1902-03-19

Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: Agreeable to notice given the other day, I wish, Mr. Mr. OSLER.
Speaker, to move in reference to the third report of the standing committee on Public Accounts. A great deal of attention has naturally been turned towards the management of the Intercolonial Railway and the general government railway system, and among other matters which engross the attention of members of the House at this time is the working of that road. The committee on Public Accounts have taken cognizance of some of the facts, and certain members who are interesting themselves in the investigation before the Public Accounts Committee, asked to have a certain witness summoned to appear and give evidence. The motion was opposed by the minister interested and other ministers present, and in the end was negatived by a majority vote. Under these circumstances, there was nothing left for those prosecuting this inquiry but to appeal from the committee to the House. I have looked into the question with the view of discovering what precedents 1 could find bearing on it, but so far I can find none whatever. The rule seems to be, as laid down in the authorities
No witness shall be summoned to appear before the committee and be paid his expenses unless a certificate shall have beni first filed with the chairman of the committee, by a member thereof, stating that the evidence of such witness is, in his opinion, material and important.
Technically speaking, that was not done, but a motion for the summoning of the witness was made by a member of the committee, seconded by another member of that committee and supported by verbal explanations in the course of which these gentlemen stated that they considered the evidence of such witness material and important to the investigation. I have looked to see if I could discover any precedent for the action of the committee in rejecting this motion and can find none. Apparently nothing of the kind has ever occurred before in the history of this parliament. On no occasion has it ever been necessary for any member of any standing committee to appeal to the House against a decision of the kind to which I am now referring. In the opinion of those who are prosecuting the inquiry before that committee, which naturally has a majority under the control of the government, there is nothing left for them but to appeal to the House from its decision and ask the House to instruct it to summon the witness in question.
I do not know that I need go into a full explanation of why this investigation is now proceeding. I may say briefly that the figures in the Public Accounts, Auditor General's return, and the report of the Minister of Railways, seem to show that there are matters which the public advantage requires should be looked into, and in reference to which it would not be at all surprising to find that serious deviations from the course

of good government and honest management have been made during the past year.
But, to summarize, I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the amount spent this year, on the Intercolonial Railway, a work which has already cost the people a large sum of money, is very great indeed. Under the head of capital expenditure, we find that nearly $4,000,000 has been expended on that work which must have been regarded very many years ago by the people of Canada as a completed work. Of course, the figures I give include the Prince Edward Island Railway- the whole system which is under the management of the Minister of Railways. The actual figures as given in the returns of the Auditor General is $3,941,406. Now, that is not all the Intercolonial Railway has cost the people of Canada this year. We find that, under the system of book-keeping adopted by the minister, or under his direction I presume, there is suspense accounts by means of which $213,000 which should have appeared, and which would have swollen that expenditure above $4,000,000, has been carried into the following year. That, of course, must be added to the expenditure of the year of which I am speaking. In addition, there is a deficit in the working expenses of the road of this year of $348,186. There is a deficit on Prince Edward Island Railway of $67,883. That is to say, the Intercolonial Railway and Prince Edward Island Railway have cost the people of Canada, for the year ending June 30 1901, the sum of $4,570,536. Such an enormous outlay naturally attracts attention to the management of the Intercolonial Railway. I believe, that, in the public interest, the inquiry should be made as thorough and complete as possible. Moreover, in the interest of the minister in charge and of the government of the country, that inquiry should be made thorough, searching, exhaustive and complete. But when we sought to go on with our inquiry, we are met at the first stage, almost at the very first witness, asked for by the gentlemen who were in the minority on that committee, and who, representing the minority in parliament and in the country, speak for those whose interests are to be protected by that minority, by a refusal to call that witness, though he is manifestly a competent witness, and though the minority declared him to be most material, important and necessary witness, if the inquiry into the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway is to be made what it ought to be. I do not criticise the action of the Minister of Railways and Canals in opposing the calling of that witness. That is not my business.
I suppose he acted in the manner which he thought would most properly conserve his own interest, perhaps his own reputation. That is a matter for himself. But I would call the attention of the House to the fact that he is, so far as I can discover,
the first minister whose conduct has been challenged or inquired into by the Public Accounts Committee, since Canada had existence as a country, who thought it necessary to refuse the request of a minority of the committee to call a proper and material witness. If he is anxious for a complete, exhaustive and satisfactory inquiry, I should think he would be glad to have any witnesses the committee asked for. I shall not go on and discuss the statement made by the minister before the committee, because I think that would be out of order, and, no doubt, he will make his own statement here and now. But, to my mind, that which should regulate and decide such a matter as we are now discussing is the one question, is it in the interest of the people of Canada, is it in the interest of the department whose management is being inquired into, that the witness should be called ? It has not been the rule in the past, to inquire very closely into the scope of the evidence that a witness! would give if called before the committee. It lias, apparently, been the rule in the committee that the greatest latitude should be allowed by those initiating the Inquiries, and they have been allowed to judge what value the evidence of the witness would have if called before the committee. In this case, the person the calling of whom as a witness is desired by members of the committee who happen to be in the minority, and whose attendance is refused by the committee under the direct instructions of the minister, happens to be the man, who, of all others in Canada, outside the office of the Intercolonial Railway and the Minister of Railways, knows most about the matter into which the committee is inquiring. He spent the greater part of his life in a most responsible position in connection with the road. He knows its working and every feature of importance that it is necessarv for the committee to understand. He has an unblemished reputation as a railway man, and a magnificent reputation as a railway engineer; and there can be no doubt that the evidence he can give to the committee if he were allowed to attend and testify would develop no attack on the minister, but the truth and the whole truth in respect of those matters into which the committee thought it well to inquire. The matter is as I have stated. There has been gigantic outlay on the railway, and there is evidence to show that very poor management had been used in controlling the affairs of the railway. In the counties through which the Intercolonial Railway runs, it is a matter of common repute that the road is run more as a political and electioneering machine than as a railway; that, whenever it is necessary In the interest of the government of the day, the resources, the employees of that road are called to the service of the party in power. I could give evidence on that subject if necessary,

but I am not going further than to state that it is a matter of common repute in those counties that the road has been deflected from its purpose and converted into an engine of advantage and gain for the government of the day.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Was it so used by the Tory party ?


Adam Carr Bell: It cannot be of much service to the Tory party at the present time.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Adam Carr Bell: We are inquiring into the working of the road at the present time and not in the past. But I say that if, at any time under Conservative rule, hon. gentlemen opposite had chosen to pursue such an inquiry as we have proposed, I cannot believe that they would have been met at the very first step by a refusal in the part of the late government to allow the attendance of a competent witness. In fact, the record of the commissions held during the existence of the late government go to show that the government was most anxious that every possible witness should be had.
I do not think it necessary to go further than this. I hope I have made it plain to the House that here is a matter which suggests the necessity for very careful and thorough inquiry. The minority of the committee charged with the duty of inquiring into such matters have asked for a witness whom they described as one having the fullest knowledge and one of the highest competence. They are refused the presence and assistance of that witness, apparently upon grounds which are absolutely without precedent in this country. I can discover no precedent, and I am satisfied that none exists, that would justify the minister, or the government if the government chooses to support him, in the course that has been taken in this matter. I therefore move, without speaking further on the subject:
That the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to this House on Thursday, March 13th, be referred back to the committee with instructions that Mr. P. S. Archibald, C. E., of Moncton, be summoned to give evidence before the said committee.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blah'):: I thiuk, Mr. Speaker, I shall have no difficulty in showing that the hon. member (Mr. Bell) who makes this motion has furnished us with no sufficient reason why his motion should pass. I do not intend, however, to be drawn this afternoon into a discussion of the general policy of the government and of parliament, in making the appropriations it has hitherto authorized for the improvement


Adam Carr Bell: by these lion, gentlemen to be at their elbow and keep them straight. They have been working away but they have not made much progress. They have been looking into the accounts, but they have not seen anything that would be likely to be of service to them and they have come to the conclusion that the sooner they get their friend, this amicus curiae, the better it would be for the cause they have at heart. That is wholly the situation in which this matter stands. No person has said, the committee have not said, that if, at a future period, it was found necessary that Mr. Archibald, or anybody else should be brought here, he should not be summoned. The committee have not said that if it should be considered later, after we get the officers here, after we get the men who have made the expenditures here, after they have explained what they have done, if it is deemed necessary to go outside into the highways and the byways, the roads and the streets, to drag some one who may have something to tell before the committee and put him on the stand, it shall not be done. But, until we advance a little farther into the inquiry than we have yet gone, I submit that no sufficient case has been made out, that no sufficient reason for such a request as this can be furnished, and I do not wonder that my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) has been unable to find a precedent for it. Hon. gentlemen opposite would be the first to laugh to ridicule any proposition on our part made under such circumstances as these. If any one ever had the coolness, or the effrontery to make such an application before a committee on a previous occasion and it was refused, I do not wonder that it did not come before this House, because any one would know that the House would not, under such circumstances, allow the name of the committee to be used, for such a grossly improper, irregular and unprecedented purpose. As Minister of Railways and Canals I say that I am not afraid of any investigation which my hon. friend desires to make. Let him think what he pleases and try what he dares, I will be found, as a member of that committee, ready and willing to afford every facility for bringing before the committee all persons who have any knowledge of the dealings and transactions under consideration at first hand and not depending altogether on hearsay for what they may know. I am perfectly willing to have this ' enormous expenditure,' as the hon. gentleman characterizes it, thoroughly investigated, and I think I may prophesy that after he has exhausted his energies in this investigation, whatever mistakes he may find have been made by my officers, or by myself, he will be unable to attach any criminal wrong-doing to any of the men who have been filling these re-sponsibile positions in the government service. He may be able to show that we have not exhibited the capacity that we should Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
have exhibited, that we have not been able to watch in detail every item of expenditure, but he will not be able to show that the responsible officers of the railway, from those at Moncton to the head of the system, have not exercised their best judgment and capacity in the management of that railway system. Let me appeal to the House and to ask it whether it would be possible to conceive of anything lamer than the application which this hon. gentleman has made and the motion which he has founded upon it. Are we going to lay down this precedent in this House that any hon. member of a committee may jump up in his place, or that any three or four hon. members who want some friend of theirs brought here to attend any investigation that is going on and who cannot get along without outside assistance, and ask that anybody may be brought before that committee ? Are we going to establish a precedent that all these gentlemen have to do is to get up in the committee, call for somebody to be summoned and that the committee has nothing to say as to the time or occasion or manner of their appearance ? Whatever may be the hon. gentleman's hopes in regard to the passing or the refusal of this motion, I have no doubt we will hear a great deal in the public press about stifling investigation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We always hear that. Hon. gentleman always have the same kind of side cry when they have nothing more substantial to build their hopes on. Whatever course the House may take, I hope it will take a proper and regular course and lay down no principle of action which cannot be justified on the soundest precedent and on the best ground.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has given us a lecture as to how we ought to proceed in the conduct of an investigation before the Public Accounts Committee. My hon. friend (Mr. Bell) who moved this motion showed without doubt that never before had such a precedent been before the committee or before this House in connection with an investigation into an affair of the greatest importance to this country, because, I say it is a most important matter where the expenditure on a public work in this country was $4,500,000 and more in excess of the revenue, an expenditure which ought to alarm the whole country when taken into consideration with the expenditures that the hon. gentleman has made from the time he entered office to the present day. Our duty is to inquire into such expenditures as these, and in making that inquiry have we not to follow the precedents and rules which have been established and which have serv-

ed as a guide for every deliberate assembly, every committee, as well as for this House and the British House of Parliament ? An hon. member gets up and summons a witness. Another hon. member gets up and declares that to the best of his information and belief the witness he has summoned is prepared to give evidence. Now, we had the extraordinary proceeding of the minister who was on trial before the country entering an objection to the summoning of this witness. It is a matter of public notoriety in the papers of the hon. gentleman's own province and along the line of the Intercolonial Railway that if inquiries were pushed before the Public Accounts Committee as to the expenditure of public moneys on that road, such developments would be made-I am using the words of the papers-as would astonish the country. I am putting it in the mildest possible terms. We are exercising our duty of investigation and are we to be confined to the officials whom the hon. gentleman puts into office, and who, when he puts them in the box, have hanging oyer their heads the fear of dismissal, to whom the minister puts his questions and suggests the answers ? Are we to be dictated to in what manner we shall make this inquiry ? Yes, we have to examine these officials and every one else who is connected with the office, but we are not to go outside at all. We are to be confined to the officers of the department and to the hon. gentleman's officials. I venture to say that such a course was never before dictated to the committee of a free assembly having control over its own affairs. That committee is appointed for the closest investigation of the public accounts of this country, and we are told forsooth, that we must confine ourselves to an examination of the officials of the department. But the Minister of Railways has been taken down. Some of his supporters in the committee had mental reservations in supporting him, notably the member from Yarmouth (Mr. Flint) who hoped that some time in the future the minister might change liis mind and that the witness we needed should be summoned. Ashamed of the proceedings in the committee he now promises to the House that after the officials have been examined, then if it is necessary Mr. Archibald would afterwards be summoned. What we demand is that the committee shall have full power to call witnesses, and that when a member states that he believes that a certain witness is able to give information which shall be valuable to parliament, that that witness shall be summoned. Who is the witness we desire to summon in this case. He is a gentleman who was chief engineer of that railroad for a number of years up to 1897, and against whose honour and record for ability never a word could be said. He was dismissed from his office. What for ? Was it because he was an inefficient engineer in chief ? Not at all. He was dismissed because he would not serve the political purposes of the present Minister of Railways, and because he was too honest and too honourable to do that. We are told that this man is to coach the opposition and that if he was brought up here he might give us some information. Well, it is information we want, and that in itself is sufficient reason why he should be summoned. If the House votes now to sustain the Minister of Railways, it will establish a precedent which will not be in the interest of this country. The Minister of Railways has introduced new manners into this old parliament of Canada, to which this House has been a stranger hitherto. He is bringing in the fashion of dragooning, which I suppose he learned in his little operations in New Brunswick, where it may pass current, but it will not do in this parliament of Canada. There is too much honour in this House for that. The members on the opposite side of the House know very well that what we demand here is simply fair-paly. No precedent can be brought for the House refusing to summon this witness. In England it is said to be necessary that a person should state in writing the reasons why a witness should be summoned before a committee, and I offered at the last meeting of the committee to give my reasons in writing, but the chairman of the committee said there was no necessity for that as the matter could be considered when the report was being considered in the House. The minister says he is not on his trial. He is on his trial. He is on his trial for capitalizing the amount which he paid to the Grand Trunk Railway ; he is on his trial before the people of this country for the enormous expenditure of over $22,000,000, made up of capital expenditure and deficits on the Intercolonial Railway since he took charge of it. Including the amount which he asks us to vote for this year and next year on capital account, his expenditure on capital account on the Intercolonial amounts to nearly $23,000,000, which is more than the whole surpluses during the period the Liberals have been in power. That money which might have been expended in developing this country largely is being sunk in that sink hole by the Minister of Railways, and he now refuses to allow us to summon a necessary witness in order to inquire how his expenditures have been made. I appeal to this House ; I appeal to the country ; I appeal to the supporters of the Minister of Railways. It is the business of the opposition to investigate, and are they to be thwarted in their investigation ? Will this House of Commons sanction that ? And, Sir, if the supporters of the government refuse to do what is right there is nothing left to us but to appeal afterwards to the people of the country, who will, I believe,

insist on our getting fair-play, and insist on having the public expenditure of this country properly investigated.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: This is a little matter of business which we might well afford to discuss in a quiet businesslike way. I had not the good fortune to hear my hon. friend from Fictou (Mr. Bell) throughout all of his remarks, but I had the good fortune to hear him in the committee, and I suppose I know his general view. I also know the view of the hon. gentleman from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and I observe that he has tried to cover up a weak defenceless position by introducing new and entirely unjustifiable matter. The hon. gentleman has treated tliis as a trial, the case of an accusation. He says that the hon. Minister of Railways, is on trial. If the minister be on trial, who is his accuser ? Which one of these gentlemen opposite accuses him ? The hon. member (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is an old parliamentarian- and he knows the procedure. Let him stand up and put his charge in writing and let us know what it means.


John Graham Haggart: I have made the charge here publicly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has made no charge. The hon. gentleman dare not make a charge. The hon. gentleman and his associates have been fishing for a fortnight in the hope of finding some kind of a charge and they have utterly failed. I draw attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman has treated this as a charge and one hon. gentleman in the committee said: there is a charge and whoever heard when a charge is made of any restriction upon the calling of witnesses. There is no charge, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentlemen opposite are no doubt courageous, and they would willingly make a charge if they had any ground for it. But when we see at this very moment that notwithstanding insinuations and suggestions, not one of them has dared to make a charge against tlie_ Minister of Railways, I think the House will understand the position which we occupy to-day. Now, what are the facts ? Sometimes it is necessary to translate a motion. What does this motion say ? It says that if John Smith shall stand up in a committee meeting and say, I move that John Brown be summoned, that motion must pass. That is the whole situation. The hon. gentleman has attempted to add reasons and explanations, and all sorts of things, some of which did not occur in the committee at all, I take the responsibility of saying.


John Graham Haggart: What explanation did I make that did not occur in committee ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman at a second meeting of the committee began to tell what he meant to have


John Graham Haggart: said on a previous day ; but meantime the record was down, and in reply to that I simply said that the record would speak for itself, and the House would judge on the record. I have the record in my hand :
Moved by Mr. Bell, seconded by Mr. Barker, that P. S. Archibald, C.E., Moncton, be summoned to appear as a witness before this committee at its next meeting.
There was no reason given, no explanation, no charge. It was simply as if any man stood up in the committee and said, I move that John Brown be summoned.


