress itself upon my mind that Canada might be able to bring to bear some influence upon the mother country to induce her to take the necessary steps to provide a market among her consumers for the sugar which the West Indies can produce, and would be producing, were it not for the unfair competition of the bounty countries. Preferential trade within the empire would settle this difficulty at once. Then, be goes on to point out bis views in regard to tbe way in which that might be worked out. That is a subject on which hon. gentlemen in this House, who are better acquainted with the trade relations between ourselves and the West Indies and who are
better acquainted than I am in regard to the conditions prevailing there, are better qualified to speak than I am. I give this as the opinion of a man who has studied the subject and who has arrived at that conclusion in regard to it. What I suggest in the resolution which I am moving, is that we sho'uld now "make an effort to achieve this purpose and surely I have placed sufficient evidence before the House to show that it is not such a forlorn hope that the government should remain supine and hold its hands from attempting to accomplish this end.
The third point in the resolution which I have placed before the House refers to the condition of affairs which exists between this country and Germany at the present time, and I am bound to say that I was astonished to hear the hon. Minister of Finance practically justifying Germany in granting a discrimination in favour of other countries and against Canada. I could not interpret his language in any other way and I am also astonished that neither in the speech from the Throne nor in any remarks which have fallen from the financial exponent of the government has there been any reference whatever to so important a subject as that which concerns this country in its trade relations with Germany. The situation as I understand it is that after the denunciation of the German and Belgian treaties a modus vivendi, or temporary convention, was arranged between England and Germany and that convention practically gave temporarily to each country the same advantages which had been enjoyed by each country under the former treaty, except that Canada was excluded from it. Thus it is. that, at the present time, as has been pointed out in an article on the subject in the ' National Review ' of November last, Germany having two tariffs, one a general tariff, and one a conventional tariff, grants to the United States, our keenest competitor in that market, the advantages of the lower, or conventional tariff and insists that Canadian products shall be subject to the duties imposed by the higher or general tariff. The hon. Minister of Finance and the government seem to think that this is a matter as to which we have no right to complain, and as to which it does not behoove them to say a single word. Well, Sir, they have very excellent authority as to what this act of Germany means. Let me quote to the House what was said by the Marquis of Ripon in his despatch to the Governor General of Canada on June 28, 1895 :
It must not be forgotten that, as I pointed out in my other despatches of this date, whilst the grant of preferential tariff treatment is a friend-i ly act to the country receiving it, it is an unfriendly act to countries or places excluded from it.	.
The position of affairs to-day in the empire is this : Canada gave to Great Britain

a tariff preference ; gave to Great Britain an advantage by which the goods of Great Britain came into Canada at a lower rate than the goods of countries outside the empire. Germany, disliking this action of Canada ; disliking the denunciation of the treaty, consents to a temporary renewal of the convention or treaty between England and herself but insists that Canada shall be excluded from, it. Now, I do not know whether or not this is a correct statement of the actual position of affairs to-day. I take this from an article which seems to have been written by a responsible man in the National Review of November last. I say, that if this is the condition of affairs the Canadian government were extremely remiss in not dealing with the matter either in the speech from the Throne or the budget speech, and announcing to this country whether or not tho government of Canada propose to sit calmly down and] submit to that sort of treatment from Germany ; whether or not the government of Canada have made any protest ; whether Germany is to bo allowed-on account of a preference which we granted, not to any foreign country but to Great Britain and certain of her colonies-whether Germany on account of that is to be allowed to do a friendly act to Great Britain and the rest of the colonics of the empire, and to commit an unfriendly act against Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) told us that he did not know what Great Britain might do in the goodness of her heart if we granted this tariff preference. Surely the minister would not think that this isi a very ample return for anything which we may have done.
But look at the result, Mr. Speaker. In 1896 we imported from Germany $6,493,000 worth of goods ; in 1900 we imported $8,883,000 worth. In 1896 we exported to Germany $757,531 worth of goods ; in 1900 we exported to Germany $1,715,000 worth. Our trade with Germany is developing ; it would develop still further if we were not thus handicapped, for look, Sir, at the facts with respect to the trade between the United States and Germany. The trade of the United States witli Germany, so far as imports are concerned, lias increased by $3,090,000 since 1896, and so far as exports from the United States to Germany are concerned tho trade has increased by no less than $89,000,000 since 1896. Germany grants to the United States a tariff preference. Under the tariff preference the United States exports to Germany have increased $89,000,090 in the last four years. We, because we granted a tariff preference to Great Britain, are practically excluded from the benefits of that trade and the Canadian government has not one single word to say to the country when it brings down the budget, and the Minister of Finance has not one single word to say with regard to it in his financial statement. Indeed, when this


Robert Laird Borden: matter was dealt with by my hon. friend for Pictou (Mr. Bell), the Minister of Finance practically justified the course which Germany has pursued. I do not think that this country ought tamely to submit to treatment of that kind. I do not know of any reason why this country should riot discriminate against Germany if Germany discriminates against this country. I have endeavoured to look into the treaty conditions between England and Germany and I have not found anything still outstanding which would prevent Canada from dealing with this matter in that way. I have pointed out in the resolution a means by which we might deal with matters of that kind where we do not have fair treatment in foreign markets.
With respect to our trade relations with the United States I do not desire to say much. I entirely concur with what was said, and very wisely said, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), that so far as our trade relations with the United States are concerned, we must use every possible effort to maintain friendly and cordial relations with that country. I know that it has been suggested by a gentleman on the other side of the House, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), that our best course would be to raise our tariff to 50 per cent, which he says is the tariff rate of the United States. 1 am not prepared to say at the present time that I concur with that; on the other hand, I do say that our trade relations with the United States demand the attention of this government. I think we might well have had some statement from the financial exponent of the government and from so great an authority as the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to that. Our resolution which we have brought before the House is broad enough to cover a matter of that kind, if it is thought wise to deal with it ; but. as I have said, I do most heartily concur with the view that so far as the great country to the south of us is concerned, we should do nothing which should be misunderstood by that republic and which might provoke a breach of the very cordial relations which at present exists between the two countries.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry indeed to have detained the House at such great length, but I was obliged to do so because I had a great many extracts-more than I liked-to read to the House. Just one word in conclusion. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has taunted us with the suggestion that we are likely to remain in opposition, as he says, for the next 25 years. Well, I do not know that the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) is in a much better position to form an opinion in regard to that than the rest of us. But I would like to say this : I am sorry that the minister (Sir Richard Cart-
wright) did not see fit to put any higher ideal before members of this House and before any political party iu this country, than the obtaining or retaining of power. I understood the hon. gentleman to suggest that such is the greatest possible good to any political party at any possible cost. There are, Mr. Speaker, things of more importance to any political party in this country than to obtain power or even to retain power. I think, Sir, that an honourable adherence to honourable principles professed in opposition or in power is a thing more to be regarded than even the obtaining of power itself. I think the upholding of the standard of public opinion in this country, the upholding of the standard of public life in this country, is of more importance to any political party than the obtaining or retaining of power. I think that to stand for the unity of the people of this country and to suppress any cry of race or creed that may be raised, is a matter of greater importance to any political party in Canada than is the effort to obtain or retain power. For my part, speaking for the party I have the honour to lead in this House, I say that we shall endeavour to carry out the principles which we have professed in this resolution and the principles which we have at all times professed in the past; of endeavouring to uphold the industries of Canada, to develop the resources of this country, to maintain the integrity and unity of the empire. In doing this, Sir, I think we shall be discharging our duty, and if we discharge our duty. I am sure that we need not fear the issue. Mr. Speaker. I beg to move the resolution of which I have already given notice, as follows .-
That all the words after ' that ' in the proposed motion be left out, and the following sub-stitued 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 a policy of mutual trade preference within the empire would prove of great benefit to 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 energic steps towards the furtherance of this object.
This House is further of opinion that equivalent or adequate duti'es should be 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.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, from the first day of this session there have been rumours whispered from ear to ear through the corridors of this House and sometimes heard also in the streets of this city, that the new opposition of His Majesty, when once constituted and organized, would spring upon us a surprise in the shape of a new fiscal policy. As time went on statements were made in the press that this new policy would surprise the government and stagger the Liberal party as soon as it was announced. We have it now, fresh and brand new, from the lips of my hon. friend, and lo and behold, it is the same old national policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The same old national policy, with a few adornments which, instead of taking from its native deformity, only add to it- It is the same old national policy which we have fought in past elections, and which, after an experience of some twenty years, has been twice rejected by tbe people at the polls. There was nothing new under tbe sun some three or four thousand years ago ; there is nothing new in the Conservative party to-day. I take the motion of my hon. friend, as you have just had it from his hands, and it reads as follows :-
That, in tbe opinion of this House, tbe 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.
I take up the famous resolution which was moved in this House twfgity-two years ago, and it reads as follows
This House is of the opinion that the welfare of Canada requires the adoption of a national policy, which, by a judicious readjustment of the tariff, will benefit and foster the agricultural, the mining, the manufacturing and other interests of the Dominion; that such a policy will retain in Canada thousands of our fellow-countrymen now obliged to expatriate themselves in search of the employment denied them at home.
This is the policy repeated in the resolution of my hon. friend the new leader of the opposition ; and my hon. friend tells us, and apparently seriously, that the policy which he now reaffirms, has had a great success. But he forgets that though it was designed to keep our own people at home, yet one result of that policy was that his own province lost one representative in this House. The hon. gentleman also tells us that he wants tp go back to the principles of the national policy and have them reenacted. Let us cast a glance at what that policy lias done. At the time the national policy was adopted in 1880. tbe trade of the country amounted to 8203,000,000 ; in

1896, when it was put an end to, the trade of the country had increased to $239,000,000, an increase of $36,000,000 in sixteen years. In 1896-7, we adopted a new tariff -a revenue tariff, as I shall explain in a few minutes-and in the course of four years the trade of the country increased to $381,000,000, an increase of $142,000,000 in the four years. On this comparison of the results of the policy adopted by this government and the results of the policy proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I leave the people and the House to judge of the merits of the two policies.
It is refreshing, however, to hear the statement made by my hon. friend, in view of the attitude which has been maintained by his party ever since this debate has commenced. We have had the statement made by these gentlemen day in and day out that the present tariff is still a protective tariff, that there is nothing changed, that we have the same policy that we had up to 1896. If the tariff which we have at the present moment is the same protective tariff which we had formerly, what is the use, I want to know, of taking up the time of the House to argue that we should have a protective tariff ? Why should we have this new proposition solemnly made by my hon. friend, 1 that in the opinion of this House the welfare of this country requires a pronounced policy of adequate protection,' when these hon. gentlemen tell us that we have adequate protection to-day ?
But, Sir, I care not by what name the policy of the present government is characterized. I care not whether it pleases my hon. friends on the other side to call it protection or free trade or a revenue tariff. There is only on^ difference between us and gentlemen on the other side of the House. We agree with them that the revenue of the country ought to be levied by means of customs duties ; but there is this difference between us, that while they would levy those duties only for the benefit of individuals, we levy them for the benefit of the revenue first and foremost.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have been dilating on the idea that the present tariff is a protective tariff. So far as protection is an incident of the tariff, there is no doubt that it is. There is a great deal of protection yet in the tariff, and there must be a great deal of protection in any tariff of customs duties. If we impose a duty of 25 per cent on an article of any kind whatever, it is manifest that the manufacturer of similar goods in this country must have the benefit of 25 per cent in favour of his goods. So far there is ft great deal of protection in the tariff ; if I were to express my own mind, perhaps I would say there is more in it than I would desire. But we have to reckon according to the condition of things that exists to-day. We have to maintain a tariff of customs duties;


Sir WILFRID LADRIER.: but, again I repeat, the difference that exists between us and gentlemen on the other side is this. Our first consideration, in imposing duties, is to produce revenue and if, as an incident, the manufacturers derive advantage, they are welcome to it. But gentlemen on the other side imposed duties not with the view of levying a revenue and putting money into the treasury, but of putting money in the pockets of private individuals. There is the difference between the two policies. Which of these policies is to prevail in this country ? Is it the policy of protection pure and simple of hon. gentlemen opposite ?


