1902-04-03

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 89) to incorporate the Canada Central Railway Company.-Mr. Scott.

Mr. R. BICKERDIKE (Montreal, St. Lawrence) moved :: That that portion of the fourth report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines which refers to Bill (No. 38) respecting the Montreal Bridge Company, be referred back to the said committee for further consideration.


Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: When this Bill came before the committee the other morning it was defeated by a large majority. I would like some explanation from the hon. gentleman of the reason he is asking to have it reinstated on the Order Paper.


Robert Bickerdike: The only explanation I have to give is that the gentleman from Montreal who was promoting the Bill is anxious to be heard before the committee. It was one o'clock when the vote was taken in the committee, and there was not sufficient time to discuss it fairly ; and the people in Montreal whom he represents would like an opportunity of being heard.


Mr. W. S. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).: I was present in the Railway Committee when the Bill came up. I do not know anything about the merits of the several schemes for bridges proposed to be built between Montreal and the south shore ; but I did think we had not got sufficient information with regard to the matter. There seemed to be an inclination on the part of the members of the committee to hurry matters through, and I think it would be only fair that the promoters of that company should have an opportunity of at least fairly laying their case before the committee before the committee makes its decision. There were very few members present at the time, it was near the close of the sitting ; other matters of importance had come up, and

after each member got through with the matter he was particularly interested in, he left the committee, as is usually the case in that committee, and only a few of those who are in the habit of waiting until the committee rises were left to look after the remaining part of the business. The consequence was that when the Bill came before the committee I do not think it was fairly considered, and I am in favour of the motion to refer it back to the Railway Committee to be dealt with again.


Mr. R. LEMIEUX (Gaspe).: I happened to be present in the committee when this Bill was discussed yesterday morning, and the vote which was taken there shows that a great deal of attention was given to the explanations of Mr. Buchan, the representative of the Montreal Bridge Company. The vote taken stood 41 to 11 or 12, so a large number of the members of the committee were present and listened to the discussion. I do not want to discuss the merits of the Bill now, but it is well known in Montreal, and in the Montreal district especially, that it is nothing else but another Armstrong scheme. It has not the confidence of the people of Montreal, and should be defeated.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I am happy to support the motion of the hon. member for the St. Lawrence division of Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike), whom we are very glad to see back in this House after his severe illness. I do not think this Bill received due consideration at the hands of the committee, and I am surprised that my hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), whose name i think appears on the Bill, should now be opposed to the motion to give it further consideration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I refused positively. 1 was asked to introduce the Bill in the House. I asked who the promoters were. I wanted to know if Mr. Armstrong had anything to do with it. I was not given any satisfactory explanation, and now I know that Mr. Armstrong is the backbone of the Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understood my hon. friend was the mover of the Bill. Who is the mover of the Bill ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think the hon. member for Ottawa is (Mr. Belcourt).
Mr. jfoNK. At any rate what struck me was this ; this company was incorporated in 1800, but for various reasons it has not proceeded with the work. It was alleged before the committee that the present promoters were serious men. The name of one of them is well known throughout this country, Mr. Henry Hogan, of Montreal. Another of the promoters is the Hon. Mr. Ber-thiaume, proprietor of ' La Pressed I am sure that these are names which will commend themselves to the House. We were told that the project had the very strongest possible backing from some wealthy American capitalists. We were given no occasion


William Scott Maclaren: to find out who these men were, but it was alleged by a most respectable lawyer from Montreal who was there to speak in favour of the Bill that not less than $50,000 had been spent in preliminary surveys. An offer was made to present the proof of that allegation. Plans have been completed. They are not on their way to completion. I am now taking the statement that was made before the committee. The question of a bridge below Montreal is one which interests in a very high degree not only the population of Montreal but the population of the surrounding counties and particularly the population of the county which lies immediately to the south of Montreal. My hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Geoffrion) supported us in the desire we evinced to have that measure fully discussed. There were two reasons why the Bill was disposed of in this summary manner and no opportunity given, in a matter of this kind where a most desirable expenditure of $10,000,000 was contemplated in Montreal, to the party who was defending the Bill to adduce proof of his allegation. The reasons given were most futile. I submit. We were told there was another project, that there was on the Order Paper lower down a Bill to incorporate a company having for its object the construction of a similar bridge. Into the merits of the allegation we had no occasion to go at all, and there was no reason for the statement that Mr. Armstrong was connected with this company or this enterprise. I submit to this House, that whatever may be the shortcomings of Mr. Armstrong, what we are concerned with is not Mr. Armstrong, who may have personal enemies on either side of the House, but the seriousness of the enterprise, and whether Mr. Armstrong is connected with it or not does not matter to us provided there are men interested in it who are capable of carrying out the enterprise. This allegation of Mr. Armstrong's interest in the enterprise, Mr. Buchan, the lawyer from Montreal, who is promoting the Bill, offered to refute ; in fact, if I remember rightly, he stated before the committee that any interest that Mr. Armstrong might have had in the company had now disappeared, that he was no more a shareholder and I have been informed that there is proof of that. Well, if Mr. Armstrong, objectionable or not, has no Interest in the Bill, if it can be established before the committee that he is no more a shareholder in that company and if the parties whom I have already named are really willing to go on with the enterprise, why should we throw out this Bill without giving it any study when the promoters are merely asking for an extension of time, a favour which is asked from this House and granted every day ? In fact, I believe that this morning the committee granted that favour reporting favourably on a Bill extending the time for beginning operations when the time had actually

lapsed, whereas, iu this instance, it had not. As I have already stated this is a project which interests to a very high degree the people of Montreal and all we ask is that the different Bills may be considered at the same time, so that the committee may judge of the merits of these different Bills. 1 think this is a fair request and should be granted.


Mr. C. S. HYMAN (London).: Sir. Speaker, as chairman of the committee which had the consideration of this Bill, I have, only to say that I think it was a very fair representation of the committee that was present when this Bill was taken up and that it was fully discussed. There were over sixty members of the committee present and the vote on the Bill was something like 41 to 17. Mr. Buchan who was promoting the Bill had every opportunity of addressing the committee. The committee extended to him the courtesy of allowing him to address it and he did so most fully. It is quite true that just before one o'clock there was some question as to Mr. Buchan's again addressing the committee. I did not refuse Mr. Buchan permission but the committee had the matter fully before it and by a vote it was decided not to hear Mr. Buchan further. There was still an other reason for the action of the committee. There was a member of the committee present who addressed the committee against the Bill and who, I understand, is the owner of 1,700 shares out of something like 2,500 shares in the undertaking. He spoke very strongly against the Bill, and I think in a case of that kind a gentleman holding such an interest in the company as that ought to have very good reasons for not desiring the Bill to be further considered. It does seem to me that there should be a fair rule laid down in regard to a matter of this kind. If an lion, member makes a motion of this kind and has nothing new to lay before the House, a Bill should not be sent back to a committee for reconsideration. The Bill has been most fully considered. I am not speaking against the Bill ; I am merely stating what occurred. I think it would be a fair rule for the House to carry out that unless there is something new to be laid before the House, a Bill should not be sent back to a committee simply on the request of a member. I trust the hon. members of the House will take into consideration the fact that the committee fully discussed the Bill before arriving at the decision at which it did arrive.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) if he is aware that there was no opportunity given to Mr. Buchan to establish, what he alleged, that Mr. Armstrong had no more interest in that company ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have only to say that that fact was referred to a number of times. Mr. Buchan had an opportunity of referring
to it and of refuting the statement, but he did not have it at the particular time he asked for. That is all. He had every opportunity before one o'clock but at the last moment he wanted to discuss the matter again.


Hon. DAVID TISDALE (South Norfolk).: I think that possibly a matter which was referred to a committee and voted upon will bear a little further explanation to give those hon. members of the House who were not present in the committee an opportunity of understanding the exact position. I maj say for myself that I knew nothing of the merits of this Bill. It was an ordinary Bill for a renewal of time. This happens to be a bridge. I think there have been three or four bridge charters renewed already during this session under the same circumstances but the bridges were not across the same river. Further than that there has been a number of railway charters extended, and it was rather a surpi'ise to myself when it came up in the committee that an ordinary application for a renewal of a charter of this sort should meet with such strong opposition. The only opposition to this Bill mentioned in the committee, was that there was another application for a charter lower down on the list, covering precisely the same project. Then it was mentioned that a gentleman named Armstrong was connected with this scheme. The members from Montreal and the neighbourhood seem to know Mr. Armstrong better than I do, and I take it for granted from what they said, that there might be objections to him. However, that may be, I moved, as I thought it was only fair to do, that this Bill be deferred and be considered with the second Bill of a similar kind so that the committee could have the advantage of hearing the particulars regarding both of the projects. For the first time in my memory which extends over a long connection with the Railway Committee, that proposition was opposed, and to my surprise it was rejected by a vote of forty against seventeen. I submit that that was not fair consideration of the Bill. Most of us were entirely ignorant of the merits of either of the Bills, but never the less, without one tittle of explanation the Bill was thrown out. Surely the Railway Committee will not subscribe to the proposition that they should kill a charter simply on the statement that there is another charter to be considered later covering the same project. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has mentioned three very good names who are backing this Bill, and I regret that the gentlemen behind the other charter would not allow us to hear any explanation about this one. It should be remembered that the committee declined to allow a gentleman by the name of Buchan, who was a complete stranger to me, to answer statements made in the committee. It is true that he explained the scheme, but he ex-

plained it very moderately and very briefly, and wben I moved that he should be heard in reply to statements made by the other side, the committee absolutely refused to allow Mr. Buchan to speak. Much as I dislike to oppose any finding of the Railway Committee, yet after an experience of fifteen years, I can say that this is a very peculiar case and that the entire circumstances surrounding it warrant us in asking that the Bill be referred back to the committee, because there undoubtedly was not a full consideration of it.


Mr. J. A. C. MADORE (Hochelaga).: I rise to endorse what has been stated by the chairman of the Railway Committee (Mr. Hyman). I made the motion in the committee which killed this Bill, and I see no reason in the world why it should be sent back for further consideration. Speaking for myself personally, as well as for those whom I represent, we have no objection that the Bill should be sent back, because we know very well that when the committee have heard full explanations from both sides they would not for a moment think of passing this charter of the Montreal Bridge Company to extend the time for the building of that bridge. But the question arises : Is there any reason why the Railway Committee of this House should waste its time in reconsidering that Bill which has already been killed ? Mr. Buchan was heard in support of his Bill. Every member of the committee who was present knows that Mr. Buchan spoke twice on the subject, and it was only when he rose to ask leave to speak a third time, and after one o'clock, that the members of the committee expressed the opinion that they were fully informed on the subject, and that they did not need any more information. Mr. Buchan has no reason to complain. He has been very well treated, and every reason he could give has been given by him. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has stated that the only reason why the Bill was killed was because the name of Mr. Armstrong was mentioned in connection with it. That is not exactly the case. It is not Mr. Armstrong alone who has made application for this charter, but it is the Montreal Bridge Company,, which is composed' of a number of gentlemen. They were granted their charter in 1890, and since that time they have made no serious effort to begin the work. Under the charter of 1890, they bound themselves to commence to build the bridge within three years, and to have it completed within seven years. The three years elapsed and they did not move. They even waited until the expiration of the seven years for the completion of the bridge, and then they came back to this parliament asking for an extension of time. I claim that when in 1897, they got that extension of time their charter had actually lapsed, because they had not complied with the provisions in the charter which required them Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
to commence the bridge within three years. However that may be, this parliament in 1897 granted an extension of five years to the Montreal Bridge Company to complete the bridge. Since that time they have never moved. There is not an inch of work done to-day. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) stated that they have spent about $50,000, but the fact is that there has not been a cent spent since 1890. Before 1890, plans were prepared and these were the very plans that were produced before the committee. There is not a word of proof that they have incurred one dollar of expense since 1890. In view of the fact that parliament has already granted the Montreal Bridge Company two extensions of time, is it reasonable that parliament should again extend their charter to have it there as an embarrassment in the way of another company who seriously undertake to build the bridge ? We know very well in Montreal the reason why this application has now been made to parliament. We know very well that it is because certain difficulties have arisen between the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the South Shore Railway Company, and the New York Central Railway Company with regard to running rights over the Victoria bridge. These companies do no longer agree with the Grand Trunk Railway as regards the terms on which the Victoria bridge should be used by them, and so the American capitalists interested in these companies have decided to build a bridge of their own. When Mr. Armstrong heard this, then he made an application to have the charter renewed so that he might perpetuate the embarrassment to others which his charter has caused ever since 1890. Had that charter not been extended in 1897, the bridge between Longeuil and Montreal would have been completed long ago by responsible people who are willing and able to build it. But so long as the other charter was in existence the people on both sides of the river expected that the bridge would be constructed, and men who really desired to build a bridge did not like to embark in the enterprise. Now that Mr. Armstrong and some others connected with him see that enterprising people are ready to construct a bridge, they want purely and simply to blackmail them in order to compel them to buy that charter. That is the reason why parliament is asked now to grant a further extension of the charter. I do not believe that this House will be a party to that deal, and that the Bill which has been killed will remain killed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? If the facts are so much against this company as he states, what objection has he to this Bill being considered at the same time as his own Bill ?


Joseph Alexandre Camille Madore: That is exactly what 1 have stated, that, as far as I am concerned and the people I represent, we have no

objection; but it is a question for this House, whether we are going to lose the time of the committee for the pleasure of Mr. Armstrong and company.


Mr. GEORGE BALL (Nicolet).: 1 have no interest whatever in this charter. I was not here when it passed through the committee; but the reason given for throwing it out is so poor that I think I should say a few words in favour of having the Bill sent back to the committee. The single interest which I have in the Bill is that I represent a county on the south shore, through which the Quebec Southern Railway is going to pass. It is said that this charter was granted a long time ago, and that the gentlemen controlling it have not done much. Well, there was no opportunity to do much, because up to this time there has not been much progress made with the railroad; but now that the railroad is going to be built, other speculators come forward and want to have another charter. Why did they not present their Bill at the same time as the other ? But no, they present it now because there is a good prospect of having the bridge built, and there will be encouragement not only for the government but for Montreal and other places to give it assistance. An hon. gentleman on the other side said he was going to support the Bill, but after investigation he found that the name of Mr. Armstrong was connected with it yet. Well, I think that is a poor excuse. Why should I refuse to live in the city of Montreal because Mr. Armstrong lives there ? It is the same thing. You will not go into a certain business because another man you do not like is interested in it. I remember that last year the hon. member for Mai-sonneuve (Mr. Prefontaine) opposed the Bill because Mr. Armstrong was interested in it. I think that is a very poor reason. It is said that there is no opportunity of passing it, that it will take up the time of the House. It will not take much time, as the two Bills are going to be discussed together. I do not suppose it will take an hour of the time of the committee to discuss this matter. You see that a representative from the district of Montreal presented the Bill, and when he found out that Mr. Armstrong had something to do with it, he took the opportunity of presenting the Bill when he knew there was not one present to support it, and he got it killed. I do not suppose I need say that I am going to vote for the motion.


Mr. N. A. BELCODRT (Ottawa).: As this Bill stands in my name, I think I owe it to the House to explain why I am taking no interest in the matter, and doing nothing to support it. All I desire to say is that when the petition for the Bill was to be presented, some of the gentlemen interested in it asked pie if I would present the petition to the House in the absence of the member who was going to take charge of the Bill; and, as any member of the House
would do, I presented the petition, but did nothing further in regard to the Bill, and have no interest in it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: May I ask the hon. member who had charge of the Bill ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I cannot remember what name was stated to me; but the gentleman who asked me to present the petition said that the member was going to take charge of the Bill, and asked me if I would present the petition, which I did.


Mr. Y. GEOFFRION (Chambly and Ver-cheres).: I am perhaps more interested in this Bill than any other member of the House, as the bridge in question is to be built in my county. The question is not, as I understand, whether this charter should be granted, but whether we are to send this Bill back to the Railway Committee. The membei's of the committee will remember that when the parties interested in the Bill were before the committee, 1 rose and asked that the two Bills be taken up together; but the promoters of the Bill unfortunately would not listen to xpy proposition, and decided to go on with this Bill. Thei-efore, I am now in a good position to say that if they chose to take that position, and preferred to take chances with this Bill, they should abide by the result. If the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was not satisfied with the explanations given in the committee, the different members who voted said by their votes that they were satisfied .with them.
I voted before the committee to give an opportunity for more explanations, but the committee seemed to be satisfied with the explanations given, and voted nay. Therefore, I am now in a good position to say that I do not think that this Bill should be sent back to the Railway Committee. It was fully discussed; all the members of the committee were in a position to judge it on its merits, and they did judge; and I think it is a very dangerous practice to send back to the committee Bills which have been fully discussed before it and disposed of.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think my hon. friend and I both voted to have both Bills considered at the same time.


Victor Geoffrion: We did not vote that at all. We voted to have more explanations from Mr. Buchan, the promoter of the Bill, and I was prepared to give all the time and opportunity necessary to the different promoters of the Bill; but I think it was unfair for the promoters of the Bill to refuse to take up the two Bills together, and that was the position I took at the time.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: I shall have to support the amendment to refer the Bill back to the committee-not because I am interested in the Bill at all, for I am not, but because I was in the Railway Committee yesterday morning when this matter was disposed of. I know nothing whatever

of the merits of the Bill. No opportunity was given me or any member in my position to form an intelligent opinion as to whether that charter should be granted or not. I was not favourably disposed to the Bill, but I think that it should be given a fair hearing in the committee.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: I was in the committee yesterday when this Bill was thrown out. It was approaching one o'clock when the matter came before the committee, and a very large number of the members were absent. The Bill was simply to extend the time, and as a bill of that nature usually receives the endorsement of the Railway Committee, it was quite natural that a large number of the members of the committee, considering that the passing of the Bill was only a matter of form, should have left the room and a comparatively small number remained to deal with this important measure. I feel that the promoters did not receive very kind treatment at the hands of those present. It would appear that it was understood among a certain number that no opposition would be offered to this Bill, and that the larger portion of the committee had no hint given them that it would be opposed. It was apparently understood that it would receive the ordinary treatment accorded measures of that character. The result was that largely those who were opposed to the Bill remained in the committee room and a very small .number were there to support it. The promoter was not present and there was no member present to speak in its be-lialf. I regard the whole proceedings as one of considerable hardship. Looking at the matter in a general way-and that is the only way in which I can look at it-I must say that I knew nothing at all of the merits of the scheme until yesterday, but to my mind this is a case in which the House can well afford to refer the report back to the committee and have the mistake corrected rather than treat the measure in an unceremonious way and possibly do considerable injury. I shall vote with pleasure for the resolution to refer that portion of the report back which deals with this Bill.
House divided on motion of Mr. Bicker-dike.
Alcorn,
Angers,
Avery,
Ball,
Baker,
Bennett,
Birkett,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Brock,
Broder,
Brown,
Bruce,
Cargill,


Arthur W. Puttee: YEAS :
Messieurs.
Kendrey,
Kidd,
Lancaster,
' LaRividre,
I La veil,
Lefurgey,
LSonard,
'Lovell,
MacLaren (Huntingdon)i McCormick,
McIntosh,
McLennan,
McLeod,
Monk,
Carscallen,	Morin,
Clare,	Northrup,
Clarke,	Pope,
Cochrane,	Porter
Culbert,	Puttee,
Earle,	Robinson (Elgin),
Fisher,	Roche (Marquette),
Fowler,	Rosamond,
Gourley,	Schell,
Haggart,	Simmons,
Halliday,	Smith (Vancouver),
Henderson,	Stephens,
Hughes (Victoria), _	Taylor,
Ingram,	Tisdale,
Johnston (Cardwell),	Tolton,
Kau'lbach,	Vrooman,
Kemp, . .	Wilmot-62.
NAYS :	
Messieurs.	
Bazinet,	LeBlanc,
Beith,	Legris,
B&land,	Lemieux,
Bernier,	Logan,
Blair,	Macdonald,
Borden (King's, N.S.),	Mackie,
Bourassa,	McCarthy,
Bourbonnais,	McColl,
Bruneau,	Mclsaac,
Brunet,	Madore,
Bureau,	Malouin,
Calvert,	Marcil (Bagot),
Campbell,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Carbonneau,	Matheson,
Carroll,	Meigs,
Christie,	Mignault,
Delisle,	Mulock,
Demers (Levis),	Murray,
Demers (St. John),	Oliver,
Douglas,	Parmelee,
Dugas,	Paterson,
Erb,	Power,
Ethier,	Proulx,
Farquharson,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fielding,	Riley,
Flint,	Roche (Halifax),
Fortier,	Ross (Ontario),
Fraser,	Ross (Rimouski),
Gauvreau,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Geoffrion,	Rousseau,
Gibson,	Russell, "
Girard,	Scott,
Guthrie,	Sifton,
Harwood,	Stewart,
Heyd,	Sutherland (Essex),
Holmes,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Hyman,	Thompson,
Johnston (Cape Breton)	, Tobin,
Johnston (Lambton),	Turcot,
Lang,	Turgeon,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid).	Wade,
Laurier (L'Assomption), Wright.-85.
Tiavergne,
Motion negatived.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 90) to incorporate the British American Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Stephens.
Bill (No. 91) respecting the Timagami Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 92) to amend the Railway Act so as to promote the safety of railway employees.-Mr. Smith (Vancouver).