Adam Carr Bell: Will the hon. gentleman permit me ? That of course was the formal motion ; but was there not in addition to that a statement made by me, and repeated afterwards by Mr. Haggart, that the witness should be called because his testimony in our opinion would be important ? That, of course, does not appear on the record, for this reason, that the shorthand writers who made that record were instructed to put down nothing but motions and the evidence.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the hon. gentleman is correct, he would be bound to state in his motion his reasons for making it, so that it would be a matter of record, and not a subject of dispute in this House. I do not think my hon. friend made the statements he says he made.


Adam Carr Bell: If my hon. friend will pardon me, the authority which I read in the course of my remarks states that no witness shall be summoned unless a certificate shall be first filed with the chairman of the committee.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Was that done ?


Adam Carr Bell: No.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then the hon. gentleman, according to his own authority, did not lay the necessary foundation for his motion.


Adam Carr Bell: What I say is that the hon. gentleman is not correct ill saying that the motion before the committee should contain a statement of the reasons for ir.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I say that at the time the motion was made there was no statement, no charge, nothing at all but a huge blue-book containing a large number of accounts ; and if a man gets up in the committee, and says I move that John Brown be summoned, and a couple of days afterwards says I believe that John Brown can give useful information, that is no ground whatever for summoning him. My hon. friend from Antigonish (Mr. Mclsaac) afterwards said : ' I wish you would report to the House that there are thirty or forty men in my county who could give useful information, and who would like a trip to Ot-

tawa ; why not summon them ? ' There would be just as much reason for summoning these persons as for summoning the man whose name was mentioned, and who had no more relation to the investigation than any other man you could imagine. The hon. gentleman talks of the magnitude of the expenditure. The expenditure is larger than it was, undoubtedly; but that has nothing to do with the question. What we have to consider is whether there was anything before that committee which required the summoning of this gentleman. We were at the first stages of the Inquiry- f do not say investigation, because there was "nothing to investigate-into the public accounts. Hon. gentlemen opposite, who thought they knew a good deal about railways, but have since discovered that they know precious little, thought they had something to inves-gate ; and they spent two days in asking the Auditor General about matters of which he confessed he knew nothing. That was the first stage of their investigation. Then they had the General Manager of I he Intercolonial summoned, and he was waiting. They had another officer of the Intercolonial Railway summoned as well as several other witnesses. Hon. gentlemen opposite have a fashion of getting a lot of witnesses summoned at the expense of the country, and keeping them dangling around Ottawa two or three weeks, and then not calling them after all. Now, I quite admit that circumstances may arise in which they might connect this gentleman, either as an expert or in some other way, with the business of +he Railway Department. If they can disclose anything which seems to be a reasonable matter for investigation, then let him be called ; but at a time when no charge was made, no ground alleged, and when the hon. member did not comply with the rule which he himself quotes, I submit that there was no foundation whatever for calling this gentleman. I was one of those who voted that he should not be called. I say now that if hon. gentlemen can show any reason in the world, after the examination of the principal officials, for supposing this man can give any useful information, I am prepared to call him. Nay, more, if they are prepared to make any accusation respecting the honour or honesty of the management of the Intercolonial Railway, and this gentleman or anybody else can give any evidence in support of their accusation, I am ready to call him. But when we have no charge before us or anything to investigate, and a gentleman stands up in the committee and says, I move that John Brown be called, and two days afterwards some one else says, I think John Brown knows something about this matter, I submit there is no proper ground laid for calling him. If Mr. Archibald can give any useful information, I shall be glad to hear it, but on the grounds which the hon. gentlemen have laid down, they 45
have net a shadow of right to call him. If we are to observe the practices and rules-of the House, then we will not undertake to-call witnesses until a fair and reasonable ground is laid to show that such witnesses can give some useful information bearing on the public accounts before the committee.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, what a delightful exhibition the hon. gentleman has given us of a quiet, businesslike discussion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I thought I was exceedingly quiet.
Mr. BORDEN Halifax). A most delightful exhibition of what he says should be the mode of discussing this question. The hen. gentleman has had some experience in the same kind of business in the province of Nova Scotia. A gentleman made a charge with regard to the distribution of road allowances in that province when my hon. friend was premier of the province ; and witnesses were allowed to be summoned when it was convenient, and certain witnesses who were not perhaps thought to be very agreeable to the hon. gentleman were not allowed to be brought; and the investigation was dealt with by my hon. friend's government in such a way as seemed best adapted to serve not the interests of the country, but the interests of my hon. friend's government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If my hon. friend will permit me, he lays the foundation that there was a charge, which I deny ; and in doing that he lays down different conditions from what exist to-day. -
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax;. What I am pointing out is that there was a charge.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no charge here.


Robert Laird Borden: There were distinct charges in the province of Nova Scotia on that occasion and they were dealt with in exactly the same way as this matter was dealt with. I think my hon. friend ought to think before he speaks.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We settled all these things in Nova Scotia.


An hon. MEMBER.: Thirty-six to two.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Thirty-six to two.


Robert Laird Borden: On that particular occasion ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: On nearly all occasions. We do not have to count very closely down there.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a most delightfully satisfactory answer to the ques-' tion as to whether or not we are to have this witness. The answer Is-thirty-six to two; call in your members.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, we did not call in the members ; we called in the people.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is not only attempting to violate the rules of the committee but the rules of the House by interrupting me without my consent.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will not interrupt the hon. gentleman without his consent, but when he interrupts me I will call his attention to it.


Robert Laird Borden: I have the floor at present. The hon. gentleman must remember that although he is a very great man no doubt, he has to observe the rules of the House, if he does not observe the rules of the committee. If he desires to make any special remarks that are pertinent to this debate, I will sit down and give him the opportunity.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think I have made them.


Robert Laird Borden: Regarding the remarks which my hon. friend has made,
I desire to mention that I have attended sessions of that committee for five years, and have never before seen any occasion -although party strife was sometimes strong, although matters were keenly debated in that committee-when that committee refused to summon a witness after a member of this House on the committee had stated, on his reputation, that he believed the witness to be material. On the contrary, the rule laid down in the Public Accounts Committee and the Privileges and Elections Committee and every committee on which I have had the honour of sitting was that if any gentleman of that committee or any member of this House would stake his reputation on the belief that a witness was material, that witness was called, as a matter of course. And naturally so. Because any gentleman, any member" of that committee who took it upon himself without sufficient cause, to ask that a witness be summoned, after statiug that witness was material, took his reputation in his hands, and perhaps more than his reputation. I would like to know upon what other basis are we to act in a matter of that kind. What is considered sufficient justification to any ,hon. gentleman for asking for an investigation ? Is it not that he stands up in this House and stakes his reputation on the truth of the charge which he makes ? Does he not practically assume the same position when he stands up in the committee and states that he, as a member of that committee, believes that a certain witness is material ?
The Minister of Railways and Canals took a rather singular way of dealing with this question. He adopted a rather singular mode of argument. He wanted to know if this witness was coming for the purpose of exonerating some one. He seemed to think that unless a witness was coming for the purpose of exonerating some one, he should not be called. He seemed Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
to think it was a dreadful thing that a witness should, as he expressed it, post the opposition. Well, in the interests of this country, is there any particular reason why the opposition should not be posted on the methods of hon. gentlemen opposite ? I wonder if all hon. members on that side, I wonder if all the hon. gentleman's colleagues are not of opinion-some of them at least-that it would be a fair thing to have the methods of the administration of the Intercolonial Rail-way fully investigated ? Is there any reason which the Minister of Railways and Canals or the Minister of Finance can suggest why the opposition should not have every possible means of sifting to the ground every transaction of the government ?
The hon. gentleman says that this witness is not an official. Well, I have seen something of that hon. gentleman's mode of examining officials before a committee of this House, and I do not think it is a valid reason for not calling a witness that he does not happen to be an official of this government, because the hon. gentleman is somewhat intense in his manner with officials, when examining them. I have noticed that more than once, and I am not quite sure that possibly we could not get evidence out of a witness more clearly and more fairly, if that witness did not happen to be an official of the Department of Railways and Canals.
I do not know what my right hon. friend who leads the House thinks about this. This is not a question merely of dealing with a few items in the estimates or the Public Accounts respecting the Intercolonial Railway. This is the setting of a precedent. Are we to have the precedent set for all time to come that although a dozen gentlemen, members of a committee, may stand up in that committee and say that they stake their reputation on the materiality of a witness, the minister in charge of the particular department concerned, shall call on his followers, who are a majority in that committee, to vote down the motion just because he happens to think that it will not suit his interests, and upon such reasons as the Minister of Railways has indulged in this afternoon.
These items, Mr. Speaker, relating to the Intercolonial Railway will be investigated. Let not the Minister of Railways imagine for one moment that by preventing the summoning of this witness, he is going to prevent a most thorough investigation into every item of that expenditure. He may delay the proceedings or protract them, but I venture to say that my hon. friends behind me will see that these proceedings are not completely burked. Even if this material witness is not permitted to us, we will endeavour to get at the proof in some other way, and I assure my right hon. friend that I think it will be in the best interest, not only of the government of this

country, but of all of us in this House, if he would exercise some pressure on the Minister of Railways and Canals and see that any witness, as to whose materiality any hon. gentleman on that committee stakes his reputation, is not kept from that committee by denying the issue of a summons. I am not saying this in any spirit except that which prompts me to believe that we on this side are bound to see to it that these accounts are investigated in the most thorough manner and that we are doubly bound to see to it in this particular instance on account of the action taken by the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Minister of Finance, the latter of whom, as the guardian of the treasury of this country should have been above the position which he has ventured to take.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I hasten to assure my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that he will find in this House no intention whatever of burking the inquiry in the Public Accounts Committee. Since he has appealed to me, 1 am bound to tell him that I shall hope that in the future, as in the past five years, nothing will ever take place in that committee which will disgrace this government, such as took place under late administrations. We shall endeavour to meet all charges as they are brought, but I want to call my hon. friend and the House to a proper sense of the rules of the House. There is no occasion for any display of passion.
Some hon.' MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is none at all, and my reasons may apply as well to one side as to the other. I was surprised at the manner in which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) discussed this question. Let me call the attention of the House to the fact that this is purely and simply a matter of parliamentary procedure. The rule is well laid down and will be observed on the floor of this House, and will be observed also upstairs, that all matters connected with public expenditure shall be investigated to suit the opposition or to suit anybody else. In this matter, however, how do we find the case brought to the House ? This is an appeal from a decision reached a few days ago by an important committee of this House, the Committee on Public Accounts. Now, I appeal to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I appeal to my hon. friend the member for South Eanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), who is an old parliamentarian, to support me when 1 say that the rule which is invariably followed on the floor of this House is that the House maintains the decisions of committees unless adequate cause be shown to the contrary, and unless cause be shown on the record, and not upon the ipse dixit of this man or that man. There is a rule which has been departed from in ' 45i
this procedure, and a rule the wisdom of which has been shown by the example which we have had on this occasion, that there is to be no discussion in this House of what has been said in one of the committees. There is a rule that the report of the committee must stand by itself, and that it is not allowed to refer to what may have transpired in the committee.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Until the report of the committee has been presented.


The PRIME MINISTER.: And then we are bound by the report of the committee. If we are allowed to refer to what took place in the committee, what have we in this very case but a statement made on one side and contradicted on the other side ? Here we have two such honourable men as my friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) not exactly agreeing on a statement of fact. I say that if the decision of the committee lias to be appealed to the House, it is the bounden duty of the hon. gentlemen who wish to make an appeal to place before the House a complete record, so that the House may judge from that record. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) thought he was not properly treated by the committee in not having the witness summoned that he desired. I shall come to that presently. But I have to say to my hon. friend that if he wanted an appeal taken to the House, his bounden duty would have been to have the record so prepared by the committee that the House would be in possession of the facts. We have here the bare fact that request was made to summon a witness and the committee would not allow it. What were the committee's reasons for that decision ? They may have been good or they may have been bad. We must assume that they were good. There is nothing before the House to show that they were bad. If the case was that request was made that a certain witness be summoned at once, and the committee said : We will not summon him to-day, there are other witnesses to be heard, would that not be a reasonable thing ? And why should I give my vote to reverse the decision of the committee ? If the hon. gentleman had taken the precaution to say :	This is a material witness,
and I wish to summon him to give evidence on this or that point, and give the reason, and, if, then, the summoning of this witness had been refused, he would have a complete case. But how do I, as a member of the House, know the reasons that actuated the committee ? I have not the honour of being a member of the committee, and I do not know what took place. It is not reasonable to ask me to take the word of any member of the committee or anybody else. As a member of the House, and speaking for the whole House, we have a right to have on record the reasons which led the committee to act as it did. If the

decision of the committee was a good one, the committee ought to be supported, if not, the decision of the committee ought to be reversed. But how are we to carry od the business of the House unless the safeguards which surround our procedure are maintained as sacredly as they are maintained in Great Britain ? I will go one step further and refer to what I said in the first instance. The opposition have a right to investigate expenditure. It is not only their privilege, but I say without hesitation, it is their right. Bet them make application to the committee, and if they do not get justice there, let them come before this House with a case that we can deal with, and, for my part, I will pledge the majority of this House that they will receive the justice that is their due. But my hon. friend from Pictou, who has a logical mind and understands these rules, must see that it is not possible for the House to take action upon the appeal that he has made. The record is too bare. You have nothing of the reasons which were given to the committee for summoning the witness. It is not even stated that the rule of the House which my hon. friend has quoted has not been observed in this instance. We have only, as I gather from the conversation which took place a moment ago across the floor of the House, a statement that such and such a thing was done. I advise my hon. friend to go before the Committee on Public Accounts, take the necessary procedure, if he wants this witness summoned, and, certainly, if he puts himself within the rules of parliamentary procedure, he will be entitled to all necessary support in making his investigations. Let me say one word more to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. I would have preferred that he had not held out any threats against us. We will not be threatened. We are prepared to stand by our rights, as we are prepared to stand by the rights of the o pposition. We are prepared to do our duty whenever the appeal is made to us upon grouuds which enable us to see what that duty is. But no threats will be listened to.


John Graham Haggart: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman a question. Suppose that the majority of the committee refused to put the reason of the refusal in the report of the committee ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Then, I would expect that there would be a minority report laid before the House.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: Although the question before the House is. on its face, a very simple and unimportant one, yet, there being a principle involved, it is very doubtful if a question of greater interest or importance to the people of this country will come up during the present session than the question now before us. There seems to be great difference of opinion between hon. gentlemen on the other side and hon. gentlemen on this side as to Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
what that principle is. Speaking my own view, not presuming to express the opinions of gentlemen on this side-I think, however, they will agree with me in this presentation of the case-whenever matters are referred to the Public Accounts Committee, they do not go before a court for the trial of any individual. The committee has no machinery to try any Individual. And, evem if any member on this side were, on his responsibility as a member of parliament, to make charges against the Minister of Railways- to make all the charges that are at present floating in the air-and even if those charges were proved before the committee, that committee has no machinery to pass any sentence and no machinery to punish. It would be utterly without force in acting upon the evidence laid before it. As I take it the functions of the committee are simply these : The people of this country raise a large amount of money every year, taking it out of their own pockets, and they have appointed certain gentlemen as their trustees, with the function, among others, of disbursing these moneys. When the representatives of the people come to Ottawa, among our duties is that of seeing to it that the moneys disbursed by our trustees are honestly, economically and wisely disbursed. When we go before the Public Accounts Committee, we go not to charge that the minister has acted in a manner forbidden by law, we go not pretending to know that there is anything -wrong in his department. We do not attempt to make a charge ; and if we had a charge to make, the committee would not be the proper place to make it. We go there as representing the people of this country to investigate the accounts on behalf of our constituents, and to see whether those items are properly disbursed. Going then as a committee, and trying to use the common sense which I am sure every member of this House possesses, it must be assumed that the members on this side of the House are more likely to investigate those accounts carefully than gentlemen sitting on the other side, who perhaps have more confidence in the hon. gentlemen making the disbursements than we have on this side of the House. Naturally, I say, the people of this country expect gentlemen on this side of the House to investigate these accounts more carefully, and to show whether the moneys are properly disbursed. Now then, if that duty devolves upon us there must be surely some power belonging to us to enable us to carry out that high duty.
But the reason I rise is to enter my protest against the principle laid down by two ministers of the Crown to-day that there should be a charge made, or that, as the Minister of Railways and Canals expresses it, witnesses should not be summoned before that committee unless some wrong was proved, that is to say, that after the necessity for the witness being called had passed, then we could call him. Perhaps it will

not be out of place to call the attention of bon. gentlemen opposite to the fact tliat when a day or two before a member of the committee asked that two officials of the railway should be called, they were promptly called, not a word of objection. I would like to ask what right had members on this side of the House to call on those two officials of the railway ? What conceivable reason could be given for any member on this side calling for those witnesses, or any witness ? There must have been some reason, or the Minister of Railways and Canals would not have consented to these two witnesses being called. These witnesses were called, and on a subsequent day precisely the same right was invoked, the member who had before exercised his right desired to exercise it again, and if a member had a constitutional right to call those two witnesses, how can he be refused the constitutional right to call another ? Now, the premier called attention to the fact that the record should show the ground on which this motion is based. I submit that the record does show the ground. I submit, and I think my argument is sound, that there is an inherent right in every member of that committee to name a witness whom he wishes to call. That, I submit, is the prima facie right of every member of the committee, though the regulation of that right rests in the committee, so that if any member abuses his right, then that member in future will forfeit it; and the committee will refuse him the privilege of misusing a right which, nevertheless, he certainly possesses. Now, I think it was hardly fair to this House that, when so important a question was raised, when so much money was at stake, the Minister of Railways and Canals should rise in tiiis House and, after saying that no witness should be called unless a wrong had been proved, and after an inquiry had been made, that he should say, why should Mr. Archibald be called unless to exonerate the minister ? Is a witness only to be called after a charge is proved, and even then only if his evidence will tend to exonerate a minister V I say it was rather beneath his dignity and unworthy of his place in this House to say:	I am not
afraid-boldly challenging all criticism. Of what should he be afraid, after his committee had refused to call the witness we wished to call ? I could not help wondering if, when the hon. gentleman spoke, there was not running through his mind these lines of an American poet:
In short, I firmly du believe In Humbug generally,
Fer it's a thing thet I perceive To bev a solid vally ;
This heth my faithful shepherd ben,
In pasture sweet heth led me,
An' this'll keep the people green To feed ez they hev fed me.
Now, Sir, I shall not take up any more time, because the only point I wish to insist upon is the right of every member of that committee to call any witness whom he thinks proper to be called in the public interest; and if hon. gentlemen opposite are to lay down a contrary doctrine, it is just as well that this House should understand, it is just as well that the people of this country should understand, that when we, the members on this side of the House, who are upon the Public Accounts Committee, desire to investigate the finances of this country, in the course of our investigation we are only to be allowed to call those witnesses that hon. gentlemen opposite approve.