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend says hear, hear. I am quite content to abide by the result. Is it to be the policy of protection pure and simple or that adopted in 1897, not based on protection, but in which protection is an incident ? The result of the policy adopted in 1897, is that the country has never been so prosperous.


William Findlay Maclean: But that is not free trade as they have it in England.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If these hon. gentlemen when they quote my words, would do me the simple justice of quoting them in their entirety, and not clip out a part of any utterance of mine, they would find that at no time have the Liberal party ever pretended that, if they came into power, they would adopt immediately free trade as it is in England. But what we have said again and again is that while we believe in free trade as a theory, we know that we are bound to raise a revenue by a customs tariff, and it will take many years before we could have free trade as it is in England. But apart from this, there is this consideration to be borne in mind. There has never been a period of time in the history of Canada when our manufacturing industries were so safe and secure as they are at present. If you had a tariff based, as in the years from 1879 to 1896, upon a protection basis, you would have the duties continually changed from one year to another, as was the case in those days. You would have, as we had under the late government, an incessant procession of tariff tinkerers from the different cities of Canada to the office of the Finance Minister. There never was a year from 1879 to 1896-or at least there never was a period of three years-when there was not some tinkering of the tariff. One man would find that some invention in the United States or Great Britain had lowered the prices of the products he was making, and instead of exercising his enterprise and ingenuity to overcome the difficulty, instead of putting more money into his business, he came to the Finance Minister and obtained some modification of the tariff. Then what happened ? It was then found that the man

wlio was benefited by tbe change in the tariff was producing an article which was the raw material of some other industry. These other manufacturers came to the Minister of Finance again, and again there was more tinkering. But when the public at large understand that they have nothing to fear, when they know that the basis of the tariff is not to please this one or that one but to raise a revenue, they are aware that so long as the financial conditions remain as they are, there is to be no change in the tariff whatever, and instead of looking forward with dread to the deliverance of the budget speech, as used to be the case in former years, they know there will be no change and no reason to fear. They know that there will be no change in the tariff except when a general revision of it becomes necessary. This is the policy which we propose to maintain and upon which we take issue with hon. gentlemen opposite.
Now, I come to the other part of my hon. friend's resolution which is in these terms :
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 the mother country and to the colonies and would greatly promote the prosperity, unity and progress of the empire as a whole.
With regard to this policy, I am ready and willing, and even anxious to engage the issue with my hon. friends opposite. Let us understand, first of all, where we are. They want a mutual preference with England. Well, before we lay that policy before the Canadian people, let us understand well what is the object of the Conservative party. My hon. friend has said that they are protectionists, that they stand upon the old policy of protection. Protection against whom ? Against the United States ? Yes. Against Germany ? Yes. Against France ? Yes. Against England? Yes. Their policy is a policy of protection against England as well as every other country. This fact has been made plain to-day by my hon. friend. Before I go further X want it to be well understood on both sides that the main object which the Conservative party has in view to-day and which they will carry out, should they attain office again, is to maintain the policy of protection against Great Britain as well as every other nation in the world.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This was laid down only a few days ago by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell). My hon. friend delivered himself as follows on this point :
That question was settled in 1879.
He was speaking of the question of protection in favour of Canadian industries :
One of the objections made at that time to the establishment of a protective tariff in Canada was that it was an unfriendly act towards
Great Britain, a country which depended upon its manufactures, which prized its foreign trade. It was argued then that possibly the British government might even disallow our protective tariff on the ground that it was striking at British trade. But the men of that day who passed the national policy, who put the national policy into operation, had considered all these things, they met the objection that it was an unfriendly act to Great Britain, they faced that bugbear, for bugbear it was, they were not frightened by it, and they faced that consideration in 1879, and settled it then. Their protective tariff was not hampered or impaired, or emasculated, by sentimental consideration for the manufacturers of Great Britain. Nothing of the kind was allowed to affect the efficiency of the national policy at that time, and nothing of the kind should be allowed to affect the efficiency of the national policy to-dqy. Therefore, I say if this administration is ever brought to their knees, when pressure of hard times will come to the manufacturing industries of this country, and bring them to that point where they will approach the government for relief, if this government is then going to maintain the position of a protectionist administration, it will have to look carefully into the effect of this preferential tariff.
If the hon. gentleman meant anything, he meant this, that so strong is the view of the party to which he belonged in favour of protection, that in its favour even the preferential tariff had to give way. There is no ambiguity in this policy. We know where we are. The policy of these hon. gentlemen is to maintain protection against Great Britain.
Before I go further let me say this, and I do not say it by way of rebuke or reproach, that if these hon. gentlemen believe that protection is the best policy for Canada, they are quite right in applying it against Great Britain. For my own part, although I am devotedly attached to Great Britain, if a conflict of interests were ever to take place between us, I would stand by my native land. Therefore if hon. gentlemen on the other side believe that protection should be maintained against Great Britain, I have no fault to find with them. But in the name of common sense I ask them if they believe in a policy of protection against Great Britain, what can they say if the people of Great Britain believe that a policy of free trade with all the world is the best protection they can have ?
Why, Sir, there must be the same rule on one side as on the other. If it is to be protection of Canada against Great Britain, it must be protection of Great Britain against Canada. Or, if the same rule should apply on either side, how are you going to speak of mutuality of preference where you have protection in Canada and free trade in Great Britain ? These gentlemen will go to Great Britain in order to proffer their policy of protection for Canada and a preference for Canada in the British markets. Why, they will be told by the people of Great Britain : You may believe in protection, but we believe in free trade, and
1C23

if you will not give us a preference we will not give you a preference ; and if you maintain a policy of protection against us, we shall maintain a policy of free trade, which is most in our own interest. I know that these hon. gentlemen hope, and even believe, that the people of Great Britain are turning their hacks upon the policy of free trade. They see the day coming, as they think, when Great Britain will become protectionist, as it was at one time. But if that is their hope, in what position will the Canadian producer be if the views of the Canadian Conservatives are to prevail in England ? Canada will be a protectionist, and so will Great Britain-and what mutual preference could you have under such circumstances ? Let us consider this case as we should then find it. I suppose that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will obtain power some day. I will not discuss the exact time when that will come about. He found fault with my suggestion of a period of twenty-five years in opposition for him. Well, if he objects to that, let us say that he obtains power in fifty years. After that, he goes to Great Britain to present the view he has advocated here-for he cannot attain the object of his policy unless there is mutual and concurrent action by Great Britain and Canada. He goes to Sheffield, or Manchester, or Birmingham, or some other of the great business and manufacturing centres of Great Britain. He speaks before a meeting of working men, and says : We have a trade policy to propose to you ; the agriculture of Great Britain is inadequate ; it cannot feed you, and you have to import your food from all parts of the world. Canada cannot to-day, but by-and-by will be able to supply the whole of your food requirements : Give us a preference in your markets ; put a duty on corn, butter, cheese and everything that you eat that comes from abroad and that we can grow, but exempt from that duty all the products of Canada. The workingman would probably say : For the sake of the bond that exists between us I might put a tax on our food and exempt the products coming from your country ; but you know that I am a maker of manufactured products and I want a market for my goods ; I want a market in Canada ; and, since you want us to exempt your products from taxes, no doubt you will exempt our products from duty when we send them to your markets. But my hon. friend will say : No, X do not propose that ; I am a protectionist, and believe in protection for our Canadian manufactures ; therefore, I do not propose to exempt your products from a tax which affects products of all kinds ; but, while I do not propose to exempt your products from taxation, I want you to exempt our products from the tax which I wish you to put upon the products of other countries. Do you not think that the workingman will say : This is a rather cool proposal ; you want