Mr. BARKER asked :: 1.	How many railway ties or sleepers were purchased for the Intercolonial Railway in the autumn of 1900 and in the winter of 1901, between Metapedia and Moncton ?
2.	What proportion of such ties or sleepers were spruce, fir and poplar, respectively ?
3.	What prices were paid for each such description of tie or sleeper ?
4.	Were such ties or sleepers required to be in accordance with any and what specifications as to size, quality or otherwise ?
5.	Were tenders called for, if so, what notice by advertisement or otherwise was given to the public with respect thereto ?
6.	What amount was paid out by Inspector McMannus or other persons on behalf of the government or of the Intercolonial Railway for railway ties or sleepers during the month preceding the 7th day of November, 1900 ?
7.	(a.)Who were the contractors who supplied the railway ties or sleepers in the autumn of 1900 and the winter of 1901 between the points above mentioned ?
(b.) Did each of them have the privilege of delivering a percentage of spruce, fir and poplar, and if so, what percentage ? or was this privilege given to some only, and if so, to whom ?
(c.) If this privilege was given to some only, and was not general, why was it not granted to all contractors ?
8.	(a.) Were such railway ties or sleepers paid for in cash or by cheque ?
(b.) What proportion was paid for by cheque and what proportion was paid for in cash ?
(c.) Is it the usual custom to pay for such supplies by cheque upon voucher, and if so, why was this custom departed from ?
9.	(a.) What special privileges, if any, were given to Mr. F. Curran in connection with contracts for supplying railway ties and sleepers in 1900 and 1901 ?
(b.) Were the same privileges extended to all other persons tendering for the supplying of railway ties or sleepers ?
10.	What amount of railway ties or sleepers purchased in 1900 and 1901, respectively, still remain on hand, and what proportion of each respectively, have been used ?
11.	Of the ties and sleepers so purchased in the autumn of 1900 and the winter of 1901, what proportion were fir, spruce and poplar, respectively, and what proportion of each have been used, and what proportion still remain on hand ?
12.	Has the Department of Railways and Canals a report on the quality and durability or value of spruce, fir and poplar ties, respectively ; if so, by whom was such report made, and when was it made ?
13.	Has any allegation or charge been made against contractor McMannus in connection with the surveying of such ties or sleepers or any of them, and if so, has the same been investigated, and with what result ?
14.	Has any reinspection or examination of the said railway ties or sleepers been made during the summer of 1901, or at any other time, and if so, by whom and with what result, and have any and what proportion of such ties and sleepers been found to be under-sized or otherwise unsuitable ?
15.	If any such reinspection has been made, when and by whom was it made, and at what cost has it been completed, and if it has not been completed, is it still in progress, and if it is not in progress, why has it been discontinued ?
16.	If any of such ties or sleepers have been found to be below the required size or otherwise unsuitable, or not in accordance with the specifications, if any, what steps have been taken to recover the value thereof from the contractor ?
17.	Has any track foreman between Newcastle and Moncton reported that railway ties or sleepers delivered to him for use on the Intercolonial Railway were under size or otherwise unsuitable, and has he sent any specimen thereof to the chief engineer at Moncton for inspection ?
18.	What is the usual practice of the department with respect to the paying for ties or sleepers, and was this practice in any way departed from by payment in cash instead of by cheque or otherwise during the autumn of 1900 and the winter of 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	553,210.
2.	289,805 spruce. Fir and poplar not ordered.
3.	183,053 spruce, eight feet at twenty cents j 180 spruce, eight feet at twenty-two cents; 96 spruce, eight feet at twenty-four cents; 107 spruce, eight feet at twenty-six cents; 106,363 spruce, nine feet at twenty-five nine-tenth cents.
4.	They were to he in accordance with Intercolonial Railway specifications.
5.	Tenders were called for by advertising poster, dated the 24th of September, 1900, and exhibited at all stations of the railway. The poster called for tenders to be sent in by the 15th of October, 1900.
6.	The treasurer of the Intercolonial Railway issued railway cheques to the amount of $34,988.99 in payment for railway ties during the month preceding the 7th day of November, 1900. Neither Inspector McMannus nor any other persons paid any amount on behalf of the government or of the Intercolonial Railway.
7.	(a) Frank Curran, Humphrey & Trites, F. T. B. Young, J. D. Buckley, Patrick Ultican, D. J. Buckley, John Culligan, John Maloney, Jas. O. Fish, A. Dunn, P. Hen-nessy, Patrick Tobin, C. A. Murray, J. J. Fournier, Summer & Co., J. S. Hachey.
(b)	None of them had the privilege of delivering fir or poplar ties. In consequence of the large number which F. Curran, contracted to furnish, the railway agreed not to order spruce ties from others till his contract was completed.
(c)	See answer to ' b.'
8.	(a) They were paid for by cheque.
(b)	All were paid for by cheque.
(c)	It is the usual custom to pay for such 'supplies by cheque upon voucher, and the custom wa s not departed from.
9.	(a) In consequence of the large number of ties of different kinds of wood which he contracted to supply, the railway agreed

not to order spruce ties from others till his contract for spruce ties was completed.
(b) All persons tendering for ties had the same privilege as F. Curran, with the exception named in No. 9 ' a.'
10.	The number of ities on hand, June 30, 1901, was 800,424. From July 1, 1901, to February 28, 1902, 461,734 ties have been used.
11.	The number of spruce ties purchased in the autumn of 1900, and winter of 1901, was 289,805. Fir and poplar were not ordered.
12.	Mr. T. C. Burpee, C.E., made a report on March 7, 1901, and Mr. W. B. MacKenzie, C.E., made a report on the 4th of April, 1901.
13.	Yes, and it has been under investigation, but the investigation is not completed.
14.	Yes, the investigation was suspended In November, on account of the lateness of the season. The inspection was made by W. H. Williams and C. E. Morton.
15.	This was made in September, October and November. It was made bv W. H. Williams and C. E. Morton. The work was suspended on account of the lateness of the season.
16.	When the reinspection is completed, such steps will be taken if the facts ascertained show them to be necessary.
17.	No report has been received from any track foreman between Newcastle and Moncton, that railway ties or sleepers delivered to him for use on the Intercolonial Railway were undersize or otherwise unsuitable, and the chief engineer has not received any specimen thereof for inspection.
18.	The usual praotice of the department with respect to the paying for ties or sleepers is to pay by cheque upon voucher and this practice was not departed from during the autumn of 1900, or the winter of 1901.


TAY CANAL,-PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYEES AND COLLECTIONS.
Mr. LEGRIS asked :: 1.	What amount was expended in paying the employees of the Tay Canal during the years 1806, 1897, 1898, 1899 and 1901, respectively ?
2.	What amount was collected by the government on that canal during the said years ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The amount paid to employees on the Tay canal during the years 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899 and 1901, was as follows :
1896	$2,065	503897	
990	001898	
1,262	251899	
1,301	621901	
1,322	002.	The amount of tolls collected on the Tay canal during the said years is as follows :1896	$122	351897	
108	821898	
77	331899	
121	071901	
76	33


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: 


POSTMASTER AT JOLIETTE, QUE.
Mr. CASGRAIN asked :: 1.	Has the government dismissed, or is it about to dismiss John James Sheppard from his position of postmaster of Joliette 1
2.	If so, for what cause, and at whose request ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock).: At the Dominion elections of 1896, the postmaster at Joliette took an active part in support of one of the candidates. It was hoped that he would discontinue such action, and notice was not taken of it. But, at the elections of 1900, he again took an active part on behalf of one of the candidates. He also, during the elections of 1900, illegally detained in his office letters addressed to leading Liberals, such letters having to do with the work of organization, announcement of meetings, &c. In this way he was able to interfere with the calling of meetings for the discussion of public questions. Being engaged in the practice of medicine, he neglected the duties of the office, leaving its management to young girls wholly incompetent for the work. For these reasons he was removed from office. The department has fully satisfied itself as to the correctness of these charges and assumes full responsibility for the action taken.


I.C.R.-MR. HORNE'S ENGAGEMENT.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART asked :: 1.	What are the terms of Mr. R. T. Horne's engagement as manager's assistant on the Intercolonial Railway, and what salary Is he now In receipt of ?
2.	Has he been absent from his office in Moncton for some weeks ? If so, who is performing his duties ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Mr E. T. Horne's engagement is a temporary one. He is engaged as an expert having special knowledge and experience in the laying out and arranging of station terminals and yards. His salary is $300 a month. He has been absent four weeks, and is now on his way to Moncton. His duties have been performed by the manager during his absence.


CILAMBLY CANAL-CONDITION OF UPPER PORTION.
Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville) asked :: 1.	Has the government been informed that that upper portion of the Chambly Canal, granted by letters patent to the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada on the condition of a wharf being there maintained, is, to-day, nothing more than a foul mudrhole where even the shadow of a wharf is not to be seen ?
2.	Is it the government's intention to recall those letters patent, as it has reserved to itself the right to do ?
3.	Is it the government's intention to prevent individuals from making use of that locality as a refuse depository ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Bair) :: 1.	The government has received complaints that the property owned by the Grand Trunk Railway at the head of the Chambly canal is not being properly maintained according to the requirements of the grant from the Quebec government.
2.	The letters patent were granted by the Quebec government, who it is assumed would have the right to take action thereunder.
3.	The government will take action, when necessary, to prevent a refuse deposit being made to interfere with the navigation of the Chambly canal.



CENSUS-PAYMENTS FOR HORSE OR LIVERY HIRE.

Mr. BRODER asked :: What amount has been paid for horse or livery hire on account of the census of 1891 and 1901, respectively T


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE . (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: I must ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Broder) to make a motion for a return, as this information will involve the giving of a good many figures.



YUKON TERRITORY-REPRESENTATION IN PARLIAMENT.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) asked :: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce a Bill during the present session providing for representation of the Yukon territory in Parliament ?
2.	If not, when will such legislation be introduced ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: I expect to introduce a Bill dealing with a number of matters in connection with the Yukon territory this session, and, in all probability, the question of representation of the territory in the House of Commons will be dealt with in that Bill. The matter, at the present time, is under consideration.



SOUTH AFRICAN WAR-CONDUCT OF CANADIAN SOLDIERS.

Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (North Victoria).: Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay before the House an item reflecting upon Canadians in service in South Africa. I find it in the London ' Daily News ' of Tuesday, March 18, 1902. It speaks of an engagement fought in 1900, and refers to the conduct of the Canadians in the battle. The correspondent states :
What struck me as a pretty horrible incident was that some Canadians who were too far off to join in the light afterwards came in and stripped off the boots and socks of the dead Boers-a thing I should not like to do even in the case of a living 'Boer -and pulled out their toe-nails to carry away as mementoes.
I need not say that this item is entirely untrue.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria), wishes to conclude with a motion ?


Samuel Hughes: I am ready to do so, yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that it would be better to wait until the debate is reached.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance (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 ; and the proposed notion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
["Mr. Speaker,' in view of the lateness of the hour, I will not attempt to-night to address to the House the few remarks which I have to make on this question. I move the adjournment of the debate."]
Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) moved the adjournment of the debate yesterday, he is first entitled to the floor.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (South Leeds).: I informed you last night, Mr. Speaker, that it was not my intention to occupy any time in discussing the motion or the amendment now before the House. But the hon. member who was to reply to the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Maclaren) is not in his place, and I feel it my duty to make a few observations in reply to him. I would have done so last night, but the Minister of Finance was kind enough to say that owing to an arrangement having been made to take a vote on Tuesday night he would consent to an adjournment, and let me make my observations to-day. The hon. member for Huntingdon, in his speech, made use of the following language :
I am in principle a free trader, and that is the basis of my 'support of the fiscal policy of the present government. That party and that policy which come nearest to ?ny views are the party and the policy that I support.
Further on he says :
One thing I cannot understand is how the increase of duty is going to cheapen articles to those who have to purchase. That has always troubled me. I was talking the other day to a manufacturer down it the Russrl House, ana 1 put him this question: 'What about us who have to purchase ?' He said, 'The increase in duty does not necessarily increase the price of the article.' Well, we are all human, we like to get all we can for what we have to sell and buy as cheaply as possible. And I have not that confidence of the philanthropy, of the manufacturers of this country to believe that they are going to give us goods any cheaper than they can afford to, and whatever duty is put on they will add to the price of their goods.


George Taylor: rants, 2c. pet pound, the weight of box or basket to be included for duty ; butter, 4c. per pound ; buckwheat, 10c. a bushel ; buckwheat meal or flour, ljc. per pound ; oleomargarine, butterine or other substitutes for butter are prohibited.
I would like to ask my hon. friend if he would have that prohibition removed. Some years ago, I think in 1886, I had the honour of introducing into this House a Bill to prohibit the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine as a substitute for butter. I urged that a duty of 10 cents per pound, which would actually amount to prohibition, be placed on the oleomargarine manufactured in Canada or imported. It was ruining the dairying industry of the country, as I proved by statistics. The proposition was opposed by some hon. gentlemen of the opposition. One said he had purchased oleomargarine in the United States, brought it into this country, and fed it to his lumbermen in camp. Another hon. gentleman of standing in the House then, and of standing in the House to-day, made a speech from which I propose to quote a few words. During my speech I had read from the report of Commissioner Coleman of the United States Agricultural Department, in which he says ;
The manufacture of injurious compounds of fat, which are being shipped as genuine butter, threatens the legitimate dqiry interests of America.
Further on in my speech I announced what the government proposed doing. ' I said :
I asked, at the same time, that an excise and customs duty of 10 cents per pound be placed on all oleomargarine, either imported or manufactured in the country ; and I am glad to say that the government, true to its protective policy-the national policy-came down with a resolution placing a customs duty of 10 cents and an excise duty of 8 cents per pound on all these substitutes.
The government accepted the proposition I made, and came down with a specific and an excise duty on oleomargarine, either manufactured or imported. Had that been inforced it would practically amount to prohibition. But, as the matter was discussed further, the present Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) rose in his place and suggested to the then Minister of Customs (Sir Mackenzie Bowell), that in place of putting on an import and excise duty, it was better to prohibit the article, and the then Minister of Customs accepted the proposition and placed the article on the prohibited list. The hon. Minister of Customs had the audacity to state to the people that he was the party who was instrumental in having the importation of that article prohibited. But, we have one hon. gentleman high in the counsels of the party then in opposition and high in the counsels of the cabinet of to-day, and here is the speech that he made ;

The Conservative government saw the force of my argument and they put a duty of 2 cents a pound on pork and pork products and on beef and beef products. And what is the result ? We are growing enough to feed the people of this country and we are sending millions of dollars worth away to feed the people across the sea. Would the hon. member for Huntingdon be willing to allow the corn and rattlesnake fed pork of the United States to come in here and compete with the pea, oat and rye fed pork we produce in this country which is commanding the best price in the market ? I am not surprised that he gave a note of warning to the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier). We have had a dozen hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House giving notes of warning to the government, saying that they are free traders, and telling the government that if they advance the tariff they will withdraw their support. How can the farmers, the workingmen and the manufacturers of Canada expect any more protection from this government when hon. gentlemen behind them are standing up here and there and warning the government to make no change in the tariff in an upward direction, threatening them that if they do they will withdraw their support ? We have not heard from the ministers yet on this question, excepting from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in presenting his budget and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). Why have the ministers of the government not sprung to their feet to defend the position they have taken ? They are allowing the members behind them to get up and tell their experience and they are ascertaining how many of them would vote against them in case they attempted to give any increased protection to the industries of this country. The last note of warning that we heard was from the hon. member for Huntingdon. He said : Ho not touch the tariff. If you do, I will vote against you. But the ministers of this government care more for their seats in office than" for their words or for any help they can give to the farmers, the workingmen, or the manufacturers of Canada. I have just stated that these hon. gentlemen care more for their seats in office than for the solemn promises they gave to the people of this country.


Mr. BENNETT.: And tlm salary ?


George Taylor: Oh, the salary ! That is only a small item to some of them. I wonder that there is an hon. gentleman sitting on the treasury benches to-day who can go to sleep and sleep soundly. I do not think it is possible. These hon. gentlemen must have the nightmare of broken promises to disturb their slumber. We can all remember that in 1896 the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, the hon. Minister of Mr. TAYLOR.
Customs and the right hon. Prime Minister sang one tune to the farmers, and I could read a record as long as my arm of the promises they made to the people. They have not redeemed one of them. The Prime Minister himself went to the temperance people. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) was the temperance apostle of the party. The Prime Minister said : You put me in and you can depend on that hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fisher). You put me in and I will submit a plebiscite to the people ; if the people carry that plebiscite I will give effect to the will of the people. He submitted the question to the people. Hid he carry it ? He directed two or three of his ministers to go into the province of Quebec and say to the people:	If the
plebiscite is carried it is going to put Sir Wilfrid in a hole. Yote against it. If you carry the plebiscite it means $2 a head for every man, woman and child. The average family in Quebec is from fifteen to twenty and it means to the poor farmer down there who is a temperance man a direct tdx of 830 or $40 in most cases to make up the deficiency of revenue that will be lost by the introduction of a prohibitory law. What was the result ? Quebec went nearly solid against the plebiscite, and upon the advice of the Prime Minister and three other ministers who stumped that province.


Mr. CLARKE.: Satellites.


George Taylor: No; they were cabinet
ministers. But	notwithstanding their
efforts, the plebiscite carried by a substantial majority, and did the Prime Minister give effect to the will of the people ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


George Taylor: Certainly not. Ask the Rev. Mr. Huxtable, who was chairman of the delegation that waited on him at Car-leton Place, and who said : I never gave a Conservative vote in my life, but I will never vote for the Liberals again until they redeem their pledge. That is one of the nightmares that haunts the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), who said that if the express will of the people were not carried out he would leave the' cabinet. Well, the Minister of Agriculture has not left the cabinet yet. He thinks more of liis salary than he does of his word. Then, the Prime Minister told the people in London, Ont., that he would get a preference in England for the produce of the farmers of Canada, and he pointed out to the farmers what a nice thing it would be for them to be able to sell their oats, and their wheat, and their meat, and their hay, on the English market at an advantage over the products of the United States. The Prime Minister went to England, and did he ask for a preference ? On the contrary, he said in England : We will give you a preference in our markefs and

we will not take anything in return. That is the way he redeemed that pledge. Again the Prime Minister told the people that if they put him in power he would get them reciprocity with the United States, and the people along the frontier, particularly around my place, took Sir Wilfrid Laurier at his word and they brought their produce over to the United States when the Liberals got into power, but they had their goods seized because they forgot to enter them at the custom-house. The right lion, gentleman sent a commission to Washington. There is only one of the commissioners present in the House to-day, I am sorry to see. They went for a jaunt to Washington in their private cars, well padded and well lined, and they spent the money of the people of Canada, but they got no reciprocity.
There was a troublesome question before the people of Canada known as the Manitoba school question, and the Prime Minister said : I will settle that question if you put me in power; 1 will send a commission to Manitoba headed by Sir Oliver Mowat to ascertain the facts, and we will settle the question. Did he send Sir Oliver Mowat to Manitoba ? Not at all. He sent up his handy man who sits up behind him, the man who says elections are not carried by prayers, the man who thinks that every man in this country has his price; he sent him up to Manitoba in a special car to have a good time. This gentleman interviewed Mr. Greenway, and on the authority of a gentleman who is satisfied that the facts I will relate are true, this is what occurred. Mr. Greenway said : There are three men here, namely, Mr. Sifton, Mr. Martin and Mr. Prendergast, who will have to be removed before I can settle the school question. An arrangement was made as a basis of settlement which included the provision that if these three men were satisfied and gotten out of the way, a certain amendment to the school law would be proposed if the government at Ottawa would give to Mr. Greenway a slice out of the school land funds to help his depleted treasury. Remember that the federal government was the trustee of these funds for the benefit of the schools of Manitoba for all time to come. However, the bargain was made and legislation was introduced here to give Mr. Greenway the money belonging to that, sacred trust fund, and the Bill passed through this House* but thank God we had a Senate that defeated it. Now, that the Liberals have control of the Senate, I expect that when the proper time comes there will be a Bill passed to give Mr. Greenway the $300,000. Then Mr. Sifton had to be settled with, and Mr. Tarte said to him : You withdraw your opposition to the settlement of the Manitoba school question ; come to Ottawa and join the government as Minister of the Interior ; you will have control of all the lauds of Manitoba and tl*e
North-west Territories, and the gold lands of the Yukon. Mr. Sifton, who is a pretty shrewd fellow when there is anything affecting himself up, replied: I will go down provided I have control over the department without being subject to Council. The Minister of Public Works. (Hon. Mr. Tarte) yielded, and Mr. Sifton came down and was made Minister of the Interior, and the Prime Minister announced to the people of Canada that he gave Mr. Sifton absolute control of his department. The proof of that exists, because Mr. Sifton was not long in office until he gave the gold lands of that country to his friends to build a few miles of tramway. Thank God we had a Senate to stop that. I expect to see this year a Bill go through the Senate to recoup the gentlemen who got the contract for that work. Then there was Sir. Slartin left. The Slinister of Public Works could not handle Sir. Slartin alone, and so he had a consultation with the Canadian Pacific Railway people about it. He went to the Canadian Pacific Railway people and said : We want Martin out of the way; you hire him to be your solicitor in British Columbia for a few years; give him a large salary of $8,000 or $10,000 a year, and we will recoup you by increasing the subsidies which the Conservative government agreed to give for the building of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway sent Sir. Slartin to British Columbia as their solicitor with a large salary, and this government carried out the corrupt bargain and recouped the Canadian Pacific Railway by increasing the subsidies to build the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. Then they went to Sir. Prendergast and said : You are working here for $400 or $500 a year as a common member of parliament, fighting the battles of your people, why not take the chief justiceship with a large salary, and withdraw your opposition and we will get the school question settled. Sir. Prendergast agreed and they appointed him chief justice of Slanitoba at a big salary, and then Sir. Greenway amended the School Act. The Prime Slinister now tells us he has settled the Slanitoba school question. It is true that he resorted to the corrupt means I have referred to, but ask His Grace Archbishop Langevin, and he will tell you that the Slanitoba school question is not settled, and that, it is a burning issue to-day in Manitoba.
He promised to abolish private cars. I see in the paper the other day that they had to build a new siding at the station to accommodate the private cars of the ministers. Each one has a private car. The Pi-ime Minister said that if he were elected, he would ride with the common people in their common cars. I want to see the Prime Slinister ride in a special car, but I think one special car should do for this government, as one special car did for the gov-

eminent of the late lamented Sir John A. Macdonald. He promised to abolish protection. Did he do it ? He promised to remove the duty on coal oil. He lowered the duty a cent a gallon, and then the wells were sold out to the Standard Oil Company ; and to quiet the late Judge Lister on this subject, they took him out of this House and put him on the bench, and then gave the legislation which they had bargained for to the Standard Oil Company, and that great monopoly has now control of this country.