Mr. T. B. FLINT (Yarmouth).: As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and having been a member of it for nine or ten years, and having been present on the occasion referred to, I presume it would be proper for me to make a few remarks in respect to some of the observations made by lion, gentlemen on the other side. I cannot but think that perhaps more heat has been evolved from this discussion than the intrinsic merits of the case demanded; but perhaps that heat has been evolved in obedience to a well known scientific law that heat is evolved in proportion to the momentum and weight of the two bodies which come into conflict. As a reason for adopting the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), it has been stated that large sums were involved, that there was great extravagance, and that dangerous principles were being established in the management of the government railway, that the Minister of Railways and Canals was upon his trial, and that, to a certain extent, the political party which supports him was also upon its trial. I think this is wandering rather far afield, and making the matter of greater magnitude than a calmer consideration would allow. If any body is on trial it is the Public Accounts Committee, and from that standpoint alone I propose to view the situation. As the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has remarked, after the vote was demanded which decided that the gentleman named should not be summoned, I ventured to remark to the committee that I presumed this would not prevent us dealing with the matter later. That point seemed to be generally accepted by the committee. Following the observations made by other hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this side of the House, I cannot see that any considerable grievance can be complained of by hon. members composing the minority of that committee. Certainly I think it was not very becoming for my hon. friend the leader of the opposition to intimate that any sort of terrorism should be exercised against the majority of the House by threatening to prolong the session if his wishes were not complied with.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I made no such suggestion.


Thomas Barnard Flint: I accept the hon. gentleman's disclaimer, but it appeared to me that there was an intimation that the session might be prolonged in consequence of this refusal of the committee. Any standing committee of this House has certain discretion as to the order of its procedure. It is true, as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Beil) stated, that there is no precise precedent for a case of this kind, but I can call to mind during my recollection of proceedings in this House, many occasions on which the summoning of witnesses has been deferred until other proceedings were taken, until a more opportune time had arrived on which to hear their evidence. Moreover, when a question of fair-play* towards the opposition is raised, we have also to remember that there may be a question of fair-play to the administrators of the government, a question of fair-play to the officers in the employ of the government, who are conducting the various public affairs in the outlying portions of the Dominion and expending large sums of money. Certainly the committee charged with such investigations should follow a reasonable and fair course of procedure towards both parties, especially when it is claimed that a minister or any other person is put upon his trial before that tribunal, and necessarily before the country. We have officials on the Intercolonial Railway spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, covering a vast variety of subjects all of which are subject to investigation, to differences of opinion; and it is the right and duty of that committee to investigate all these points carefully, to see that the vouchers correspond to the accounts, to see that the proper procedure has been taken, that no extravagance has been committed in the operations of the road. As a mere matter of procedure before the committee, it is proper that officials of the road should first be examined as to their expenditure of the money placed at their disposal before any outsiders are called to explain discrepancies or improprieties in the expenditure. I think it was not fair for the leader of the opposition to intimate, as he did, that there was any improper terrorism exercised by the minister towards his subordinates before that committee. I am certain that I never have, and I do not believe that any hon. member of that committee has ever seen the slightest scintilla of any such spirit shown on the part of the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals towards the men who are under him and who have been before that committee. If that should be maintained, every one could easily understand that the result would be that the evidence given by these men, many of them men of eminence and high standing, would be discredited, and I do not believe that a charge affecting the integrity, the


Thomas Barnard Flint: courage, and the fearlessness of these men ought to be entertained by this House, or by the committee. We all agree that examinations before the committee should be thorough and exhaustive, but, I think we must all agree that these examinations should be systematic and based on some fair and reasonable principle, not perhaps on the strict legal principle which would be followed in the trial of an action at law, but, perhaps, corresponding to that, because there must be some regularity in order that the gentlemen of the committee who are not familiar with these details should be able to make up their minds. There are two kinds of committees which are mixed up in the minds of some hon. gentlemen here, and they have spoken as if the procedure before any committee should be of precisely the same character. There are the regular standing committees of the House, which have large jurisdiction, and there are committees of inquiry, which are appointed for the investigation of particular charges. The latter class of committees are special committees appointed by this House based upon charges laid and formulated before the House and sent to the committee for special examination. In such cases specific charges are made, and a gentleman formulating these charges and being desirous of establishing them through the evidence which he has in his possession, it is easy to see that it would be only fair that he should be given more latitude and ready facility for subpoenaing his own witnesses. But, the committee of which we are speaking is a committee formed in a different way. Its operation is not based on specific charges, it is a committee with large powers of inquiry and of procedure in a particular direction, and the discretion to be exercised by such a committee would be somewhat larger and ought to be exercised in a broader spirit than the same discretion would be exercised by the majority of a special committee. This matter was discussed in the House of Commons many years ago, and the late Minister of Justice (Sir John Thompson) made some observations upon it which may be proper to be read at this time. Speaking of the powers of the Committee on Public Accounts and its course of procedure, that eminent gentleman mode these remarks :
No one can deny, and certainly on this side Ol the House we do not pretend to deny this afternoon, that, in the investigation of any re-ferenco made to the committee by this House it is entirely proper for the committee to hear evidence which may be adduced, no matter what consequence may ensue to any member of this House. It matters not, therefore, in the least whether the committee finds that an item' In the account which is before it for investigation affects the credit and honour of a minister or of a private member of this House. The one claim I should make, if it were necessary to do so-but it is not necessary, because there Is nothing to the contrary in this resolution- would he that it shall be the duty of the committee carefully to see that the proceedings

before them is not searching tor evidence, fish- | ing for evidence, a proceeding for the purpose of affecting the honour and credit of any member of the House or a member of the govern- j rnent, but that the evidence shall be pertinent and relevant to something which the committee has been instructed by the House to investigate. Further, I say that the moment the conr-mittee-X speak of the present committee, and I will refer to future committees in the.same way as long as I have a right to say anything on the subject in this House -the moment the committee is satisfied and evidence is adduced which is relevant to any inquiry which this House has asked the committee to undertake, that inquiry should be continued, no matter how fatal it may be to any member of this House. The one safeguard which, I say, it is unnecessary to insist on, should be contained in this resolution, because it contains nothing to the contrary, is that the committee shall not be made use of by outsiders for the purpose ot attacking the honour and credit of membus of this House.
The House to-day is under the same line of argument. This is the case before this committee. An enormous volume of public accounts relating to expenditures on the Intercolonial Railway is before the Committee on Public Accounts. I ask the Intelligent members of this House, and particularly the members who may be members of that committee, wliat course they would like to see pursued for their own information. They are not experts. They are waiting patiently for such an exhibit of evidence as will enable them to form their opinions and make up their minds as to the propriety of any suggested procedure. Is it not natural and fair to assume that the first men they would like to hear are the leading and important officials of the road who are concerned in the expenditure on this road, and that after they have been heard and searchingly examined by gentlemen on both sides of the committee, and by gentlemen particularly interested, perhaps -although all the members of the committee are interested-in the more thorough probing of the public accounts, the committee would be willing to hear the evidence of other gentlemen who are not officials of the government and who may be called to throw light upon matters which have been brought forward In the previous testimony. Any other course would strike me, as I am sure it would strike other members of this House, as being decidedly unfair. I think it would be only fair that prima facie evidence should be given first of the officials of the road, and if there Is to be any rebuttal of their testimony, or if matters upon which they have been examined have not been satisfactorily explained to the committee, then, any member of the committee would be justified in summoning outsiders to atend upon the investigation and contradict or deny the evidence given by the proper officials. I cannot hut think that our hon. friends opposite have been premature in bringing forward this resolution, and that if they had been content to
wait a little longer and lay their reasons before the committee why this witness should be called before the committee, 1 am as certain as 1 can be certain of anything, that the committee would be willing to accede with alacrity to their request, but, while men emploj^ed in connection with the railway had been summoned and are on their way to Ottawa, I think it would be permature to ask for other witnesses to be summoned here. I think hon. gentlemen opposite have thought that this might be a good opportunity for making some political capital.


Mr. MACLEAN.: That is what we are here for.


Thomas Barnard Flint: Apart from the importance of the evidence, hon. gentlemen no doubt, imagine that they can divert the attention of the House to another point, by trying to make it appear that this committee was endeavouring to stifle inquiry. I, for one, as a member of that committee will join them at any time to prevent any attempt at stifling inquiry. It would be suicidal, politically as well as economically, on the part of my hon. friends to do anything of the kind. It would he injurious in the interest of the party responsible for the management of the railway to cover up one item of folly or extravagance, and I, as a member of that committee, as, I believe the majority of the committee, will assist the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and assist the opposition in that committee to examine most thoroughly and in detail every item of the accounts which the hon. gentlemen opposite desire to have examined. But, we must have some procedure, some form, some fair-play, not only for the government and for the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, but for the officials who may be charged with wrong-doing. I support the action of the' committee under the circumstances. and I believe this House should, in justice to the committee, throw out the resolution of the hon. member for Pictou.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the very fervid declaration from, I think, every hon. gentleman who has spoken upon the other side of the House of the fact that he is actuated by the most honest and most sincere motives. From what has taken place one would imagine that if that declaration had not been so explicit, ^ thei e might he some reasons for doubting it. As a young member of this House I would not be very much impressed with the desire of the government or the desire of the supporters of the government to have a full, fair and impartial investigation of the public accounts, judging from what has already taken place in the committee and in this House. Without wishing to be offensive to the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Flint) I may say that he has added nothing to the debate, and that his chief success was

in getting further away from the issue than any other of his friends who have spoken. He says that this motion is premature, and that if delay is allowed then we may get the witness we require. It is the first time, in a rather long experience which I have had of investigations in the course of my profession, that I have ever heard that the party prosecuting should be directed by the other side as to the manner in which he shall conduct his case. It is a good sound rule of law that those who have the conduct of an investigation are the best judges of how to array the evidence in support of the contention which they set up. So much is this the case that even the judges do not interfere with counsel as to the order in which he shall call witnesses. It would be a most extraordinary stretch of prerogative if when we are investigating the public accounts of Canada, the government should dictate to us as to what witnesses we should call, and in what order we should examine them. This is not a question with us of begging for something. It is not a question of : By your grace or by your leave. We are here to maintain our rights as representing the electors of Canada, and it is our right to call this witness now, and not to delay until some future time when it may suit the convenience of the government to call him. I am learning all the time I am in this House.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: I am getting experience all the time.


Mr. HOLMES.: You need it.


Haughton Lennox: I echo back to that hon. gentleman : So do you need it. I may tell that hon. gentleman (Mr. Holmes) something that he and his friends do not seem to understand ; I tell him that when I came to this House I understood that the parliament of Canada was above all things a deliberative assembly. I understood that it was an assembly to which men came, not to vaunt wild opinions in extravagant language but to reason calmly and deliberately upon the great questions affecting the people of Canada. I am glad and yet sorry for what has taken place in the House to-day. I am sorry that so many of the ministers of the Crown lost their temper, and I am glad that the First Minister of the government of Canada saw fit to give them a very just aud very merited rebuke. The violence of the Minister of Railways was such, that although I understand he is a prominent counsel, I would have wanted nothing better than that he should make such a exhibition befoie a judicial tribunal, if I were arguing the case against him. But, after all his violence and after all his proclaiming that he had nothing whatever to fear, that he was scathless, harmless, and innocent, he wrapt himself up behind the committee and said :
I won t let you know anything about these accounts. When the Minister of Finance Mr. LENNOX.
commenced his speech I thought we were getting back to a deliberative assembly again. He began in a very mild way and said it was a pity that we could not approach this little matter of procedure in a quiet, calm, and business-like spirit, but he had not proceeded far in his speech when he outdid the Minister of Railways in violence. If the violence of the Minister of Railways echoed to the roof, the thunders of the Minister of Finance went loftier still. Is that his idea of the discussion of a business-like question in a calm and judicial spirit. What is the meaning of such conduct on the part of the ministers, when all that we on this side of the House ask is, that we shall have an opportunity of ascertaining how the money of the people of this country was expended. And who is asking for this right V Why, the Minister of Railways grows eloquent, and if he does not grow eloquent he grows violent, in declaring that the members of the committee, who demand, shall not have an opportunity of examining Mr. Archibald. The Minister of Railways asks : who is this Mr. Archibald V I will tell him. Mr. Archibald is not a hireling of the government. He is an independent man who can have no motive for prevaricating or colouring his evidence one way of the other, and he it is whom we want to examine. The Minister of Railways tells us in effect that no member on this side of the House, that even the whole opposition have not the right to call Mr. Archibald as a witness. Well, we differ from him in that. We may have no right per se, but we are the representatives of the people of this country who want to know how their money has been expended, aud as the representatives of the people we have that right. I can tell these hon. gentlemen opposite that whether or not they vote down this motion, the people of Canada will know how this money was spent. The First Minister told us that there was not sufficient record upon which to order a reference of this ihatter back to the committee. Let us see if there is not. In the first place it is known to all the members of this House, that when such a motion is made in the committee the reasons alleged in its favour by the mover or seconder are not taken down in the reporter's notes. That was very fully explained the other day in the committee.
But do we want any further record than we have ? Mr. Speaker, we have this record : We have the fact that the public accounts are being investigated ; that is the first step in the record. We have it on record that witnesses are being called to give evidence on those accounts. We have the further fact that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) asks that a witness be called. For what purpose ? For the purpose of throwing light upon these accounts. Is not the hon. First Minister splitting a hair, endeavouring to draw a red herring across

tlie trail, when he tells us that we have not a sufficient record of the transaction ? I have the greatest respect for the hon. First Minister-great respect for him as one of those gentlemen that can get around a corner by plausible and eloquent language about as well as any one I ever knew ; but I had not to-day such profound admiration for him as a counsel learned in the law. When I listened to his special pleading-that nice skill which not only splits the hair, but if necessary walks along the hair without disturbing it in the slightest degree-my admiration for him as a lawyer of the old school, which flourished in those bygone days when special pleading was in vogue, rose very high indeed.
I say that the people are waiting for us to get to work to investigate these accounts and let them know whether they are correct or not. Not that we want to try to make out that they are false or fraudulent; but we want to know whether they are correct or not; and that being the case, hair-splitting comes with bad grace from the hon. First Minister. Hon. gentlemen opposite want to know what it is all about. I will tell them. We have admittedly an enormous deficit in the transactions of the Intercolonial Railway, at a time when we should not have expected it, when the circumstances of the country and the buoyancy of trade justified us in expecting the reverse ; and in the face of that fact the necessity is imposed upon us of inquiring whether there is any leakage. When we come to investigate these accounts, what do we find ? We find that at the time the general elections were coming on there was a most unprecedented purchase of ties-ties to bind the voter and the government together. There were 1,300,000 ties purchased at a time when^ve had a surplus of 127,237 ties on hand from the previous year, making in all 1,427,237 ties for the financial year ending June 30, 1901. These ties were bought at twenty-eight cents apiece. The estimated requirement for the year was 650,000 and the actual requirement was 495,000. Thus we had a surplus of 932,237 ties over what was necessary-not a surplus of the ties which were necessary to bind the public to the government at that time, but unnecessary for the purposes of the Intercolonial Railway. We have the fact, therefore, that there was a purchase of three times the actual requirements of the railway ; and, that being the ease, and an enormous deficit occurring at the time, is there not good reason for saying that the people should be on the alert, and that we of the opposition would be recreant to the trust reposed in us by the people of this country-and we represent the very best people in this country- if we did not say, we will investigate until we find out the facts ? Now, we have found out a great deal. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about fishing. I think it was a gentleman from Yarmouth who talked about fishing. I suppose there is a good deal of fishing down there. But I think we have fished to some purpose. We have this fact, that in the face of this surplus of ties on hand, a contract was made with the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company for 2,000,000 ties at twenty cents apiece. By this first transaction, therefore, the government incurred a loss of $80,000 of the money of the people of this country.
Now, with regard to the question whether Mr. Archibald should be called or not, he is a man who has had a large and valued experience in connection with railway matters. We have already elicited the fact in the committee that that large purchase of ties was a very unwise transaction, because a great many of those ties are now being worn out without being put into use, and because a very large proportion of them were not suitable for the purpose. For the edification of the House, I will read a portion of a letter received from a gentleman at Camp-bellton who knows the facts to which I am referring. Speaking of the ties he says :
So many ties were got out during the last campaign th it they are now, and have been ever since, piled up along the Intercolonial Railway between Campbellton and Moncton as a monument of mismanagement and corruption. A large proportion of them are of no use except for firewood.
They have served their purpose, I presume, pretty well.


Mr. COWAN.: Is that letter from a defeated candidate ?