Wilfrid Laurier: me to tax my food for your benefit, but you are not prepared to exempt my products from taxation for my benefit; you want me to allow you to smite me on the right cheek and then have me turn the other cheek to be smitten also. Such a policy would not be received in Great Britain- it is not to be taken seriously.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is not a thing to be discussed seriously.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hon. gentlemen will insist upon that; but, unless they are prepared to change their ground, they cannot hope to have a hearing before the British public. I have put forward the suppositious case of my hon. friend sending a delegation to Great Britain to make that proposition. But the thing has been done already. Time and again there have been delegations to make such propositions. In 1890 there were delegates to the Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the empire, who came before the British public with such a proposition. Mr. Osier, not then a member of this House, who was one of the delegates to that congress, moved this resolution :
Whereas, in view of recent events, and the attitude of other nations towards Great Britain, and of the fact that there exists within the British Empire resources in men and materials and arable land for its every requirement ;
*Whereas, while the trade legislation of other nations is framed to subserve their local interests, all British trade and other legislation should aim to secure within the empire a union of interest of a federal character, and the policy of each British community should be designed to retain within the empire subjects whose labour would otherwise go to foreign lands ;
Whereas, Canada has already formed a basis for closer relations with the mother country and other colonies by building a highway across British America, by creating steamship connections between Vancouver, Hong Kong, New Zealand and Australia, by offering a large subsidy for fast Atlantic steamship service, as well as by her established precedent of confederation, making for British unity ;
And whereas, closer commercial relations between the mother country, her colonies and dependencies will be hastened by further subsidizing fast steamship services and completing postal, wire and cable communication with the different portions of the empire, thus making such routes for commerce, food supply and munitions of war the fastest and most s'ecure from attack ;
Resolved, that in the opinion of this congress, the advantages to be obtained by a closer union between the various portions of the British Empire are so great as to justify an arrangement as nearly as possible of the nature of a zollverein, based upon principles of the freest exchange of commodities within the empire, consistent with the tariff requirements incident to the maintenance of the local government of each kingdom, dominion, province or colony now forming part of the British family of nations.
Now, mark this resolution. It is worded so as to convey one idea. It meant a zoll-verein-not as we usually understand a zoll-verein, because that implies free trade among tbe parties to it, but a zollverein modified by ' the tariff requirements incident to the maintenance of the local government, or each kingdom, dominion, province, or colony.' With this restriction, this motion could not be adopted. It had to be withdrawn. Then Sir Donald Smith-as he was then-moved this motion :
Whereas, the stability and progress of the British Empire can be best assured by drawing continually closer the bonds that unite the colonies with the mother country and by the continuous growth of a practical sympathy and cooperation and all that pertains to the common welfare ;
And whereas, this co-operation and unity can in no way be more effectually promoted than by the cultivation and extension of the mutual and profitable interchange of their products ;
Therefore, resolved, that this congress records its belief in the advisability and practicability of a customs arrangement between Great Britain and her colonies and India on the basis of preferential treatment, and recommends that steps should be taken by Her Majesty's government to bring about an interchange of opinions on the subject between the mother country and other governments of the empire.
Resolved, that in the opinion of this congress, the advantages to be obtained by a closer union between the various portions of the British Empire are so great as to justify an arrangement as nearly as possible of the nature of a zollverein based upon principles of the freest exchange of commodities within the empire consistent with the tariff requirements incident to the maintenance of the local government of each kingdom, dominion, province or colony now forming part of the British family of nations.
This resolution differed a good deal from the resolution moved by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), but it contained the last paragraph, which meant that there should be a zollverein, or some slight modification of it. Even this the Congress would not accept, and defeated it. The resolution which was finally adopted is this :
That this Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the empire is of opinion that the establishment of closer commercial relations between the United Kingdom and the colonies and dependencies is an object which deserves prompt and careful consideration. The congress, therefore, respectfully represents to Her Majesty's government that, if the suggestion should be made on . behalf of the colonies or some of them, it would be right and expedient to promote such consideration, and the formulation of some practicable plan by summoning an Imperial conference, thoroughly representative of the interests involved, or by such other means as Her Majesty may be advised to adopt.
So the whole subject was left in an inchoate state, after the representatives of Canada had gone to England in order to impress upon the British people the necessity of having, not an absolute zo.llverein, but a union in which all the parts would
be free to have such a tariff as they wanted. This whole proposition had to be abandoned, and the scheme could not proceed any further. Again the scheme was attempted last year, and the hon. member for Toronto East (Mr. Kemp) offered the following resolution :
Whereas it is generally recognized that an advantageous commercial bond is the strongest link in national unity, and that the maintenance and strengthening of trade is the keystone of a state's successful development ;
And whereas the existence of an empire is largely dependent upon the material prosperity of its people ;
Therefore be it resolved : That in the opinion of this congress the bonds of the British Empire would be materially strengthened, and the union of the various parts of Her Majesty's Dominion greatly consolidated by the adoption of a commercial policy based upon the principle of neutral benefit, whereby each component part of the empire would receive a substantial advantage in trade as the result of its national relationship.
Further resolved : That in order to make the foregoing operative, the Chair should appoint, before this congress dissolves, a representative and proportionate committee of home and colonial delegates to devise a scheme of this nature, and report to this or a similar commercial congress, and that a copy of this resolution he officially forwarded to the home and colonial governments concerned in the proposition.
Even this proposition, mild as it was, could not be carried, but it was defeated by an amendment which, however, was withdrawn almost immediately. Then we know what took place, the Minister of Finance referred to it some time ago. A committee was appointed to call upon the Prime Minister and lay their views before him, but the Prime Minister would not even receive them. Baffled at every point, they thought they would go to Mr. Chamberlain, not officially, but in an informal capacity, in order to put their views before Mr. Cnamberlain, and he answered giving opinions which are altogether the adverse to those which have been advocated in this House. Mr. Speaker, if we are at any time to obtain mutual preferential trade between Great Britain and Canada- and more than once I have stated that for my part I think it would be a great advantage for Canada-but if we are to obtain it, upon what conditions can we have it ? We can have it perhaps on one condition, but we cannot discuss it unless we have that condition, we cannot even discuss it as long as we have a protective tariff, or a customs tariff in Canada. That is the position which has been taken again and again.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: But it is somewhat difficult to convince hon. gentlemen, it is difficult to convince men who do not want to be convinced ; it is difficult to be heard when men will not hear you. It is difficult to convince men when they do not

want to see. Hon. gentlemen opposite are like the pagan idols, they liave eyes but they do not see, ears but they do not hear. Here is the language of Mr. Chamberlain upon this point, which has been quoted again and again, delivered before this very Congress of the Chambers of Commerce in the year 1896 :
But up to the present time we have not been agreed as to the methods by which this object may be reached. It appears to me that there are only three lines of progress which have been suggested to accomplish this great object. The first of them is a proposal that the colonies should abandon their own fiscal system and should adopt ours, that they should carry out fully the doctrines of free trade, that they should open their markets not only to us but to all the world, and that they should abandon entirely the protective duties upon which now they rest very largely for the revenues which they collect. That is a proposal which is supported by the Cohden Club, by the extreme, or perhaps I may say by orthodox free-traders, and there is no doubt a good deal to be said for it. I do not deny that possibly it might be to all concerned the best solution ; at the same time I am hound to point out that that would not bring about commercial union in the sense in which we have generally understood the word, because that would be in the direction of cosmopolitan union, but it would offer no particular advantage to the trade of the empire as such. But what is to my mind a much more fatal objection is the fact that, speaking generally, the colonies will not adopt this proposal.
I think be was speaking truly there.
We must consider it, therefore, as a council of protection, and if we are to wait until the colonies generally are converted to our views in regard to the advantages of free trade, let us recognize the fact that we must postpone the hope of commercial union to the Greek Kalends. General free trade in this country has been developed, no doubt, to the great advantage of this country for the period of half a century, but in spite of that it has made no converts. We do not find-again I am speaking generally because I know there are exceptions-that there is any considerable approach to our system on the part of the colonies, and there is no approach at all to it on the part of foreign countries. Well, I pass on to the second proposal which has been laid before a similar congress to this, which found expression at the great congress at Ottawa a year or two ago,-that is a proposal which has been favoured by some of our principal colonies and described with great force and elegance by leading colonists, and it is the very reverse, in spirit at any rate, of the proposal which I have just been considering ; for whereas the first proposal requires that the colonies should abandon their system in favour nf ours, this proposal requires that we should abandon our system in favour of theirs.
That is bringing the proposition to its true basis.
It is, in effect, that while the colonies should be left absolutely free to impose what protective duties they please both upon foreign countries and upon British commerce, they should be required to make a small discrimination in favour of British trade, in return for which we are expected to change our whole system and to impose duties on food and on raw material. Well, Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
I express again my own opinion when I say that there is not the slightest chance that in any reasonable time this country, or the parliament of this country, would adopt so one-sided an agreement. The foreign trade of this country is so large, and the foreign trade of the colonies is comparatively so small that a small preference given to us upon that foreign trade by the colonies would make so slight a difference, would be so slight a benefit to the total volume of our trade, that I do not believe the working classes of this country would consent to make a revolutionary change for what they would think to be an infinitesimal game. Well, you will see that so far we have only arrived at a deadlock. We have a proposal by British free-traders which is rejected by the colonies, we have a proposal by colonial protectionists which is rejected by Great Britain.
That is the true position.
We have, therefore, if we are to make any progress at all, to seek a third course in which there should be give and take on both sides-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hon. gentlemen had better wait a little before they cheer.
-in which neither side will pedantically adhere to preconceived conclusions, in which the good of the whole shall subordinate the separate interests of parts. And I admit that, if I understand it correctly, I find the germs of such a proposal in a resolution which is to be submitted to you on behalf of the Toronto Board of Trade. What is that resolution? I hope I correctly explain it. That resolution I understand to be one for the creation of a British Zollverein or customs union which would establish at once practically free trade throughout the British Empire, but would leave the contracting parties free to make their own arrangements with regard to duties upon foreign goods; except that this is an essential condition of the proposal that Great Britain shall consent to replace moderate duties upon certain articles which are of large production in the colonies. Now, if I have rightly understood it, these articles would comprise corn, meat, wool and sugar, and perhaps othe_r articles of enormous consumption in this country which are at present largely produced in the colonies, and which might he, under such an arrangement, wholly produced in the colonies, and wholly produced by British labour. On the other hand, as I have said, the colonies, while maintaining their duties upon foreign imports, would agree to a free interchange of commodities with the rest of the empire, and would cease to place protective duties upon any product of British labour. That is the principal of the German Zollverein; that is the principle which underlies the federation of the United States of .America; and I do not doubt for a moment that if it were adopted it would be the strongest bond of union between the British race throughout the world. (Cheers.) I say that such a proposal as that might commend itself even to an orthodox free trader. It would he the greatest advance that free trade has ever made since it was first advocated by Mr. Cohden, to extend its doctrines permanently to more than 300 millions of the human race, and to communities many of which are amongst the most thriving, the most prosperous and the most rapidly increasing in the world. On the other hand, it would open up to the colonies an almost
unlimited market for their agricultural and other productions.
Row,.that is the condition upon which the man who has been relied upon to favour the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, says that you can negotiate free trade within the empire. If hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are ready to go to England and negotiate upon that basis, they may do so. They can agitate public opinion upon that basis, but so long as they go to England as protectionists it is the essence of absurdity-I can use no other word-for them to expect a hearing. That is not the only occasion upon which Mr. Chamberlain has spoken upon this subject. He spoke a few months ago at the last congress of the Chambers of Commerce which took place in June, 1900. In parliament, in 1900, on the floor of the House of Commons he spoke again on this subject. Speaking on the motion of the hon. member for Elland, he said :
The hon. member for Elland referred to a proposal which has been made by the London Chamber of Commerce for a, fiscal arrangement with the colonies, which is, indeed, a proposal for an Imperial Zollverein. I have never done anything of the sort. It is one of those mistakes of which I am so largely the victim, and which perhaps it would hardly be worth while to contradict until the occasion becomes urgent. All I have done is to point out that, following the language used by Lord Ripon, my predecessor, if there is to be any kind of fiscal arrangement with the colonies, the only form which I myself think would be viewed with the slightest favour in this country would be an Imperial Zollverein, in which there should be free trade between the whole empire, and duties of some kind as against other countries. But I have not proposed that; I have only stated that that alone seems to be a proposal which might be seriously considered.
Allusion has been made very otten to my trip to England and to the position I took there. The position I took there was this: I acted like a reasonable man, I saw at once that it could not be possible, so great is the free trade sentiment in England, to have a mutuality of preference so long as we continue to levy customs duties upon English goods. But, the moment we are ready-it may take a long time, but I hope that some day it shall come-to discard our tariff, the moment we come to the doctrine of free trade, then it is possible to have a commercial mutual preference based upon free trade in the empire. There is free trade to-day between seventy-five million people in the United States, there is free trade between forty million Germans, there is free trade between thirty-six million Frenchmen, and if it is possible to have free trade between 300,000,000 of British subjects you would have the greatest commercial policy the world has ever seen. But, how can hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House hope to have any hearing whatever so long as they
go to England and say :	We will protect
ourselves against your goods and at the same time we want you to give us free trade for our goods '? The thing is absurd. That is the policy that hon. gentlemen are proposing.
I come to the third proposal of my hon. friend in his resolution. I may say that I am glad to hear the declaration made by the hon. gentleman on this subject, and I think it is a considerable back down from the terms he has proposed in his resolution. In his resolution the hon. gentleman says :
This House is further of opinion that equivalent or adequate duties should be 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.
When I read this resolution before it was commented upon by the hon. gentleman, I assumed that it applied to the United States which maintains a high tariff against us, and I would not be prepared to adopt it upon this ground. I am glad that the hon. gentleman has taken a more sensible view and that he takes the position that however unfair we may think the United States tariff is against us, it is not practically enforced against us, because it is directed against and it applies to the whole world. However unfair we think it, my hon. friend thinks it would not be right for us to follow in the same direction and elevate our tariff as high as the United States tariff is.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) allow me to interrupt him ? I said that I was not prepared at present to coincide altogether with the views of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), but that I thought that the trade relations between this country and the United States was a subject that might fairly claim the attention of the government.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I might fairly claim the attention of the government. Well, 1 thought it claimed the attention of the opposition also, but I am wrong in believing that. My hon. friend says :	I wash my
hands of the whole thing, the government may consider it, but as to this I do not advise. I have no objection to advise as far as Germany is concerned, but as far as the United States are concerned I do not advise. Well, if the hon. gentleman will not advise, I will. I have no hesitation in facing the situation. And when lion, gentlemen opposite, because we must assume that my hon. friend is voicing the sentiments of his friends upon this subject, tell us that we should elevate our tariff to the height of the American tariff, I take issue with them altogether. The tariff of the people of Canada is to be determined by the people them-