Samuel Hughes: Is coal oil cheaper V


George Taylor: The government is paying 32 cents a gallon for it, besides $1.25 lor the barrels. He promised the people of the North-west that he would remove the duty on agricultural implements. Did he do it 7 Ask the representatives of the North-west. But they are not going to vote against the government. They are getting a share of the plunder, and they will put up with it. He promised the workingmen of British Columbia that he would stop the importation of Chinese into this country. Has he done it ? We see them in rebellion on that question, asking the Prime Minister to carry out the pledge he made to them. He promised that he would reform the Senate. Has he done that ? Ask Mr. H. H. Cook or read the evidence which he gave. When they went selling seats in the Senate, that was a reformation. I suppose they will thank Providence that the Senate has been reformed because a number of Conservative members have died, and they have appointed some of their partisans for a price to fill their places. They promised to reduce the debt. The Prime Minister said ' Put me in, and I will surround myself with a cabinet of business men.' Where are the business men in this cabinet to-day ? We have a cabinet of lawyers, with one business man in it-the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), who takes care that he has good protection on biscuits and everything that comes out of his factories. I like to see it, because it gives the farmers better protection on their flour. The Prime Minister promised that he would reduce the national debt. Has he done it ? No. Instead of that, he has increased it in about six years by some $12,000,000. He promised to reduce the taxation. Has he reduced it any? The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) stated the other night that the government had reduced the cost of goods to the people 10 per cent, and the Minister of Customs gave the people to understand that their goods were now costing 10 per cent less than they had cost under the old tariff. The hon. member for Guysborough said that the average duty had been reduced from 20 per cent to 18 per cent, or a reduction in the cost of goods of 10 per cent. How does that affect the farmers of this country ? Take a farmer who lives in the


George Taylor: part of the country that I do, where he can throw a stone into the United States. He goes over and buys a dollar's worth of goods, and brings them home. Under the old tariff he would pay 20 per cent duty, so that that dollar's worth would cost him $1.20. To-day he goes and buys a dollar's worth of goods and brings them home, and pays 18 cents duty on them, so that the dollar's worth cost him $1.18. Therefore he pays two cents less on the transaction ; and this the hon. member for Guysborough says is a reduction of 10 per cent to the people on their purchases. The Prime Minister said : ' Put me in, and I will surround myself with a cabinet of business men, who will run the country on business principles, and we will save two millions, three millions, four millions ' ; and Mr. Justice Mills said. ' Yes, we can save five millions of dollars a year.'


William Humphrey Bennett: Where is he now ?


George Taylor: He is transplanted to the bench. He was first translated to the Senate, and from there he was elevated to the bench. How has the government carried out that promise ? The Conservative government ran the country, and ran it better, and made more permanent improvements, on $36,000,000 or $37,000,000 a year than these people are doing on $47,845,000, which is the figure of their main estimates for this year. They have had prosperous times and large revenues ; and the people of this country expected that the Prime Minister and his cabinet, being business men, would do what any practical business man wouid do in times of prosperity, when more money was coming in than he required to run his business. They expected that the government would use the surplus to reduce the national debt. Have they done it ? No ; they have simply spent all they got, and in six years they have mortgaged the country to the extent of $12,000,000 more. Take a practical farmer who has a mortgage of $10,000 on his farm. He prospers, and his farm yields good returns. Would he say to his family, ' We will spend it all, and if at the end of the year it is not quite enough to pay running expenses, we will put another mortgage of $oo0 on the farm.' Would that farmer be a prudent business man ? That is just what this government have done ; they have spent all their revenue and mortgaged this country in the last six years to the extent of $12,000,000 more. I will just give one illustration to show the extravagant manner in which they are transacting the public business-and this applies more particularly to the practical, honest farmer who is in this cabinet, in the person of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), though the government as a whole is responsible. The late Conservative government, who were corrupt and everything that was bad, judging by statements of the members of the

present government when they sat on this side of the House, took the census for three terms-in 1871, in 1881 and in 1891. The census of 1871 cost $511,000, that of 1881 cost $552,000, and that of 1891 cost $549,000, or an average of $540,000. Now, what little bill has this practical business man, the Minister of Agriculture, contracted ? A question was put to him on the 3rd of March : How much has been expended on the census up to date ? And the answer was $948,000 up to the 3rd of March. But there is about two years work yet to be done. I have a question yet on the paper asking how much has been expended up to date, and how much the minister anticipates it will take to complete the work. I am prepared to say, that added to that $948,000 it will take another sum of $250,000 to complete the census. That makes an increase in 1901 over 1891 of $649,000. Is that the way a business government should conduct the business of the country 7 Take my own town. By the census of 1891, it had a population of 3,869. The town has been growing considerably since, and yet by the present census that number is reduced to 3,526. Now, our municipal assessor was at work at the same time that the census enumerators were making their count, and took down the heads of families and tho number of each family. I have here a note from the Town Clerk's office with regard to that enumeration.
Gananoque, Oct. 17, 1901.
Dear Sir,-The assessment roll for the town of Gananaoque for the year 1901 shows a population of 3,718. I regret that I cannot give the other particulars asked for as they are not on the roll.
Yours, &c.,



[Stage Direction]
Thus the municipal assessor, who was at work at the same time as the Dominion census enumerators, gives the town 192 more persons than do the enumerators of this government. I got the assessors returns from every municipality in my county, and these show an increase of over 1,000 in population as compared with a reduction of the 1,000 in the census returns. That is a fair sample of how the censuses were taken in Ontario at least. And for this imperfect census we are paying $650,000 more than was paid by the late Conservative government for the census taken by it in 1871, 1881 or 1891. The Minister of Trade and Commerce pretends to be disappointed, but he must know that so far as Ontario is concerned the figures are altogether wrong. He has frequently expressed his confidence in the government at Toronto, and that government compiles a census every year from the municipal returns. and he has always argued by that the censuses compiled by the bureau of statistics at Toronto were correct, yet see the 66
difference between them and the figures given by the enumerators of this government.
I have here the last estimates which the late Conservative government laid before the House in 1895-6 and the main estimates of the present government now before the House. I find that there are increases in the expenditure of every department under the present government as compared with 1895-
6.	In that year, the late government had a public debt, including sinking fund, of $12,732,706.14, which has risen under the present administration to $13,967,312.65, or an increase of $1,234,606.51.	[DOT]
In charges of management the late government asked for an expenditure of $164,180 in 1895-6, whereas the present government wants $181,743 or $7,000 of an increase.
In civil government the late administration spent in 1895-6 $1,449,000 against $1,575,000 asked for by this government, or an increase of $125,800.
Administration of Justice cost us in 1895-6 $769,800. This year, according to the main estimates, it is costing us $976,000 or an increase of $206,000.
On penitentaries the expenditure of $467,000 in 1895-6 has been increased to $491,000 or an increase of $24,000.
On legislation we are spending $931,000 as against $853,000 in 1895-6, showing an increase of $78,000 under the present administration.
Then take arts, agriculture and statistics, at the head of which department is this great business man, the Minister of Agriculture, the expenditure to-day is $502,000 as against $208,000 by the late government in ,1895-6, or an increase of $294,000.
Qn quarantine the late government expended $70,000, and we are now asked for $193,000, an increase of $123,000.
Immigration cost us in 1895-6 $130,000, to-day it is costing us $445,000, or an increase of $315,000.
In pensions there is a decrease of $1,021. Then take superannuation. The expenditure on that branch has increased from $273,000 under the late government to $328,000, or an increase of $55,000, caused by superannuations which have taken place since this administration has taken office despite their pledge to the people that they would abolish the superannuation system. I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to explain a flagrant abuse in his own city of the superannuation system. There we had a postmaster, competent and efficient, and what did this government do ? They wrote out an order-in-council which they got His Excellency the Governor General to sign, believing no doubt it was true, superannuating the former postmaster because he was too old, and to-day that gentleman is drawing a big pension for doing nothing although he is a much abler
[Stage Direction]


man that the one put in his place. The late incumbent at Kingston was 68 years of age when superannuated by these gentlemen, and they appointed in his place Mr. Gunn, a defeated candidate, who was seventy years of age when they appointed him. And these are the people who promised to abolish the abuse of superannuation. You cannot walk down the streets of this city without stumbling over young men in the prime of life, who were superannuated by these gentlemen to make positions for their party heelers.
The militia, under the late government, cost $1,098,000 and to-day it costs $1,773,000, being an increase of $674,000.
Railways and canals chargeable to income cost $96,000 in 1895-6, and to-day is costing $344,000, an increase of $248,000.
Public works chargeable to income cost $1,300,000 in 1895-6 against $3,200,000 this year, or an increase of $1,957,000.
The expenditure of mail subsidies has jumped from $383,000 to $724,000, or an increase of $340,000, and yet we have no fast line.
Ocean and river service has increased from $166,000 to $243,000, or $76,000 increase.
The expenditure on ocean and river service has risen from $166,000 to $243,000, showing an increase of $183,000.
Scientific institutions has increased from $85,000 to $110,000, or $25,000.
The item of marine hospitals shows an increase of $2,000.
The item of steamboat inspection shows an increase of $4,000.
Our fisheries cost us $417,000 in 1895-6 and to-day the expenditure on that item is $467,000-an increase of $49,000.
Superintendence of insurance cost us $11,200 in 1895-6 and is now costing us $15,500, being an increase of $4,300.
Subsidies to provinces have increased from $4,236,000 to $4,366,000. That increase is the carrying out of the promise of these gentlemen that if they were put in they would give the provinces larger subsidies, but Ontario has not benefited in that respect.
The geological survey costs us $19,000 more than it did in 1895-6.
The expenditure on Indians has jumped from $894,000 in 1895-6 to $1,079,000 this year, being an increase of $184,000. The late Sir John Macdonald assured us that these Indians were gradually becoming selfsustaining and that the charge for taking care of them would grow gradually less, aud so it did under the late Conservative administration. But although we have no more Indians than we had then and no more treaties, we find the Indian Department asking this year for $184,000 more than did the late Conservative government for that purpose.
Then take the item of miscellaneous-comprising the little items of envelopes, sealing wax, etc. Under the late Conservative
George Taylor: government the expenditure was $142,000. but that has now risen to $327,000, an increase of $184,000. No doubt the travelling expense of the ministers is comprised in this item for we do not see any trace of them anywhere else.
In the Department of Customs the expenditure has increased from $874,000 to $1,892,000, or the business man who is now at the head of that department is now spending $318,000 more than his predecessors.
Culling timber under the late government cost $2,950, but to-day it is costing $18,000, an increase of $15,400, and there is no timber to cull.
The item of weights and measures cost us in 1895-6 $99,000 and to-day it is costing us $110,000, or an increase of $12,000.
The inspection of weights and measures cost us $99,800 in 1895-6, and it now costs us $112,050, or an increase of $47,000.
Railways and canals collecting revenue, the late government did this work for $4,-
061,000,	but to-day it is costing $6,666,000, or an increase of $2,600,000.
Public works cost us in 1895-6 $174,600 and that expenditure is to-day increased to $316,400, or an increase of $141,800.
I now come to the item of post offices which the Postmaster General promised us would be self-sustaining and revenue producing. What do we find ? The late government asked about $3,500,000, and this government asked $4,000,000, an increase of $528,000 over what was asked by the Conservative government to do the post office business of this country.
Aud for the Department of Trade and Commerce, which my hon. friend said ought to be abolished because it was not needed, the late government asked $19,100, and in his. estimate of this year the hon. gentleman asks $27,100-an increase of $8,000 for this department, over which he presides, and which he said was useless.
In Dominion lands the estimate of the late Conservative government was $117,022, against $157,532 this year, an increase of $40,000.
This makes a total of $36,800,000 asked by the Conservative government, and this year we are asked $47,800,000, an increase of $11,000,000. This is for current expenditure.
Now we come to capital account. For reduction of debt, Railways and Canals, Public Works, and Dominion Lands, the late Conservative government asked, in 1895-6, $4,408,000, and this government asks, $5,510,000, an increase of $1,107,000.
The grand total on account of consolidated revenue and capital is $41,243,000 under the late Conservative government, and $53,361,000 under this government, or an increase of $12,118,000. For the sake of convenience, and in order that the exact figures 1 may be given, I give the comparison in full :


COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
[Stage Direction]
1895-6.
1902-3.
Increase.
Interest on Public Debt	
Public Debt (including Sinking Funds)	
Charges of Management	
Civil Government	
Administration of Justice	
Police	 #
Penitentiaries	
Legislation	' ' ' '
Arts, Agriculture and Statistics	
Quarantine	
Immigration	
Pensions	(Decrease' $1,011 02)
Superannuation	
Militia	
Railways and Canals (Income)	
Public Works (Income)	
Mail Subsidies and Steamship Subventions	
Ocean and River Service	
Lighthouse and Coast Service	
Scientific Institutions	
Marine Hospitals	
Steamboat Inspection	
Fisheries	
Superintendence of Insurance	
Subsidies to Provinces	
Geological Survey	
Indians	
North-west Mounted Police	j ' ' ' '
Government North-west	
Miscellaneous		
Customs	
Excise	
Culling Timber	
Weights, Measures, Gas and Electric Light Inspection..
Inspection of Staples	
Adulteration of Food	*
Minor Revenues	(Decrease, $1,605 00)
Railways and Canals (Collection of Revenue)	
Public Works (Collection of Revenue)	
Post Office	'
Trade and Commerce	
Dominion Lands	
Total to Consolidated Fund	
Capital Account.
Redemption of Debt	
Railways and Canals (Capital).^ .
Public Works (Capital)	
Dominion Lands (Capital)	
Total to Capital..,	
Grand Total	
§ cts.	9 cts.	$ cts.New-Yukon...	250,000 00	250,000 0012,732,706 11	13,967,312 65	1,234,606 51164,150 00	131,743 SO	17,539 801,449,434 16	1,575,225 66	125,791 50769,812 50	976,365 00	206,552 5022,000 00	30,000 00	8,000 00467,460 30	491,490 00	24,029 70853,255 50	931,296 00	78,040 50208,200 00	502,400 00	294,200 0070,000 00	193,500 00	123,500 00130,000 00	445,000 00	315,000 0086,664 37	85,643 35	273,240 00	328,240 00	55,000 001,098,884 00	1,773,003 00	674,119 0096,157 33	344,387 33	248,230 001.313,730 00	3,270,850 00	1,957,120 00383.733 33	724,566 67	340,833 34166,400 00	243,300 00	76,900 00457,870 00	641,770 00	183,900 0085,150 00	110,653 00	25,503 0039,000 00	41,000 00	2,000 0026,000 00	30,300 00	4,300 00417,900 00	407,000 00	49,100 0011,200 00	15,500 00	4,300 004,236,000 00	4,366,334 68	130,334 6845,000 00	04,430 00	19,430 00894,588 00	1,079,064 00	184,476 00500,000 00	850,000 00	350,000 00315,009 00	425,359 00	110,350 00142,600 00	327,195 00	184,595 00874,285 00	1,192,365 00	318,080 00472,953 75	490,129 37	17,175 622,950 00	18,350 00	15,400 0099,800 00	112,050 00	12,250 003,000 00	50,000 00	47,000 0025,000 00	25,000 00	2,505 00	2,000 00	4,061,413 00	6,660,853 00	2,605,440 00174,650 00	316,450 00	141,800 003,525,635 00	4,054,280 00	528,645 0019,100 00	27,100 00	8,000 00117,022 00	157,532 00	40,510 0036,834,458 38	47,845,038 51	11,010,580 131,721,539 61	75,000 00	2,527,420 00	3,861,600 00	1,334,180 0085,000 00	1 320,000 00	1,235,000 0075,000 00	260,000 00	185,000 004,408,959 61	5,516,600 00	1,107,640 3941,243,417 99	53,361,638 51	12,118,220 42
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: My attention was drawn away for a moment. I desire to follow the hon. gentleman's argument and would like to ask a question. The comparison he is making, as I understand, is between estimates and not between actual expenditures.


George Taylor: Not between expenditures, but between the main estimates brought 60$
down by the Conservative government in 1895-6, and the main estimates that are now before us. When the supplementary estimates come down-those supplementar-ies which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance intimated would be so very large- I shall be ready to analyse them and make a comparison with the supplementaries under the Conservative government. I expect to see, in these coming supplementary estimates, attempts made to cover up some of

the jobs-for instance, the grant to the Yukon Railway, and also the money granted to settle the Manitoba school question with Greenway, and, no doubt, many others. We can deal with these supplementary estimates when we see them, but, in the meantime, I am making a comparison on the basis of the main estimates.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Has the bon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) a comparative statement of the actual expenditure ?


George Taylor: My hon. and respected friend the leader of the opposition gave a comparison of the actual expenditure. And, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) will read the speech of my leader on this point, he will find that his estimate, his comparison on the basis of expenditure and mine on the basis of the main estimates, come to practically the same thing.
Some hon. gentlemen on the other side have said that the speakers on this side have not said much about the amendment.
I am strongly in favour of that amendment, and so is every member on this side. But hon. gentlemen opposite are at sixes and sevens as to the policy they favour. Here we staud as one man declaring in favour of increased and adequate protection to the manufacturing, agriculture, fishing, mining and other interests of this country. I think I speak for the party


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Did I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) to say ' increased ' protection ? It is not so in the amendment, but ' adequate ' protection.