Haughton Lennox: I will relieve the hon. gentleman's mind by giving the rest of the letter :
This is patent to evei'y person travelling over that section of the railway, and if Mr. Pottinger has not seen these huge piles of sleepers rotting it is because he had his eyes closed. This state of affairs has been commented on by travellers who had no interest whatever in our country. As soon as :'t was decided to appeal to the country in 1900, a number of the boss heelers seem to have got carte blanche, to get as many sleepers as they deemed necessary, to purchase votes, and at the same time to allow ihemselves a handsome commission. In my canvas through this country, I saw piles of ties here and there, newly got out, consisting of cedar, spruce, fir, and even ash; that was not the only objection. Some were rotten, some crooked

They were like some of our hon. friends opposite in that particular and probably the gentleman who has been interrupting me.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman has no right to apply the expression ' crooked ' to any member of this House.


Haughton Lennox: In deference to your ruling. Mr, Speaker, I withdraw the expression in the fullest degree, and hope that the hon. gentleman, after this withdrawal, will not look crooked.



and a large quantity were undersized. I
took the trouble to get out of the wagon on one or two occasions and examine some. They were so plainly defective that one could not help taking notice of them. Any person who was in the market could get work on he railway line cr get a contract to get ties throughout the whole campaign. Whan these ties were hicught out they were taken without any objection-it would not do to make any enemies at that particular time.
We have here, whether from a defeated candidate or some one else-and let me remind the House that sometimes a defeated candidate ranks quite as higli as those elected-this fact, which bears out what has already been shown in the committee, that Mr. McManus' inspection of ties was such that the country has suffered an enormous loss. These are some of the facts and circumstances which necessitate a careful investigation. I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite, who were somewhat premature in their applause of the heroic, utterances of the Minister of Railways this afternoon, to reflect before taking action. They talk about precedents, why, what precedent is required for the plain exercise of a plain duty ? When a different government was at the head of affairs, they wanted no precedent because they never refused any reasonable demands, and if honest square dealing is to prevail it is hard to see how the motion before the House can be rejected. Let hon. members not look at this thing in a narrow carping spirit, but decide it on its merits. Otherwise they will be simply giving the country reason to believe that they suspect the Minister of Railways of not having efficiently managed the railway under his control, and are afraid to have his maladministration exposed to the light.
I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite for another reason. If they create a precedent by refusing to summon this witness, is their decision not likely to recoil against themselves ? If the indications are to be trusted, at no distant day they will have to change places with hon. members on this side, and the precedent they are now creating may be then quoted against them. I would ask them to rise to the level of their duty by supporting this motion to have the report referred back to the committee with instructions to procure this witness, in the interests of an honest administration of the affairs of this country.


Hon. D. TISDALE (South Norfolk).: I am
at a loss to understand on what grounds the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and the hon. Minister of Finance object to this motion. Each one gives a different reason why it should be rejected. It seems to me that the whole question is whether we should retain or abrogate one of the most important rules of this House, and whether the opposition should consent to forego its right and its duty to insist on being given every facility for an investigation into the administration of public affairs. The Minis-Mr. LENNOX.
ter of Railways wanted the name of somebody who was making a charge. The Minister of Finance based his objection on the fact that there was no certificate that the witness required was material. But he did not deny that the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) had offered in the committee to give such a certificate and to give his reasons in writing, and that seems to me to entirely dispose of the objection of the hon. gentleman. The only objection that had any point was that which was raised by my right hon. friend, the leader of the House. He said that the record was not complete-that there was nothing in it to show that the hon. member who asked to have the witness summoned considered that witness material. But if not, who was to blame ? If that is not in the records, it is due to the fact that the majority in that committee directed the shorthand writer not to take it down.
If we take the reasons given by the three hon. gentlemen who spoke, except the Prime Minister, we find, not only is there no answer, but such reasons as they attempt to give do not agree. The Prime Minister makes an argument upon the question. If I understood him aright, I do not hesitate to say that I am glad that he spoke as he did, because it makes the issue clear. .1 nile this government exists, for three years to come, at all events, we are not to have a different view from that which we have hitherto held of a well known rule of this House. If I understood the Prime Minister, he agreed with the hon. member for South Lanark that, if any hon. member of that committee stated that he believed that a certain gentleman could give evidence of value to the committee, he had a right to have that witness called. If that is the Prime Minister's direction to his followers, i agree with him. If the view to be taken is different from that, I regret it, and hon. gentlemen opposite will regret it. I would like to know from the Prime Minister if I understood him aright.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the liou. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) appeals to me. I have no objection to tell him my view. Any member of the committee has a right to ask for the examination of a witness. I do not mean to say that there must be a charge. But, if a member of the committee desires to investigate a matter connected with the public expenditure of the country, he has the right to ask for the examination of witnesses. But it is the right of the committee to ask him upon what he wishes to examine the witness, and to see that that is relevant.


David Tisdale: I agree with the Prime Minister in that. If hon. gentlemen on the other side will take that interpretation, they will find hon. members on tills side agree with them. Now, the question arises whether under the circumstances of this case the House shall uphold the ruling

of the committee in refusing to call a witness. The Prime Minister states, very fairly from his standpoint, that the whole case should appear upon the record. But it is not gainsaid here that the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Haggart) sought to comply with all the requirements that the Prime Minister has laid down, but was prevented. If the right hon. gentleman says that the fact that the case does not appear upon the face of the record is to be held as a bar to my hon. friend, notwithstanding that the committee would not allow it to be put upon the face of the record, then I cannot follow him. If it had not been for that, I am frank to say that I would not disagree with the Prime Minister.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Will my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) permit me to say that I dissent from his statement of fact. I do not admit that that statement is correct. I merely express this dissent, but do not wish to take up time, having already spoken.


David Tisdale: Do I understand the Minister of Finance to say that what the hon. member for South Lanark states is not true ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not wish to contradict anybody. But if the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) says that the hon. member for South Lanark stated in the committee the purpose for which he wanted that witness and the committee prevented that being put upon the record, he is misinformed.
ticular points which would be of use to the committee.


David Tisdale: What the hon. member for South Lanark states as to this matter being excluded from the record does not bear out what I stated in the words I used. But I say that what passed between him and the chairman was sufficient to cause him to believe that, though it was not incorporated in the record, it would be treated by the chairman as part of the report when it was brought in.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That was after it was adopted. You could not change the record then.


David Tisdale: But the report had not been brought to the House, and such a report is not completed until it is brought to the House. I am surprised that my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fielding) should engage in mere hair splitting. He is an older parliamentarian than I am, and he knows right well that such a report is not completed until it is brought down. The very fact that the committee discussed it a second time shows that, under the rules of order, it was still open to discussion. But, so far as I am concerned, the point made by the Prime Minister is an important one. I am glad to hear from the Prime Minister that he is not going to allow his ministers in these committees to do as they please. If the Prime Minister had been there, according to the rule he has concurred in to-day, we would not have had this rule treated as it was.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps 1 may be allowed to explain. What I stated was this: I offered to put in writing the reasons why I wanted the witness called and wished to have that embodied in the report. This was during the second day's proceedings. But the chairman said that perhaps it would be as well that the report should go in as it was. The committee did not refuse to have it put on the record. I never said that it did.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That occurred the day after.


John Graham Haggart: Yes. The first day, I went to the trouble of going into details to show why I wanted this witness.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, oh.
Hon. Mr, HAGGART. I beg the hon. minister's pardon. I think the rest of the committee will bear me out, and so would the chairman if he were here. I stated that J wished to examine the witness in reference to the ties, in reference to the braces, in reference to the bridges-I gave half a dozen reasons. I stated that I had had a conversation with the gentleman, and I thought he would be able to give evidence on these par-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is not a fair statement.


David Tisdale: I am in the judgment of the House in what I say. What was the hon. gentleman's (Hon. Mr. Blair's) speech ? I have already stated that I was disappointed in it, and I repeat that statement. There was nothing in his speech. He even wandered off into talk about what the witness might say. He knows as a lawyer that that was quite irrelevant. Therefore, I think I am not severe in saying that he would take the same course in the House as in the committee, and that he should not be sustained in it. I am glad to be able to say, after hearing the Prime Minister, that there is no dispute about the rule and that we know where we stand.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Withdraw the motion.


David Tisdale: So far as I am concerned I would have no objection to withdraw the motion, after the statement of the Prime Minister, and if the Prime Minister will agree that the witness shall be called if he is asked for in the proper way.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is within the discretion of the committee.


David Tisdale: After the Prime Minister's statement, he having corrected his minister, and having stated his position frankly and willingly, I, for my part, would not object to the withdrawal of the motion. I think all the useful services of the motion have been to a great extent accomplished, and that the general acceptance of an important rule is of more benefit than any other question connected with the discussion.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin).: I ask the indulgence of the House once more, as I have done on many occasions, to condemn the practise of having a political head over the government railways of this country. When our own party was in power years ago I stood up in this House and opposed the principle of placing government railways under a political head. Sir, the doubts I had then as to the wisdom of that adminsitration are greatly strengthened to-day. The Minister of Finance stated that we should discuss this question quietly and on its merits. Well, surely . when we find that a large portion of the public press are saying that improper expenditures have taken place on the government railways, are we not discussing the question on its merits ? Now, Mr. Speaker, suppose the government railways of this country were taken away from a political head and placed under some independent body that would be responsible to the Crown for the proper expenditure of all public moneys on the government railways, I ask whether any hon. gentleman in this House, whether he be a supporter of the government or a member of the opposition, would rise and say that notwithstanding the fact that the public press are condemning the expenditure on this government railway, we should not have an investigation into such charges ? Supposing an independent commission were to use these words of the Minister of Railways and Canals : We are not afraid of an investigation, any investigation that may be made-would any hon. gentleman in this House burk an inquiry into charges made against that commission such as have been made by the press of this country against the administration of the government railway ? Why would they not oppose such an investigation ? Because it would be a business transaction, it would be their duty to investigate the affairs of that railway in the interest of the people whose money was being expended.
Now I am not going to charge hon. gentlemen opposite with the mismanagement of that railway, any more than I made such a charge against my hon. friends when they were in power; it is the principle of the matter that I am discussing, it is the administration of government railways by a political head that I am opposing. But discussing the question now before the


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: House in the interests of the people of this country whose money is being expended, I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, is it not a fact that those of you whose constituencies are located alongside of the government railways, have at one time or another approached the general manager of that railway, or approached the Minister of Railways and Canals, asking him for certain favours on behalf of your constituents ? In many cases perhaps he may have refused your request, and in consequence of his refusal, no doubt threats were made and dissatisfaction engendered. Taking that view of it, then I say if, instead of a political head, you were to approach an independent body and ask them to put on more men than are really necessary to conduct the operations of the railway, why, that independent body would simply say to you in a business way : The department in which you wish us to place more men is already filled up, and we have no need for any more at present. That would be the end of it. We should not see, as we see now, and have seen in years gone by, more men employed than were required on the railway, thereby placing upon the people a heavier expenditure in order to satisfy political friends. For that reason I am opposed to this method of conducting government railways.
Now, we have a general manager, and Mr. Pottinger's name has been mentioned. I am not in a position to judge of his merits, I am not in a position to say whether he is well qualified or not. But since the Minister of Railways and Canals has stated that the officers of the government railways have exercised their best judgment in the administration of that railway, I question his statement in view of the fact I have just explained, that the manager of that railway is not left alone to use his best judgment in its administration, he has been subject to political influences from one quarter or another, and by reason of that undue influence it would be unfair to judge him on his merits as an administrator. The other day I attended that Railway Committee, and I observed another reason why the railway should be taken from under a political head. I found that certain questions were asked a witness in that committee, and the opposition members were eager and willing to obtain the information they wanted from him; and I also observed a disposition on the part of the supporters of the government to burk the evidence given by that witness which would tend to injure the government, But would hon. gentlemen take that course if they were investigating the management of the country's railway by an independent commission ? Certainly not. It is of great importance that the railways owned by the people of this country should be administered on business lines, the same as those on which other railways are ad-

ministered throughout Canada and the United States, that is to say, on business principles.
Now let me examine some of the objections of the Minister of Railways and Canals to the motion that is before the House. He says he objects to Mr. Archibald being summoned because he is not an officer of the railway, and because he is not a contractor for the railway. Now are these reasonable objections ? I have not heard one hon. gentleman in this House say that Mr. Archibald is not a competent civil engineer. No fault has been found with that gentleman so far as his profession is concerned. Now if he posseses the qualifications to give an expression of opinion as to what ought to be done in the interests of the people in the administration of that railway, then I consider it to be our duty as members of this House to ascertain whether he thinks, according to his judgment, that the railway has been properly administered, and he should go upon the witness stand before that committee for that purpose. Another objection made by the minister is that Mr. Archibald is a sore head. Surely that is not a sufficient reason. Suppose that any hon. gentleman in this House were a stockholder in any other railway of this country, and that he happened to be in a minority on a question of managing the railway. Suppose a motion was made concerning the administration of that road, I would like to know from the Minister of Railways and Canals whether he does not think that a man in the position of Mr. Archibald would not be one of the very first persons called upon for information to ascertain whether the road was being properly administered. Why, Sir, he is one of the very best men to have before that committee for the purpose of securing information of that character.
Now, the hon. gentleman asks, does the minority of the committee want Mr. Archibald for the purpose of getting at the truth? The hon. gentleman said in the first place that he was not afraid to have any investigation made into this matter. Surely, if he is not afraid, if there is nothing to hide, nothing to expose detrimental to himself, or to the officers of the railway, what objection can he have to Mr. Archibald being present ? Surely he can have no objection at all. As to the truth or falsity of the statements made by Mr. Archibald that would be outside of the members of the committee, but, certainly, the people of the country would have an opportunity of judging as to the truthfulness of the statements made by Mr. Archibald. These statements would go broadcast throughout the Dominion of Canada. They would not go entirely through the west where there is no government railway, but, they would be circulated along the line of the Intercolonial Railway, through the eastern part of Canada, and those who
are living alongside of that railway and know something about its management would know very well whether the statements made by Mr. Archibald were true or false.
Now, the question has arisen between hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House and hon. gentlemen on this side of the House as to the propriety of the reasons why Mr. Archibald should be summoned before that committee. I am not a member of that committee, but I have paid some attention to the last two meetings and I distinctly heard the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) say that on a date previously he had given the reasons why he wanted Mr. Archibald summoned before that committee. The records were referred to but the shorthand reporters stated that they did not make a practice of including anything in the record other than the evidence given before that committee and by reason of that the statement made by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals was not included in the evidence given before the committee. Now, he rose up afterwards and stated why he wanted Mr. Archibald summoned, and really and truly I did not think it was necessary in the interests of the people of this country that my hon. friend should be placed in the position of a lawyer and be under the necessity of complying with the rules of procedure in so far as that he must jdace his bill of particulars before the other side in order to secure a witness. I did not think the people of this country required anything other than that he should frankly get up and state the reason why he wanted Mr. Archibald before that committee. He stated that he wanted Mr. Archibald for the purpose of inquiring into the cost of ties, of braces, and. of bridges, and who will deny that this gentleman has the knowledge necessary to give information to the committee of very great importance ? Nobody can deny that. Having said that is that not a sufficient reason why the committee and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals should have him summoned ? But the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, who, for the time being is at the head of the government railways of this country, called upon his supporters to vote it down and as a matter of fact his supporters did vote it down. Now, let me ask that hon. gentleman : Would he do that if there were no politics involved in securing Mr. Archibald before that committee ? He certainly would not do it although I do not say that, perhaps myself, even, or perhaps, my friends might have done so in days gone by. I do not think that I ever did in my life, and I am quite satisfied that the Conservative members of this House never in their lives, opposed the securing of the evidence of a witness who would give important testimony. Now, there is a strong feeling throughout the country that government ownership of railways is a proper

thing for this country to adopt. If there is a gentleman in this country who believes in the administration of government railways on the principle of administering them as we have it now, then, I call upon him to change his views and denounce any such proposition, because the proposition as we have it now is not in the interests of the people of this country. So long as I am a member of this House I will protest against any political interference with the management of ihat railway. Here is another reason why Mr. Archibald should be called upon to give evidence before that committee. We had the general manager of the road before the committee and we had his statement that he was the one who prepared the estimate for the large number of ties necessary for that railway. Shortly afterwards he was asked the question : What class of ties did you purchase ? And he was subsequently asked : What are the lives of the different qualities of timber that you purchased ? He could not tell the committee the lives of the ties that he had been using for years. I want to say that I do not like to reflect upon the general manager of that railway, but, if he says honestly under oath that he cannot tell the life of a railway tie, then, he is unfit to msthage the government railway or any other railway. How can any man sit down and estimate the number necessary unless he knows the lives of the ties and unless he knows too the age and number of old ties which had been put under the rails by which matters he arrives at his estimate, and on which his estimate is based ? If we cannot get a statement of that character from the general manager should we not have a statement from a man like Mr. Archibald who does understand the life of a railway tie on this or any other railway ? I do not intend to take up any more of the time of the House


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, I can quite understand why some of my hon. friends say ' hear, hear.' If they will go before their constituents I will venture to go before their constituents with them and I venture to ask their constituents if they arc in favour of administering this railway under a political head, or through an independent body which will not be subject to the whims of every member of parliament, and I will undertake the responsibility of saying that 99 per cent of the average Grits or Tories in the country will support me in my contention, because, instead of having large deficits on our government railways as we have to-day, the expenditure will be something within the revenues instead of the expenditure being in excess of the revenues owing to the improper management that we now have of the government railways of the country.