selves not from any consideration of the tariffs of the United States or of other countries, but simply of the consideration of what best suits the Canadian people. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House cannot maintain their doctrine; they would be blocked at the first step that they would take if they were to try to elevate our tariff to the height of the American tariff. I will take one or two articles. The American duty on wool is 11 cents per pound. Our duty Is practically nil; wool is practically free. Would hon. gentlemen opposite advise us to elevate our tariff to the height of the American tariff on wool ? Would they propose to raise the duty on wool to 11 cents a pound because that happens to be the duty imposed under the American tariff ? The thing is absurd. Hon. gentlemen know that it cannot be done and they simply placed before the people a proposition there which the hon. leader of the opposition recants but which may go abroad here and there because it may affect this or that interest. Let us face the situation bravely like men, let us resolve that whatever may be the American tariff we shall be guided only by the measure of what is in our own interest in this respect. In regard to the German tariff, I have a word to say to my hon. friend. I find no fault with the manner in which he has approached this question. This is a question of some importance and which deserves to be very seriously considered. Some years ago we found that the treaty of Great Britain with Germany was a great block in our path. It affected our commercial liberties. We could not give a preference to Great Britain because we would have to give it to Germany.
For years and years the Conservative party when they were in office tried to get these treaties abolished, but they could not succeed. When the Liberal party came into power they were at once successful in that direction. It is refreshing to hear the explanation given us the other day by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) as to the manner in which we accomplished that which his political friends failed In accomplishing for many years. He told us that by our preferential tariff we blundered into such a position that it forced the hand of the mother country. Well, I would not quarrel with the hon. gentleman as it is past six o'clock, but whether we blundered into it or not, yet if we did blunder into it, I call his attention to the fact that even when we do blunder we can accomplish things that he and his friends in power could not accomplish even by design ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: And so, if we blundered and if they designed, they failed in their design and we carried our point. Sir, if we forced the hand of England to denounce the German treaty it is not be-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
cause we had any hostility against Germany ; it is not because we did not want to trade with Germany, but simply because we wanted our freedom of action restored to us. In this we succeeded. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) told us truthfully that there were two tariffs in Germany ; the general tariff and the conventional tariff ; the general tariff being the higher and the conventional tariff the lower. Great Britain negotiated a new treaty and obtained the advantage of the conventional tariff. The United States to-day have the advantage of the conventional tariff, and I am not without hope that we also shall have some day the advantage of the conventional tariff. But before we bring this question to the angry discussion of parliament and of the country, my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will agree with me that we should exhaust every confidential mode of obtaining this object. And when we have adopted every confidential mode that we can adopt, then if we fail we shall have to come before the House and frankly say that we have failed, and we may have to adopt some other method. But until that time arrives my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will, I think, agree with me that it is better to leave this matter to be dealt with confidentially between the Imperial government and the Canadian authorities.
There is one thing as to which 1 am glad to agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax). In his peroration he uttered some very noble sentiments which I trust shall find echo in North Bruce the day after to-morrow. The hon. gentleman told us that he was adverse to having anything like racial questions introduced. I do not know if his attention has been drawn to the paragraph in the paper which is his organ, if he has an organ in North Bruce, and which referring to the contest now going on in that constituency spoke of the ' Tarte-Laurier combination.' This 1 Tarte-Laurier combination' referred to in that style in a Conservative paper published in a riding where a contest is now pending has a meaning which we all understand very well. It has a meaning the very reverse of the language spoken a moment ago by my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) when he stated that he did not want any racial cry raised in this country. I trust that his words therefore will go to North Bruce to be pitted against the language of the newspaper which supports his candidate in that election.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Mr.   N.@: CLARKE WALLACE (West York.) Mr. Speaker, before you left the Chair this
afternoon, we had a very interesting address from the right hon. the First Minister ; and we had a very able presentation of the ease of the Conservative party by our honoured leader, the member for Halifax (Mr. Borden). I wish to make some remarks upon the speech of the right hon. leader of the government; and if at the present moment I do not take up all the points he referred to, I shall endeavour to do so at some stage of my remarks before I sit down.
The First Minister was exceedingly surprised to find that the Conservative party of this country adhered to the national policy-that that policy which they had inaugurated, and which they had continued during the time they were in power, should be their policy to-day, with changes necessary to the changed conditions of the country. And he might very well be surprised, because, looking at the record of the Liberal party in this House, we find that they never were consistent, they never adhered to the policy which they proclaimed. They proclaimed a policy of free trade, and they abandoned it; they proclaimed a policy of commercial union, and they abandoned it; and it was a surprise to them, judging by their own standard of right and wrong, and of consistency, that the Conservative policy should have adhered to the professions which they had made. He dwelt very much upon the contrast, as he called it, between the two political parties. He said the distinction was this : We arranged our tariff to produce a revenue ; they arranged theirs to put money into the pockets of a few people. Well, I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman, or the Finance Minister, who is here, what about the bounty on pig iron and steel ? They have made a tariff to give away $3 of the people's money to the manufacturer of pig iron for every ton produced, and $3 per ton more when that pig iron is converted into steel or wrought iron-a total of $6 a ton. Why it will be simply a payment of a million or more dollars per annum-and we are told that that is a policy for revenue. The Minister of Finance has told us that enormous sums will be paid out during the present year on this account, and increased sums during the years that are to follow. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman, is that a revenue policy ? There never was a more transparent fraud than the attempt to prove that their tariff is a tariff for revenue only. When you examine into it carefully, you find that it is a tariff for the purpose of helping their friends very largely. If we judge by the fact that during the campaign just over there were enormous amounts of money in every constituency where it was required, for the purpose of defeating the will of the people, we can say that the policy of subsidies was one which produced a very large revenue for the supporters and members of the government.


Mr. KENDALL.: Some of us did not find it so.


Mr. WALLACE.: I am sorry for the hon. gentleman.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: So am I.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: If the hon. gentleman was one of those left out in the cold because the money was not evenly distributed, there was lots to go round.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: We had to fight the Cana-lian Pacific Railway Company, and we also had to fight the Dominion Iron and Steel Company.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. gentleman can tell that to the marines. I am not bound to believe it.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: We will give the hon. gentleman a little more light later on.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The First Minister told us to-night that theirs was a revenue tariff, while ours was a protective tariff ; and then he discussed at great length the usefulness of going to England to get a reciprocal preference in the markets of Great Britain for Canada and the other possessions of the empire. He said you cannot go to England with a protective policy, and get them to give you any preference. But he goes there, he says, as a revenue policy government. But, Mr. Speaker, he had just told us that it was not a protective policy. We are not in power; we cannot go. Hon. gentlemen opposite are in power; it is they who would have to do it. According to his statement, they would go to Great Britain and say : We are not protectionists, but free traders ; we are coming to free trade as rapidly as we can ; and we come to you in Great Britain to ask you to give us a preference in your markets, as we are giving you a preference in our markets. The First Minister, in his whole speech, was dealing with a case which did not exist, if what he had said to the House a few moments before was true.
But he argues that you cannot have a protective policy and get a preference in British markets. Why not ? We go to Great Britain, and we say : We have taken off one-third of the duties as a preference to Great Britain ; we do not ask you to adopt a protective tariff, except in a moderate degree to give a preference to the other possessions of the empire. They have declared their willingness to do that.


An hon. MEMBER.: When ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Mr. Chamberlain himself, in one of his speeches, said: You come to us with any proposition ; it is not for us to go to you to make an offer; but you come to us, and we will treat you in the most liberal spirit ; we will not make it a question of profit or loss for the British Empire, but we will deal with you as citizens of the