George Taylor: That means just whatsit says. For instance, the duty on biscuits is 35 per cent. But if, when we get into power, my hon. friend (Mr. Paterson) comes before us and satisfies us that 35 per cent does not afford adequate protection, we will gladly increase it to 40 per cent. We want protection that will be adequate to keep in this country the boys and girls we grow here, protection that will be adequate to afford them opportunities for labour in producing every article required and not have those articles brought in from Germany as hon. gentlemen opposite are doing with their preferential tariff. We are prepared, as the resolution says, to agree to a fair preferential tariff between Great Britain and her colonies. But we do not want such preference as we have to-day which allows Germany to send her manufactures to England, have them wrapped and parcelled there, and then sent out to Canada under a preference on the plea that 25 per cent of the labour used in producing them is English labour. The hon. Minister of Customs knows that in this way large quantities of German goods come into Canada to compete with the honest labour of Canada. Our leader and every man on this side, so far as I have heard the expression of their views, is opposed to any such one-Mr. TAYLOR.
sided preferential tariff as this. We are prepared to deal fairly by Great Britain and her colonies, and to give them a preference if that preference will not injure our Canadian labour. We say that we are building up the British Empire by building up Canada, and we will not allow a lot of pauper labour or otherwise in London or in any other part of the empire to come in here and compete with honest Canadian labour. Therefore, we say that we will give adequate protection to Canadian industries. Our party is a unit on this policy, and the people of the country will be a unit in favour of it when we appeal to them.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, in the London, England,
< Daily News,' of March 18th, 1902, I notice the following paragraph, part of a long article dealing with incidents of the war in South Africa in the year 1900 :
What struck me as a pretty horrible incident was that some Canadians who were too far off to join in the fight afterwards came in and stripped off the boots and socks of the dead Boers-a thing I should not like to do even in the case of a living Boer-and pulled out their toe-nails to carry away as mementoes.
That, Sir, refers to the only Canadian force that was there at that time, ' E ' Battery, Royal Canadian Field Artillery. I may say in explanation that one of the young English yeomen who was present at that engagement and who knew the circumstances, has written, to do justice to the Canadian Artillery. His letter appeared in the issue of the 'Daily News,' two days later, the 20th March. He corrects the statement of the contributor I have just quoted, and shows that these Boers had themselves taken off their boots in order to creep noiselessly into camp. Inasmuch as the item I have quoted has appeared in some Canadian papers to the discredit of the Canadian force, I desire to quote what this young English soldier says, which is absolutely true. His letter, in the ' Daily News of March 20th, 1902, reads as follows : Conservative Club, Carlisle, March 18,1902.
Sir-In your issue of to-day, under ihe heading ''When will the war be over ?' appears an account of the suppression of the rebellion in Griqualand West by General Sir Charles Warren with particular reference to Colonel Hughes, the' colonial scout, who was an exceedingly smart officer. There are many inaccuracies in the said account which I pm not concerned to correct ; but I do wish to contradict the slander therein contained against my old comrades the Canadians. Your scout whose testimony is recorded could not have been present at the engagement with which he connects the Canadians, otherwise he would not name the fight Smith s Drift.' The battle was fought at 'Fabers Puts, which is many miles from 'Smith's Drift,' and against the statement of your scout tha-t the Canadians were 'too far off to join in the fight, and that they 'stripped the dead Boers of their btots and socks,' perhaps you will allow me to say that the Canadians who were 'E' battery, R C F.A., and as efficient a body of men as have served in this war, were encamped within 200 I yards of the garden whence the enemy made

their attack on the camp, and their (the Canadians) guns did good execution in the action. That the colonials had several casualties in their ranks is the best contradiction I can give, and as to the 'boots and socks' fiction, the fact simply is that the Boers doffed their own boots the more noiselessly to approach our lines. I can send you a photograph of a dead Boer as he fell shot through the heart in the aforesaid garden, minus his boots but plus his socks. Your scout lost some of his own chums in the action, but he was not there himself.
Since the Canadians herein mentioned have leturned home, I trust you will permit me in their absence to record this protest.
Yours, &c.,
GEO. HODGSON, late trooper, 24th Co., I.Y.
I may say, Sir, that there is no need for me to make any further statement in addition to what is contained in this young soldier's letter. The Canadians conducted themselves on that occasion, as on every other occasion, with the greatest gallantry. I had the honour of being present myself. The Canadians were not, as this young soldier says, two hundred yards from the position held by the Boers, they were only 65 yards, and they maintained that position, and did splendid service throughout. I would not have mentioned this matter, only that an item has appeared in some of the papers to the discredit of E Battery of the Royal Canadian Field Artillery. No better men served in South Africa.


Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: The amendment proposed by the hon. leader Of the opposition to the motion of the Minister of Finance, has been so thoroughly discussed from almost every point of view that it is not with the idea of advancing anything new that I rise to take part in this debate. In consequence of a statement made by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, the idea has got abroad that at the next session of parliament the country may expect some changes, or some revision of the tariff, and it is because of that possibility, or that probability, that I deem it my duty as the representative of a district composed largely of the consuming classes to state briefly my position on the tariff question. I shall endeavour to make my remarks very brief. I hope that what I have to say will not be so woefully misconstrued as some few remarks I made on a similar occasion last year were misconstrued by one of the hon. members who followed me In that debate. Last year I discussed a question partially of a local nature, just as hon. gentlemen at that time, and again this year, have discussed some questions partly of a local character. But the matter I brought up at that time, the future of the North-west Territories, I think is as important to the whole of Canada as almost any question that could be raised in this House. The hon. gentleman who followed me at that time, the member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster), said that he
found in my remarks the solution of something that had been puzzling him from the time of the general election. He found that I had made some promises of a local character to the people of my district superior to the promises which the opposition there had been able to make. Of course the reply might have been made to the hon. gentleman that there could not be found in his remarks any reason for his election to a seat in this House. But that would have been scarcely fair, because, from his point of view, I believe the speech he made was a very good speech, and a very good presentation of the case from his point of view. But to assure the hon. gentleman, and to assure this House, that he was entirely mistaken, I may state that the matter which I at that time discussed is not a matter of political difference in the North-west Territories. The statement that I made was similar to and, as a matter of fact, was largely a repetition of statements made by and of the position that is taken by the local Prime Minister of the territories who is a member of the party to which the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara belongs.
I am sorry that I cannot promise to follow very closely this afternoon the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) who has just taken his seat. I fear he has covered too much ground for me to chase him over. I am sorry too, that I cannot hope to approach the high statesmanship which he exhibited in his speech and which was exemplified when he touched the matter of private cars. I would not attempt, either, to follow his example in respect to fairness when he discussed the expenditure. He went over the figures in regard to expenditure, showing the increases that have been made since 1896 when his own friends were in power, but he abstained from any reference to the extra services that have been, given to the people in return for that increased expenditure. I would not endeavour either to imitate the hon. gentleman's accuracy, as when he referred to the government as a government of lawyers. I think he used the expression that the government is all composed of lawyers. Now, unless I am mistaken, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is not a lawyer, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is not a lawyer, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) is not a lawyer, the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) is not a lawyer, the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Mr. Borden) is not a lawyer, the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) is not a lawyer. the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) is not a lawyer, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is not a lawyer, the Minister without portfolio (Hon. Mr. Templeman) is not a lawyer, but a journalist. Here we have 8 or 9 members of the government, nearly 60 per cent, who are not lawyers. That is enough to show his accuracy.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: That is pretty close for him.


Thomas Walter Scott: Well, that probably is as close to the mark as he got in the greater part of his speech, and possibly it is as close as many hon. members opposite have managed to get to the mark when they have dealt with public questions in this House, and a good deal closer than many of them are able to get when they deal with public questions in the country.
The Liberal party, since 1896, has been accused of carrying out the policy of the Conservatives, and it has been stated that Conservatives are still governing the country because the Liberal government are enforcing the Conservative policy. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor), in his opening remarks, referred to the action taken in this House some years ago respecting oleomargarine, at a time when his friends were in power, and if I understood him correctly, he stated that the present Minister of Customs had made a suggestion which had been accepted by the then Minister of Customs and carried out. He brought this up in a spirit, it seemed to me, of reprobation against the hon. Minister of Customs. If this fact is true, then, our friends opposite, when they were in power, were not unwilling, at times-on very few occasions, it is true

to take a suggestion from the other side, and I believe that any government of conscientious, honest men will never be unwilling to accept good suggestions no matter where they may come from. I was rather amused, in listening to the remarks of the last speaker, to note the excessive anxiety that pervaded these remarks in behalf of the farmers of the country. His speech was an appeal from the farmer's point of view. It seems to me that he has changed his point of view to a considerable extent from the time when, in Goderich, he was talking privately to a manufacturer there by the name of Saunders, and when he told that manufacturer, that if he and his friends were in power the farmers would not be so well off, that they would not have free binder twine, free wire, or free cream separators, that they would put a 45 per cent duty on agricultural implements, and according to the statement of Mr. Saunders, the hon. gentleman said that the present government were doing too much for the farmers. If we get into power, that is myself and my friends, said the hon. gentleman then the condition of things will be changed radically. A reference was also made by the hon. gentleman to the question of coal oil. He asked if the changes made by this government in the tariff in regard to coal oil had resulted in any reduction in the price. I am very happy to say that in the country with which I am familiar, west of Lake Superior, the changes made in the tariff and in the regulations in regard to the transportation of coal oil have resulted in Mr. SCOTT.
a reduction of price of from 5 to 10 cents a gallon which the people of that country very much appreciate. The hon. gentleman spent some time in endeavouring to refute the position taken by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) respecting the reduction of taxes which the present government claim they have made since 1896. The hon. member for Guysborough claimed that a reduction of 10 per cent had been made through the tariff legislation of the present government in the taxation levied on the people of the country. The hon. member who spoke last seemed to be puzzled by that statement and he sought to refute it. lJos-sibly it is not worth while for me to spend very much time in dealing with his references to the question because the proposition should be perfectly plain to every, one who has ever studied arithmetic. If we'take three from eighteen it must be clear to every one that this is something in the neighbourhood of a 10 per cent reduction. It may be clearer to the hon. gentleman if it is put in another way. The duty that was collected in the last fiscal year amounted to $29,000,000. That was the amount of the taxation levied on the people of the country. Had the tariff not been changed, had the tariff been left as it was, when the hon. gentleman and his friends went out of power, there would have been duty collected to the amount of $34,000,000. There is a reduction of about $5,000,000 from $34,000,000, and that means a reduction of rather more than 10 per cent. Is there any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who is not yet assured of this fact. If five taken from thirty-four is not equal to as much as 10 per cent, then, I do not know anything about arithmetic. In common with, I think, I may say all the members of this House, and in common with all the people of this country, I was very much pleased at the statement that the hon. Minister of Finance was able to give to this House. The statement which he made showed that the finances of the country are in a very flourishing condition, and I think it is a fair indication that the affairs of the people, of individuals and business men and others in the country are in a fairly prosperous condition. Our friends opposite all state that they agree that the country is in a prosperous condition and that progress is being made, but some of them contend that the government should not seek to claim any credit for the prosperity and progress that are to be seen on every nand. If that is true, if the attitude and policy of the government have had no effect upon the affairs of the country, why do hon. gentlemen spend so much of the time of this House talking about the tariff ? If it be true that the tariff policy of the government has had no effect upon the business of the country, why spend "so much time discussing it ? If it has had any effect surely it must have had a good effect, because conditions under the present tariff

have shown remarkable improvement. One point of that criticism that is made by our friends opposite is in regard to the expenditure. It has been said by a number of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that hon. gentlemen opposite are careful never to come down to details in regard to expenditure. It is an easy matter to state that the expenditure is too high, but any person who takes the responsibility of stating that the expenditure is too high should be willing to take the responsibility of pointing out the items in the estimates which should be cut out, or reduced and as long as none of these hon. gentlemen are willing to take that responsibility they have no right to be making the general statement that the expenditure is too high. As long as they will not take that responsibility they may rest assured that the country will not take very much stock in their statements about the expenditure. My hon. friend the junior member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) in fatherly tones told the hon. Minister of Finance that it was a dangerous thing to allow the expenditure to reach too high a point, because when the time came when there was any necessity of reduction, or when reduction became advisable, he would find it very difficult to make reductions. This hon. gentleman asked the hon. Finance Minister where he would commence to make reductions. On behalf of the hon. member for Centre Toronto I would implore the hon. Minister of Finance when the time comes when he must make reductions not to start in Toronto, because, if he does, there will be a howl against any such policy.
As I said at the commencement I intend to confine my remarks chiefly to my position on the tariff question. When I sought election in Assiniboia-while I asked for support as a Liberal, yet I also sought the suffrages of my constituents from the point of view that I should be absolutely independent in voting in this House, and that I should be free to support any measure which seemed to me and which seemed to the people I represent to be in the interests of the country. Therefore, Sir, if at any time the party led by the hon. leader of the opposition should pro, pound a policy which I considered to be more in the interests of my constituents than the policy of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, I shall have no hesitation whatever in casting in my lot with them, and giving my support to that policy. To the people I represent, the fiscal policy of the government is one of the great issues of the day; as a matter of fact, I think it is the chief issue which divides the political parties in Canada. Consequently, the amendment that has been moved by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) and which lays down the position of the Conservative party on the tariff issue, becomes a matter of very great concern to me. Let me point out that it is very similar in terms to the
resolution that was proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) last session. I regret now, as I regretted then, that the position taken by the leader of the opposition and his friends, is not somewhat more specific so that there should be no doubt in any part of the country as to what are the intentions of the leaders of the Conservative party, if they should be given an opportunity to frame and enforce a tariff in this coum try. Speaking last session on the resolution which was then proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition, I expressed the fear that in different parts of the country different arguments would be based upon it by the friends of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden). To show that my fear was not groundless,
I shall read a few extracts from, what is next to the ' Mail and Empire,' possibly the chief Conservative organ in the Dominion of Canada; I refer to the Winnipeg ' Telegram.' Those of us who listened to the debates of last session and of this session, have not much doubt as to what would be the effect on the tariff, if our friends on the opposite side were reinstated on the Treasury benches. There cannot be any doubt in the minds of the members of this House as to what the hon. leader of the opposition would do with the tariff fif he were Trime Minister. There can be no doubt that in such an event there would be a general and considerable increase in the tariff; but the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' on December 3rd last, was so much in doubt about the matter that it wrote as follows :
We have frequently pointed out that the Conservative resolution of last session did not call for a raising of the duties.
On December 26, the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' again wrote :
And they (the western Liberals) will probably consider that they have more to hope for from a Conservative government in regard to reductions in the tariff than from the present administration.
What may b.e described as the chief Conservative organ in the west, is, it will be seen, endeavouring to convince the people of that country, that it is to the Conservative party they must look if they are to have a lower tariff than at present. On December 28, the ' Telegram ' said :
But those who support the government because they fear that a Conservative government would make immediate and substantial increases in the tariff should remember that a party is better judged by its actions than by its words.
Apparently this organ has some little doubt about the words of its leaders. On February 13, while an election was pending in Lisgar, this paper wrote :
Liberal speakers in Lisgar, as well as the * Free Press,' are striving to convince the electors of that constituency that the Conservative party is pledged to increase the tariff.
It was surely a very strange thing that the

Liberal speakers in Lisgar should try to convince the electors of that constituency that the Conservative party is pledged to increase the tariff. The ' Telegram ' declared that this was nothing but a subterfuge on the part of the Liberals. Now, these references were all made pertinent to the resolution that was introduced in this House by the hon. leader of the opposition last year, and the ' Telegram ' has also spoken regarding the resolution at present before us. On March 20, a day or two after this resolution was brought down, the 'Telegram' said:
The ' Free Press ' tries to put the high tariff construction on the resolution, but this is only an expedient for avoiding the confession which would otherwise hav.e to be made. There is no doubt what the resolution means. It means that there should be adequate protection for all branches of Canadian industry. If any labour, agricultural or manufacturing interests have not now adequate protection, it means that increased protection should he given, but it does not mean a great increase or a general increase.
The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) was in Lisgar during that election, and he is reported in the Winnipeg papers to have said :
The Conservative policy does not call for increased protection.
The hon. leader of the opposition will no doubt realize from these quotations that it is necessary for him to be a little more explicit with regard to his tariff intentions, so that there shall not he tihis diversity of opinion among his friends as to what he and his party will do if they should come to power in this Dominion. I have here the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) this session, and it reads :
This House, regarding the operation of the present, tariff as unsatisfactory, is of opinion that the country requires a declared policy of adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries, as will at all times secure the Canadian markets for Canadians.
The policy of the Conservative party therefore is, that a high protective wall shall be placed around Canada which shall prevent foreign goods coming into this country and which shall prevent the people of Canada from buying any, but goods that are manufactured in Canada. As I said last year :
I may not be entirely satisfied with the tariff as applied by the present government;
I may think that the tariff should be lower than it is at the present time, but I have to face a practical situation. If I am to do anything practical I have to vote either for the Liberals or for the Conservatives on this tariff question. Well, there is no ground left for me to hesitate upon as to my course. There is nothing left for me to do, in view of all the conditions, than to vote in favour of the policy; the declared policy which is in force and which has been put in force by the leaders of the Liberal party.


Thomas Walter Scott: While the leader of the opposition was not quite as specific as he might be with regard to some of the phases of the tariff question, he was very specific with regard to others. He complained in his speech during this debate, that fruits were being imported to too great an extent, and he told us that in the fiscal year 1900-1, $2,433,974 worth of fruits were imported into Canada; $1,766,979 worth of which came in under duty and $666,995 worth of which came in free of duty. The plea of the hou. gentleman is that this fruit should not be allowed to be brought into Canada and that a tariff wall should be put up to vprevent our people importing this fruit. This is a matter of considerable interest to the people west of Lake Superior who have to import all the fruit they use.
A point which possibly has not been emphasized as much as it might during this debate, is, that the policy which is announced by the leader of the opposition and supported by his party in this House, is not the old national policy. Under the national policy we had duties reaching on the average to a point around 30 per cent, but the declaration of the leader of the opposition now is, that we should have a tariff wall at least as high as the tariff wall of the United States, which of course is a great deal higher than the tariff wall we had under the national policy. The hon. leader of the opposition has stated (page 1334, revised ' Hansard ') ;
If we intend to maintain and build up our own products and manufactures against such powerful and tremendous competition as that which we must anticipate from the United States we would fix our tariff of customs against that country on a scale at least as high as is that of their tariff against us.
This is a feature which I think should be emphasized before this House and before the people of the country-that it is not the national policy that our friends of the opposition would restore if they came into power, but a tariff 30 or 40 or 50 per cent higher than was the national policy tariff. In support of this, I will also quote, from the speech of the hon. member for Bast Toronto (Mr. Kemp), who said :
Unfortunately for a long rerm of years we have been witnessing conditions which have been very distasteful to us, which have grated upon our finer feelings. Our pride has risen in us, and we have, as it were, set our teeth, when we have witnessed what has been going on in this country for the last 50 years. I refer to the exodus which has been talked of in this House under the administration of various governments.
The hon. member for East Toronto is a very enthusiastic advocate of the policy which is declared by the hon. leader of the opposition, and it is evident by his remarks that that policy is not the national policy tariff, but a tariff 30 or 40 or 50 per cent higher than the national policy tariff. Therefore, as between the attitude of the

government of the present day, and the attitude of our friends on the other side of the House, there is nothing left for me-[DOT] although I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with the present tariff-but to support the present tariff and the men who keep it in operation.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
. After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Walter Scott: Before six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I had complimented the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) who immediately preceded me upon the extensive and complete collection of 1900 campaign chestnuts which he had embodied in his speech. I had remarked on the various opinions expressed by different Conservative authorities throughout the country respecting the application of the principles contained in the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition. I had endeavoured to prove, and I think with a fair measure of success, that what is really meant by the amendment before the House is not a return to the national policy tariff, but the enforcement of a tariff a great deal higher than was the national policy tariff. I pointed out the plain words of the hon. leader of the opposition to that effect, and quoted from the remarks of several of the hon. gentlemen who support him in this House in proof of my statement that what the people of this country have to expect:, if the Conservative party should return to power, and apply the principle they advocate here, is not the national policy tariff, which was in force for eighteen years in this country, but a tariff exceeding 50 per cent, for I understand that the average tariff rate in the United States is a little higher than 52 per cent. I had explained that from my own point of view, no ground was left for me to do otherwise than support the government, which I intend to do very heartily, when the vote is taken, notwithstanding that it would please me and the people I represent if certain items in the tariff list were considerably reduced. I had also expressed the hope that the explanation which I intended to make of my position on the tariff question would not be so misinterpreted as were a few remarks on another matter which I made last year. It was not a matter of very great moment on that occasion that the remarks of any single individual should be misinterpreted or misconstrued ; but in regard to this whole tariff question, it seems to me. from remarks which have been very generally made in this House and out of it. that the position of the representatives of the country to the west of Lake Superior and in fact the position and sentiments of the whole people who live west of Lake Superior, are considerably misinterpreted and misunderstood by the people in the eastern part of Canada. Time and again the people of the west are spoken of as clamouring for free trade. Now, not to my
knowledge has any representative of the west, in this debate or in any debate that took place last year, asked for free trade. We not only do not clamour for free trade, but we do not ask for free trade. We have supported the government in their revenue tariff policy, and so long as that is the case I think it is not proper for representatives of eastern Canada to be imputing to the west what they term unreasonable views. So far as I am concerned, while I would be willing to support to the fullest extent any respectable and powerful party in this country that would go the whole length of free trade, I have to recognize that at the present time that the idea seems to be impracticable. There is no considerable party anywhere in Canada that seems to favour following that idea to its full extent; and therefore my position is that so long as there is a tariff in force, which affords incidental protection to a certain class of people in the country, the advantage of that tariff should as far as possible be made equitable to every class of people in the country.
Only a few days ago in this House a question was raised by hon. members from the North-west Territories who wished to have the minimum valuation which is placed upon imported horses increased and it was at once thrown at us that we were inconsistent, that we were usually free traders but that on any little matter which we thought would benefit the people we represent we were willing to turn ourselves inside out and advocate protection. I am not very much concerned with accusations of inconsistency. I am perfectly willing to stand the brunt of such accusations. So long as the manufacturing.and other classes of the country are reaping some benefit from the incidental protection of the tariff which is in force it is perfectly proper to demand that the people whom I represent should be given such advantages as can be given them through the incidental protection of the tariff. But, in the matter I speak of, the matter of scrub horses, I contend that we were not asking for protection in the usual tariff sense. We were not wishing to promote the industry that we were speaking about. We were not wishing that any change should be made in the tariff for the purpose of promoting that industry. What we wanted was to stamp out that industry which is quite a different thing from asking the government to aid in promoting an industry by means of the tariff. I can only repeat that I do not wish to hold myself bound by an idea which in this country is only a theory-the idea of free trade. * ,So long as there is a tariff in force, so long as an advantage is given to some classes of the people by this tariff so long am I going to contend that the advantage should be extended to all classes of the community to an extent as great as possible. But, the reason why I and other representatives of the consuming classes contend for the lowest possible tariff is because there is very little ad-