David Tisdale: 


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who believe in the government ownership of railways in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear, and after the speech of the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) and after the speech of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) last night, in regard to the same question, I wish to set myself right and I especially wish to set right the views of those who believe in the government ownership of railways. I believe in government ownership and I also believe in a political head who is responsible for the administration of the road in the way that a certain amount of political responsibility goes with it, but I do not believe that there should be any partisan administration of government railways. The two things do not go together, and only last session, when I brought up the question of the public ownership of railways, I brought it up in the way of presenting a motion to the House declaring that the administration of the Intercolonial Railway should be depoli-ticalized. I was laughed at for that proposition by hon. gentlemen opposite. There is no connection between the two things. The Intercolonial Railway to-day can be administered as the peoples' railway without any partisanship in it, without any interference, as there is to-day by members of parliament and party heelers from one end of the road to the other. In Australia, a colony somewhat similar to Canada, where they have public owned railways, they have a responsible chief in parliament, but they have the administration of the road placed in the hands of commissioners as was outlined by the hon. member for East Elgin to-day. I take this opportunity of putting myself right and of asking others in the country who believe in public ownership to put it fairly before their fellow citizens that we say that partisan administration of a state owned railway is not a necessary adjunct to it.
House divided on motion of Mr. Bell :
YEAS :
Messieurs Kidd,
Lancaster,
LaRiviere,
La veil,
Lefurgey,
Lennox,
MacLaren (Perth), Maclean,
McGowan,
McIntosh,
Morin,
Northrup,
Osier,
Pope,
Porter,
Richardson,
Alcorn,
Avery,
Ball,
Barker,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyd,
Brock,
Cargill,
Carscallen,
Clancy,
Clare,
Olarke,
Cochrane,
Culbert,
Earle,

Ganong,
Gllmour,
Gourley,
Hackett,
Haggart,
Hal'liday,
Henderson,
Hughes (Victoria), Ingram,
Johnston (Cardwell), Kaulbach,
Kemp,
Ministerial.
Cartwright,
Fraser,
Horsey,
Dyment,
Robinson (Elgin), Roche (Marquette), Rosamond,
Sherritt,
Simmons,
Smith (Wentworth), Taylor,
Tisdale,
Vrooman,
Ward,
Wilmot,
Wilson.-56.
Opposition.
Tupper,
Bell,
Pringle,
McCormick,
Emmerson,
Harty,
Russell,
Lovell,
Laurier (L'Assomption), Riley,
Davis,
Sifton,
Tolmie,
Bernier,
Bickerdike,
Roche (Halifax),
Prefontaine,
Proulx,
Galliher,
Bruneau,
Edwards,
Ethier.
Fowler,
Reid (Grenville), Monk,
Kendry,
Bruce,
Hale,
Sproule,
Casgrain,
Tolton,
Roddick,
Seagram,
Robinson
(N orthumb erland), Bennett,
Calvin,
Birkett,
Broder,
McLeod,
Leonard,
NAYS : Messieurs
Angers,	Lavergne,
Archambault,	LeBlanc,
Bazinet,	Lewis,
Beith,	Logan,
Belicourt,	Macdonald,
Blair,	Mackie,
Borden	MacKinnon,
(King's, N.S.),	McColl,
Bourassa,	McCool,
Bourbonnais,	McCreary,
Brown,	McEwen,
Brunet,	McGugan,
Bureau,	Mclsaac,
Calvert,	McLennan,
Campbell,	Madore,
Carbonneau,	Malouin,
Carroll,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Champagne,	Martineau,
Charlton,	Matheson,
Christie,	Maxwell,
Copp,	Meigs,
Costigan,	Mignault,
Cowan,	Morrison,
Demers (LSvis),	Mulock,
Douglas,	Murray,
Dugas,	Oliver,
Erb,	Parmelee,
Farquharson,	Paterson,
	
Fisher,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fitzpatrick,	Ross (Ontario),
Flint,	Ross (Rimouski),
Fortier,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Gallery,	Rousseau,
Gauvreau,	Russell,
Geoffrion, .	Schell,
German,	Scott,
Gibson,	Smith (Vancouver),
Girard,	Stephens,
Gould,	Stewart,
Guthrie,	Sutherland (Essex),
Harwood,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Heyd,	Talbot,
Holmes,	Tarte,
Hughes .	Thompson,
(King's, P.E.I.),	Tobin,
Hyman,	Tucker,
Johnston (Cape Breton)	Turcot,
Johnston (Lambton),	Turgeon,
Kendall,	Wade,
Lang,	Wright.-101.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
PAIRS : Messieurs


Mr. EMMERSON.: I beg to withdraw my vote Mr. Speaker. I am paired with the hon. member for Kings, New Brunswick (Mr. Fowler).


Mr. LEONARD.: (Translation.) I am paired with the hon. member for Two-Mountains. If I were not, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. TOLMIE.: I am paired with the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Tolton). If I were not paired I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) has not voted.


Adam Carr Bell: I was paired with the hon. member for Guysborougli (Mr. Fraser). If I were not so paired I would have voted for the motion.
Motion (Mr. Bell) negatived.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 46) to incorporate the Strait of Canso Bridge Company.-Mr. McLennan.
Bill (No. 52) respecting the St. Clair and Erie Ship Canal Company.-Mr. Tisdale.
Bill (No. 53) respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 57) respecting the Ontario Power Company of Niagara Falls.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 58) in amendment of Criminal Code 1892.-Mr. Cowan.

[Stage Direction]
I.	C. R.-PURCHASE OF SHIMS.

Mr. BLAIN asked :: When will the prices for binder twine be given to the public for the year 1902 ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. H. G. Carroll).: As soon as the spring trade in that class of supplies opens.


WORKS AT RICHIBUCTO, N.B.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Who were the tenderers for the reconstruction of North1 Pier and Groynes, at Riehi-bucto, N.B. ?
2.	What were the amounts of the different tenders ?
3.	Who received the contract for the work, and at what figure ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1 and 2. Viau & Lachance, Hull, P.Q., $22,900; Lyons & White, Ottawa, Out., $22,900; Jas. & John Jardine, Jardineville, N.S., $24,500; Burns & Loughran, Ottawa, Ont., $27,700; C. J. B. & B. L. Simmons, Gibson, N.B., $31,144; Robert A. Irving, Buctouche, N.B., $47,760.
3. Yiau & Lachance, at $22,900.


PURCHASES OF STEEL RAILS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	How many tons of steel rails have been purchased for the Intercolonial Railway since
Henry Robert Emmerson: the contract was entered into with F. H. Cler-gue ?
2.	What was the price per ton, delivered at Intercolonial points, and by whom were they manufactured ?
3.	Has the contract with F. H. Clergue been cancelled ? If not, has the time of delivery been extended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 
THE STEAMER ' SCOTIA.'
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What was the contract price of the steamer * Scotia,' ordered for the ferry between Mulgrave and Point Tupper ?
2.	When was the steamer delivered at Mulgrave ?
3.	Has this steamer been in service the past season ; and if not, whv not ?
4.	What amount has been expended on this steamer to date, over and above the original contract price 5
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 
CONFISCATION OF FISHING GEAR.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	What, was the number of confiscations of fishing gear made by the Department of Marine and Fisheries in Prince Edward Island in the year 1901 ?
2.	In which of the counties of the province were the confiscations made and the locality (as exact as possible) ?
3.	What amount was realized from' the sale of i roperty so confiscated, and the names of parties to whom) sold ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: The officers of the department inform me that

there is no record of any confiscation of fishing gear in Prince Edward Island in the year 1901.
RAILWAY STATION AT ALBERTON, P.E.I. Mr. HACKETT asked :
1.	Is it the intention of the government to build a new and suitable railway station at A11 erton. Prince County, Prince Edward Island this year ?
2.	If so, will they have the new station so placed as to avoid the 'Y' nuisance there? If, not, why not ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: No, it is not the intention of the government to build a new railway station at Alberton, P.E.I., this year.


THE CLIMATE OF CANADA.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	Has the attention cf the government been called to the reply of Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain to the deputation from the Welsh Patagonia a Committee, as reported in the Times' (London, Eng.), of February 19th, as follows :-
' It struck me while you were speaking that the change of climate-from a very hot country to the terrible region of the Canadian winter-might be rather a danger to face ' ?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to endeavour to disabuse Mr. Chamberlain's mind of his mistaken views respecting the winter climate of Canada, (a.) by sending to him a copy of Hon. Mr. Sifton's Atlas of Western Canada ; or (b.) to request the Canadian lady teachers when passing through London, en route to South Africa, to wait upon the Colonial Secretary, and furnish him with data shewing the delightful nature of the winter climate of Canada ?
3.	Is it the intention of the Prime Minister, on his approaching visit to England, to further endeavour to remove such erroneous notions ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The attention of the government has been drawn to this matter through the public press; but, as the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain is a remarkably well-informed man in all colonial affairs, I am bound to believe that this must be a newspaper mistake, and that he never could have made use of the language attributed to him. If any of the remedies suggested in the hon. gentleman's question are to be made use of,
I think that the visit of the young ladies would be the most agreeable and pleasing to the Colonial Secretary, if he is like other ministers.


BREAKWATER AT NORTH HEAD, N.B.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
What is the estimated cost of a breakwater at North Head, Grand Manan, N.B., from survey recently made by the government engineer ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: If built of native timber, $91,000; if of partly creosoted timber, $143,000.


PORTLAND CEMENTS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. OSLER-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
Have any tests been made by the testing' department of the Department of Public Works or by the Railway Department of the various brands of Canadian and foreign cements ? If so, what is the result of such test3 ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	That Canadian Portland cements give better satisfaction than imported cements. For the past fourteen years tests have been made regularly by this department of all available cements, even though not sent to the department for that purpose. During the past two years 900 tensile and crushing tests have been made besides hot water, air, cold water, specific gravity, setting, sieving and chemical analysis of each cement.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS - CENTRAL BLOCK.
Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	What is the total estimatjd cost of the addition made to the Central Block of the Parliament Buildiugr, Ottawa ?
2.	What is tho superficial area of this addition; what number of rooms does it contain, and to what purposes are these rooms devoted, or to be devoted ?
3.	What appropriations have bea made by parliament towards the expenditure on this work ?
4.	What is the total amount expended to this date ?
5.	Were tenders called for ?
6.	How has the work been executed, by contract or otherwise ?
7.	The names of the contractors ?
8.	What is the cost of the alterations and improvements made in the attic of said block ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: 1.	Cost of addition, including heating, lighting, &c., $30,000 ; elevators, taking down walls, cutting floors, building foundations and brick walls for elevators and the electric elevators, $12,000 ; attic rooms over old parliament building, new roof, iron skylights and finishing rooms, $8,000 ; granite columns, new doorways in entrance hall to elevators, painting main hall and staircases, &c., $4,000 ; minor works, changes Commons post office, changing stairway to public gallery (Commons) and messengers' rooms, fitting up rooms for Senate, &c., $2,500 ; total, $56,500.
Area.
Ground	floor	26 x 60	
1560First floor	26	x 70	
1820Attics	40	x 70	".2800Total area	6,180
Ground floor devoted to * Hansard ' stall, first floor, one room for Mr. Monk, M.P., one for Mr. Stewart, and apartments for Deputy Speaker, House of Commons.



3.	$35,000.
4.	$35,167.47.
5.	Tenders were invited for the elevators.
6.	Partly by contract and partly by day labour.
7.	The Fenson Elevator Company, of Toronto, for the elevators. The Forsyth Granite and Marble Company, of Montreal, for the granite columns.
8 $8 000
According to the first plans prepared for the addition, the elevators were shown to be placed directly opposite the main entrance door of the parliament buildings and the estimate was made from the first plans. Had the elevators been placed as shown by the first plans, less accommodation would have been got than there now is, and it would not have been possible to get the large committee room that there is now in the attic.
After careful examination, it was found the elevators could be placed in the space they now occupy. Where now placed they are more convenient than if placed where originally intended. Owing to this change, the cost of the alterations was considerably increased ; further, in order to get the additional attic rooms over the old part of the building, the old roof had to be removed and a new roof constructed and iron skylights put in. The roof trusses had to be remodelled and iron tie rods put in, as also a concrete floor, heating, lighting, &c. The changes named are the reasons why the original estimate has been exceeded.


NORTH BAY PIER, INGONISH.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) asked :: 1.	Did the government do any work during August and September, 1901, to further protect the pier at North Bay, Ingonish, in the county of Victoria, N.S. I and if so, what was the nature of the work ?
2.	What sum of money was paid for such work ?
3.	Was the work done by contract or by day's labour ?
4.	If by contract, ha3 the contractor been paid ; and how much ?
5.	If by day's labour, have the labourers been paid ; if so, when and how much ?
6.	What is the name of the overseer of the work, and what was his remuneration ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: 1.	Yes, placed a stone talus on seaward side of breakwater.
2.	No money paid yet. Cost of work, $951.36.
3.	By day labour.
4.	See below.
5.	See below.
6.	D. M. McDonald, $2.50 per day.
Work was completed on 12th September.
Mr. Milliege asked Overseer McDonald to forward paylists; these were not sent in until 16th January, when they were returned


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: for correction and forwarded to department on 12th February. The overseer was altogether responsible for the delay.


OYSTER LICENSES.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) asked :: 1.	During the year 1900, were licenses issued entitling the persons named therein to fish for oysters on the beds planted by the government in the harbour of Shediac ?
2.	To whom were the licenses issued, and on what dates were they respectively Issued ?
3.	By whose authority were they issued in each instance ?
4.	Were such licenses, or any of them, cancelled ? If so, how many, and on what date ?
5.	For what reasons were such licenses cancelled ?	,
6.	What quantity of oysters were secured under such licenses during the period they were in force ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Jas. Sutherland).: Nearly 200 licenses have been granted. If my hon. friend will move for a return I will have the Information brought down. It is too long for a question.


HOPEWELL CAPE PIER.
[Stage Direction]
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPEIl asked :
1.	How much ha3 been paid to the contractors for the new pier under course of construction at Hopewell Cape, Albert County', New Brunswick ?
2.	What is the date for completion of this work, according to the contract, and what is the likely date of its completion, according to the present progress in construction ?
3.	What arrangements have been made for the building of a road to the pier ? What is the amount to be paid for this road ; and with whom has a contract been made with respect thereto ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: 
CANADIAN AND FOREIGN CEMENTS.
Mr. OSLER asked :: Has any tests been made by the testing Department of Public Works or by the Railway Department of the various brands of Canadian and foreign cements ? If so, what is the result of such tests?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: Tests have been made of a number of brands of cement by the Department of Railways and Canals at the

Superintending Engineer's offices on the several canals, but the results of these tests are not on record in the department.


ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY.
Mr. LEONARD asked :: 1.	Is the government aware of the relations existing between the warden and deputy warden of tho St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary ?
2.	Does the government know that the deputy warden is in open conflict with the present warden, thus lessening the authority that the chief of such institution should have ?
3.	If not, does the government intend to inquire into it ?
4.	If yes, has the government taken measures to cause this state of things to cease, and to maintain the respect due the chief of the institution.
5.	What are the measures taken ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. H. G. Carroll).: The answer to the first question is : Yes.
To the questions 2, 3, 4 and 5 : No.
The deputy warden is not in open conflict with the warden and the relations existing between them are not of such a nature as to lessen the authority of the warden.



Mr. LEONARD asked :: 1. Has the honourable the Minister of Justice written or caused to be written a letter to the warden of the penitentiary, relating to the conduct of certain employees during the last election in Laval ?
2- If so, will the honourable minister comthe warden of the St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary concerning the conduct of certain employees of that institution, especially of Oscar Beauchamp, deputy warden, during the said election in Laval ?
4.	If so, will the government do it immediately, and report it to this House 7


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) :: 1.	No, but the minister has issued instructions to penitentiary and territorial jail officials and employees regarding their future conduct.
2.	Copy of circular attached.
Ottawa, February :,2, 1902.
Dear Sir,-It is in the best interests of the institution under your charge that when a man enters the service of the government he should refrain from actively interfering in political contests. Will you be good enough to inform the officers of the penitentiary, of all ranks, that while perfect freedom to vote in conceded to every employee, all interference in political contests is forbidden, and the officer found giilty of breaking the rule is liable To immediate dismissal.
Yours very sincerely,
(Sgd.) CHARLES FITZPATRICK.
Sent to Warden Platt, Kingston ; Warden Duchesneau, St. Vincent de Paul ; Warden Kirk, Dorchester , Warden Irvine, Stony Mountain ; Warden Whyte, New Westminster ; Jailer Mae-Ivor, Regina ; Jailer Kerr, Prince Albert.
3 and 4. No charges of misconduct have been made against any of the officers or employees of the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary.


LAND GRANTS TO SOUTH AFRICAN CONTINGENT.
Mr. SCOTT asked :: Is it the Intention of the government to make grants of lands to members of the military contingents which went from Cana la to South Africa ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: The matter has not yet been considered by the government.


LONDON DRILL SHED.
Mr. SHERRITT asked :: 1.	In the new plans of the London drill shed, what accommodation by way of armouries and rooms is being allotted :-
(a.) The 26th Middlesex Regiment, and
(b.) The 7th Fusiliers of London ?
2.	Is accommodation being provided for any other corps ?
3.	What arc the relative strengths of the 26th and 7th regiments ?
4.	What is to be the total cost of the drill shed ?
5.	When will it be ready for occupation ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: I beg to reply :
L (a) Armouries for two companies 26th Regiment, near London.
(b) Armouries for eight companies, commanding officer's and orderly room, and quartermaster's stores, 7th Fusiliers.
2.	Yes. Armoury for two squadrons, 1st Hussars at London, 185 all ranks.
Gun shed and harness room, quartermaster's stores, commanding officer's office and orderly room, 6th Field Battery, 101 all ranks.
Armoury and stores, Army Service Corps, 35 all ranks.
Army and stores, Field Hospital, 24 all ranks.
Accommodation for all corps in drill hall- officer's mess, sergeant's mess, lecture room, band room, and offices for district officer commanding, lavatories for officers and men, rifle range and caretaker's quarters.
3.	7th Regiment. Total all ranks, 277 : 26tk Regiment. Total all ranks, 367.