same empire, we will treat your requests with tlie greatest consideration. He invited not only Canada, but the other possessions, to go there and make the offer ; and Canada in that matter had struck out the course for the others, because she was the dominant power, the premier representing about six millions of people. He said : We do not want any preference ; we are becoming a free trade country, and we do not want any preference in your market at all. He made a mistake ; he did more than that, Mr. Speaker-he committed a crime against the people of Canada ; because the Hon. Joseph Chamberlain had invited them especially to go to him with their requests, and there never could have been a more opportune time than that for Canada and the other possessions to have given and received reciprocal concessions which would have benefited the empire and placed all the colonial dependencies in a state of prosperity such as they never had seen before. The First Minister, when he told us that, was merely touching a question which he was afraid to meet. But what more did he tell us ? Of course, he told us the old story that never was the country so prosperous, never was trade so great, as at the present moment. That is the answer we always get; but it did not go down with the people of Ontario at the last election, when we heard that cry on every platform, because they knew that the prosperity of the country was not due to the efforts of the Liberal party, but was in spite of their efforts. But there was another significant statement made by the First Minister. He said to the House to-night : We are not going to disturb the tariff; what we want is permanence and stability. In fact, he said, we are not going to have a procession of tariff tinkers coming down here to disturb the tariff of this country. Mr. Speaker, tariff tinkers have come down here. They came down in 1877 and 1878, and they said to the government of that day : Our industries are languishing and being destroyed ; the competition of the United States and other countries is destroying the manufacturing industries of this country ; our farmers are having their markets invaded by the farmers of the United States, and every industry in this country is being destroyed, and we come to you and ask for redress. But they were dismissed with a wave of the hand, and told that the government knew all about it, and the people did not know anything. The tariff tinkers, as the right hon. gentleman calls them, who came down asking for redress on behalf of the people, were sent home. The right hon. gentleman was a member of the government at that time himself ; he was one of those responsible for the sending home of these men who had come to complain of the gross injustice of the tariff of that day. But the people rose in their might and dismissed those Mr. WALLACE.
high and mighty men who are to-day adopting the very same programme. The right hon. gentleman has said: We are not going to hear those tariff tinkers. The men from all parts of Ontario, who came down the other day to make representations to the government on behalf of the beet sugar industry, instead of having proper attention paid to their demands, are to-day told by the First Minister : Oh, you tariff tinkers, get out; we do not want to see you ; just as soon as we wish we will make a tariff to suit ourselves. What is that tariff to be ? The right hon. gentleman has told us. He has told us that there will be no change until his government is ready to make a great change looking towards free trade. The woollen industry may be destroyed, other industries may be destroyed, but this great powerful government, intoxicated with their own vanity, drunk with the idea of their greatness, sends all complaints back with disdain and scorn and says to them : We do not want to se^ you; we know better than you the conditions of the affairs of this country, and we will make no change in the tariff. We will adopt the old Tory doctrine: Let everything stand as it is, no progress, no improvement, no wrong to be righted. This great government folds its arms and will do nothing until the time comes when it can move in the direction of free trade.
This is a warning that the people of Canada will read to-morrow with amazement. The right hon. gentleman told us that we cannot have protection and a preference. I should like to know why. We can go to Australia and can say to that country: You are making a tariff, which will probably be very largely a protective tariff, we will make a bargain with you. We will give you a preference in the markets of Canada over foreign nations, and we ask you to give us a preference in yours. You cannot send a man too soon to interview the commonwealth o,f Australia and see if we cannot make trade relations with that colony, which will be mutually advantageous to both.
At the conclusion of his speech the right hon. gentleman expressed himself as very much aggrieved because he said the racial cry was being raised, and he gave as evidence the heading of an article read by my hon. friend from Bast Grey (Mr. Sproule) : ' The Tarte-Laurier combine.' Well, ' The Tupper-Foster combine ' was all right when the Conservative party was in power. Why then does the right hon. gentleman object to the Tarte-Laurier combine ? Is he getting ashamed of his colleague ? But what about the hon. gentleman himself ? Have we not read his speeches when he addressed his fellow-countrymen in the restricted sense, because we are all fellow-countrymen in Canada in the larger sense. But he never went to address a French gather-
ing in which he did not refer to them as his fellow-countrymen, because of their French origin. I have read reports of his speeches, and in these he was wont to say: I am a Frenchman and am proud of it. The same blood flows in my veins as runs in yours, and I want your votes on the ground that we are all French. That is what the First Minister said time and again.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I never did.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I read reports of his speeches time and again when he made that statement.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Never.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Did the right hon. gentleman never say he was a Frenchman ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Over and over again, , but I never said I wanted their votes because I was French.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I did not say that the right hon. gentleman told them that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I did not say that he told them that, but I say that was the logical and straight conclusion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Yes, why should he say it at all ? When I address an audience, have I ever told them that I am an Irishman because my father and mother came from Ireland ? Never in my life. Never have I gone to an audience and appealed to them in that way. I have appealed to them as a Canadian-not an Irish Canadian, or a French Canadian, or a German Canadian, but simply as a Canadian citizen -and because the programme I approved was the best for the citizens of Canada. But the First Minister has time and again said : I am a Frenchman, and I am proud of it, and the same blood runs in my veins as runs in yours. What was that said for ? Is it any difference that a Frenchman is First Minister of the Dominion ? What was the meaning of all that? Was there anybody attacking him because he was a Frenchman either there or anywhere in the Dominion of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes, yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I for one have never heard of it.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Let me tell the hon. gentleman


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. gentleman need not tell me because I have heard him once or twice state some things that were not so, and I do not want to hear that kind of thing again. I say that such language in my opinion is unworthy of a Canadian statesman. It is raising a racial cry. What was this said for ? ' I am a 52J
Frenchman, and am proud of it, and the same blood that runs in my veins runs in yours.' It means one thing and one thing only.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as to some of the statements made by those who preceded the First Minister. We listened to the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) last Thursday with something of surprise at the change in his attitude. Hitherto he has always been jubilant, he has always been rampant, always spreading himself over the greatness of this Dominion and the prosperity that prevails throughout the country. The other day, it is true, he told of a surplus last year, and said that he had reduced the debt of the country by $770,000. He said that on two other occasions the debt of the country had been reduced. But he did not tell us, as in all fairness he might have done, that in one year, in 1SS2, the debt was reduced by three times as much.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not so much-the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) might as well be accurate, seeing he likes accuracy.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: My figures are accurate.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I stated that the debt was reduced by a large sum.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) did not state the sum, he took care not to mention that it was reduced by several millions.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was under a million.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No, It was over two millions. I said the hon. gentleman might have been more candid and have told the facts, instead of simply stating that there were large reductions. When the hon. minister announced his surplus and said there was to be a reduction of the public debt for the year, the cheers that went up from hon. gentlemen opposite no doubt did his heart good. But this was when he was speaking of the past. He was obliged to face the future. He said : Surpluses may be a very good thing, but we cannot have them always. As to the future, we are going to have a surplus of $6,400,000 next year, but we are going to have an expenditure on capital account of $10,300,000. This would mean an addition to our indebtedness of nearly $4,000,000. But the hon. minister, I do not know by what means figured it out at about two millions-he allowed less for the sinking fund, I suppose, or some little game of that kind. But that was quite a surprise to those behind him. They would hardly understand that the good state of affairs was not to continue. This sent rather a cold blast over the spirits of the new members. But there were some who were ready. The old campaigners were ready to cheer the minister whatever statement he might make. More particularly I noted that the

gentlemen who sit immediately around the ministers, those lire or six who are supposed to be anxious that ermine should he east over their shoulders, those gentlemen who, if report is to be credited, have been clamouring to be appointed to judgeships throughout the country, did not hesitate, but cheered and applauded. They could applaud anything, they could do anything, to help the government out of a difficulty. When the emergency food question was up, they could swallow any quantity of the emergency ration. When it was necessary to burke inquiry into the Huron and Brockville elections, these gentlemen were selected for the task, and nobly they performed their duty. Their friends, Cap Sullivan, Duncan Bole and the rest of the gang were to be protected at all hazards, and these gentlemen protected them in the committee and in the House. And they are ready to do it again. They are ready to do anything. What do they care ? With a judgeship coming up, why should not they earn it V So, things are not looking so well for the Liberal party for the future. The Minister of Finance tells us that we have been going up year after year and that we are now on the crest of the wave. And he said we were going to stay there. But, Mr. Speaker, you cannot stay on the crest of the wa've- it is a physical impossibility. If you have ever been a navigator, you know that you cannot stay on the crest of a wave, you know that you have to go somewhere-and you go downward. That is the way that the minister of the nautical metaphor-he is going to go downward. He was warning the people. And why ? Because all his predictions and those of his colleagues were falsified. The hon. gentleman announced that in four years after they came into power they spent $21,300,000 on capital account. And, after the manner of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who said ' wait until you see us next year,' the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) took us into his confidence to the extent of announcing that he was going to spend about ten and a half millions on capital account this year if I took his figures correctly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it was ten millions.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That will make almost $32,000,000 spent on capital account. But these hon. gentlemen tell us: It is true we are spending large sums of money, but we are developing the resources of the country and are enabling the people to earn more. But, with this vast expenditure on capital account and this enormous increase in the expenditure on account of consolidated fund, the Minister of Finance feels bound to come and tell us: You must look out for squalls; you cannot expect that in the future we are going to have a continuance of this era of great prosperity; we are going to take a rest so that we may lie strengthened and re-Mr. WALLACE.
freshed; and, at some time in the future resume our vigorous efforts. And so they see the signs that the prosperity which they did nothing to bring about and which they cannot keep from being overcome by an era of adversity-they know they are helpless- must inevitably decrease.
The Minister of Customs has furnished us with a report of the trade of the country during the past five months, from the 1st of July to the last of November. During those five months, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), there have been decreases in every item of the exports of this country except gold and manufactures, which I presume came from the Yukon, and in which there was an increase of about fifteen million dollars. That large production of gold in the Yukon was due in no sense to the efforts of the government. They had made no roads, furnished no facilities to open up and develop the country, and give the miners an opportunity. They had imposed a royalty of 10 per cent, handicapping- the miners, which they now declare to have been a mistake, because they propose to reduce it to 5 per cent. There were increases in manufactures to the amount of $1,000,000. Our exports of fish decreased in those five months, compared with the five months of the previous year, by $830,000, the exports of the forest decreased by $1,380,000, the exports of animals and their products decreased by $1,507,000 ; miscellaneous decreased by $131,000, and bullion by $580,000; making a decrease in the great staples of the country of between four and five million dollars. No wonder the ministers are becoming alarmed, no wonder they are now sounding a note of warning because the export of the country is leaping up, the expenditure on capital account and for running the government has reached such enormous figures that the people are becoming alarmed.
Now, there is another reason. They said, and the First Minister repeated to-night, that when we were in power we were going to stop all emigration from the country, we were going to give employment to the people at home. So we did, and we prevented these men from going out of the country, because we built up manufacturing establishments and Canadians were employed in them. We opened up Manitoba and the North-west Territories, we sent tens of thousands of young Canadians up there who otherwise would have gone to the Northwestern States. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said last year that they had stopped all that. They have not stopped it. Last year household effects, which is the only test they can give us as to the emigration from Canada, amounted to $1,165,000, notwithstanding the great era of prosperity 'we are enjoying, and that is about the amount under the period of depression when the Conservative party were in power, in 1893-4-5. So, Mr. Speaker, there was reason

why these gentlemen sounded a note of alarm.
They say : Look at the trade of this country, grown to greater proportions than ever before, the business of the country amounting to 8.481,000,000. The total trade of the country is measured by imports for home consumption and exports of Canadian produce. The hon. gentleman put the imports at 8189,000,000. There were to be deducted from that, as the Minister of Finance himself admitted, 84,150,000 of American Indian corn, which they had put as a product of Canada and exported, and which they admitted was not the product of Canada, but simply grain going through in transit. Deduct that from the imports and the exports, deduct the wheat which went through in the same way to the amount of $4,370,000, and flax, $1,039,000, making a deduction altogether of $10,170,000. Now take the exports. There were $191,000,000, and they add to make up that sum, $5,500,000, which they say was short, that was not reported in the customs house. I do not believe they should have any such figure. I believe that the machinery we have in force to-day, with the enormous army of customs officials, and the fact that business is done better than it formerly was, prove that there is really no large amount to be added to exports. I deduct that, and you have $186,433,000. Deduct from that $21,000,000 for exports not produced in Canada, and you have a total showing of $165,000,000 of exports and $176,000,000 of imports. You have $10,500,000 of trade against the Dominion of Canada. The imports exceed the exports by $10,500,000.
Now, Sir, notwithstanding all that has been said about the balance of trade, the peeople of England to-day are inquiring what the balance of trade means. It means nothing more nor less, in the case of Canada, than this : If you import $176,000,000 and export $165,000,000, you are $11,000,000 short in your accounts.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Not at all.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: You cannot demonstrate to me in any way you like that a country is becoming rich, especially a country like Canada, where the exports are millions of dollars every year less than the Imports. Take an individual. He brings to his farm $2,000 worth of goods every year for consumption, and he sells $1,500 worth every year ; in a long course of years he will inevitably become poor, he will become a pauper, he will be driven off his farm. The same rule will apply t.o a nation. They ask us to look at Great Britain. Great Britain is becoming rich, although the imports are very much greater than the exports. That is true. But they are doing a great deal of business for other countries. They have the ships that carry the produce to and fro, they have the control of the banking business, they do the buying and the selling, and they have profits on all this business. But to-day they are asking themselves the question whether they are not living on the profits they have made in former years ; and they will come to the conclusion, when they examine into it, that they are living upon the profits that they have formerly made.
Now, there is another matter. When some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House called attention to the preference that we are giving to Great Britain and criticised it, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) demanded from hon. members on this side of the House that we should get up and move for its repeal, which would be, in his opinion, disloyal and improper. The right hon. First Minister went over the same story to-night. It was something sacred, it was the symbol of the loyalty of the people of Canada to give a preference to Great Britain, and if the Conservative party dared to interfere with it they would be branded with disloyalty. I would like to know, and I would like somebody to tell me, when these hon. gentlemen were put in the position of claiming to be the loyal party in Canada. During every emergency the Conservative party have fairly stood up for the connection with Great Britain, when these men sneered at us, and when the right hon. First Minister told us that he preferred the American dollar to the English shilling, thus sneering at the connection between us and Great Britain. He was looking at the mighty dollar. Their whole course, from the time that they proposed commercial union, that would have allowed American goods to come in free of duty while British goods will have to pay a duty, has been disloyal. That was a disloyal position to take because it would end only in one thing if carried out, and that would be in severing our connection with the mother land. When we dared to say that we wanted a preference in the markets of Great Britain the right hon. gentleman told us that we could not have it, and declared that it was disloyal to even think of touching the preference that we were giving to Great Britain. Who are these gentlemen who are going to teach the Conservative party loyalty ? Is it the hon. Minister of Finance, who, in a speech which he made in Halifax-not in a speech but throughout a whole campaign-advocated the smashing of confederation, advocated the secession of the province of Nova Scotia from the Dominion, and not only advocated the secession of Nova Scotia, but asked the neighbouring provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to Join with him in smashing confederation. Yet, that hon. gentleman comes to us and preaches loyalty. Here is his speech :
The Interests of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia are alike in this matter. All these provinces have been sacrificed to the confederation. 1 trust this ques-