vantage tnat can be given by any tariff to the consuming classes. The advantage which can be given by our tariff in this country is almost entirely reaped by what are known as the manufacturers. Hon. gentlemen opposite who advocate high duties have been complimenting themselves upon their doctrine having obtained some converts on this side of the House. One of the members whom they have seemed to believe has become converted to their views is the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd). As it seems always to be well, if possible, to get evidence from the other side, I am going to read to the House a fairly lengthy statement which was made to this House in this debate by the hon. member for South Brant. If he is a convert to the doctrine of high protection, then, I think I may class myself in the same category. I read this in order to place it again upon the 'Hansard' because it states what I think to be the truth in a very much stronger, more forcible and more concise form than I could put it myself. The hon. gentleman said :
When I look at the trade figures once more and I discover that our agriculturists are the greatest manufacturers there are in this country, that the agricultural interest is the greatest manufacturing interest there is in Canada, when I find that that industry exported last year, in animals and their products alone, $55,000,000, where five years ago they exported $36,000,000 worth, that in agricultural products they exported $24,000,000 worth, while five years ago only $14,000,000 worth were exported, I ask myself the question : Am I entitled to speak for that great agricultural class which has no interest in a tariff, and whom we can only benefit by making life as easy as possible ? We cannot protect the agriculturists of this country. Neither have I been waited upon by any agricultural societies in the riding from which I come, asking me to seek increas 3d protection for any product of the farm or of agriculture. I ask myself the question: Would I be justified in expressing the opinion that a declaration of protection will benefit the mining industry of Ithis country ? That is an interest that does not appear to receive that calm consideration that its growing magnitude entitles it to. That mining industry of ours is going to become a source of enormous wealth to the people of Canada, which we, even in our day, have only a faint appreciation of. When we look at the actual facts of the case and see that only five years ago the exports of minerals from this country were $8,000,000, while, last year, they had risen to the munificent sum of $40,000,000, an increase of 500 per cent in five years, we can hope that when twenty-five years shall have elapsed the prediction made by Professor Bell, one of the most eminent geologists that we have in this country, recently in an address delivered in the city of Toronto, when he showed himself to be thoroughly conversant of the subject, that in twenty-five years Canada would export not $40,000,000 hut $1,000,000,000 of mineral products, shall have been verified, and we are hardly in a position to say that by increasing the cost of mining machinery we will be advancing the interests of the miners of this country. That is an industry that can only be protected by making mining machinery cheap. The government have done what they could by removing the Mr. SCOTT.
duty from mining machinery, and I do not therefore like to endorse this resolution even on behalf of the miners. Then, you take our fisheries; how can we give adequate protection to the fisheries ? They have no products we could give any protection to under the sun. The only protection our fishermen want is the protection of good harbours, good life-saving apparatus and the protection that markets easy of access will give to them. Any money in the form of protecting the fisheries expended to make the lives of the fishermen more secure and their occupation less hazardous and more agreeable, will be money well expended, and it will be the only kind of protection that we can give our fishing interests.
Take our forest products. As far as I am personally concerned-although I do not think it would do much good-I am in favour of putting reciprocal tariff on lumber as long as our friends to the south of us maintain a tariff on lumber. Taking the five great national industries I have spoken of : The minerals, the fisheries, the forests, animals and their products, and agriculture, we have an export of $161,000,000. On that vast trade, by no method of protection can you encourage it to the development of a single cent.
That is the declaration of tbe bon. gentleman tvliom bon. gentlemen opposite claim as a convert to tbe principle of high protection. I would not go quite so far as the bon. member for South Brant. I think there may be some few things in regard to which the farmers of this country, the greatest producers that we have and who must be for generations to come the foundation of our progress and prosperity, may possibly in some few slight particulars be given an advantage by tbe tariff, but the advantage which can be given is so very slight in comparison with the advantages which a smaller and comparatively Insignificant class of the community reap from the tariff, that it is my opinion and it is the strong, and unanimous opinion of the people in the country I come from, that the tariff should be kept at the lowest possible point. From hon. gentlemen sitting actually on tbe opposite side of tbe House statements may be quoted in further proof of tbe fact that the products of the great producing classes of this country cannot be protected. For instance the hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith), who claims to be a high tariff man, respecting the product of wheat, asks: What has the government done as to the price of wheat ? He held that no government could affect exports. He held that by the tariff they could affect imports into the country, but he contended that by no tariff could the exports be affected ? This is simply proving the case that the products of the great producing class in Canada cannot be given any advantage by tbe tariff. There are things that tbe government can do for the great producing classes, and there were a number of things that this government, when they come into power in 189ti, found it possible to do, a number of things that they did do which have resulted in a great deal of advantage to the whole people of Canada.

In the matter of the United States cattle quarantine, I was very much surprised to hear my hon. friend from South Wentworth (Mr. Smith) speak, disparagingly of the action of the government. The actual results of that action, I shall give in a very few words. In the four and a half years ending 1896, during which the quarantine regulations were in force, the sales of cattle in Canada to the United States amounted to 3,762 head, valued at $52,606, whereas in the four and a half years ending 1901, after the Minister of Agriculture had secured the abrogation of those regulations, the sales amounted to no less than 341,317 head, value $526,919. There can be no question therefore that the action of the Minister of Agriculture was of very material advantage to the people of Canada. I am in a position to state, on the authority of possibly the largest cattle dealers in Canada, Messrs. Gordon and Ironsides, whose headquarters are at Winnipeg, that this action of the Minister of Agriculture was equivalent to a profit of $10 per head to every cattle owner in the North-west Territories.
The policy of the government in perfecting our cold storage transportation system is also one the benefit of which can not be gainsaid.
Then there is the establishing of government creameries in the territories, and I might cite a long list of actions of the present government, which have resulted undoubtedly in very material advantage for the people generally.
While by means of a tariff, very little can really be done to aid the agricultural industry, there is one means by which that interest can be benefited, and that is by improving our methods of transportation. In this connection the government has done a great deal. The other day the Minister of Finance declared that the capital expenditure during the current fiscal year will amount to $14,000,000, the greater part of which has been devoted to the assistance of railway projects, and the improvement of our transportation facilities. To those gentlemen who sometimes contend that the west is too generously dealt with by this governement, let me point out that of this $14,000,000 expended in the current fiscal year on the improvement of our transportation facilities, a very small fraction _ indeed is expended in the country west of Lake Superior-very much smaller, I believe, than ought to be expended.
The advocates of protection now, as at all times in the past, endeavour, by some means or other, to give a sugar coating to the pill which they want us to swallow. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has recently become an ardent advocate of the protectionist system, and the sugar coating which he gives the pill is the idea of retaliation. He endeavours to play on the prejudices of the people rather than appeal to their common sense,
by urging them to retaliate against our American neighbours. But when we reach bed rock in the ideas of protectionists, we find that first and last and all the time their main object is to give the manufacturing class an advantage by law at the expense of the other classes. And the hon. gentleman from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) proceeded in his speech in this debate to abandon the retaliation plea by urging that apart altogether from the course of the United States in its tariff respecting Canada, our tariff should be a protective one, because our manufacturer cannot afford to live under the preference granted the mother country. If the United States, he said, had no existence, and there consequently could be no idea of retaliation, we would still require a high tariff wall to protect our manufacturing industries against the competition of the motherland. It was rather interesting to observe our friends on the opposition benches during the speech of that hon. gentleman. When he was proving to their satisfaction that he had been for many years entirely mistaken and inconsistent in his advocacy of a revenue tariff, they applauded him loudly as though inconsistency were a mark of intelligence and statesmanship, and apparently forgetting, for the moment, that whenever a reference is made to the policy of the opposition, they claim great merit of consistency in standing by the principle which they advocated twenty-five years ago. In their case statesmanship is based on consistency, but in the case of the hon. member for North Norfolk, its chief mark is inconsistency. Our opposition friends, however, do not occupy quite the same position in their tariff advocacy as they did twenty-five years ago. When the high tariff resolution was proposed in 1878, and that policy was applied in the succeeding years, they were continually advancing the plea that this high tariff would necessarily be a measure of short duration, because as soon as the infant industries were built up, the tariff wall could be taken down, and these industries could hold their own against the world. To-day, however, the leader of the opposition says he is not willing to have a measure of reciprocity with the United States because our industries require, and always will need, protection, and will never be in a position to compete against their American rivals. So that the position of hon. gentlemen opposite to-day is not at all that which they took twenty-five years ago.
I quite admit that our tariff may be improved. I think that it might be considerably improved by further reducing the duties on various articles. When this tariff was proposed in 1897, there was considerable dissatisfaction among the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories on the ground that the government had not gone as far as the people were led to believe, by their promises before 1896, they would go. I do not know that it can be

time. What would be the case to-day had the advice of our friends in opposition been taken four or five years ago, and had a tariff wall been put up so high as entirely to prevent goods coming in from the United States ? Do you suppose that we would see to-day people going into the Canadian North-west by hundreds and thousands weekly? Do you suppose the people of Manitoba and the North-west would have been producing, as they did last year, 112,000,000 or 115,000,000 bushels of grain ? I do not think there is the slightest possibility of it. The North-west will be peopled by a policy which makes the conditions of life there as easy as possible. If transportation arrangements are made by which they can remove their products to the seaboard at the least expense, and if the tariff is kept at such a point that they can buy their goods at the least cost, such a policy will result in peopling the North-west, and will result eventually to the advantage of everybody in Canada, the manufacturers included. The parliament and people of this country have before them a great opportunity to people the vast stretches of fertile land west of Lake Superior, and the only policy under which that can be done is one which will make conditions of life easy for the people there, and enable them to buy their goods as cheaply as possible ; and, as I said before, such a policy will eventually prove to be the most favourable one to the manufacturers of eastern Canada, as well as for the Dominion as a whole.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: The hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), in his opening remarks, reflected somewhat upon the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) because of his want of accuracy, as he called it, in referring to this government as a government of lawyers. The hon. member for Assiniboia, in endeavouring to refute the statement, mentioned these members of the Cabinet who are not of the legal profession. But the hon. gentleman should remember that when the Conservative government was in power the present Prime Minister himself, in his speeches throughout Canada, reflected upon the Conservative government for containing a lawyer as Minister of Justice, and a lawyer as Solicitor General ; he complained that the government gave a great deal of their legal work to outside lawyers who were political supporters of the government, and he promised in his addresses to the people of Canada that all this would be changed on the advent of a Liberal government to power. But the fact is that since this government has come to power, not only have they a very large representation of the legal profession in the Cabinet, but their Solicitor General is allowed to practice his own profession in addition to his governmental duties, and they have increased to a very large extent the sum of money paid to Mr. SCOTT.
outside lawyers who are political supporters of the present government.
The hon. member for Assiniboia, in reflecting upon another hon. member for want of accuracy I think has left himself open to the same charge. For instance, he spoke on the coal oil question, and declared that that was an article that had been reduced in price to the people of the west from five to ten cents a gallon, owing to changes and concessions made to the Standard Oil Company.


Thomas Walter Scott: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. What I said was that the change in the regulations for bringing coal oil into the country had resulted in that reduction to the consumer.


William James Roche: I can assure the hon. gentleman that in the town where I reside I cannot purchase a single gallon of the best American coal oil for less than forty cents, nor a gallan of Canadian oil of the first brand, for less than thirty-five cents ; and these are exactly the same prices I paid in 1896. With a miserable reduction of one cent a gallon in the duty, how could we expect to get coal oil five cents or ten cents a gallon cheaper. It is true that some changes were made in the regulations regarding the admission of coal oil. We were allowed to import in tank steamers, and heretofore we were permitted to introduce tank cars into the west. To be sure the tank cars are admitted now and the number of distributing points has been increased, but at the same time the price of coal oil throughout Manitoba generally has not been reduced-so I am informed by those who buy and sell the oil, and they say that they are not buying it and selling it one cent cheaper than they did prior to 1896. In addition to that, and because of improper inspection on the part of the government officers, the quality of the coal oil sent into the Northwest last winter was simply disgraceful. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) himself spoke on this question at an earler period in the session, and he admitted that the quality of the coal oil in the North-west, was, as I have said, disgraceful. So far as my information goes there has been no reduction in the price of coal oil since 1896.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) says that while it is all well enough for the members of the opposition to complain of the extravagant expenditure of the government, why do they not move to strike out the items that they object to ? Well, it is not the province of an opposition to do that. The only thing an opposition can do is to make a general protest, as we do, on the floor of this House, and in addition to that we offer a resolution at the end of each session stating in general terms that the expenditure of the government during the past year was extravagant. Of course, the supporters of the government vote down that resolution. But when we move it and vote for

it we discharge our duties to the country, and we are powerless to do anything else.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) has taken exception to the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition because, he says, it is not definite enough. I wonder what the hon. gentleman wants in the line of definiteness. The amendment is definite enough to any one who wishes to read it plainly, but of course those who do not, can turn it and twist it in any manner they may see fit. The hon. member is afraid that some of the supporters of the opposition may place one interpretation upon that amendment and others place other interpretations upon it. Let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) first pluck the mote out of his own eye. Let me ask him : What kind of a declaration have we had from the Minister of Finance in reference to the tariff changes that are to be made at the next session of parliament. Some of the government supporters are claiming that it means increased protection and others, including the Liberal members from the west, are stating that it means a diminution of customs duties. The amendment of the leader of the opposition calls for a policy of adequate protection to all the industries of our country. Surely that is definite enough. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) would certainly not have the opposition formulate a tariff for every particular item in the Customs Act. That is not the duty of the opposition. When the leader of the opposition introduced his amendment to have a declared policy on the tariff, it is something that the people of this country will support him in, because now we have a cabinet rent in factions; some preaching one thing and some another; some free traders and some protectionists, just in order to rake into their fold the supporters of both kinds of fiscal policy. I was glad to see that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) had not the same assurance that the member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) had. That hon. gentleman declared that the people of the west were perfectly satisfied with the tariff as it stands to-day, but the member for Assiniboia was candid enough to state that the people of the west are not satisfied with the tariff. He does say, however, that in 1897 there was a very great disappointment in the west when the tariff was submitted by the Finance Minister. They could not feel otherwise. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) is aware of the pledges made to the people of the west by the supporters of the Liberal party of that day, and he knows that the tariff submitted in 1897 was not a fulfilment of those pledges. The Liberal members in the House at that time recognized this very well, because they endeavoured to square themselves with their constituents for supporting the government, by declaring that they looked upon the tariff of 1897 only as the first instalment towards a policy of free trade. But session after session has since rolled by, and future instalments are overdue, and now we are led to believe by the Minister of finance, according to the implications which any sensible man would draw from his words, that instead of lowering the duties, the customs duties will be increased in the future. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) tells us that there is not now the feeling of disappointment there used to be in 1897. Of course, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) knows full well that there is not going to be any material lowering of the duties, and therefore he, as a journalist and a moulder of public opinion, in line with such organs as the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' is endeavouring to educate the people of the west up to the fact that we must have, what they call, a revenue tariff. But what is in a name ? The Minister of Finance tells us that the present tariff is only a reduction of 2-22 per cent on the Conservative tariff, and without admitting that his figures are accurate, we know that the reduction is less than that. But even with the British preference applied the Minister of Finance claims that the tariff has been reduced only 2-22 per cent, and that is the difference which the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) claims is the difference between a revenue and a protective tariff. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) is paying rather a poor compliment to the intelligence of the people of the west and of Canada generally when he claims that the present tariff is a tariff for revenue purposes only.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) has spoken about the resolution moved by the member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) asking that the minimum valuation be increased on horses imported from the United States. The hon. member (Mr. Scott) supported that resolution, but he objects to have the term protectionist applied to it. Well, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) who introduced that resolution was candid enough to state that he purposely intended it to be a measure of protection to the western farmers. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) said :	Why not let the people get cheap
horses if they desire; you have settlers with possibly little money going into that country, and they may be desirous of securing cheap animals. But the farmers of the west do not want these animals to come to Canada for the reason that they are scrub animals, and are entering into competition with the better class of horses in the west. That is the reason why there is a demand that the minimum valuation should be increased. The proposition is a protection to the farmers, and the farmers of the west are not particular by what name you call it so long as it gives them that protection.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has referred to the woollen industry and he dealt very gently indeed with that question. Probably the hon. gentleman may have had a hint that there is something coming in the way of increased protection to the woollen industry next session of par-

liament, because be expressed the opinion that if any industry requires protection, probably the woollen industry was as badly in need of it as any other. However, he quoted the opinion of one woollen manufacturer to show that he was satisfied with the present tariff. If that be the opinion of the member for Assiniboia, he differs materially from the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who has openly declared himself in favour of increased protection being given to the woollen industry at the next session of parliament. I think it is a safe prophecy that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) may look forward to the duty on woollens being increased.
It was apparent to any one who followed the remarks of the Minister of Finance, that he endeavoured to buoy himself up with an air of assumed cheerfulness under cover of the general prosperity of the country. But, nevertheless, knowing the weak points in his argument, and that they would be taken full advantage of by his opponents, he could not hide a certain air of embarrassment because of the bubbles that would soon be pricked in the half truths with which many of his arguments were clothed. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) has the faculty, or the habit of quoting only those statistics that will add force to his argument, omitting those that might prove embarrassing, using percentages when they are in his favour, and when they are opposed to his contentions claiming that they are unreliable. He however was compelled to make several admissions which detracted considerably from his claim of wise administration on the part of the government. In doing so, of course he places his party in rather a ridiculous position before the public by approving of that which they formerly denounced, and using arguments which heretofore met with their condemnation when used by a Conservative government. For instance, the money on deposit in our savings banks, the amount of life insurance, the amount of the bank circulation. &c., which were heretofore quoted by Conservative finance ministers as evidences of the general prosperity of the country, were ridiculed by the Liberal party in days gone by as evidences rather of national poverty than of prosperity. But now we hear the Finance Minister, in each succeeding year, in every budget speech delivered in this House, using these very same arguments which were formerly denounced by him, apparently oblivious of the inconsistency of his course. As Conservatives, Sir, we welcome, and we join with our opponents in welcoming, all and any evidences of prosperity. As men who prefer country to party we hail with pleasure the advent of good times ; but in doing so, we are acting in marked contrast to our opponents, who when on this side of the House, never missed an opportunity, no matter how numerous or glaring the evidences of prosperity were, of decrying the fair fame and name