SOUTH AFRICAN WAR-ALLEGED SMALL-POX AMONG TROOPS.
Mr. SAM HUGHES (North Victoria).: Before proceeding with government business, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the government to an item which appears
46*

in tills evening's ' Citizen,' to the effect that small-pox has developed among our boys in South Africa. The item is as follows
Small-pox has developed in the second section of the Canadian mounted rifles, and the troops are said to be in quarantine at Durban, and likely to remain there for three months.
Relations, in Ottawa, of hoys with the contingent have received no word of them since they left and the fact goes to confirm the rumour that they are in isolation pending the btamping out of the disease.
I would ask the government if they have any information on this subject ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: So far, I have no information beyond what has appeared in the newspapers. I wish to point out that the transport ships were Imperial ships and were under the control of the Imperial naval and military authorities from beginning to end ; the Department of Militia had nothing to do with the ships, and consequently was not responsible. Of course we are very anxious to know the actual condition of things, and I shall endeavour to get all the information possible, and shall make it known at the earliest moment.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance :
That the 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 he granted to His Majesty ; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
['It pays better than when the Conservatives were in power; that is the point. You cannot expect a railway to make as good a showing when it is being thoroughly equipped-(when new cars are being built, new engines being purchased, new ties and rails being laid. The revenue from the railway in the past year has, I think, been greater than in any previous year. Then, there is the Post Office Department, from which we are all deriving great benefits. A great many new post offices have been opened up throughout the country, and greater conveniences have been given to the people. The new system adopted by the Postmaster General will cause his name to go down to posterity side by side with some of the postal reformers of England.\n\nI cannot close without referring also to the Public Works Department, which we all know to be one of the most important departments of the government. We find from one end of Canada to the other public works being constructed for the general improvement and advancement of the country, and transportation facilities being provided. All these things will help the farmers and manufacturers ; we cannot do without them. We find hon. gentlemen opposite complaining of the increase of the debt, and yet asking for more public works-a very peculiar position to take. I feel satisfied, as a representative of the people, that in every department of the public service we have men in charge who are entitled to the public confidence and the praise of men of good judgment, for their ability in managing the affairs of the country ; and they are led by a leader who is beloved and trusted by our people all over Canada. What is the use of our people sending up this prayer from our churches and elsewhere :\nWith bounteous times our cities crown, Our fields with plenteousness.\nIf when that prayer is answered hon. gentlemen come into this House and say that this country is dissatisfied with one of the methods by which this prosperity is brought about.\nMr. RICHARD BRAIN (Peel) moved the adjournment of the debate.']
Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had the pleasure of listening to the reply of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) also to the reply of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) to the leader of the opposition. And the friends of the Minister of Trade and Commerce desire to congratulate him upon his manifestation of his old time vigour which has so often electrified the House. We are pleased to see him still so vigorous, and congratulate him on making one of the best speeches, that we, his friends, have ever heard delivered in this House. We also had the pleasure of listening to a reply, or supposed reply, by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The hon. member for West Toronto opened with an expression of regret that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had revelled in old slanders. From the manner in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce presented his case I am not surprised that the hon. member for West Toronto was sorry, and I can well imagine that that sorrow was shared by every hon. member on your left,
Mr. HUGHES fVictoria).
Mr. Speaker. I can realize that, were I a follower of the men who were responsible for the condition of things that the Minister of Trade and Commerce so eloquently depicted, I also would have experienced feelings of regret; but, combined with those feelings would have been a feeling of shame. It is not well for our friends opposite to forget what took place in this country in days gone by. It may be an old story, but it is an old story that will bear repeating, and the people of the country should not be allowed to forget it. For, on the other side of the House there is still a remnant of the old guard. It must not be forgotten that like begets like, and that, if the country were left unwarned, the old conditions of affairs might again result. The hon. member for West Toronto should have regretted these statements of the hon. minister because they were ancient literature. I am sure the hon. minister had an excuse for going back ten years, after having listened to the leader of the opposition, who, when finding fault with the expenditure of the present government, had to go back sixty years in the history of the United States to tell us that, at that time the expenditure of the United States was only one-third as great as the expenditure of the present government of Canada. Sixty years is a long time to go back in order to gain arguments, particularly when those arguments had no bearing on the case, the conditions being entirely dissimilar. At that time the exportations of the United States amounted to the huge sum of about $9,000,000. But it is not to that part of the speech of the hon. member for West Toronto that 1 object to so much. What I object to is the inaccuracies that he injected into his speech, the positive misstatements that he made-or my reading of Canadian history has been incorrect. As will be remembered, when the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce drew attention to the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie and his scheme of development of the North-west, he passed a glowing eulogy upon the character of our departed friend, and still insisted, as he had insisted twenty years ago, that, if the schemes of Hon. Alexander Mackenzie had been carried out, the interests of Canada would have been better promoted than by the schemes that were afterwards adopted. Here is what the hon. member for West Toronto said :
I tell you, Sir, that had that policy been continued, the whole of the trade and the products of that western country would now be tributary to the United States. It may be possible that a larger population would be there now, but our North-west would not belong to Canada, and there are few members who will agree that It were better that Manitoba were more prosperous even at the cost of not belonging to Canada and Great Britain.
Where does our hon. friend from West Toronto get the idea that, even had the I desires of Alexander Mackenzie been grati-

fled, we would have lost that great territory to the north and west of us ? How could we possibly have lost the North-west and Manitoba ? [DOT] The discussion which took place here on that very question last night convinced me still more clearly that Hon. Alexander Mackenzie was right in his contention. I have often attended banquets and have heard the glowing eulogies by our Conservative friends taking credit to themselves for the work of making the Canadian Pacific Railway. I rejoice with them that it is a magnificent piece of work. I am willing to confess that the expectations which I had with respect to it have not been realized. I had the pleasure of going over it, and I found that it was, from end to end, a thoroughly modern and well equipped road and a credit to the people of Canada. But, in saying that, I do not mean to say that the scheme of Hon. Alexander Mackenzie would not have answered the purpose of the people of Canada equally well. And our friends who are so willing to discredit Alexander Mackenzie's memory, and to speak of the ' water stretches ' which were part of his scheme, had evidence the other night in the speeches of our friends that represent that western country that these same 1 water stretches ' that have been so decried still offer the solution of the problem that is before us. It is now the purpose of the government, and has been for years, to utilize these same ' water stretches ' which were to have been a part of Alexander Mackenzie's scheme. And it was because there was no means of using this water communication that the recent glut took place in the North-west.
As I understand it, and I do not think 1 have forgotten, it was the intention of the Liberal party at that time to construct a railway from Port Arthur to Winnipeg and use the water stretches to get to it. These same water stretches have still got to be utilized in order to make of the Canadian Pacific Railway that benefit to the people of Canada that they have a right to expect. So far as being an available means of moving the products of the western farms to the places of export in the east, that narrow line that passes through New Ontario down to Montreal is absolutely useless.
But we might excuse our hon. friend for going back himself into ancient history if he was absolutely correct in telling us what he found. But I take it that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) made a great mistake when he began to touch the trade questions of the country. If I wanted advice as to the quality or judiciousness of an investment, I would be willing to take the advice of the hon. gentleman. On matters of business of that kind I acknowledge his superior skill; but when we read statements emanating from him such as the one I am about to quote, we have to revise our opinion, I have looked into his speech, and I find he says this :
The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerco has drawn for us a very doleful picture of what will take place if we do not return to good old simple free trade. What would free trade mean for Canada ? It would mean the closing up of every factory wo have 'rom the Atlantic to the Pacific	 What has been the effect of free trade to some extent, already ? It has driven away our bright young men who are educated in our schools of practical science and ether institutions of learning.
I was not aware, Mr. Speaker, that the free trade of Canada had driven our bright young men out of the country to seek homes in a foreign land. If that has taken place, the Minister of Trade and Commerce proved last night that it took place at a time when we had anything but a free trade tariff; and if it took place during the past five years, it certainly has not taken place during a period of a free trade tariff. The hon. gentleman was entirely wrong in introducing the question of free trade. We have not got free trade now. We did not have it during the period of the national policy, neither did we have it at any time during the history of this country with which I am familiar. In 1896 and for the fifteen years previous to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce alluded, the average rate of duty on dutiable products was thirty per cent. Surely he does not call that a free trade tariff. The average rate of duty to-day after the preference has been" granted to Great Britain, based upon the valuation of goods entered for consumption in this Country, amounts to twenty-seven per cent. Surely no hon. gentleman, much less a financier of the standing of the member for West Toronto, will say that a tariff which gives a protection of twenty-seven per cent is a free trade tariff, and that because of a free trade tariff our bright young men are leaving this country to make homes in the United States. I am surprised that our hon. friend made such a mistake. After two or three specimens such as I have given you of the errors into which he fell, I will be excused if I do not devote any more of my time to his speech.
Now, I desire for a few moments to confine myself to the amendment that has been presented by the leader of the opposition. We have had in former years amendments to the Budget resolutions in various forms. They all vary slightly, but the resonant note in them all is that we must have increased protection. That amendment starts out by saying :
This House regarding the operation of the present tariff os unsatisfactory.
Now, I am quite willing to admit that in certain details, or in its practical operation as regards certain industries, it is unsatisfactory to the proprietors of those industries. But to ask this parliament to affirm that the present tariff is unsatisfactory is to ask us to deprive ourselves of our reasoning faculties and to say that white is black or black

Is white. Now what are the actual facts of the case ? What evidence did our friends give us to prove that this tariff under which the country has made such wonderful progress, is an unsatisfactory tariff ? Is there any evidence of it any where in this country from the Pacific to the Atlantic ocean ? What are the facts of the case during the past five years ? Our friends on the other side say they want to get back to that old national policy under which this country made that marvellous progress of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke last night. But we do not need to take opinions on matters of that kind. There are facts accessible to prove whether the tariff as a whole is unsatisfactory and has been injurious to the people of this country, or whether on the other hand it has been advantageous. I do not want to weary you, nor will I do so, by giving you a long procession of figures ; but there are a few facts that X desire to present to the House to-night that will be probably welcomed by some who have not given that phase of the question the consideration that it deserves. We had the national policy for some fifteen or sixteen years before the present government attained power.


George Taylor: We have got it yet.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: If we have got it yet, then the very first statement in the resolution is incorrect, which says that the tariff is unsatisfactory, because then the tariff would be satisfactory. Now, which position does my hon. friend choose to take ? If he says it is satisfactory, then it must be the old national policy ; if it is not satisfactory, it cannot therefore be the national policy. Now, I notice that whenever our friends have got an object to gain, and that the present tariff can in any way be credited with any benefits, they say it is the same old tariff. But when they think they can make political capital by decrying the tariff, then they deny that it is the national policy. I would like our hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) to choose to-night on which side he is going to stand. Is this tariff satisfactory or unsatisfactory ? If satisfactory, it must be the old national policy : if not satisfactory, then it cannot be the national policy, and it must be a product devised and brought into execution by the present government. But what effect had it upon our trade during the past five years ? And five years is quite long enough to test the efficacy of a tariff. Take the imports into this country in 1896 ; that is a pretty good test of the purchasing power of the people. We find that in 1896 the imports entered for consumption exclusive of coin and bullion, were $105,147,000. Five years before that during the operations of the national policy, or the tariff that our hon. friends want to restore, the imports amounted to $110, 000,000. So our power to purchase the luxuries and the necessities of life from foreign Mr. HEYD.
countries had actually been reduced by $5,000,000. Since the introduction of the present tariff, satisfactory or not to our hon. friends on the other side, our imports have increased to $177,000,000, being $72,000,000 greater in 1901 than they were five years previously.
Measured from that standpoint, this tariff is not unsatisfactory. For the last five years of the old national policy the import trade of the country had diminished by $5,000,000, while during the first five years of the present' tariff it had increased by $72,000,000, or over 70 per cent. Apply the same process of reasoning to the export trade of the country and has this tariff injured the producing classes of the country in any particular respect ? If so, the trade returns do not show it. In 1896 our exports of the produce of Canada were $109,000,000. For the five years before they were $88,000,000, or an increase of $21,000,000 in five years. During the last five years, under the operation of this despised and mueh-to-be-amended policy that we have now, they increased to $177,000,000, or an increase of $67,000,000 in five years, or 65 per cent, the entire increase in five years, both in imports and exports, being $140,000,000. Measured on the basis of a revenue producer the conditions are also favourable. In 1896 the revenue was $20,000,000, collected on an average duty of imports of 194 per cent, while in 1901, the revenue was $29,000,000, based on a 164 per cent tariff, an increase of $9,000,000, or almost of 50 per cent. Surely that does not prove that the country has been retrograding. The total revenue increased from $37,000,000 to $52,000,000, or by $14,000,000 a year. While the general trade of the country was so satisfactory, while the revenue has never been so buoyant as it has been in the last five years, what has been the effect of this policy on our trade ? The discounts, the money loaned by the bank to traders and to the manufacturers of this country in 1891, amounted to $202,000,000; in 1896, five years afterwards, the amount had increased to $224,000,000, or an increase of $22,000,000, while during the past five years the discounts have risen to the magnificent sum of $318,000,000, or an increase of $93,000,000. When you come down to the real basis, that is, its actual operation, upon the individuals who constitute the people of Canada, you can measure it best by the savings of the people. In 1891 the deposits in the chartered savings banks and in the Post Office Savings Bank, amounted to $193,000,000. In 1896, after five years of the national policy in all its glory, the deposits had increased to $245,000,000, or an increase of $52,000,000, while in 1901, after five years of the application of the present much-despised tariff, the deposits of the people had increased to $390,000,000, or an increase of $145,000,000 added to the savings of the people. These are the financial and trade aspects of this tariff of ours which has given our friends so much trouble, and which they are so anxious to

amend.	Now, I am quite willing to admit tliat I would like to have seen the government make some slight changes in the tariff, changes, that, in my opinion, would have been a benefit to some of the manufacturing interests of this country, changes, that, under the circumstances, I think they were entitled to, but, I realize what these figures mean when the hon. Minister of Finance sees the question staring him in the face and wonders to himself how a change in the tariff will be viewed by the various portions of this Canada of ours, which are not equally interested in that aspect of the question. There is another phase of this resolution to which I desire to object:
This House is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries, &c.
Now, I would not like, as' far as I am myself qualified to speak, to be willing to express an opinion of this kind. I do not believe that the agriculturists of this country would endorse that opinion. When I look at the trade figures once more and X 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 high tariff, whom we cannot protect by a high 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 increased 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 this 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 but $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 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. . I am aware that some who are engaged in the lumber industry, especially in British Columbia, are anxious that a duty shall be put upon lumber. But while that may be the case in British Columbia it apparently is not the case in Manitoba. 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. But that industry has not increased materially during the past three years as it has only risen from $27,000,000 to $30,000,000. 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. On the other hand we have the great manufacturing industries of this country ; industries that have grown up, some of them, with the country ; industries that sprung up under the fostering care of the national policy ; and it is this phase of this resolution that particularly appeals to me. Under this excessively high tariff which hon. gentlemen opposite desire to bring about, we would have again a condition of affairs such as we had some fifteen years ago when industries were established in this country that were alien to the country, that would never be self-sustaining, that would always have to be spoon-fed and always be a burden upon the rest of the community.
I, of course, have my own views on this question. I am regarded by some of our | friends on the other side ns being a pro-

tectionist. I am a protectionist in some things. I am a protectionist for all these industries that are indigenous, and all in relation to which there is even a remote possibility that they will develop into such a national growth as will enable them ultimately to become self-sustaining. I believe we have these. national industries in this country of ours. I have seen grow around me, and grow in all parts of the country, industries that have been encouraged by the people of Canada ; industries in which the savings of a life-time have been invested, and my sympathy-even if my judgment does not-my sympathy compels me to assist the promoters of these industries whenever I have an opportunity, to preserve the savings that a life-time of frugality and of self-denial have enabled them to acquire. Even the manufacturing industries-however, they may complain of the present tariff-have prospered as a general thing during the past five years, and we have the same method to go by in order to measure the extent of their prosperity. Five years ago our exports of industries that were to be ruined by the free trade Liberal party as our friends choose to call them, and as the member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) calls them ; five years ago we exported $9,000,000 worth, and last year we exported $16,000,000, an increase of $7,000,000, or almost 80 per cent.
I recognize the value of manufacturing industries to this country. I realize that no country has ever grown great that was a purdly pastoral, or fishing, or mining country. I realize that the home market is of tremendous benefit to the province of Ontario and to the province of Quebec. The condition of our farmers in Ontario is entirely dissimilar to the condition existing in the North-west and Manitoba. To all farmers living within 25 miles or 30 miles of the city of Brantford, the local market makes their farms more valuable, makes living easier, makes life less arduous and decidedly more pleasant. That condition prevails throughout the province of Ontario, and realizing from the experience of other countries that we must have a manufacturing development in this country to take advantage of these great sources of wealth that a benevolent providence has bestowed on our people ; to enable us to develop those great timber resources that we own and these mining resources' that are just beginning to make their appearance ; I say it is absolutely necessary to develop manufacturing industries in Canada. I take the stand now, and I have always taken it, that wherever we have a natural product that is capable of development by encouragement, in the way of a subsidy, or of .a bonus, or in the way of even protection if you like ; I am quite willing to go with you in that. I endorse the bounties that were given by the present government to our iron industry. It is said that these bounties Mr. HEYD.	t>
will cost us some $800,000 this year. I do not care what it costs. Some people are getting frightened that it will cost $8,000,000 before the period shall have expired during which the bounties shall be granted. I do not care. If it cost $8,000,000 all the better. I would rather it cost $8,000,000 than $5,000,000. The mere fact that it does cost $8,000,000 is an evidence that it is an industry that is not alien but native to the soil, and that ultimately will redound to the welfare and the prosperity of this country.
The iron industry particularly, is regarded by almost all nations as the barometer of their prosperity. Wherever the iron industries are prosperous that country is bound to prosper, and, therefore, I endorse the attitude of the government in respect to the bounties on iron. But I see before me conditions arising which will require-whether the government are willing or whether they are not willing-a readjustment in this tariff. If the Canadian manufacturers are going to use Canadian iron there will have to be a readjustment of the tariff in such a way that not only the iron producers themselves, but the man who is engaged in converting that raw iron into its varied manufactured forms-all those cognate interests that are associated with it-will have to be also encouraged in various ways. Although this may result in a temporary increase in protection it will mean in the end the establishment of industries in our own country, and the providing of a home market which after all is the best and surest market that any country can possibly have. That is my view on that question. As one who is familiar with financial and trade questions, I see that the government have almost insuperable objections to make to any change. But looking at it from my standpoint, I do not agree with them in the attitude they take with respect to the slaughter market.
I listened last night with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) who alluded to some of his friends as being slightly tinctured with the virus of protection. I included myself in that category. Probably I was egotistical in thinking that he alluded to me, but I thought that if what he said be true, namely, that the people of Canada have no reason to complain that they are buying cheap goods in the slaughter market ; that those of us who differ from him in that opinion are at least in good company, because we remember that only recently a conference was held in Europe, at which this great question of the slaughter market was forced upon the powers of Europe who had been bonusing beet sugar that was exported from these countries.
Great Britain stood by until her sugar refineries were driven out of existence. She consoled herself with the fact that in their