tion of separation from Canada will be brought up by independent members in both provinces, and fairly discussed. Bad as is the position of the two provinces in the union, it will become worse if Nova Scotia secedes. Maritime interests will be weaker than ever at Ottawa, and there will be little chance for the New Brunswickers and the Islanders to obtain justice. They will have everything to gain by joining Nova Scotia, and I am satisfied that if the movement be taken up with vigour in our sister provinces the demand for separation from Canada will be made, not by Nova Scotia alone, but by the three maritime provinces. But if New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are content to occupy their present position, or the weaker one which they would occupy after the withdrawal of Nova Scotia, they must be permitted, of course, to take their -own way. We shall take our way, and demand for Nova Scotia alone separation from the Dominion, though we would much prefer joint action, because we have always felt that the provinces down by the sea have a unity of interest, and that in co-operation we might bring about results which would go far to make the people of our country prosperous. I believe the people of Nova Scotia will at the approaching elections throw off the yoke of Toryism, and that in our province particularly we shall have a grand victory for Liberalism and repeal.
That is one of the hon. gentlemen who get up on the floor of this House and preach loyalty to us. I think he would have done much better if, looking at his past record, he had kept very quiet about that question. Then we have the hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa), and the two other hon. members who endorsed him the other night and took such a position that the right hon. gentleman had to repudiate it-as disloyal an attitude as an hon. gentleman ever took in the parliament of Canada.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The First Minister laughs, and says ' hear, hear.' I am glad to have his approval in that matter. Of course, it may be that, as last year it was a little game played on the House and on the country. It may be that the hon. member for Labelle was put up to make that speech so that the Prime Minister could make his superloyal speech and spread himself in the House and in the country. It has been so stated, and the speech of the First Minister rather lent weight to that statement.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We know what the right hon. gentleman said when the people were proposing to assist the mother land when war was declared in South Africa. We know the attitude he took then : We could not. we would not assist Great Britain. We had passed a resolution by a unanimous vote a few months before in the House of Commons. With what result ? Why, the ink was hardly dry until circumstances compelled us to make a choice, and the right hon. gentleman made Mr. WALLACE.
his choice that we would not, we could not go to the aid of Great Britain. The overwhelming voice of the loyal people of Canada made the First Minister turn about as he had often done before and therefore it came quite easy to him, and he consented to send a contingent to South Africa. Then, there is another hon. gentleman who professes loyalty to us-the hon. Minister of Public Works. He spoke in Guelph on Friday last. He made quite a speech, and gave us a lecture on loyalty, telling us how we should be good Canadian citizens, and he was going to invite himself to come to Ontario and have a constituency there. When I look at myself for a moment, I see that the electors of Ontario, and particularly of West York, are very generous. They do not look too particularly at their candidates, but, we must draw the line somewhere, and I think there is not a constituency in Ontario but would draw the line at the hon. Minister of Public Works. He has invited himself. I wait to see whether any constituency in Ontario will invite him. It would be particularly hard up for public works before that would be done. But, he says that he is going to come to Ontario, not only to tell them that he is going to be a candidate in Ontario, and that he has always deprecated the racial and religious cries that we now have to-day in North Bruce, but, he says that he is preparing to come even to the Orange order and ask the young men there why they are opposed to the Liberal administration. If he comes to any meeting of the Orange Association, or where the Orangemen are, I will guarantee that he will receive fair treatment. After he has done making his harangues in Ontario, which are very much different from those in Quebec, I have no doubt many of the audiences will ask him : Are you the Mr. Tarte who said, when a Canadian contingent was being sent out: Not a man, not a dollar will be sent ? Are you the same individual ? Are you the man who made a speech at Laval University a few months ago in which you said :
One of the paramount duties of the French members of the House of Commons was to show that they were Frenchmen.
Are you the Mr. Tarte who said :
I am a minister in a British government; I take the liberty to call myself French, but if it is desired that I should declare myself a British citizen and it is desired to prevent myself calling myself French, then I refuse to call myself a British subject.
They would no doubt ask him was he the Mr. Tarte who said these things. They would ask him:	Are you the man tv ho put
up the tri-colour above the Union .Tack on the ships under your command down in the St. Lawrence.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Our friend over there says :	' Hear, hear.' There is another
Tarte in the House. They would also say: Are you the gentleman who had an interview in Paris; a disloyal interview in which you said :
We have to make pretenses of our friendship and our loyalty to Great Britain because it would lead to difficulties if we did not.
They would also ask him:	Are you the
Mr. Tarte who denounced the Fox Bay settlers on Anticosti Island as murderers, without having a particle of evidence to prove it, and are you the gentleman who had to withdraw that statement, and withdraw it with very had grace indeed. They would ask the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) all these questions and a great many more. They would also ask him:	Are you the gentleman who in a
court of justice a short time previous to the elections stated that you were not worth a dollar, and who afterwards said in the House of Commons that you had bought La Patrie with your own money for $30,000 cash, and had bought a royal residence almost, for which you had paid cash too. And then they would ask :	Where did you get
the money. They would load up the Minister of Public "Works with so many inconvenient questions that I think he would be rather sorry that he came up there even if he got the good hearing that is proverbially characteristic of an Ontario audience. Therefore, I say, Mr. Speaker, that we do not require to have lessons in loyalty from the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), from the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding), from the First Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), nor from the Minister of Public Works. The record of the Conservative party is one of loyalty and consideration for the mother land.


Mr. BOURASSA.: Except when Home Rule Bill is moved in England.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Except when Home Rule Bill is moved in England.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Then comes the Kingston speech.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That Kingston speech that I made was an exact repetition of a speech of Lord Salisbury, which met with the approval of the British people. And my remarks met with the approval of the loyal people of Canada too and were approved by the parliament of Canada. 1 have said, Mr. Speaker, that these gentlemen opposite were not disturbing themselves very much in the interests of the people of Canada. The First Minister said :	We should not be
bothered with those tariff tinkers; they are a great nuisance, and the Minister of Finance told us how the bounties to be given on steel and iron were to be charged to capital account in the future and removed from being paid out of current account ns has been usual in the past. The fact is
that if we are going to give bounties the only proper way is to pay them out of current revenue, and not borrow the money to pay them. If you pay $1,000,000 in bounties on the production of $2,000,000 worth of steel or iron produced at the Sydney mine, almost the whole of that steel is sent out of Canada to Europe, and the moment it leaves this country Canadians receive no further benefit from it. We are told now that although this material is not going to be used in Canada it will be charged to capital account. If you construct public works out of capital account the people of Canada own these public works, and if you give subsidies to railways, these railways add to the wealth of the Dominion and are an advantage to the people, but this $2,000,000 worth of iron and steel that goes out of the country is never more seen here. All it is worth to the Canadian people is the labour it gives in producing it, and yet we are told that the bounties on it are to be paid out of capital account in the future. Well, why does the Minister of Finance do this ? It is because that next year the minister or this minister should have a surplus of a million dollars, he will say that his government is running the affairs of the country well so as to get that surplus, whereas if the two million dollars that he will pay in bounties were charged to revenue as it should be, he would have to face a deficit of one million dollars. But, the Minister of Finance wants to prepare himself for something that is coming, and so he wants to have the iron and steel bounties struck from being a charge on the revenue and placed in capital account. I protest against that kind of book-keeping.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we were told to-day, as we were told on Thursday last by the Minister of Finance, that the beet-root sugar men may look for no consideration from the government of Canada. We are told that the government would give them some benefit in letting them have their machinery free of duty. Well, that was done last year. As a matter of fact the question stands in exactly the same position as it was a year ago, because there is not a dollar's ' worth of beet-root sugar machinery made in Canada to-day. There is not a beetroot sugar factory in Canada, and therefore this pretended concession is no concession at all. It is a negative concession anyway, and it is not worth a cent unless the industry is established here. It costs the government nothing and it is worth just about that to the beet-root sugar industry. I was present at the denutation of the beet sugar men which waited on the government last week, and the members of that deputation made out an extremely strong case although they were told by the government that nothing could be done for them. We imported last year 316,000.000 pounds of sugar and syrups valued at $8,350,000. the freight on -which from far-off lands would be certainly $1,000,000 ; making it cost to the