William James Roche: of their own country in order to make paltry political capital against their opponents.
But the Finance Minister used a very apt term when, in answer to an interruption of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) he told that hon. gentleman that if he should ever have the privilege in the future of being a Finance Minister of Canada, and was as lucky as he was, he might well congratulate himself-a significant though no doubt unintentional admission ; for if there has ever been a party in the history of Canada, or for that matter in the history of any other country, that has proved to be lucky to the fullest extent of the term, assuming the reigns of power on the eve of a wave of prosperity that has proved to be universal in its character, that party is the present Liberal party of Canada. It makes very interesting reading for the student of politics who desires to refresh his memory as to the opinions expressed by these hon. gentlemen when in opposition, to turn up their past speeches. He will see that there is scarcely an argument used by them to prove ma 1-administration on the part of their opponents that cannot be used with double effect against themselves to-day. But charges of inconsistency and insincerity, no matter how strongly they may be pressed home against hon. gentlemen opposite, are met with an air of levity that could only proceed from those who have not a due sense of their responsibilities or a full appreciation of what constitutes honour in public men. What care they for consistency so long as they are in the enjoyment of the fruits of office ? What store do they set by sincerity so long as they are basking in the sunshine of power, and having full confidence in their ability to corrupt the electorate by divers means, they snap their fingers at public sentiment and rely entirely on the practice of ways that are dark and tricks that are vain, of which they are pasc masters, to secure for themselves a renewal of power which they would not otherwise secure if a fair field and no favours were permitted when the people are called upon to make their selection. A Liberal of the rank and file is quoted against himself. He meets the quotation with a laugh-' good politics,' says he. A member of the cabinet is confronted with his declarations of the past in direct opposition to his present actions. ' Oh,' he exclaims, ' that was before I had any responsibility as a minister of the Crown ; that was when I was in opposition, before I was drawing $7,000 or $8,000 per annum.' The Prime Minister himself, the premier of His Majesty's premier colony, the man who above all others should set an example of public probity, who should be an example for the young men of our country to imitate makes light of gross breaches of faith on the part of himself and his colleagues, and airily replies, 'We are here, and you are there ; what are you going to do about it ? ' With this experience and these examples, I think the Canadian

people may well feel rather discouraged at the outlook for pure politics in the future. It is not surprising that so many of the better class of our citizens are deterred from entering public life, with such examples of duplicity and double dealing practiced by those who in days of yore made loud professions of virtue in their Pharisaical manner but who have exploited the possibilities of hyprocrisy to its fullest extent since their advent to power. A surplus is claimed by a Conservative finance minister. He is immediately held up to the ridicule of the public by his Liberal critics. An evidence of incapacity, said they, on the part of a finance minister. The former philosopher of the House, the Hon. David Mills, who has been transfered to the judiciary, when a member of the opposition in this House, declared that a government had no business to have a surplus. These are his words :
I say that a government is not entitled to have a surplus. There it no stimulus to economy when a large surplus remains in the hands of the government.
Which is true, though it does not remain very long in the hands of this government.
A large surplus Invites to extravagance, and has invited to extragance in this country. The government and parliament should inaugurate a system of economy.
And to this declaration of the Hon. David Mills, the members on the back benches pounded their desks in noisy approbation. He was not the only member of the cabinet who took exception to surpluses. The present Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) in stentorian tones that made the rafters of the House of Commons ring, gave utterance to the following words in 1883 :
It is no part of the duty of the Finance Minister to extract more money out of the pockets of the people than is absolutely wanted* to carry on public affairs. What would be said of a chancellor of the exchequer in England if he could not estimate the requirements of the public service nearer than $2,000,000 ? He would be ridiculed as unable to grasp the financial conditions of the country.
gether, by the figures quoted to the House by the Finance Minister himself, we shall* have on the 30th of June next a deficit of $8,-450,000-the least any one could expect was that this government would apply this surplus to a reduction of the burdens of the people. We expected that they would have reduced the national debt, reduced taxation, and our household expenditure. But instead of decreases there have been increases all along the line. What do we see with regard to the public debt, under which they claimed the people of Canada were groaning, when the Conservatives held office, and when that debt was millions of dollars less than it is to-day ? They then exhausted all their ability and eloquence and powers of denunciation in making out that the people were being impoverished in order to pay the interest on that debt. Well, how does it stand now ? We find that this year the public debt will be increased by $6,000,000, making in all an increase of $16,000,000 since these hon. gentlemen came to office. Had they applied their so-called surpluses to the relief of taxation, they might with some reason have claimed our approval, but they have raised our taxation $2.66 per capita. Had they reduced the expenditure, they might have claimed some credit for their policy, but instead they have increased our annual expenditure by $23,547,617. So that we have a record thus far of an increase of $16,000,000 in our public debt, of over $23,000,000 in our expenditure, and of upwards of $11,000,000 in our taxation. A wonderful showing for this so-called economical government. And mark you, Sir, these were the particular items upon which these hon. gentlemen judged their predecessors and called upon the people to turn the Conservative government out of power. Is it at all surprising that, with such a showing, the hon. Finance Minister did not evince that spirit of jubilation in his budget speech which the good times would otherwise have warranted 1 But what a spectacle did we see when the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) rose in his place and endeavoured to draw a red herring
This sentiment was also welcomed by his Liberal supporters. This, however, was before these hon. gentlemen held office. What do we find now ? We find a Liberal finance minister getting up in his place in the House and actually boasting of having extracted from the pockets of the people during the last five years $19,000,000 more than was necessary to meet the lavish expenditure of this extravagant government-more than was necessary to meet the requirements of the public service. If that was a good principle in days gone by, it should be an equally good principle to-day. Now, with a revenue of $56,800,000 during the present year, and a surplus of some $5,0oo.000 on consolidated account-although taking the total expenditure of the government, on consolidated account and capital account toacross the trail, endeavoured to divert the attention of parliament and the people from the true condition of affairs, by delivering a nine years old speech on the census, which most of us had read before coming to parliament, and in which, by his cheap criticism, bitter invective and gross charges of wholesale perjury against all the officials connected with the census of 1891, he endeavoured to alleviate the disappointment in the country caused by the census returns of 1901. One would have thought that that hon. gentleman, in* what is practically his valedictory in this House-a House that is to know him no longer-though I am, quite willing to admit that his training in opposition has not been conducive to amiability in one of so bilious a temperament, one would have thought that he



would have endeavoured to assume a virtue even if he had it not, and adopt a tone more becoming to one Who is about to take his departure from parliamentary life. True there may be some excuse for the bitterness of the hon. gentleman in the fact that he had been relegated to that useless appendage of the government, as he was wont in the old days to describe it, the Department of Trade and Commerce-that office which he himself used to declare had been simply created in order that a haven of quiet repose might he afforded to a supporter of the government for whom a cabinet position had to be supplied. How true those words are when applied to the hon. gentleman himself. How those chickens have come home to roost. But apparently it is very difficult for some hon. gentlemen to change their old-time habits. He accused the census officials of 1891 of having made false returns, at the instigation no doubt of the government of that day, of having perjured themselves in order to do political service to their party, but he forgot that the Conservative government or its officials did not resort to the tactics adopted by this government when taking the census of 1901. The late government did not send out private circulars to the census enumerators, asking them to count as residents of Canada people who had left the country, and to keep a separate list of the young men, showing their political persuasion, in order that that might be afterwards used to party advantage. It ill becomes the hon. gentleman to make groundless charges against a host of officials who are every bit as honorable as he is, especially in the light of the experience we have had in the taking of the last census.
The hon. minister could not abstain from giving a rap to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) for his so-called lapsing or backsliding to protectionist doctrines. The hon. member for North Norfolk had been the colleague of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, he had served with him on the International Commission, and has always been considered one of the most level-headed and brainy men of the House. In days gone by he has been accused of being rather too friendly to the neighbouring republic, and no one in this House is better posted on the needs and requirements of Canada and on trade questions in the United States. But if the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce were in quest of members on his own side who were in favour of protection, he need not have travelled beyond the coniines of his own cabinet. He could have found one within the radius of the ministry itself. Why did he not attack the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who is an avowed protectionist, both in his speeches in this House and on the public platform ? Why did not the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce turn his guns against this colleague of his own ? Was the doughty Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
knight afraid of his colleague V Did he shrink from a contest with the fiery little champion of protection within his own charmed circle, the Minister of Public Works? Nor is the Minister of Public Works the only member of the cabinet who is a protectionist at heart, though I give that hon. minister the credit of saying that he has the courage of his convictions and will give voice to them, whereas the other members of the -cabinet who share his views, practice protection while preaching free trade. Had he done this, then the hon. minister, after having subdued his colleagues, could turn his attention to the back benches, where he would find at least a score of his own supporters who are protectionists at heart, and having routed them, he might have had a little sweet communion with himself. For have we not had it on no less an authority than the Prime Minister himself that the Minister of Trade and Commerce lived for twenty years a double life, politically speaking, previous to attaining office. Has not the Prime Minister told us that when the Mackenzie administration held office, the Minister of Trade and Commerce was willing to adopt a protectionist policy, was willing to increase the duties, and was only deterred from doing so by the pistol put to his head by the members from the maritime provinces, in response to which the coon came down. He sacrificed what he knew would be in the best interests of his country for the sake of his party, and the right hon. gentleman lauded him for this spirit of sacrifice. The people of Canada, said the right hon. gentleman, knew but very little what they owed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for having endured during all those years the obliquy of having been an inveterate free trader while in fact he was all along willing to be a protectionist The Prime Minister, at a banquet given the Minister of Trade and Commerce down stairs, thus expressed his opinion of his colleague amid no doubt the cordial approval of those around the festive board on that occasion. That opinion has been quoted before by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), but a good thing will stand repetition, and let me now read to the House what the right hon. the Prime Minister then said:
There never was a day of the many days since we have hail to discuss questions together in council but I could count and rely on the sup-pert of Sir Richard Cartwright, and though, as sometimes happens in the councils of the party, we did not agree when in the council, when the policy of the party was agreed upon Sir Richard Cartwright never wavered in- his support of it.
I may give you an instance which has come to me from reliable sources, and it is a thing which goes far to show the character of our guest of this evening. In the days of Mr. Mackenzie, when the country was much depressed, there were many who believed that if the tariff was increased that policy would be justified by the necessities of the revenue, and that it would be a valuable policy for the country at large. I

can give you the story without betraying secrets, because these things happened before my day, but if the advice of Sir Richard Cartwright had prevailed at that time this policy would have been adopted. If it was not accepted it was on
account of other influences

That was the pistol influence.
-which prevailed with the government of the day, and for sixteen or twenty years Sir Richard bore the brunt of the obloquy of not having responded to public sentiment, whereas the truth was he was ready to respond to public sentiment. For eighteen years he bore the brunt of all the obloquy, and never whispered a word. It is not every day you can find such abnegation and such loyalty to the party, and I have reason to believe, and repeat it to you-I not only repeat it to you, my colleagues, but I wish my words to be heard all over Canada-that Canada little knows the debt of gratitude that it owes to Sir Richard Cartwright.
This was considered by the Prime Minister to be a meritorious act on the part of Sir Richard Cartwright, and I have no doubt he was cheered by those assembled around that table. But there are people in Canada who have rather higher ideals of what constitutes good statesmanship. I am glad to be able to say that there are many people in Canada who, instead of approving of a man being a protectionist at heart and preaching free trade, consider such a course to be of the very essence of political hypocrisy.
Now, the Finance Minister claimed- claimed by imputation at any rate-that because our trade with Great Britain has increased to a certain extent this was solely and wholly due to the operation of the preferential tariff. But when he was asked to produce the figures showing our trade with the United States, he had conveniently forgotten them. But these figures have been made available to hon. gentlemen in this House since then, and they entirely nullify the arguments of the Minister of Finance. That hon. gentleman himself admitted that our trade with the United States had vastly increased, and said that our trade with every other country had also greatly increased. If the increase of our trade with Great Britain has been less than the increase of our trade with other countries, how can the Minister of Finance say that the increase of our trade with Great Britain, such as it is, is due to the fact that we have given Great Britain the preference. It would be absurd to take such a position. Our exports to the United States last year decreased by about 681,507, while our exports to Great Britain fell off $2,407,412. Our imports from the United States during the same period increased by $6,762,783, while our imports from Great Britain decreased during that period by about $2,307,977. Is this great decrease of our trade with Great Britain amounting to no less than $4,700,000, owing to the preferential tariff ? The hon. minister cannot claim credit for the increases of our trade without assuming responsibility also for this great
diminution of our trade with Great Britain. The fact is this whole preferential tariff has been so arranged as to deceive not only the people of Canada but the people of the motherland as well. England derives little, if 'any benefit, while Canada derives from it no benefit whatever. It may be true that, in some instances, the English exporter and the Canadian exporter may benefit to a certain extent, but the consuming population are not benefited one whit. And, on the other hand, the chief products of Germany, sent to Great Britain and a small portion of work done upon them, come into Canada under the guise of British goods, and so get the benefit of the preference, while Canadian products are placed on the German maximum tariff. It would prove very interesting reading if a reliable statement could be presented showing the quantity of German goods that have taken advantage of the preferential tariff and have come into Canada under the guise of British goods. Our greatest competitor is the United States. The products of that country are similar to our own. American products go into the German market under the German minimum tariff, while ours must pay the maximum tariff. The Americans have an advantage on every bushel of wheat sent into the German market as compared with the Canadian product of 9J cents per bushel; on oats, 4J cents per bushel; on barley, 1J cents per bushel; on rye, 9i cents per bushel; on peas, 3i cents per bushel; and so with butter, beans and other articles. This is a discrimination against Canada for having given a preference to Great Britain. And our government has not lifted a finger to improve this condition of affairs. The average rate on dutiable goods coming from the United States last year, according to the Finance Minister, was 24-83 per cent, and the average rate on dutiable goods coming from Great Britain was 24-74 per cent practically the same, notwithstanding the fact that Great Britain is supposed to enjoy a preference of 33J per cent. The average duty on all goods, dutiable and free coming from the United States was less than 12i per cent, while the average on goods coming from Great Britain was 18-23 per cent. This, in the old days of the Conservative government would have been seized upon with avidity by our opponents as evidence of rank discrimination against the motherland. As I said, this whole preferential tariff, lauded as it was by its promoters because of its possibilities from both a sentimental and a business standpoint, has proven a disappointment to everybody except the German exporter. The English man, taking a superficial view and not knowing that the general tariff had been increased on many articles before the preference was applied, thought he was going to be very highly advantaged; and it is only recently he has been undeceived and has found how he was hoodwinked. The Cana-

dian consumer was led to believe that he would purchase goods at a cheaper rate under the operation of this tariff, and, as a result of sentimental considerations, would receive a real preference for his goods in the mother country. But now, since the tariff has been in operation and he has had an opportunity to attest its value, he admits, and must admit, that he pays prices as high and even higher in some instances, and that the products from our Canadian farms are admitted on exactly the same footing as are the products from every country in the world. And he is practically shut out of the German market. Now, had the right hon. First Minister pressed upon the home authority the necessity and advisability of giving us a real preference in their market and thus fulfilling his pledges to the people of Canada prior to 1896; had he, at the time of his visit, when the olive branch had been held out by the leading statesmen of Great Britain, endeavoured to secure what he promised, he would have conferred upon the people of Canada a benefit of whose advantages It would not have required days and weeks of argument to convince the people of Canada. But, unfortunately for us, the right hon. gentleman was more anxious about receiving those empty baubles and glittering titles he used to refer to so contemptuously when he was a democrat to the hilt, than about winning solid advantages for the people. He thought more of receiving Cobden medals-'and, by the way, I do not think that that Cobden medal was sent back since it was shown that it was received under false pretenses. As we know, Lord Farrer said that had it been known that this preference would apply to Great Britain alone, the medal would not now glisten on the right hon. gentleman's breast. It was because it was thought that this preference was offered to the whole world that the right hon. gentleman was admitted as an honorary member of the club. When he was forced to change his law and make it apply to Great Britain alone, he did not return the Cobden medal, evidently being a thorough believer in the motto, ' What we have we'll hold.' The right hon. gentleman should have been active in looking after the interests of Canada rather than In making speeches to the people of Great Britain, in which he advised them not only that Canada would not ask for any return for the preference given in our markets, but not to make any return. Why ? Because it would injure Canada ? No, but because it would cause a departure from the old free trade traditions that had made Great Britain such a mighty power. It was not in looking after the interests of Canada that the right hon. gentleman said it, but in advising the statesmen of Great Britain what policy they could adopt to injuriously affect this country. It is to be hoped that on the approaching visit of the right hon. gentleman, where he has been Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
invited to participate in the Coronation ceremonies and also to discuss questions of inter-imperial relations, he will do better. I see that the manner of his acceptance has caused profound disappointment among the people of Great Britain. It is to be hoped that he will not repeat the error of the past, but that instead of looking after titles for himself and making those empty speeches which prove little but his own desire of saying something pleasant to the particular audience he happens to be addressing, he will do all he can to promote the interest of the country he represents.
These hon. gentlemen claim that they gave this preference to the motherland to Show their loyalty, to show their attachment, and their gratitu&e for her assistance to us in the past. Well, Sir, I will admit that something needed to be done by a party with the record of these hon. gentlemen, a party that, in 1891, advocated a policy which, if it had been adopted, would in all probability have resulted in political union with the United States, at any rate that was the belief of their former leader, the Hon. Edward Blake, who severed his allegiance with them, and would neither lead nor follow a party that advocated such a policy. I admit that a party having done that, needed to take some steps more than ordinary to prove their loyalty and attachment to the motherland. But, Sir, if they considered it necessary to adopt this policy, and if that policy can be proved to be injurious to Canadian interests, I say as "a young Canadian that it is our duty to look after ourselves, and that our loyalty should begin at home. I would call to my'aid no less an authority than the Prime Minister himself, who declared, when he was advocating this policy, that John Bull himself would think all the more of a son that looked after his own interest, and he stated that we should not mix up business with sentiment. Here is what the hon. gentleman said in one of his speeches, at Brantford, according to the report of the Toronto ' Globe ' :
I think England can look after her own interests and if I know John Bull at all he expects his son. to follow his example and do the same, namely, to look after number one. I think he would have a contempt for a son who did not turn an honest penny.
These were the sentiments of the Prime Minister at that time. He went on to say :
Business was business and sentiment was sentiment; hut he did not believe that sentiment was business any more than business was sentiment.
Most profound logic, and worthy the approbation of his party. Now, Sir, I do not desire to discuss this question from a sectional standpoint. Some of my colleagues from the west on the Liberal side of the House have declared that the people of the west were satisfied with the action of this government on tariff matters. The mem-

ber for West Assiniboia admitted as much, and the member for Saskatchewan declared they were satisfied. I wish to deny that statement emphatically. Tb6 latter gentleman declared that there were some reductions made on some small implements, and what were they ? Axes, adzes, pronged forks and spades In which the farmers invest a few cents each year. It is true they reduced the duty a little on these minor articles, but the farmers do not buy them a single cent cheaper. It is possible that the importer may get them a little less, 1 am doubtful of that even; but the reduction would be so infinitesimal that the purchasing farmer does not reap a single cent from it. But on those larger implements such as mowers and binders in which the farmers invest thousands and thousands of dollars every year, these hon. gentlemen claim that the duty should not only be reduced, but that these implements should be placed upon the free list. Now, I have here a list of articles in which a vast amount of money is expended each year by the farming population, the list shows the imports during the last year under the general tariff, the amount of duty paid, and the number that came in under the preferential tariff:
-	General Tariff.	Preferential Tariff.	Duty.s	$	$ cts.Harvesters, self-	bi n d i n g and	others, 20 p.c..	828,118	165,623 60Mowing machines	20 p.c	426,084	85,216 80Ploughs, 20 p.c..	147,381	29,476 201.	No. 6, 104	13 87Horse rakes,20p.c	104,075	20,815 00Harrows, 20 p.c..	47,833	9,566 60No. 2, 29	3 87Drills, 20 p.c....	31,002	6,21S 40Reapers, 20 p.c..	57,681	11,536 20Buggies and car-	riages, 35 p.c..	47,915	16,770 25M	No. 5, 0,259	1,460 44F arm wagons,	42,064	10,516 00
On several other articles in which the farmers invest a vast amount of money each year, the duty remained exactly the same as it was prior to 1896, notwithstanding that the people were told at that time that should the Liberal party come into power they would place many of those articles upon the free list, notably self binders and reapers.
The Minister of the Interior, in his speech delivered in Winnipeg in 1896, told the people of Manitoba that they were being bled white for the purpose of amassing - huge fortunes for the Massey-Harris Company, and others by paying them such an outrageously high tariff duty as 20 per cent on mowers and binders, and he declared these
articles should be placed upon the free list. Free coal oil was another promise they made, and it was given a miserable reduction of 1 cent a gallon. Now they neglect to point out to the people of the west that the Conservatives have proved themselves to be the true tariff reformers in respect to the duty on agricultural implements, since they cut the duty almost in two, and reduced it from 35 per cent to 20 per cent. The Minister of the Interior also stated that the Conservative government, by a system of drawbacks, were allowing these men to export their reapers and binders to Australia and sell them for $85 or 890, whereas the farmers of the North-west had to pay 8140 and $150 for the same machine. But in a return I asked for in this House,
I find that there has been paid out to these same manufacturers in drawbacks since the Liberal party came into power, $300,000 under the very same policy which they condemned in opposition. Certainly if it was a vicious principle prior to 1896 it ought to be equally vicious at the present time. The Minister of the Interior also told the people in Manitoba that the manufacturers of these implements were employing 9,000 hands, and he declared that if this duty were reduced-because he now claims that far from being a protective duty, it is not even a revenue tariff-if this duty were reduced these 9,000 hands would have to seek employment in the United States, and our own manufacturing establishments would be crushed out. Certainly that is good Conservative doctrine, the hon. gentlemen opposite condemned it strongly in the past. In his campaign speeches during the contest in Lisgar, the hon. gentleman harped and harped upon this-matter, and I will not be surprised if, in the tariff revision next year, we shall see increased duties on agricultural implements as well. Possibly one of the reasons why the Minister of the Interior has changed his ideas regarding the duty on agricultural implements is to be found in the fact of a certain deal having gone through in which the Manitoba ' Free Press ' changed hands, and the Minister of the Interior and the Massey-Harris Company were mixed up in the deal, and as a result he lias-had turned over to himself the leading organ of the Liberal party in the west.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the present government took great credit for having changed many of the duties from a specific to an ad valorem basis. I desire to point out that the value of many of those articles purchased by the consumer in Canada to-day is much higher than it was prior to the time before the Liberals came into power. We find it to be the case under the system of specific duties that when such duties are imposed they do not increase in proportion to the value of the article. These duties remain the same no matter how much the price may be increased to the consumer, but where the duties are placed on an ad valorem basis

the consumer not only has to pay more for the goods but he has to pay more on account of the duty as well. In many of these instances where a change has been made where the price has been increased, the farmer does not realize how much more he has to pay in duty, because he is called upon to pay for an increased value as well as for an increased duty, whereas under the system of specific duties he was called upon to pay merely the increased prices of the articles that he purchased. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) gave voice to an expression which he meant to be a reproach to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and the Conservative party in general because they were consistent enough to advocate the one policy for twenty-five years. He stated that he might close his eyes and let his mind revert back five and twenty years. The hon. gentleman is always living in the past. No wonder he is considered to be a back number. He stated that he could imagine that he heard from the very self-same desk, from the hon. gentleman's predecessor the selfsame views given expression to a quarter of a century ago, and he expressed amazement that there could be a politician or a party that could be true to a principle or a policy for the space of a quarter of a century. If he judged us by the standard of his own party he had every reason to cast that reflection upon us in his speech because during that time his party has changed its policy half a dozen times. No sooner did they meet defeat on one policy than they produced a new one, and advocated it with all the gusto of new found converts. They never had any principle, political exigencies being their guide. Instead of this being a reflection upon the policy of the Conservative party, it is a matter of very great credit to tiie Conservative party, and the hon. gentleman will look in vain for its parallel within the ranks of the Liberal party. Hon. gentlemen opposite have increased the expenditure, as I have already declared, upwards of $23,000,000, they have increased the taxation upwards of $11,000,000, they have increased the national debt by $16,000,000, they have bestowed upon a score of members of parliament positions of emolument under the Crown in direct opposition to their declarations in the past, they have failed to even make an attempt to obtain a mutual trade preference within the empire when the time was opportune, they have, ever since they assumed the reins of power, violated that well laid down rule of letting contracts to the highest tenderer, parcelling them out instead to political supporters in return for favours present and to come, they have increased the number of cabinet ministers by two, raising their salaries by $2,000 per annum, they have abandoned that plank in their platform calling for the