place she had acquired jam makers who had captured the markets of the world. But notwithstanding the fact that their jam makers had bought cheap sugar in England, the British government entered its protest, and said to the continental beet-root sugar producers : Unless you cease making Great Britain a slaughter market, we shall have to put a countervailing duty on your sugar. The result is that the bounties granted to beet-root sugar production will only be paid a short time longer; and the slaughter market which Great Britain has been for years for the bounty-fed beet-root sugar producers of Germany and Belgium will soon come to an end. Therefore, if 1 am not egotistical in including myself among those friends of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who object to Canada being made a slaughter market, I can at least console myself with the reflection that we have the government' of Great Britain along with us on that particular question.
The Board of Trade of the city of Brantford passed a resolution objecting to unfair competition, and I believe the government could have justified an attempt to prevent that unfair competition. I instanced a case in which a deliberate attempt was made to stifle a Canadian industry on the plea that for a short time the consumers of cutlery would be able to buy it cheaper than they otherwise would. But I am convinced, they are convinced, we are all convinced, that when this industry is stifled out of existence, the price of cutlery will go back to its old position. These men did not ask for increased protection. They simply wanted this cut-throat competition from the United States put down. They wanted the government to raise the duty, in order to prevent these men flooding our market with cheap American cutlery, and to make such a rebate to Great Britain as would leave the present tariff of only 20 per cent. We must remember the importance of that industry. It is an industry that is cognate with the iron industry. It is an industry that is made up entirely of Canadian labour, because 14 cents worth of raw material, after Canadian labour and Canadian intelligence is expended upon it, is converted into $8.50 worth of finished razors. That is the kind of industry we ought to encourage in this country. A dozen shears worth $6.12 in the open market are made out of raw material that only costs 78 cents. It is too late to talk to these men after their industry is stifled. It is no use to tell them then that stability of the tariff is a desirable thing. I recognize that stability of the tariff is a good thing; but there is no use offering a stone to a man who is hungry or a straw to a man who is drowning. These men want to be protected now, not after their industry is stifled; and in these particular lines, I think the government might well listen to the plea that has been made.
The claim made by the carriage men is also one entitled to consideration. They do not ask for more protection; they simply ask for the Canadian market. They want the valuation of a slop-made buggy increased to $50, so as to prevent the country being overrun with a quality of buggy that is of no use to the purchaser and is likely to injure an industry capable of conferring great benefit on the people of this country.
We have other1 industries in South Brant in the same condition, such as the hammock industry and the pottery industry. Yet I am not in favour of making the Violent change in the tariff which our friends of the opposition demand. During the operation of the tariff we have had in the city of Brantford alone six new industries started. They knew the competition they had to meet, and they will be able to hold their own unless an attempt is made to stifle them through the medium of a slaughter market. It was only the other day, since I spoke to the House on the question of shears, that an increase was made in the price in the United States market of 10 per cent, while a reduction has been made in the price in the Canadian market of 17i per cent. In the United States shears are sold at $5 a dozen, which in Canada are sold, less duty, at less than $3 a dozen. No industry, however well conducted, or however honest may be the men who are behind it, can stand a competition like that, and I would have stood by the government if they had said :	We
will set our faces against the slaughtering of the products of the United States in the markets of Canada. The producers of the United States are so hedged in that they are not subject to competition from foreign countries. I realize the position they occupy; and although I am not very friendly to the United States, I also realize that we live alongside of them for 4,000 miles. Whether we like that or not, we have to put up with it; we have to subject ourselves to those natural conditions by which nature has surrounded us. I have heard considerable exception taken to the fact that we buy so much from the United States and sell them so little. That is true; but it is brought about by conditions which no government can affect. The United States is the producer of those raw materials which the people of Canada absolutely require, which they cannot produce themselves, except at an abnormal expense, and which they cannot get any where else in the world. Therefore it is that last year we imported $53,000,000 worth of raw materials from the United States; and we got them there because it paid us better to do so than to buy them any* where else or to raise them ourselves. That is a natural condition that cannot be altered. Cotton, coal, India rubber and a hundred other products we must get there ; and we cannot change that fact, however much we

would desire. Of the things that are even on the dutiable list, but that are absolutely necessary to the welfare of the manufacturers of this country, we have imported from the United States a large quantity. We have imported some $7,500,000 in metals alone; but these are the raw materials of many of our manufacturers. 1 hope through the development of our iron industries at Sydney, at Collingwood, at Hamilton, and at Sault Ste. Marie, we shall soon be in a position to be independent of that phase at least of our importations from the United States. But, try, however much we may, talk however much we like, we cannot change those natural conditions which will for all time make it necessary for us to go to the United States to buy certain raw materials; but holding the views I do, I am not willing, even for the benefits that might be conferred on Canada, or even in a desire to gratify a feeling of animosity to the people of the United States, to vote for the resolution that is placed before us, because I believe that a tariff that would give the protection which is absolutely necessary to make every manufacturer independent of foreign competition would not be in the interest of the people of this country. But, on the other hand, a tariff devised with skill and care, a tariff that would develop the natural industries of this country, that would discriminate in favour of them as against those which would always be a burden on the people, would ultimately result in the development of the manufacturing interests of this country to an extent that Canada has never yet witnessed.


Mr. E. D. SMITH (South Wentworth).: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have listened to the speeches of the three gentlemen on the other side of the House who have addressed us on this question, witli some amusement and some gratification. It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery ; and the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down certainly ought to be gratifying to any member on this side of the House, if a good, sound protectionist speech on the whole can be said to be so. The fact is also amusing that the three hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the House represent three different phases of the tariff question. First, we had the address of the hon. Minister of Finance, which was very wary. The hon. gentleman has had experience. He told us that he had been waited upon by numbers of deputations, representing different industries of this country, asking for increased protection, and he replied that he could not see his way clear at present. He held out a ray of hope for the future. He evidently remembered the lesson of twenty-five years ago, when the representatives of the various industries of this country waited upon the Finance Minister in the Mackenzie administration and asked that protection be grant-Mr. HEYD.
ed our Canadian industries. He remembered the reply then given by the Finance Minister of that day (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) : ' Governments are but flies on the wheel f I can do nothing for those industries. Go home, work harder, put more elbow grease into your work, and you will get along nicely.' And he remembered too the verdict at the succeeding election. Therefore the hon. gentleman was more wary than his predecessor in the Mackenzie government. He did not say positively, as Sir Richard Cartwright did twenty-flve years ago, that the government were but flies on the wheel. He did not come out flat footed and squarely on the policy of free trade or revenue tariff, in which he is generally supposed to be a thorough believer. No, he put the manufacturers off with the plea that at some future day they might obtain the desire of their hearts. At some future day he was quite willing to abandon, even more than he has done already, those principles which, during so many years, he had advocated throughout the country. Evidently the desire to retain comfortable office had greater weight and power over him than his inclination to stand by his principles, and so he hedged on that question.
Then we had a speech from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) and it sounded very much as if it were his last speech. He made such a gigantic effort, he spoke at such great length, three and a half hours, he sang so loudly once more the old songs, that he seemed to be concentrating all his remaining vigour into one great valedictory argument before leaving the theatre of parliamentary life. He evidently had a crow to pick with his colleagues, and in this, the closing effort of his parliamentary career, he determined to let them know where he stood. To every one in this House it must be evident that the hon. gentleman is far from comfortable. His memory no doubt harked back to twenty-flve years ago when he regarded the proposal to raise the tariff from 17i to 20 per cent, as the entering of the thin end of the protection wedge, and the contrast must have struck him with his position to-day when he is compelled to remain in the same cabinet with colleagues who have adopted a 35 per cent tariff against the importations from the United States and other countries. And this 35 per cent tariff, he is constrained to declare is a revenue tariff. The position of the hon. gentleman is certainly a humiliating one, and I do not wonder that he must look forward with dismay to the not distant day, predicted by the Minister of Finance, when the representatives of this government, who have all their lives been advocating free trade or a revenue tariff, will make a big rise in their tariff. It is not surprising therefore that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should have been auxi-ous that this should be his last speech, and judging by the effort he made he evidently

felt that he was singing his last song and fighting his last battle.
The next gentleman who addressed the House was the representative for South Brant (Mr. Heyd). From that hon. gentleman we had quite a different tune. He started out determined not to commit himself, he made a huge effort to avoid declaring positively that he was a protectionist, as everybody knows he is, he made a desperate attempt to agree with the government in its tariff policy, but he had not gone very far when he gave up the attempt and broke into a good, sound protectionist's argument. It was indeed an amusing object lesson to see those three hon. gentlemen, who first addressed the House from that side on the Budget, taking each a different view of the tariff. What is the country to understand ? Surely the resolution of the leader of the opposition is a very opportune one. Surely the time has arrived when the government should pronounce itself definitely and distinctly on this tariff question.
What are the arguments advanced why this government should be sustained ? The only one was the prosperity of the country. Well, we on this side are glad to be able to admit that the country is prosperous and are just as proud of that fact as hon. gentlemen opposite. But to say that the country is prosperous is one thing and to credit that prosperity to the government is quite another. Twenty-five years ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce took entirely the opposite view. He then said that governments were but flies on the wheel and could do nothing for the interests of the country. Last night he admitted, nay, urged, that governments can do a good deal. That a wise policy well administered can do considerable for a country is undoubted, but has this government done anything to increase our prosperity ? In order to reply to that question we must go into details. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and those who followed him on that side have a very happy faculty of grouping together our imports and exports, and thus showing a very large trade In the aggregate, and comparing that with our trade five years ago they see a great gain. I do not know, however, that, with the exception of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, there is any hon. member of this House who would have the temerity to maintain that our imports in themselves represent prosperity. The Minister of Trade and Commerce did that last evening. But I would ask how is this country to be benefited by having large importations. Supposing we had large importations and small exports how long could that state of things continue. It could only continue as long as we can raise the money to pay the difference by mortgaging our farms and factories. Is that desirable ? Can anybody possibly contend that that would be a satisfactory condition of affairs ? What is the history of those
countries that have exported more than they imported ? We have an example right along side of us. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that a country cannot export unless she imports, that in order to sell we must buy. That is the old theory, started doubtless at the time of Cobden and Bright, and the hon. gentleman must have been sleeping all these years. But we are living in a practical and not in a theoretical age. We look upon what is transpiring about us and judge by the actual results. What are these results V Until twenty-five years ago the United States imported more than they exported. What was the condition of affairs then ? Not only millions but billions of dollars of British capital floated into that country to develop its resources. British capital owned the American railways, it operated the American factories, and the greater number of American industries. About twenty-five years ago these American industries became developed to a large extent and the United States began to export more than they imported. They became wealthier year after year. They have paid off portions of the capital they had borrowed, lifted the mortgages upon their farms and factories, and bought in the stocks of their railways. Tear by year they became more masters in their own house, until, about five years ago, when the value of commodities rose very rapidly. Then their exports took a tremendous bound and their exports for five years past amounted to the enormous sum of $2,600,000,000 more than their imports. Has it made them poor ? Does it appear that the United States are in a deplorable condition because they are selling more than they are buying ? For twenty-five years they have been selling more than they have bought, and during the last five years their surplus of exports over imports has been enormous. And they continue to do it. Does anybody presume to say that they will not continue to do it ? What is their condition to-day ? Not only have they got possession of their own industries and their own railways, not only have they been able to pay off their mortgages and to relieve, to a large extent, their municipalities and states of debt, but they are reaching out all over the world to find places to invest that large amount of money they have made by exporting more than they have imported. They are coming into our country and buying our industries and our railways. They are going into London whence twenty-five or thirty years ago came the money that built up the United States and are buying industries there. They are going into France, they are going into Russia, into South American states, into Mexico-they are going all over the world, to find investments for the enormous sums they have made by exporting more than they imported.


Robert Holmes: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith, Wentworth) allow me to ask him a question ?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Certainly.


Robert Holmes: Will the hon. gentleman tell me how it was that, from 1879 to 1894, during the national policy, the imports of Canada were larger than the exports every year ?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: That is an exactly similar state of affairs. Let these industries continue under a protective tariff, as is proposed by this resolution, and instead of importing $75,000,000 of goods from the United States, millions from Germany and from other countries, our own industries will be able to supply our market, and we shall be in the position of the United States, viz., by exporting more than we import. Now, Mr. Speaker


Robert Holmes: The hon. gentleman has not answered the question.


An hon. MEMBER.: You are very hard to please.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Aside from
the attempt to bolster up a bad cause by always speaking of the prosperity of the country, and pretending that it is the result of their policy, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce made some statements that are worthy of a word in passing. In contending that, under the policy of the Conservative administration the country had not developed and been as prosperous as it would have been had the policy he proposed been carried out, he referred to the case of Manitoba and the North-west, and argued that the Conservative policy had been injurious to the people of the North-west, and that if the policy that he and his government twenty-five years ago had adopted, had been continued, the development of the North-west would have been greater than it is to-day. Everybody must have been surprised to hear the hon. gentleman make such a statement, as we were surprised to-day to hear the hon. member for South Brant try to maintain that proposition, in the face of the well known fact that the government of which the present Minister of Trade and Commerce was a member over twenty-five years ago opposed, tooth and nail, the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the principal, almost the sole, means of developing the country. It was the Conservative party that, in the face of all difficulties and notwithstanding the criticisms and opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite, built the Canadian Pacific Railway. Hon. gentlemen opposite at that time maintained that this was a work far beyond the power of this country. They maintained that it would bankrupt the Dominion and that the road would never pay for the axle grease for the wheels. Yet, in spite of the determined opposition of the most powerful men in the Liberal party, the Conservative party carried out what they proposed to do, and finally built the road-; not with 'water stretches,' but a railroad from one end of the country to the other.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: And everybody to-day, whether Grit or Tory, no matter what his politics may be, agrees that the Canadian Pacific Railway has been the great means of binding the provinces together and developing the resources of the North-west as they could never have been developed without it. How can these lion, gentlemen stand up and say, of all things, that their policy would have developed the North-west ?
The Minister of Trade and Commerce also had some criticism to make with regard to the number of people coming to this country. He said that under the late administration there were not so many immigrants as are now coming to Canada. I well remember reading-I was not then a member of this House-whenever these sums of money were asked by the Finance Minister in those days for immigration, and they were small sums compared with those that are now spent, hon. gentlemen opposite declared that it was useless to spend money to bring in immigrants to this country. The late government spent about $125,000 on immigration during their last year of office, but this government spends about $500,000. If the late government had spent equally large sums, no doubt they could have brought in a great many more immigrants than they did. It does not lie in the mouths of opponents of the late government to complain on this score.
Now, in order to show that this government is, in no measure, responsible for the prosperity we now enjoy, as I said before, we must investigate the different items. I have spoken only of imports. I do not think there are many people in this country that think imports alone bring prosperity. Now, I must confess that the government can do a great deal, not only with regard to the exports, but also with regard to the imports. What did the government preceding this one do ? Let us take an example. When they came into power we imported 7,000,000 pounds of raw cotton. Now we import over 40,000,000 pounds. What does that mean ? That means simply this-that there are employed in this country many thousands of hands manufacturing this cotton. And so it is in every line of industry that was protected in 1879. That is what that government did to build up the industries of this country, bring in population and retain in the country the people that we had.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce criticised the Conservative government for allowing immigration to flow from this country and so many Canadians to go to the States. I was wondering what would have been the result if his principle had been adopted and if, instead of having the protective tariff, which even hon. gentlemen opposite are bound to admit has built up this country, his policy of a revenue tariff had been carried out. How many more Canadians would have gone from this country to the United States ? Surely when hon. gentlemen opposite themselves