people of this country, $9,350,000 ; and there was $2,380,000 of duty paid on it ; making it altogether $12,000,000 when it arrived in the Dominion of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it has been proved by that deputation of gentlemen who were here, and who knew what they were talking about, and by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), who has made a most exhaustive examination of this question, that beet-root sugar can be made in Canada. We can grow the beets, and we can make the sugar. Beet roots grown in Canada have as large a percentage of saccharine matter as beets grown in any other country. The gentlemen desiring to establish this industry come to the government of Canada and ask for a bounty to enable them to establish factories. We were told that it would cost at least $500,000 to establish each factory, and that it would take about 30 factories to supply the Dominion. It is difficult to get these men to put their money into the industry, because if the Conservatives came into power to-morrow, I have no doubt they would strike off that $2,380,000 of duty to commence with. But the government turn a cold shoulder to them ; they do not want any tariff tinkers to come here to bother them ; they want to enjoy their well-earned luxuries and rest; no trouble or worry for them. We are to have $6,400,000 of a surplus, the Finance Minister tells us, and to give a small percentage of that to build up an industry in the country which will save $12,000,000, and give that $12,000,000 to the farmers and manufacturers of Canada, will never do. It could not be done ; it would never be done ; and the First Minister sent them about their business. He said ; They are tariff tinkers, and we will give them warning to keep away for all time.
Another industry of enormous importance to this country has evidently been treated in the same way. In the Kootenay country they are producing enormous quantities of silver, lead and copper ores. They ask to have smelters and refineries established there. A resolution which was passed by the Trail board of trade, says :
Whereas, there are at the present, time no lead refining works in the Dominion of Canada, and the initial cost of establishing such a plant is very great, it is the opinion of the association that the Dominion government should encourage the establishment of such a plant by the grant for a term of years of a bounty of $5 per ton on all lead of . Canadian origin smelted and refined in Canada.
We are robbed by the United States tariff to-day on our lead and silver ores ; and these people come to the parliament of Canada. as they have a right to come, and they get the cold shoulder and a point blank refusal. The exports of these ores last year were :
Quantity. Value.
Lead	 19,800,000 lbs. $ 678,000
Copper ore and matte.. 13,000,000 lbs. 1,387,000 Silver	 2,283,000 oz. 1,354,000
A total value of $3,420,000, not speaking of the nickel, which amounts to more than $1,000,000. For the last lour months the production amounted to $2,500,000, showing how rapidly the production is increasing. Last year hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars could have been saved to tbe people of this country if we had the smelting and refining works in Canada. All that Is required is a subsidy of $5 a ton on silver lead ore, which is worth $60 or $70 a ton ; so that $5 per ton is equivalent to 7 per cent-that is all they ask. The Finance Minister thinks it is a very nice thing to give a bonus of 55 per cent on pig iron ; but 7 per cent is asked on lead ores, and it is refused. I would like the Finance Minister to tell us by what rule of fair-play the government give 55 per cent bounty on pig iron, and refuse to give 7 per cent on silver lead ores ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Will my hon. friend allow me to say that there is an application before the government on that subject ? I do not say wbat may be done with it, but it is not correct to state that the matter has been disposed of and the application refused.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The Finance Minister announced no tariff changes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is not a tariff question at all.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The First Minister told us to-night that there would be no tariff tinkering, and we are told now that this is not a tariff question at all. I have in my hand the prospectus of the company which the Finance Minister knows something about-the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, Limited, of Sydney, Cape Breton, Canada-a company which an hon. gentleman has told us was working so strenuously against him that they got him elected. This company say in their prospectus that they are going to produce next year 400,000 tons of pig iron, 75,000 tons of steel blooms, and 325.000 tons of steel rails. They say :
If the production from the company's works be as estimated, 300,000 tons of pig metal and 60,000 tons of steel blooms in 1901, and thereafter 400,000 tons of iron and steel per annum, made from Newfoundland ore, the bounties to be received from the Canadian government will be as follows
1901	 $ 870,000
1-902	 2,075,000
And this is only one of the refining works of all those that are being established all over the Dominion. We are having them at Collingwood. at Midland, and in successful operation and prospering at Hamilton ;


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: and we shall have them at many other points in the Dominion. This company, according to the prospectus, will be getting in 1902 $2,075,000 of the money of the good people of Canada ; and in what proportions are they getting it :
Alter crediting the value of the by-products from the coke ovens, the cost of our pig Iron should not exceed $5.50 per ton, after everything has been reduced to steady practice.
On an article worth $5.50 they are going to get a bounty of $3, 55 per cent of the cost is to be paid by the people of Canada. It is a pretty liberal concession.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman's former leader (Sir Charles Tup-per) wanted to make it $3.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The ost of our pig iron should not exceed $5.50 per ton and the government gives a bonus of $3 on every ton made from a Canadian ore.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not Canadian, the ore is Newfoundland ore, and the former leader of the opposition wanted to pay the full $3.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The late leader of the opposition was very anxious to have Newfoundland brought into confederation and treated as one of the family. But I find that the present government have not turned their hands to assist in any way in getting Newfoundland into confederation. They have treated her as a foreigner and an alien. They have done nothing to accomplish what we considered most important for the future of this country, for our fishery interests, and our interests in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the late leader of the opposition was most anixous that something should be done. But I am speaking of the Minister of Finance.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not correctly.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Yes, let me read still further :
To encourage the manufacture In the Dominion of iron and steel, parliament has granted bounties as follows :-
On pig iron, per ton of 2,000 tons to the 21st April, 1902, from native ore $3 and from foreign ore $2; on steel, $3.
From April 21st, 1902, to 1st July, 1903, from native ore, $2.70 ; foreign ore, $1.80 ; steel, $2.70.
The next year, native ore, $2.25; foreign ore, $1.50 ; steel, $2.25. The following year, native ore, $1.65 ; foreign ore, $1.10 ; steel, $1.65.
And so on, reducing the bounty until it disappears entirely. This company estimates -and I assume it is stating the facts correctly-if not the Minister of Finance can denounce them for speaking false statements with intent to deceive the people of this Dominion-this company estimates that in 1901 it will have obtained from the Canadian government, $870,000 ; in 1902, $2,075.000 ; in 1903. $1,850,000 ; 1904, $1,450,000,
and so on. No wonder that the Minister of Finance is going to take that little account out of the current revenue and borrow the money and charge it to capital. Then the bounty is not limited to the iron and steel industry in Cape Breton, but all the other refining works and smelters in Canada are to be treated on the same terms, and let the hon. the Finance Minister estimate any figure he chooses to add to this $2,075,000 and see how much he will have to pay out altogether.
Yet, when the beet-root sugar industry, that is going to start thousands of farmers in this country and make an expenditure of $12,000,000 among the people and save the money we send out of the country to-day, asks for a bonus, those asking it are dismissed and called a lot of tariff-tinkers by the high and mighty gentlemen who are ruling this country
' The hon. leader of the opposition called attention of this House to the fact that the German tariff was distinctly hostile to Canada, and that Canada has to pay 50 marks, or 9-82 cents, a bushel more duty on grain than is charged American product On rye we pay 9J cents more than the Americans. On oats we pay 44 cents more, peas 3.1 cents, corn 2i cents. This was brought about by the blundering of this government. They first gave Germany and Belgium a preference in the markets of Canada, and a year later they repealed that preference. Why did they repeal it ? Either they had not intended to give it to Germany or Belgium at all, in which case they were blundering, or else they changed their mind and took it away. By their conduct they angered the German people, and the result is that the United States have a preference of 10 cents a bushel on their wheat over Canada. We had opened in these two countries a great market, which was rapidly growing, for the wild goose wheat which they required for certain purposes, but when the Americans got the 10 cents advantage, the price of wild goose wheat, which had gone up higher than the fall wheat of Ontario, dropped again, because the markets were closed to it. So with many other agricultural products. The United States have a preference over us in those markets, and we have not heard that the Canadian government have taken any steps to have it removed. Have they gone to the German government or made any effort whatever to get the same fair treatment as the United States ? No, Sir. And [DOT]yet we do not put up such a high tariff against the Germans as do the United States. We import eight and a half million dollars' worth of goods from Germany and only send one and three-quarter millions, so that we could make a very strong case, but I have never heard that this government have ever bothered their heads about it. Too much like tariff tinkering perhaps, and they do not want to bother with it, but just stay quiet and enjoy themselves.