William James Roche: reform in the Senate, and they are disposing of senatorships to those who are the largest contributors to the campaign fund. We have one member of the government preaching free trade, another member of the government preaching increased protection, another one preaching revenue tariff, and as to several others it is immaterial to them what they do preach so long as they are left on the treasury benches, all in opposition to that well known rule of constitutional government that all the members of a government are expected to be a unit in matters of public policy. They have been guilty of a violation of pledges that has been a disgrace to this country, that shocks our electorate, that has brought reproach upon the country. They have brought reproach upon our country at home and aboad. With such a record as this I think the time surely cannot be far distant when a long suffering public will refuse to longer tolerate these autocratic politicians who are more wedded to office than to principle, and though up to the present time, the hands of chastisement have been temporarily stayed, it is not at all because of any display of virtue on the part of the government, but rather from the practice of those methods that will not stand the light of day. I do not desire to go over the mass of figures that have been presented during this debate or to occupy the attention of the House repeating arguments which have been traversed much more a'bly by those who have preceded me, but I will simply say that it is my intention to support the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition and for this reason; the people of this country I claim, are in favour of a government that has the courage of its convictions, and they will have a declaration of policy of some kind. The present government have no declared policy on which to go before the country as to whether they are protectionists or free traders, because they are, as a matter of fact, practising protection while they are preaching free trade and even then their ranks are divided. The people of the country must be at a loss to know to whom to look. Here are the men who are the advisers of His Majesty. One-half of the cabinet are preaching one tariff while the other half of the cabinet are preaching another, while we, as Conservatives, believe, that, situated as we are alongside of the most highly protected country in the world, the United States, with 4,000 miles of a boundary line between this country and that, it is an impossibility, no matter how beautiful the theory may appear, to inaugurate a policy of free trade for this Canada of ours and that unless we have a system of protection for all the industries of this country, not merely for the manufacturing industries, but for the agricultural industry as well, we cannot hope ever to be a thriving nation. It is also true that when we state that we

are in favour of moderate protection, in this country that does not mean that we are going to have very high rates of duties on every article grown or manufactured in Canada. It was not the intention of the designers of the national policy that we would have certain fixed high rates of duty for all time to come, but only until such times as our industries could be placed on a footing to withstand the keen competition offered by the Americans and the keen competition of the world, when they would be able to compete with them not only in our home market, but in the foreign markets as well. There are some articles that I would object to having the duties raised upon, but there are others that if it could be shown that by an increase of duty it is necessary and desirable to keep establishments going in Canada to be operated by our own people these people to be fed by Canadian farmers, then I am in favour of adopting such rates of duty as are necessary for this purpose. But, some hon. gentlemen opposite take the stand that protection is a folly and a farce so far as the agriculturist is concerned and that it is not possible to protect him. It is true that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has always taken this position, but surely that hon. gentleman should have taken a lesson from the 17th of September, 1878, when prior to that time, when he was Minister of Finance of Canada, he was approached by one hundred thousand farmers with a petition to parliament asking for agricultural protection, and hie told them that practically they did not know what they were asking for. The result was that he met with condigu punishment when his government went to the country in 1878. It is paying a poor compliment to these farmers who ask for protection to toe told now that they must be so green that they will not burn. Articles that are grown on the farm can be and are being protected. Take as an illustration the protection to pork. Our opponents, when on this side of the House, when the tariff was raised on pork by the Conservative administration asserted that it would be of no benefit to the Canadian farmer. What was the result ? The quantity of American pork which came in to displace so much Canadian pork immediately shrunk in value. The importation did not cease entirely, but It greatly diminished. The market was enlarged for our Canadian farmer, and he was enabled to export a very much larger quantity of his pork thdn he would have been able to do but for this protection. If those hon. gentlemen who say to-day that that protection was of no value, why do they not remove the duty on pork ? What is it kept there for if it is not for protection ? If a duty of 15 cents a bushel on wheat was of no use in Conservative days, why is 12 cents a bushel imposed now 7 If it is of no use as a protection to the farmers, why not remove it ? Why, Sir, the
whole thing shows the absurdity of the statements made by those gentlemen when they say that the farmers cannot be benefited by protection.
For the reasons I have given, it is my intention to support the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition, which amendment will, I believe, commend itself to the intelligence of all right-minded people. We are a country of diverse interests. To-day we may not be a manufacturing country in the west, but we hope in the future to have extensive and profitable manufactures there, and then, Sir, these very same gentlemen who are now decrying protection will be just as ready to cry out in favour of protection.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St John and Iberville).: (Translation.) It is on record that in times of old lived nations characterized by their loquacity. From the experience gained in the House of Commons, I daresay that our hon. friends opposite are decidedly Gallic in that respect.
The hon. gentlemen opposite are loud in their denunciations of the government. To their mind the administration is composed of men entertaining conflicting opinions. They lay great stress on the fact that the Liberal party do not entertain the same views on the different questions which engage our attention. I have always held that the progress and development of a country proceeded from a conflict of opinions. Even the Conservatives were sometimes divided amongst themselves, and it ill becomes them to taunt on that score the members occupying seats on this side of the House.
We are told that the Liberal party has no. definite policy, that a change may occur tomorrow, and people are anxious to know what will be the nature of that change.
Let them rest assured that any change that may occur will be beneficial to the interests of this country at large. In 1896, when the Liberal party came into power, after the general elections, their policy well known to the electorate, had received the popular endorsation. Had it not been agreeable to the people, the present administration would not have been then sustained as it has been since.
The hon. mernoer for Marquette (Mr. Roche) said a few moments ago that he was at a loss to understand what was going on. It is well that we should take note of that admission. It is because those gentlemen failed to understand what was going on around them that they were hurled from power, and may they live long in that blissful ignorance.
When one looks up the records of the Conservative administration, it is easily understood why they were driven from power in 1896, and why the people will long keep in office those who were called upon to replace them.

When I hear the hon. members opposite state that our country is prosperous, but that we are indebted for that prosperity to the action of Providence and to the maintenance of their policy, it reminds me of a certain dynasty. Like the Bourbons, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. As much can be said of the hon. members opposite.
It is true that governments cannot control the business of a country nor create prosperity ; but they can largely contribute to developing that prosperity. Thus the government of the day have greatly helped the agriculturists by patronising the cheese and butter industry, by encouraging the trade in eggs and other agricultural produce, in securing for them the markets of Great Britain, thereby causing a large increase of our trade with the mother country. Is it not true that such a result was achieved through the Department of Agriculture so ably presided over by the Hon. Mr. Fisher ?
It may be said : what good purpose can it serve, so long as there is an increase in the national debt 1 In the first instance, we might retort that though we have increased the public debt, we did increase It to a smaller extent than they did, but such an answer would be inadequate ; that would only amount to an argument ad hominem.
We are also taunted with having increased the expenditure. In reply, we could point out to a corresponding increase in the surpluses. If we spent $42,000,000, it is because our revenue amounted to $46,000,000 leaving a surplus of $4,000,000, whereas under Conservative rule, when the public expenditure aggregated $38,000,000, there was a deficit of $4,000,000. Such a retort, good as it may be, would not be altogether conclusive. There is a very simple answer to be made. All those expenditures have been sanctioned by the unanimous vote of this House. Why did not they object to them ; why don't they take exception to these expenditures if they find them exorbitant ? Let them muster up courage and impugn these expenditures if they be as extravagant as represented.
Therefore it must be conceded that these expenditures will benefit the country at large. As not one single Conservative member attempts to denounce them, we have reason to infer therefrom that those expenditures are warrantable. I say it ill becomes the Tory party to take the present government to ask for their administration of public affairs ; because to offer criticism one cannot rely solely upon the increase in the public expenditure. Has not a large concern to spend more than a minor establishment has to ? Does not Canada, a commercial concern, so to speak, transact more business now-a-days than she did when the hon. members opposite had the management of public affairs ? Yes, undoubtedly. However the people will be told that there is


Louis Philippe Demers: no justification for an increase in the expenditure.
Others will say that we have collected too considerable an amount of duties. Well, if such be the case, what then would have been the result had we raised the tariff to suit the wishes of the hon. gentlemen opposite ? If, as they claim, the development of trade, in Canada, were merely due to the action of divine Providence, the trade of tills country would have been equally prosperous under a higher tariff.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Roche) taunted the Liberal party with having impaired the fair name of Canada. If ever the fair name of Canada was imperilled, the hon. member for Marquette should know that it was on account of the numerous scandals by which the government of his friends became famous, and on no other account.
Our trade, Sir, has increased by leaps and bounds, especially our trade with England, and it would be idle to deny that such a result was brought about by the preferential tariff established by the present government.
I know that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and the Conservative members in this House have stated that nothing could justify the maintenance of that tariff. First, it seems to me that the conditions have not changed since 1898. when that tariff was first introduced, and it rests upon the hon. member for Labelle, who at that time approved that measure and even delivered a very eloquent speech in its behalf, to show that a change has occurred which justifies the stand he now takes. So far, he has not done so.
The hon. member for Marquette said that the preferential tariff could not benefit England. However, a mere perusal of the English newspapers and of the speeches of public men in Great Britain would convince him that the preferential tariff was looked upon as a gracious act on the part of Canada. Moreover, who will deny that England, a purely industrial country, is largely benefited by the lowering of our tariff ? Besides, that preferential tariff is in accordance with the policy of the Liberal party. '
My hon. friends opposite, in face of a prosperous condition of affairs which cannot be imputed to the sole intervention of Providence, say everywhere on the public platforms : But, you have cheated ns out of our policy ! According to them prosperity was brought on by Providence and by the policy of the Conservative party. But then, if the policy of the Conservative party is responsible for the present prosperous condition of affairs, I shall ask my hon. friends : why do they move an amendment ? Indeed, the motion presented by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) states that the operation of the present tariff is unsatisfactory and detrimental to Canada. Therefore it cannot be their policy that we have propounded. There is no way out of it.

We did not cheat them out of their policy. We have adopted that policy to which we were pledged.
The fiscal platform of the Liberal party was propounded as early as 1893, when we pledged ourselves to a fair policy in everything ; we promised to consult all those concerned, and to reconcile all the interests at stake-a very difficult thing to achieve. The east favours a certain policy, while in the west, where there are no manufactures, people are differently inclined. So the government has to blend together these various interests according to the requirements of the case, and of the times. This the government did after conferring with those concerned ; all advantages were equitably balanced without a single interest being sacrificed. That is the reason why before framing a tariff the government conferred with the manufacturers, without fearing the sarcasm of the Conservative party. Should the tariff be readjusted next year, the same process will be adhered to by the administration, without any preconcerted plan or unalterable principle. Nothing will be decided that is not according to the best interests of Canada, and then only after having heard all the interested parties. Is it not a wise policy that can compare favourably with the extravagant statements of the opposition as voiced in the amendment offered to the House ?
Just one word about the preferential tariff. It is said that the English markets are thrown open to all nations, that every country is allowed to trade freely with Great Britain, and that there is no need of a preference. It Is said that England, though her markets are open to our wares, does not intend thereby to confer a favour upon us, for she acts in the same way towards other nations. Should we be grateful only when we know what motives prompted our benefactors ? If any one saved my life, even if it were not out of pure benevolence, am I not bound to be grateful just the same? For my part, I think it is fair and just that we should give a preference to England, for we are at liberty to sell our goods in that country without being asked and without giving anything in return. English goods have to pay a duty of 20 per cent, when imported into Canada ; our wares have nothing to pay in England ; nevertheless, hon. gentlemen opposite are not pleased.
In reply to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who stated during the debate that England deserved no favours at our hands, because she did not take advantage of the Bulwer-Clayton treaty, and surrendered our interests in the Alaskan question, I will say that this is a very simple matter. England concluded that treaty for her own sake ; Canada never was, and is not yet, interested in it. Therefore, Great Britain could give up every privilege secured by that treaty without exacting in return any favours for Canada. We have no cause to
complain on that score. Had she been willing, or had she thought it possible, England could have secured advantages for us, but can we reproach her for not having done so ? It should not be said that Canada was sacrificed. I own that it would have been better for us had she exacted certain privileges for Canada ; however, can we reproach her for having thought that charity begins at home, when the question was the abrogation of a treaty in which alone she was interested. Besides, how can we pass judgment, not knowing all the circumstances of the case ?	-
The hon. member for Labelle taunted the government for having disallowed the statute respecting Chinese and Japanese immigrants, passed by the legislative^ assembly of British Columbia. I entirely differ from him. The British, empire had an interest in that problem. The matter could not be settled by the provincial legislature. All international matters are within the scope of the imperial authorities interested in the question of ithe treatment of aliens. This was a matter coming under international law. The intervention of the imperial government was therefore fully justified. Through the British authorities our treaties are negotiated, and Great Britain also acts as a go-between in all our negotiations with foreign countries. Who will dare stand up and say that England had no right to suggest to the federal authorities a policy consistent with imperial interests ? The mere mention of these circumstances will show that the Imperial parliament was justified in requesting the Canadian authorities to disallow that law respecting naturalization ? Even according to our constitutional laws, naturalization is a matter within the sole control of the federal parliament here. The British Columbia statute rendered naturalization impossible, and I contend that the federal legislature alone could legislate upon the matter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Will my hon. friend allow me to say that it was a statute respecting emigration ; that it did not deal with naturalization ?


Louis Philippe Demers: (Translation.) Granted ; but I intended to show that for one to become a British subject, for instance, it is necessary to reside in a province'during three years, and that naturalization was within the exclusive control of the federal parliament.
My hon. friend from Labelle then undertook to establish that, after all, Canada had constantly been exploited by England, without ever receiving anything in return. Such was the purport of his speech. Our forefathers fought for England as early as 1775. But it would not be wise to think that, in 1775, they fought for the sake of Great Britain alone. They took up arms

for their own sake as well as for England's.
By referring to the address of the Americans to the British people on the 5th September, 1774, it will be seen that the war between the mother country and the American colonies was a war in which we were concerned. Let us see how the Americans in that address stated the grievances which brought on the conflict :
And by another Act the Dominion of Canada is to be so extended, modelled, and governed as that by being disunited from us, detached from our interests, by civil as well as religious prejudices, that by their numbers daily swelling with Catholic emigrants from Europe, and by their devotion to administration, so friendly to their religion, they might become formidable to us, and on occasions, be fit instruments in the hands of power, to reduce the ancient free protestant colonies to the true state of slavery with themselves	Now can we suppress our astonishment, that a British parliament should ever consent to establish in that country a religion that has deluged our island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecutions, murder and rebellion through every part of the world.
Such was one of the reasons which prompted the American colonists to warn Great Britain that they would shake off her yoke if she did not listen to their petition. Her refusal to accede to their petition was one of the causes of the American revolution. Aow, in 1775, when Canada took part in that war, she was almost exclusively inhabited by men of our own race and blood. Therefore, when we took part in that war Jt was not only for Great Britain that we tought, but we fought also In defence of our own rights.
It was an act of justice on our part to have given a preference to England, and It was also an act of justice on our part to have sent troops in aid of the mother country, out of gratitude also for the benefits she had conferred on ns. Great Britain rendered us justice, in 1867, when she gave us the constitution guaranteeing the rignts of the French Canadians. Lord Carnarvon when_ moving in the British parliament the adoption of that constitution, said that he wished thereby to confirm the treaty entered into by Great Britain at the capitulation of Montreal, and that it was for that purpose that this constitution was granted to Canada. As I said, our rights were guaranteed by that constitution. We, French Canadians, Mr. Speaker, are the most interested m maintaining British connection. uur choice is between British connection and annexation to the United States. There is no other alternative ; , and between the two countries, it is no difficult matter to maiie a choice.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) laughs ; he thinks, no doubt, that our participation in the wars of the empire is a new departure-something unheard of before. Alllow me, Sir, to call attention to some utterances of the hon. gentleman, at


Louis Philippe Demers: Ste. Rose, on the 8th January, as reported by Le Journal :
Did you ever hear of Canada participating in the wars of the Empire, before the coming into power of Mr. Laurier, never. How we came to take part in the South African war, is easily explained. In 1897, before the Transvaal war had broken out, Mr. Laurier went over to England. A few days later, at a banquet in honour of the representatives from the colonies, he delivered a speech in which he pledged his word to the mother country that, should a war break out, let the beacon-lights shine on the heights, let the sound of the bugles be heard and Canada would be ready to contribute soldiers and money.
On the 12th January, at a meeting held at the Bonsecours market, during the contest in the electoral division of St. James, Montreal, the hon. gentleman delivered a speech, which was reported by La Presse, in its issue of the 13th, as follows
The Conservative leader Explained his attitude on the question of the contingents. The question, he said, arose out of Mr. Laurier's famous resolution, approving of the principle of the South African War. But it goes further back ; it originated in Mr. Laurier's visits to England, at the jubilee of the Queen, when, at the. banquet of London, he offered soldiers and money to the mother-country. Canada was hound by that solemn pledge, and when the time came when it should be redeemed, I consider that the honour of the country was pledged, and that it was our duty to stand by the word of the first Minister. That is the reason why Parliament voted without a dissentient voice in favour of the sending of the first contingent. As to Mr. Bourassa's motion, Mr. Monk said that he had not voted in favour of it, because it was only academic.
The hon. gentleman is like the Bourbons, .with this difference, that tlie Bourbons have learned nothing and forgotten nothing ; whereas the hon. gentleman has learned a great many things and has also forgotten many things.
I do not know to what school of thought my hon. friend belongs. Does he belong to the school of Sir .John Macdonald, the leader of the great Conservative party, whose words were received with the greatest respect by the hon. gentlemen opposite ? Sir John had the support of all the civil authorities in the province of Quebec, and it is important that we should know what was the opinion of that statesman, who moulded to a great extent the destinies of his party.
As early as 18G5, during the debates on confederation, when the new constitution was being discussed which Canada was going to adopt, the question of our participation in the wars of the empire came up for discussion, and Sir John Macdonald said: And England will have this advantage, that, though at war with all the resit of the world, she will be able to look to the subordinate nations in alliance with her, and owing allegiance to the same Sovereign who will assist in enabling her again to meet the whole world in arms, as she has done before.
If the hon. gentleman is no admirer of Sir John Macdonald, I am sure he must be an

on that question, there is no reason to fear that the coming conference of London will be fraught with such dangers as some people think it may invite.
As to the question of colonial representation, when it came up for discussion in the British parliament, Mr. Blake, on a motion of Mr. Sinclair, said : ' Why should the colonies be represented here, were it not for the purpose of being taxed ? ' In these few words, Mr. Blake spoke the whole truth.
I consider that imperialism would result in the downfall of the empire. For, when our people will have to increase their burdens, to share in the expenditure of England's wars, they will not hesitate, like the other colonies, to sever the colonial tie. When, prior to the war with the United States, Lord North tried to bring about the unity of the empire by drawing closer the ties which bound the colonies to the mother country, what was the result ? The result was that England lost her best American colonies.
To sum up, I may say that the province of Quebec considers that our participation in the present war was but an act of justice on the part of Canada towards Great Britain, and that for us, French Canadians, it was an act of gratitude, a manifestation of good-will towards the imperial government.
We are proud to be British subjects because of the political rights conferred by that title, and there is no man among us who, when he goes abroad, does not feel happy to say, like the Roman of old : ' I am a Bt'ltlsh subject.' However, that feeling is by no means inconsistent with our love for our old mother country.
I heard an lion, gentleman on the other side of the House express his surprise at the fact that the lion. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) had stated in Paris that we were French, and that we would remain French. On that occasion, the hon. minister only voiced the feeling entertained by all his fellow-countrymen of French extraction. Is it not true that our fellow-countrymen, the Irish, are proud to call themselves Irish, loyal as they are to the British Crown ? So, we glory in our French extraction, and we are and shall always be proud to say that we will remain French, loyal subjects of Great Britain as we are. Why should people try to do away with our race by a process of assimilation? In Canada are to be found the descendants of the strongest races which now sway the world. Here are to be found Englishmen. Scotchmen, Irishmen, Germans and Frenchmen, all of them called upon to develop this immense country, and to display their intelligence in the construction of our great public works, in the development and the extension of our industries, in the cultivation of letters, sciences and arts. Let the different elements try to outstrip each other in those fields of human activity, avoiding all causes of friction, so that we may grow Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville). ,
up and prosper alongside the great neighbouring republic.
As to the province of Quebec, I make bold to say that so long as we enjoy the same sum of protection as we are now enjoying under the British flag, so long as our rights are respected, none among us will ever dream of annexation to the American republic. I am confident that Canada will remain loyal to Great Britain, and that, as Sir Etienne P. Tache said : ' The last gun in defence of the British flag on this continent will be fired by a French Canadian. As the future grows out of the past, our past conduct is a guarantee of our future conduct.
So long as Great Britain respects that constitution under the aegis of which we have been enabled to live in freedom, and to preserve the sacred inheritance of our laws, our language and our religion, England may depend upon it that we shall always be ready to assist her, and to stand by her. So long as the other provinces deal fairly with the province of Quebec, so long as they keep their hands off; the constitution, every French Canadian, loyal as he is to his province, will place the love of Canada above all the rest.


Mr. A. A. C. LARIVIEUE. (Provencher).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I have to congratulate the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Demers), 'because he has succeeded in turning into a patriotic speech what was, at the outset, but a mere array of figures. He began by referring to the changes brought about by the elections of 1896, a result which he attributes to the misdeeds of the former government, who had to bow to the popular verdict, after those elections. I think the least that will be said about what transpired during that gigantic struggle, at a time when the Conservative government, prompted by a most noble feeling, and championing the cause of a downtrodden people, had lost their prestige with an ill-informed! electorate, whereas their opponents did not hesitate to make political capital out of that question ; the least that will 'be said about those elections, the better [DOT] it will be for the honour of their party.
My hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) undertook to call in question the action of Divine Providence in bringing about the prosperity which Canada is now enjoying and he gave the fiscal policy of his party credit for that prosperity. As I did not rise in my place in this House to vindicate Providence,
I enter my protest against that kind of spoliation the hon. member is guilty of, when he denies Providence all credit for the great prosperity which prevails not only in this country but throughout the world.
Let my hon. friend allow me at least to tell him that he might have adduced some proofs in support of his contention. He should have substantiated his statement that the prosperity we are enjoying was

due to the action of the government. Now. I should like to know what changes the government have made in their fiscal policy to bring about such a result. I do not know of any. True, they have, a few years ago, readjusted their tariff to a certain extent; but those changes amount to so little that it is not reasonable to contend that the prosperity we are now enjoying has resulted from such changes. On the other hand, if we take into consideration the course pursued by the government as to their past pledges, we have to reach the conclusion that they have not redeemed their pledges. Formerly, the country was suffering from a commercial depression ; and we had our lean years, compared with the fat years we are now enjoying. That the Liberal party, with the political platform adopted by them in 1893. can now claim that the prosperous state of the country is the outcome of the enforcement of the principles formulated in that platform, is more than I can understand.
If we take the different articles of that creed-and I may say that, not unlike other creeds, it ought to be revised from time to time-we shall find that the first article stated that it was high time for a change in the fiscal policy of the country. They denounced the Conservative government, because their policy, as they said, was one of protection to our industries and to all classes of the community. The hon. gentlemen said : It shall be the duty of the next government, when coming into power, to adopt as their fiscal policy a revenue tariff, for the efficient management of public affairs. The question is. whether the hon. gentlemen opposite have carried out that first article of the programme framed by them in 1893. To show that the very opposite was the case, it will suffice to see what was our public debt in 1896, as compared with what it is now. In 1896. the public debt was $258,497,432,77. In 1901, the last fiscal year officially accounted for, that debt had reached $268,480,003.69, or an increase of $9,982,570.92.
Now, my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) told us, this evening, that the present government always had surpluses, and that, if they had spent forty millions, it was because they had forty millions to spend. But how can it be claimed that the government has had a surplus every year since their advent to power, when, as a matter of fact, the public debt has been increased by over two million dollars a year, and to such an extent that it is now ten million dollars larger than it was in 1896 ? And did not the hon. Minister of Finance tell us on the floor of this House, the other day, that, next year, the public debt would be increased by six million dollars ? That is a larger increase than has ever taken place under Conservative rule, if we except the period during which was being built the Canadian Pacific Railway. Never was such
a result reached before. Now, we are paying $10,807,955 interest on the public debt, or $305,525 more than was the case in 1896. How, then, can hon. gentlemen opposite give this government credit for being more economical in the expenditure of public moneys than were their predecessors in office ?
The public revenue is much more considerable now than it was in 1896, and this means that the rate of taxation has increased. From 1892 to 1896, for the five years which have elapsed between those two dates, the total revenue was $138,106,054, or an average of $27,621,211.
From 1897 to 1901, for the first five years under Liberal rule, the revenue was $170,168,924, or an increase of $34,033,785, Therefore, we find that for those five years the average increase was $6,412,574.
In the face of such an increased revenue, the expenditure was considerably increased. Instead of increasing their expenditure, they should have applied those surpluses to reducing the public debt. But the reverse was the case, and notwithstanding that, from 1892 to 1896, the total expenditure was $210,708,819, or, on an average, $42,141,764, on the other hand, the expenditure from 1897 to 1901, during the first five years under Liberal rule, was $250,550,005, or, on an average, $50,110,001, or about eight million dollars a year. So, as will be seen, Mr. Speaker, the surpluses referred to by my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville are quite ephemeral, as they have already vanished, and as the public debt itself has been increased to the same extent.
I now come to the second article of the political creed of 1893. The hon. gentlemen pledged their word to the people that, upon their coming into power, they would give us reciprocity with the United States. They said : ' Within six months from our advent to power, by a scratch of the pen, a treaty of reciprocity will be put in force between Canada and the United States. As to you, Conservatives, you have so unfairly treated the citizens of the neighbouring republic that you cannot expect to come to an understanding with them ; but, as to us Liberals, it is quite another matter : we have always treated them so liberally-and heaven knows if our good friends, the Liberals, have ever been on friendly terms with the Americans -that should we ever come into office, we shall be able to make a good treaty with the United States.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Hear, hear.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. (Translation.) What happened 1 The Liberals made several attempts, but they relied too much upon the friendship of the Americans. They hau fancied that they would be received with open arms. A joint commission was appointed. We all know how things have turned out. The president of the commission died in the

attempa ; another member, the most distinguished representative on the American side, is also gone to his reward, the commission has discontinued sitting, and the question is now whether they are going to wait till all the other members have joined the majority, before calling another meeting of the commission. In short, they have finally come to the conclusion-and we have the admission made the other day by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) to that effect-that the question was no longer a live issue. They have given up all hopes of ever having a treaty with the United States. What the hon. member for North Norfolk is now advocating is a policy of reprisals. He said : Uet us endeavour to come to an understanding with our neighbours ; let us try to induce them to bring down their tariff to the level of our own tariff, and should they decline to do so, we shall have no other expedient left but to raise our tariff to the level of then- own. Such is the policy suggested by one of the most eminent members of the commission, who was formerly so conspicuous for his friendship towards the Americans, that he was styled the hon. member from the United States.
The third article of the celebrated programme of 1893 provided for a reduction in the expenditure, and a policy of retrenchment ; but as I have just shown, that article remained a dead letter ; their pledges as to the reduction in the expenditure was never redeemed ; on the contrary, we shall be called upon to vote subsidies double those voted prior to 1896.
The fourth article referred to the enormity of the public debt. This is another article of their creed to which our friends, the Liberals, have proved false. As a matter of fact, the public debt is increasing in an alarming ratio, and the hon. Minister of Finance told us the other day that he would have to borrow six millions to meet the most pressing requirements.
The fifth article of the Liberal creed advocated the necessity of investigating the management of public affairs. We all know the result of the investigations held by the hon. gentlemen opposite. It is on record that during last parliament we asked for investigations, and that nothing was done in that direction. During this session, when we insisted in a committee of this House, that a substantial witness should be called! the government would not comply with our request. Now, in article 5 of the programme of 1893, in connection with investigations into the administration of public affairs, it is expressly stated that such investigations are a necessity.
In article 6, it is stated that the public domain should be preserved for the settlers. Well, Sir, there have perhaps been more grants made, in aid of the construction of railways, since the present government has
Mr. LaBIVIERE.
come into power than at any time under the Conservative government. Have they preserved the public domain for the settlers ? Far from it, and things have come to such a pass that there are very few lands available for settlement now. As a matter of fact, immigrants, when they come to settle down in this country, have to apply to the railway companies for lands. Article 8 refers to the redistribution of seats, an operation which is known under the name of gerrymander, so as to describe a redistribution made with a view to favouring one party to the prejudice of the other party. The Liberals gave the solemn pledge that they would not resort to a gerrymander. We shall see, next session, to what an extent the government is going to redeem that pledge.
Article 9 is in reference to the reform of the Senate. How the government have made their appointments to the Senate is a matter of public notoriety. It is well known that those very Senators-whom hon. gentlemen opposite had formerly delighted in calling mischievous old men-have been replaced in the Upper House by young men who, for the most part, are quite harmless. At the present time they think they are about to have a majority in the Senate, and everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds ; so that nothing is heard about Senate reform.
Article 10 relates to the plebiscite and prohibition. That plebiscite has cost the country a large sum of money, without having given us any practical results worth mentioning. And now the provinces are endeavouring to get rid of the prohibition issue. The province of Manitoba has just taken the lead in the matter, and the province of Ontario is preparing to follow in the footsteps of the former ; but as to the federal government, they have done nothing so far, besides incurring an expenditure of $200,000 to find out that there were in the country teetotallers unwilling to vote in favour of a prohibitive legislation.
I do not intend to follow my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville when he deems it his duty tp lecture the hon. member for Labelle. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassai almost occupies the next seat to his ; they both belong to the same party, and the differences which may crop up between them are family matters. Now, in family matters no stranger should venture to interfere. Therefore, I shall refrain from offering any comments upon the opinions expressed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Demers) as to the position taken by his colleague. Besides, I might possibly entertain the same views as the hon. gentleman on certain points, while as to others I might differ from him. There is this, however, to remark, that when referring to imperialism, he told us in the same breath that there should not be too much of it, and that there should be enough of it. That means,

no doubt, that my hon. friend is on the fence, and that he is ready to jump over to whichever side will prove the most suitable to hiitm and ,to his political party.
My hon. l'rind (Mr. Demers) also told us that the discussion now raging in some newspapers on the question of imperialism was merely got up to frighten the people. But 1 should like to know who first started the debate ; for.it is by no means of receut growth. That discussion has long been raging throughout the country, and I remember perfectly well that a few years ago the Liberal papers used to upbraid the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) because he was vice-president of the Imperialist League of Toronto. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was a Conservative at the time, and he was denounced by the Liberal papers. The Liberal press, besides, always held that the tendencies of the Conservative party were imperialistic.
Let us now come to the question of the contingents. We are told to-day that the government is denounced by such or such a paper, or by certain political men, for having sent contingents to South Africa in defence of the empire. Who was it that first started agitating the public mind about that question ? Let us go back to the elections of 1896. The Liberals then went about the country telling the people that the Conservative government had secured from the House an appropriation of one million dollars to buy rifles and guns, and that they meant to send our children to South Africa to be butchered there. I could name some hon. gentlemen who now occupy seats in this House and who were the first to resort to such means to bring about the defeat of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec. Now, if at the present time Conservative politicians denounce the government for their double game on that question, it is to show how inconsistent the Liberals are, since they approve to-day of the very same thing which they blamed us for yesterday. Not that we mean to censure the government for their action in this matter, but we mean to show that the government has pursued a double-faced policy in this respect. When they began agitating the question of sending out soldiers to Soutli Africa, the hon. gentlemen told us : That cannot be done, for it is against the law. And * La Patrie,' of Montreal, plainly told us that it would never be done.
A great deal has been said, during this debate, about the tariff, and my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville ventured to give some statistics on the matter. Before resuming my seat, I may be allowed to say a few words on the same subject.
I entirely approve of the motion made by the hon. leader of the opposition, and here is the ground on which I think it is worthy of approval : it is not stated in the motion that, to our mind, the tariff is not high enough in a general way, but that it is not
so framed as to secure an adequate protection to all, and so as to distribute the taxes equally among all classes of the community. In fact, the question is not merely how to protect and promote the interests of the various industries of this country, but to extend also protection to other important classes of the community ; and one of the classes which it is most essential to protect is the farming community.
It was with a view to fostering the interests of that class, that the Conservative government, in 1894, reduced the tariff on agricultural implements from 35 to 20 per cent. It is true that the present government did not interfere with that portion of the tariff, that is to say, they did neither reduce nor increase the rate of 20 per 100 ; but they have succeeded, indirectly, in increasing the valuation of articles coming from the United States, so as to increase the tariff, and this, to such a point that, instead of having a rate of 20 per 100, farmers have to pay 25 per 100 on all agricultural implements coming from the United States, owing to the appraisement made by the government officials, under a peremptory order. Therefore, the tariff has practically been increased in this respect. That this is the case is known by the fact that, when one of my colleagues on this side of the House asked the hon. Minister of Customs for the production of the schedule of valuation, the minister refused to produce it, on the plea that it was a confidential paper, .which could not properly be made public. This goes to show that the rate has been increased on agricultural implements.
There is something more, and the difference now existing between the American tariff and the Canadian tariff is detrimental to the farming community. So, wheat in the United States is taxed 25 cents a bushel, while here it pays a duty of 12 cents a bushel. Last year only, we imported from the United States one million dollars' worth of oats. This quantity of oats could have been raised here by our farmers, and we have imported it from the United States, having had to pay a duty of 10 cents, notwithstanding that the United States do not buy any from us.
Barley has to pay a duty of 30 cents in the United States, while it pays only 12 cents a bushel here. Our imports of barley reach the sum of thirty thousand dollars. On peas there is a duty of 40 cents a bushel in the United States, while here it is only 10 cents. Last year we imported fifteen thousand dollars' worth of peas. Hay has to pay $4 a ton, while we impose but a duty of $2 on the hay imported from the United States. There is a duty of 25 cents a bushel on potatoes in the United States ; here it is only 15 cents. Our imports of potatoes from the United States last year were $90,-
000.	It is so much agricultural produce that our farmers do not sell in the country, and it shows how they are made to suffer

under the odious tariff which the government refuses to change or to alter.
I could single out a great many other farm products, but to go through the whole list would take too long. In short, in 1900 we have bought from the United States $25,700,000 worth of farm produce and cattle. That money, which went into the pockets of the Americans for articles which could have been raised here, we should have kept it, had we had a tariff so framed as to protect us from the competition of the United States.
During the same year, we imported manufactured articles from the United States to the extent of $65,000,000. And while we were importing $25,700,000 worth of agricultural products from the United States, the Americans only bought from us similar articles to the value of about $8,000,000, leaving a difference in their favour of $17,000,000, to the great detriment of our farming community.
Let us now see how we fared as to our exports of butter, cheese, eggs, lard and meat. Our imports from the United States amounted to $2,257,183, while they bought from us only to the extent of $116,353 worth of those articles.
That is the way, Sir, that the interests of our farming community are hurt by the American trade. While our manufacturers are enjoying the protection of a tariff, readjusted with more or less care, our fanners have no protection at till. The manufacturing cities go to tile United States for their supply of farm produce, to the detriment of our own farmers.
By the motion which we have offered in amendment to that of the hon. Minister of Finance, we declare that the tariff now in force is ill readjusted and does not adequately meet the requirements of the country ; that it needs to be revised, so as to give a more efficacious protection to the working classes, and mainly to the farming community.
I say that the policy which is formulated in the amendment now before the House is the true national policy, and to borrow the words used by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr.' Monk), that policy means : Canada for the Canadians. Such is the policy that we wish to see adopted and carried out.
My hon. friend from St. John and Iberville-to return once more to his statements, which have engrossed my attention to a pretty large extent so far-referred in quite sentimental terms to our duty to Great Britain, without entering into the consideration of business matters. As to that, I may say that my views quite coincide with his ; but when it comes to the discussion of our commercial relations, I no longer side with him. To talk about protection and of what we owe to England is one thing, and to discuss business matters is quite another matter. After all, business is business.
Mr. LaRIVIERE.
The hon. gentleman told us that it was our duty to give British goods a preferential treatment ; that we owed it to Great Britain to give her that mark of sympathy, on account of the many compensations we had already received, but I cannot see eye to eye with him on that point. As I said, business is business, and politics is politics. Out of the 168,900 tons of butter imported into Great Britain in 1900, Canada has supplied but 12,000 tons. It cannot be said that our standing on the British markets has been improved by the preferential policy. In 1901 Great Britain bought from us but 7,500 tons of butter ; notwithstanding the fact that we have an output of 130,000 tons in this country.
Cheese ranks among our most valuable products, and is consequently deserving of every protection at our hands. Whatever the hon. gentleman may say to the contrary, if that industry has developed in such a wonderful way in Canada, the credit for it cannot be claimed by the present government, as they have only carried out the work undertaken by the old government, and followed in the footsteps of their predecessors. Nor can it be said that they have dogged the footsteps of the old government, because the late administration had provided for the establishment of a fast steamship service, from which service, had it been maintained, would have accrued most substantial advantages to this country. Far from doing that, the present government, with one scratch of the pen, did set aside the contract which had been signed, saying : We can do better than that, and we are going to draw up another contract. It is on record how many troubles our lamented colleague, Mr. Dobell, did experience with his bottle-nosed ships. At the present time, we stand exactly in the same position as we stood in 1896. We have no system of fast Atlantic service yet, despite the fact that from every chamber of commerce, and from every railway corporation, are coming loud appeals for the organisation of this Atlantic service.
Hon. gentlemen opposite claim credit for all the development and progress realized by the country within the last few years, and they refuse to allow any share of it to Divine Providence. That the government cannot rightly claim credit for the prosperity which the country is now enjoying, goes without saying.
What we press upon the attention of the government is the desirability of taking under their most serious consideration the question of an adequate protection to be given to the farming community and to the manufacturing classes. What we press again upon their attention Is this, that they should have a well defined policy ; for, of all things that contribute to expose trade to disturbances and to paralyse industry, the worst of all is uncertainty as to the features of the fiscal policy of the country.

The sooner the government will have adopted some well defined course of action, and allayed the anxiety of business men who are awaiting the action of the government, the better it will be for the country at large. And as prosperity and depression come by cycles ; as, in the course of time, the lean years are wont to come after the fat years, I hope that the government, being mindful of the future, will give us a well defined and fixed policy, so framed as to afford protection to our manufacturing classes, and mainly to the farming community, which is the bone and sinews of the country, and deserving of every encouragement, both at the hands of the government and of this House. Let us, therefore, join hands to make of this Canada of ours a prosperous country and one in which all will feel happy to dwell.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney A. Fisher).: Mr. Speaker,' in view of the lateness of the hour, I will not attempt to-night to address to the House the few remarks which I have to make on this question. I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 4, 1902.