What about the United States ? Our productions are largely the same as those of the United States. We permit American goods to come in at a moderate tariff. The leader of the opposition said to-night that it was his most anxious desire we should live on the most friendly and amicable terms with the people of the United States. I reciprocate that sentiment, but I think the best way to do so is to look very closely after our own interests. Let us make a tariff that will suit ourselves, and if the American people charge high duties on Canadian products, let us protect our farmers by charging high duties on their products. We charge a duty on eggs of three cents and they charge five cents a dozen. On butter, we charge 4 cents a pound, while they charge 6 cents a pound. On cheese, we charge S cents a pound, while they charge 6 cents a pound. On apples we charge, including the duty on the barrel, 40 cents a barrel, while they charge 25 cents a bushel, which would be nearly 75 cents a barrel. On beans, we charge 15 cents a bushel, while their duty is three times as much-45 cents a bushel. On peas, green, our duty is 10 cents a bushel, while theirs is 40 cents a bushel. On peas dry, the duty on our side is 10 cents, while theirs is 30 cents a bushel. On potatoes we charge 15 cents a bushel, while they charge 25 cents a bushel. On hay we charge $2 a ton, while the charge is $4 on the other side. On barley our duty is 30 per cent, which, at prevailing prices, would be about 12 cents to 14 cents, while they charge 30 cents per bushel. On corn meal our duty is 25 cents per barrel, while they charge 20 cents a bushel of 48 pounds, or at least two and a half times as much as the Canadian duty. Indian corn we admit free, while they charge a duty of 15 cents a bushel. On oats, our duty is 10 cents per bushel, and theirs Is 15 cents a bushel. On oatmeal we charge 20 per cent or, say, 60 cents per barrel, while they charge 1 cent per pound, which would be about $2 a barrel. On wheat, we charge 12 cents a bushel, while they charge 25 cents a bushel. On wheat flour our duty is 60 cents per barrel, while theirs is 25 per cent, which would amount to 50 to 80 per cent more. In hops, we charge 6 cents, while they charge 12 cents. As to live stock, they charge duties, which, if not prohibitory, are enormously large. On horses, their lowest duty is $30 apiece. This is when the horses are worth under $150, but if they are over that the duty is 25 per cent, which would bring it to $347.50 or over. On cattle they charge 27i per cent on those over a certain age. On live hogs, the duty is $1.50 per head. The effect of all these things is to shut the Canadian farmer out of the United States market, while the American farmer has easy access of the Canadian market, and takes advantage of it too.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: This is shown by the fact that the exports of Canadian agricultural produce to the United States amount to about $6,750,000, the imports of agricultural products from the United States into Canada far exceed that amount. Then there is another point to which I would like to draw special attention-the grievance under which the market gardeners suffer. The early products of the season are those for which the highest prices are paid and on which the greatest profits are realized. Being to the south of us, of course, the American gardener has special advantages in this respect. The market gardeners here have built up a great industry ; they have hothouses and other property used in this business to an enormous amount, some of the establishments representing an investment of tens of thousands of dollars. This industry, in my opinion, should receive adequate protection. The government of this country are being asked to consider the market gardeners' grievances-and it is a grievance of the whole people of Canada. The American to-day gets the profit which the Canadian market gardener ought to get. We should look after our own interests. A few years ago, the duty on pork and beef was not high enough to protect us from the invasions of the farmers of the United States. Delegations came down here and represented the ease to_ the government of Canada, and immediately the government put on a strong protective duty. The result is that to-day we have a pork and beef industry which not only controls the market of Canada but has built up such an export trade that Canadians are proud of it. We send to the markets of Great Britain millions of dollars' worth of the finest bacon in the world. This was accomplished by acceding to the request of the tariff tinkers, the farmers of Canada who came here and represented the case to the government. So, we want protection for the market gardeners. We want protection also for the agricultural implement makers. Last year we imported from the United States agricultural Implements to the amount of $1815 000. while we imported from Great Britain, excluding scythes and reaping hooks and shovel' blanks, agricultural implements to the amount of $1,015.
This $1,815,000 worth of implements that we import from the United States should be made in Canada by Canadian artisans. But we shall ask in vain for any change, because the government do not want any tariff tinkering until they are ready to come down with the free trade tariff.
Closely allied with this is the question of looking for markets throughout the world. These hon. gentlemen told us that if they were brought into power they would secure markets everywhere. They told us that they would go to the United States, and before you could say ' Jack Robinson,'
they would have a reciprocity treaty with the United States that would bring great prosperity to Canada. But they were in power two years before they turned their hands over on this question. They should have taken it up at once, because it was immediately after the presidential election. They waited until September, 1898, before they sought a conference. They met the other delegates, sat for a short time and then adjourned, and met again. To-day, after nearly five years of these hon. gentlemen in office, we are no nearer reciprocity than we were when they came into power. I think we may fairly ask that they wind up negotiations and tell us what they were doing, either proceed to get a reciprocity treaty or say they cannot. They have not been a business government, they have in that respect falsified their pledges to the people of Canada, they have been derelict in their duties.
More than that, there are markets elsewhere. There is a great trade in South Africa. What have these gentlemen done, what has the Minister of Agriculture done, who boasts about his cold storage, fussing around and doing nothing ? We had an interesting statement from the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) the other night, who knows the business of the exportation of apples. We exported $2,500,000 worth of apples. That business is capable of enormous expansion. We grow the best apples in the world. We ought to have control of the markets of the world. The government is	asked-and	they
are bound to do it if they do fheir duty-to supply cold storage and other facilities that are required in order to land these apples in the markets of Europe. Have they done so ? The Minister of Agriculture has been dancing around doing nothing in the interests of the apple-growers of Canada. I was saying that they should be looking for markets everywhere. In South Africa last year Great Britain sent $63,000,000 worth of products, the United States sent $10,000,000, and Canada only sent $06,547. The United States sent 150 times as much as we did, and Great Britain sent about a thousand times as much as we did. What steps have the government taken to build up a business there ? New Zealand, a country with an area of 104,000 square miles, against our 3,500,000, and with a population of about 800.000, compared with our 6,000,000, has decided to put on a monthly line of steamers to run directly to South Africa, in order to overcome the disabilities in sending merchandise by way of Melbourne and Sydney. Here is a country with one-seventh of the population of Canada, making these efforts to build up a trade with South Africa. Now. what are the materials sent to South Africa :
Agricultural implements and tools, $738,000 ; ale and beer, $503,958; apparel, $3,217,592 ; boots
and shoes, $2,486,361 ; butter and cheese, $994,829; carriages, $682,000; cotton and manufactures of, $4,738,000; hardware and cutlery, $3,978,000; leather, $595,000 ; machinery, agricultural and other, $5,204,000.
We are the great manufacturers of agricultural machinery in the world. We should be doing our share of that business, we are doing practically none of it, because the whole exports of Canada to that country were only $66,000.
Meats, salted and preserved, $1,168,000; provisions not elsewhere specified, $2,599,000; railway materials, $1,239,000; spirits and wines, $1,228,000.
They say Canadian whisky is the best in the world, and here is a million and a quarter of dollars worth sent over there, and Canadians hardly send a dollar's worth. Corby's IXL, Walker's Club, Gooderham & Wort's Unexcelled Brands, Adams & Burns' Diamond D, Seagram's White Wheat and all the rest of them-not a aollar's worth of all this going to South Africa. Why, we could supply the world with the best of whisky, and we are doing nothing. Of course, temperance men, like the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), would be delighted to see the liquor go out of the country, then it could not do any harm in Canada.
Stationery and printing paper, $1,294,000 ; wheat, $2,451,000 ; furniture, $1,351,000.
They say we have a great combination in the furniture business. They are going to extend their markets. What is the government of Canada doing to promote trade in any one of these industries ? There was over $93,000,000 sent to South Africa in 1899. I should not be surprised if there were more than double that amount sent in 1900 ; and yet the government of Canada is unable to say they have sent a single dollar's worth, they have not devoted one day to the consideration of getting a market for us in South Africa. Just as it is everywhere. We are honoured with having a government that is satisfied with drawing their salaries, that is satisfied to rest and be thankful, that is satisfied to be a fossilized unprogressive government, that says, as the First Minister told us to-night: We are just going to do nothing. As the Minister of Finance told us the other night; We are going to rest on our oars, pn the crest of the wave. They cannot do it. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance cannot do it either. He will flop down so suddenly that he will wonder what was the matter with him.


Hon. Mr. BOSS (Victoria).: He will rise again. When you go down into the trough of the sea you will rise again to the top.


Mr. WALDACE.: Well, I am afraid that the Minister of Finance will have lost his balance and flopped out of the boat, and there will have to be another crew. Then


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Now, the Minister of Finance stated that there was a decrease of taxation and in order to suit his purpose he quoted the year of greatest prosperity since the Liberals came into power, and compared it with the year of the least prosperity when the Conservatives were in power. He just picked out these two years, but the fair thing for them to do, would have been to take the last four years of Conservative rule, and compare it with the the four years of the present Liberal rule. And adopting that method what do we find ? We find that the incidents of taxation in the Customs Department in 1893, amounted to

$17.38 ; in 1894, to $17.13 ; in 1895, to $16.99 ; in 1896, to $18.28, or an average of $17.44* duty on every one hundred dollars worth of imported goods, dutiable and free. Since the Liberals came into power, according to their own statement, there is an average duty of $10,871, but to that the Minister of Finance told us we must add 43 cents for the corn which was in transit and which was marked as a product of the country. I shall add 57 cents for the same purpose last year, and in that way you get $17.12* for the four years that these gentlemen have been in power, as the average rate of duty, and $17.44* for the last four years of the Conservative government, or a difference of 32 cents on every one hundred dollars worth of goods imported, including dutiable and free, and the only fair test is to take both. There is therefore one-third of a dollar difference on eveiy one hundred dollars worth of imported goods, showing conclusively that this Liberal government has imposed as ffigh taxes upon the people of Canada, though with less protection, than we did. As was pointed out by the leader of the opposition, this Liberal government have put an enormous increase of the duty on sugar which last year amounted to $793,000 in increased duties. I have not estimated it for this year, but with the large increase in the importation of sugar, molasses and syrups, I have no doubt the increased duties will represent one million dollars this year.


Robert Laird Borden: Between $900,000 and $1,000,000.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Yes, about that. This government has increased the taxes on sugar notwithstanding that they have a surplus of $G.500,000. What did the Conservatives do when they had a surplus ? This duty on sugar is a direct tax upon the people of the country. It does not encourage any industry. Every dollar's worth of that sugar has to be imported, and therefore this is a direct tax. The burden of taxation the people have to bear is one-third of a dollar *less on every one hundred dollars worth imported, as between the four years of the Liberal government, and the four years of the Conservative government. Does that make a difference in policy ? Why, Sir, in 1890 the percentage of taxation on the people was $21.21 ; in 1891 it was $20.06, a reduction by the Conservative party of $1.15 per hundred dollars. Yet we made no boast about it. We simply said we had taken the duty off certain things and reduced the burdens of the people on those things which were not made in the country. In 1892 the percentage was $17.56, a reduction of $2.50 on every $100 from 1891. We took the duty off sugar, which was a direct tax on the people. Hon. gentlemen opposite have made a reduction of 32 cents per $100, and are crowing about it all over the country, and on the strength of that the Finance Minister takes the Mr. WALLACE.
whole importation, and estimates a saving of $3,000,000. There never was such a fallacious statement made to the House. Last year the Minister of Customs tried to figure out in the same way that millions of dollars had been saved. It is a fallacious argument. You cannot tell to-day what the income would be on certain articles that existed half a dozen years ago. The importations are changed in their character. New industries are rising up; conditions are changing ; people import one year one class of goods, and another year another class of goods. You cannot make an accurate calculation; it is simply guesswork. If the calculation was made on the basis that they were saving about 2 per cent, it is not true. There are the figures, and I challenge the Minister of Finance to dispute them. If you take the four years, in each case you have to deduct the corn ; that is all I have deducted. Last year they deducted coin and bullion, but they did not this year, because the figures would be against them. I say we will rejoice to have that free trade policy brought down, when the government are ready for it. We are going to stand by our own policy, which built up this country, and which will continue to build it up and make it prosperous in the future.


Mr. B. RUSSELL (Hants).: Mr. Speaker, I began to have a vague dread that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat had lost the end of his speech, and that we should be kept here all night; but as he has found it at last, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JOHN COSTIGAN (Victoria. N.B.) I beg leave, with the consent of the House, to present a petition of the Grand Falls Water Power and Boom Company, asking for leave to introduce a petition.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Explain.


Mr. COSTIGAN.: Under the rules of the House this company are precluded from introducing a petition asking for an extension of their charter, which expires in July next. The president of the company, Sir William Van Horne, has been absent in Cuba for a long time, and on returning, instructed the solicitor of the company to make the application. The solicitor only arrived here on Friday, the last day on which petitions could be received ; and the only way to get the petition before the Committee on Standing Orders is by petition asking the House to allow the petition to be received ; and this is a preliminary petition for that purpose.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, when the last report of the Standing Orders Committee was presented, I made the remark, in reply to the hon. leader of the opposition, that I would for my part object to any more petitions being received ; but the statement made by my hon. friend that the gentleman who was pressing the charter had been away in a foreign country, and had only returned a few days ago, makes this petition fairly entitled to be received, and under the circumstances I think it might be received.


Robert Laird Borden: Under the circumstances I do not object to the reception of the petition.
Petition received, and referred to the Committee on Standing Orders.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the House adjourns, I would like to inquire when we are to have a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I was under the impression that it was called for to-morrow. I sent out a moment ago to see if there was a notice up, and there was none. The chairman is not present, and in his absence I am unable to say when the committee will meet.


Robert Laird Borden: Who is the chairman ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser).


Robert Laird Borden: The chairman of that committee should be in a position to give sufficient time to have the committee meet at least twice a week. I brought the matter to the attention of the hon. gentleman last week, and 1 understood that we were to have regular meetings that often. If the hon. member lor Guysborough is not able to give the necessary time to call regular meetings of the committee possibly some other mode may be found of dealing with the matter. Perhaps he could appoint some one to act as his deputy when he is compelled to be absent from the city, or is not able to And time to deal with the matter himself. But if we are to expedite the business of the House, we must have arrangements made for calling this committee, and we cannot accept as an excuse the statement that the hon. member for Guysborough is prevented from dealing with it. Although I am ready on all occasions to make all reasonable allowances. the hon. member for Guysborough, who is a personal friend of mine, we must
have some one as chairman of the committee who is prepared to deal with it. I have heard this excuse given on his behalf, not only in this parliament, but in former parliaments. All I ask is that whoever is chairman of that committee will give sufficient time to it, so that we shall not have to stand up in this House and inquire day after day why meetings of the committee have not been called. I do not want to be put in the position to have to cast reflections on the hon. member for Guysborough or anybody else ; but I do desire that meetings of that committee shall be called, and called regularly, and I think the right hon. leader of the House and the hon. Minister of Finance will agree with me that in asking that I am not asking anything unreasonable. I would also like to ask whether we are to continue the debate from day to day for the present. I understand that we are.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 19, 1901.