have been obliged to accept this protective principle, although they say they have cut off a little twig here and there, they must admit it would have been injurious to this country and that we would not have had so many people retained in this country from 1878 forward, if their policy had been adopted. They furnish us the proof themselves. So I cannot understand, no one can understand how, if from 1878 forward, any policy which the hon. gentlemen opposite have ever proposed had been carried out, the Canadians who have left this country could have been retained in it. Until they show that I contend they have not proved their case.
When I say that a government can do a good deal to make the people prosperous, X refer to the imports for the present, or rather the power the government exercise through the tariff in compelling the manufacture in this country of the large quantities of goods that are imported. In that way government can do a good deal in regard to imports. But what about exports ? In regard to exports the government have limited powers. I am sure they will not contend that it has been through their instrumentality that we have got better prices in the old country during the last five years for our cheese, butter and various products of the farm. In what way then can they benefit industries and increase exports 7 I think that can be done to a limited extent by improving the facilities for manufacture, by improving the education of the people, and by giving better opportunities for production and providing better transportation facilities. Now, let us examine in detail what our exports have been; let us see what the government have been doing during the last five years to encourage larger exports. I find that for the fiscal year ending the 30th of June last, our exports increased over the previous year by $16,733,000. We find that the exports of gold amounted to $24,445,000 against $14,148,000 the year before, leaving $10,296,673 of gain in our exports of gold. Now in what way have the government been responsible for that increased export of gold ? Is it not a notorious fact that the royalty levied by this government, and their exactions on the miners in the Yukon territory, have been greater and have made it harder for the miners there than in any other country 7 That has been a notorious source of complaint. I am not criticising the government for exacting this royalty, I am only saying that under those conditions they have made it harder for the miner to produce gold for export, and consequently they cannot claim any credit for those increased exports of gold. There is another fact, this $10,000,000 of gold does not altogether represent added wealth to this country, because it has been largely taken out of the country in the pockets of American miners who have gone with it. Then I find that the total exports of the mines have Increased
by $15,752,000; a part of that was gold, and that represents nearly the total increase of our exports for the past year. Now, in what way have the government made it easier for the miners to extract the gold 7 In what way have the government made the mineral products of this country more valuable 7 Can any one answer that question 7 The miners have to work harder, and larger quantities have been exported, but the government cannot in any way be credited with that increase.
Then our manufactures have increased about $2,000,000. In what way are the government to be credited with the increased production of our factories except that they have retained to a large extent the policy of their predecessors 7 The increased output of those factories, Mr. Speaker, is surely attributable, if it is to anything, to the policy of the predecessors of these hon. gentlemen. The policy that established these industries and made them able to manufacture and export is the policy that still exists to a considerable extent. It is the same story over again that we have seen in the United States. The adoption of a protective tariff in that country caused manufacturing industries to spring up, and they grew until they were able to export tremendous quantities of goods. In this country our industries were started in the same way, and had it not been for the tinkering of the tariff by these hon. gentlemen when they came Into power, these industries would have been on a much better footing than they are today, and would have produced more for export. That is one source of complaint I have against the government, that whereas they adopted the principle of a protective tariff, whenever they touched it they touched it to its detriment
They took off the duty on binder twine, and the result is that instead of manufacturing our binder twine now the major portion of it comes from the United States. If they had let it alone we would have had more manufactories in this country, more people engaged, and fewer going to the United States. They took the duty off barbed wire, and what is the result 7 Some of the barbed wire factories closed up, more Canadians gone to the United States to find employment. So I say that wherever they have tinkered with the tariff they have done so to the detriment of the industries of this country. Take the woollen industries as affected by the English preference, and what has been the result? The woollen industries would have been to-day much more prosperous, they would have afforded employment to many more men than at the present time if that business had been let alone. I find in looking over the different articles that we have exported nearly $2,000,000 worth of agricultural implements. Has the policy of the present government made it easier for the implement makers to manufacture for export 7 No, they get

gallon to be made in respect to the matters herein referred to_, and in respect to ail matters connected with the exporting, transportation and marketing of our apples; and thereupon to enact a law to regulate the busiaess in accordance with the facts and circumstances, and with such provisions as may be just and reasonable, and as will tend to remedy and remove the disabilities which have hitherto hampered and jeopardized a most important industry.
Here is another resolution passed at another meeting, and the newspaper report in connection with it says :
The matter of the ocean Transportation of Nova Scotia apples was then takon up by Peter lanes, in a vigorous address in which he roundly scored the Furness, Withy Company for their criminal carelessness in handling our Gravenstelu apples, and his words found a responsive echo in the hearts of every one in the audience, many of whim had been losers of a pcrtion of the $30,000 lost by the exploit of the Et angeltne in cooking 20,000 Darrels of Graven-steins. On motion of Mr. Innes, seconded by Colonel Spurr, it was unanimously carried that;
This association do humbly petition parliament to cause an investigation to be made in respect to all matters connsctid with the exporting, transportation and marketing of our apples and thereupon, 'o enuot a 'aw to regulate the business in accordance with the facts and circumstances, and with such provisions as may he just and reasonable and as will tend to remedy and remove the disabilities which have hitherto hampered and jeopardized a most important industry.
This will show the sad condition of affairs in the Annapolis valley, where the industry was just getting on its feet, and where they can grow apples as good as can be grown in any part of the world. Three years ago the Furniss-Withy people had some boats that carried apples in good condition. I remember calling the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to a large shipment of apples which arrived in good condition, and in which there were only thirteen barrels slack. I then pointed out to the minister that although this steamer was only fitted up In a primitive fashion, yet that such care was taken of the apples on the voyage, that they were landed in England in prime condition. But these boats were taken off the service and others not so suitable put on-many of them subsidized by the government-and as a result the sorrowful condition of things which I have pointed out prevails. Let us see what are the conditions with regard to the port of Montreal. The minister (Hon. Mr. Fisher) has secured the placing of fans on a number of vessels sailing from that port, but it is one thing to put fans on a vessel and it is another thing to make sure that the fans are operated during the voyage. I remember very well that some fifteen years ago the apple shippers of Canada induced one line of steamers to put a few fans on some of their vessels. We found, however, that the apples were not carried in any appreciably better condition, and when we made an investigation


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: we found that the boats operated the fans while in the harbour, but when they got out to sea they stopped the fans because it cost a little money. I believe that to-day this very same thing will account for the apples shipped from Montreal not arriving in a better condition on the English market. I believe that some of these vessels did operate their fans and did carry out the regulations, and as a consequence the apples arrived in good condition, but on the other hand some of these vessels did not operate the fans, and the result was very injurious to the shipment of apples. I took the trouble to write to a number of receivers of apples in the old country, gentlemen who handle large quantities of our apples and who are In the best position to judge of the condition in which the fruit arrives. I asked them about this matter, and I shall read an extract from the reply of one of these gentlemen which will throw some light on the question.
As far as the export trade to Europe is eon oerned unfortunately we cannot say as far as our rwn observation is concerned that the system of ventilation, and cooling chambers introduced upon steamers sailing from Montreal to Liverpool has been a success. As certainly the steamers that carried apples under the above systems did not land their fruit in as good condition, as steamers that were not ventilated by mechanical means. You must not take from this that we think mechanical means of ventilation should not he used.
The trouble we think with the steamers from Montreal not carrying their fruit in better condition was that they did not work the system properly.
The writer has just been looking up averages made upon apples carried during the present month upon steamers with and without exhaust ventilation. Two steamers sailed from Boston within 24 hours of each other and arrived here within that length of time of each other, and thoir fruit was sold the same day. With result that on the apples we had on them there was a difference of fully two shillings per barrel in favour of the steamer that used exhaust ventilation. We, fortunately only had a very few on the steamer without exhaust ventilation, although we have considered her one of thp best ai pie carriers sailing between Boston and Liverpool. We had a much larger quantity arrive the following week on a steamer of the same line, and a good carrier. Upon the one with exhaust ventilation we had 2,135 barrels which ateraged 14s. 8d. per barrel while upon, the one without exhaust ventilation we had 1.603 barrels and they averaged 11 shillings 11 pence per bairel or a difference In favour of ;he steamer with exhaust ventilation of ?s. 9d. per barrel. The fruit was packed almost entirely by the same, men, and the quality of the apples on the steamer without exhaust system was if anything superior to the 'others, but they landed in a much worse condition, although they were stowed In the peak hatch, whith is considered the best place on any steamer for carrying apples.
We are mow using our best efforts to have the same system of ventilation Introduced upon all steamers that carry apples, and have great

hopes of it t>3ing introduced in a number of steamera before another season opens. We certainly will not rest until it is accomplished, and have given instructions to all our representatives to favour the steamers that have introduced the system, and that give it proper attention, as we certainly think those steamers with the fans in, which sailed from Montreal to Liverpool were not properly attended to or they would have landed fruit in better condition. Now, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that what the Minister of Agriculture ought to do is first of all to insure that every steamer leaving Montreal or Halifax and carrying perishable products, whether apples, cheese, or any thing else, shall be equipped with apparatus that will secure a free circulation of air through the compartments in which the perishable products are carried. Then, having done that, the Minister of Agriculture has only performed part of his duty. It is very easy for these steamers to put in fans which will only cost a few dollars, but the minister must go further and he must take care that these fans are operated during the voyage across the ocean. That, the Minister of Agriculture can easily do. He can put a thermograph in each compartment of the steamer in which these perishable products are carried, and he can put another thermograph on the deck. He can lock these thermographs and when the vessel reaches England one of the number of officers whom he has watching the fruit business there, can unlock the thermographs and can see at a glance whether the fans have been worked during the voyage or not. If the fans have been operated the readings of the thermographs in the holds will be almost identical with the reading of the thermograph on deck. The Minister of Agriculture can have absolute and positive proof as to the working of the fans by this means. It therefore lies in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, to enable the farmers of Canada to export every pound of cheese and butter, and every barrel of apples to the old country in a sound and marketable condition. Thus preventing the great losses we have experienced in the past.
Let us touch on another item of our exports, that is, butter. In the last fiscal year we exported $3,355,197 worth of butter, or $2,074,366 worth less than the year before. Where is the hand of the Minister of Agriculture that our exports of butter have thus decreased instead of increased ? What has become of that magnificent system of cold storage which was to be established all over this country ? To hear the hon. gentleman talk in this House and out of it at different times, you would have thought that he had magnificent cold storage warehouses at all the ports of debarkation, and a chain of cold storage warehouses, as he called them, from one end of this country to the other, and that by this time, instead of exporting only $3,000,000 worth of butter a year, we would be exporting twenty or 47
thirty million dollars' worth, as the little country of Denmark is doing. On investigation, this so called chain of cold storage warehouses turns out to be what ? The Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, when called on, furnish a refrigerator car and put ice in it for the purpose of transporting butter along their lines. These cars go along the different lines of railway picking up butter at different factories, and no doubt in most cases soon secure a carload, but the shipper in any case is charged less carload rate, which is a very good thing indeed for the railway companies carrying carloads of butter at less carload rates, and the government paying for the ice. That is what the government has done-made arrangements with the railway companies' that these cars shall be provided. But that is not enough to justify the bragging about what has been done for the butter industry of this country. The arrangement is a good thing for the railroads and is of some advantage to the country ; but what has the Minister of Agriculture been doing that our exports of butter have decreased from $5,000,000 worth to $3,000,000 worth V It seems that almost everything that hon. gentleman touches goes backward. Two or three years ago the hon. gentleman boasted a good deal about arranging with the United States to raise the quarantine against our cattle, so as to make it easier for our farmers to export their cattle to that country, where they might be fattened instead of at home. One might think that the result would be that our exports of cattle to the United States would increase. But I find that the farmers know their business better than the hon. gentleman, for instead of exporting $1,401,137 worth, as they did in 1900, they have had the good sense in 1901 to export only $891,300 worth to the United States, doubtless fattening them at home, and selling them for export at $60 to $100 per head, instead of $10 to $15 to the States as lean cattle or calves. These are some of the items with regard to which the government could have exercised some influence in increasing the quantity of our exports, and have benefited the farmers and the people of this country generally; and I am sure that any one who investigates the subject without bias must come to the conclusion that the Minister of Agriculture has not done any small portion of his duties in these very important matters.
In the course of the argument of the hon. gentleman who preceded me, it was contended that the government was in some way responsible for the vast increase in our exports during the past five years, and ought to receive some credit for it. The truth of the matter is that our exports have not increased in quantity so much as in value. The volume of our exports has gone on gradually increasing from year to year, whether this government or the previous



government lias been in power, which has proved to my mind that the population has increased steadily from year to year, and not, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce contended, that all the increase has been in the last five years. When I look up the figures, I find that our exports have increased in quantity in an average ratio, and that there has not been a very great difference in the past five years as compared with the previous five years. Was it the government that caused the value of these products to increase in the last five years ? No, it was the prosperity of the buyer in the old country and the United States. Take cheese, for example, ona of our largest and most profitable exports. In 1S91 we exported 106,202,140 pounds. In 1896, after those depressing times when our exports did not increase as rapidly as they have done in the past five years in value, the quantity had increased to 104,089,123 pounds, an increase of 55 per cent. But during the past five years the increase in quantity has been but 19 per cent. This shows that the people have been working away just about the same in one period as in the other, and it is fair to conclude that the population has been increasing in the same proportion. Take another item-wheat. The quantity exported in 1891 was 2,108,216 bushels, and in 1896, 9,919,542 bushels, an increase of 370 per cent, whereas in 1901 the quantity exported was 9,739,758 bushels, a decrease of 2 per cent. I mention these figures for the purpose of showing that whereas the quantity of wheat exported during the first period increased 370 per cent, the value only increased 264 per cent, and that in the last period, while the quantity exported decreased 2 per cent, the value increased 19 per cent. Who placed this increased value on the wheat-the hon. gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches, or the British buyer ? Take another item-lumber, or planks and boards, one of the largest exports of the products of the forest. The quantity we exported in 1891 was 807,859,000 feet, and in 1896, 818,529,000 feet, an increase of but 1 per cent in the quantity, while the value actually decreased 5 per cent. In the next five years, while the quantity actually decreased by 11 per cent, the value increased 10 per cent. Are hon. gentlemen opposite to be credited with that increase ? Did they increase the price of our lumber, or did the British buyer and the American buyer ? So I could go through all the different industries. Take bacon. During the first period our exports of bacon increased in volume 558 per cent, and during the last period they increased only 119 per cent in volume. Here is an industry which is an example of what the government can do to improve the affairs of the country. Before the Conservative administration placed a high duty on pork, we were buying pork from abroad ; we were not exporting any. Enormous quantities of American


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: ing to our own prosperity. What would be another result ? It would he this, that our ships would have more goods to carry from the other side to our shores. Instead of coming across, as a large number of them do, in ballast, they would come across loaded, and that would give us lower freights on our exports. In that way therefore our producers would be largely benefited. In that respect we to-day occupy a very unsatisfactory position. Instead of British ships coming back to this country loaded, they only bring back $40,000,000 worth of goods, although they carry from this country $100000,000 worth. Then we bring back goods in condensed form, for one ship will bring back as much value as five ships carry away. Things are not in that position in the port of New York, for the quantity of exports from that port only exceeds the imports by about one-fifth. Therefore by puttiug on a big tariff against the United States, we would cause a considerable portion of American manufactures, which we now import, to be manufactured in this country, and another considerable portion to be manufactured in and imported by us from Great Britain, thus improving our position in every respect. The Minister of Public Works may improve the St. Lawrence channel as much as he pleases- and I shall be delighted if he can improve it to such an extent that steamers may sail through that channel at the highest rate of speed both night and day-we will still be handicapped, as compared with New York and Boston, until such a change is effected in our fiscal policy as will cause a much less disproportion to exist between our imports from Great Britain and our exports to that country. That can only be brought about by shutting out a large proportion of the goods which we to-day buy from the United States.
I may be met by the argument that the result of putting on a stiff duty would bo an increase in prices, that our people would have to pay more. Well, the history of the past does not bear out that theory. I maintain that we are now making in this country a large number of these things which we import from the United States just as good and just as cheap. I maintain that our agricultural implements are as good and as cheap as those made on the other side. Why, then, do Canadians buy $2,000,000 worth of American agricultural implements? Let us get right down to the facts, and we will see. These agricultural implements are sold chiefly through agents, and every man who has ever handled agents knows very well that a good agent can sell a poor article at a high price and a poor agent cannot sell even a good article, in opposition, at a lower price. Our agricultural implements are sold almost entirely through agents. The agent goes about through the country and canvasses the farmers and a good smart tongued seller will persuade them that his
471	'
implement is better than that made by Massey-Harris or Frost & Wood or any other Canadian manufacturer, livery hotly conversant with the business knows that to be the case. I know from my experience in my own business, through my own agents, that a poor agent cannot sell a better article, even at a cheaper price, in competition with a smart agent. The whole thing lies largely with the salesman. We buy half a million dollars worth or more of American shoes, yet we make as good shoes in this country, fit for any Canadian to wear. But the American drummer comes along and persuades the retail merchant that his shoes are better than the Canadian article, and the retailer concludes that he will try them. The smooth slick tongued agent succeeds in making a sale, the shoes are laid on the tradesman's shelves, and he must sell them. Our manufacturers will even buy an American made article when they might just as well buy one of Canadian make.
It is useless to tell the people to be patriotic. I remember very well on one occasion last winter, when at a gathering of the people I tried that argument. I said to them : You ought to be patriotic. We make as good machines as you can get on the other side, we make just as good boots and shoes, and yet you will buy $75,000,000 worth of American goods when you can get just as good value at the same or lower prices in our own country. Why do you not encourage manufactures and thus add to the population and prosperity of our country and enlarge our own home markets. Not only the merchant and the factory people but the farmers and the producers of every kind will benefit by this building up of our own Industries. That seemed to take very well with the audience, but to my surprise a clergyman followed me and repeated the very argument which the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave us last night. He said: I am afraid that the arguments of Mr. Smith are not very sound, because in order to sell you must buy. That was the very argument used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce last night. But I have shown by the example of the United States, and it can be shown by the example of many countries, that it is not necessary to buy in order to sell. The United States sell $100,000,000 worth of goods and buy only $40,000,000 from us.
The United States export $2,640,000,000 more than they import in five years. There is a living example that it is not necessary for any nation or individual to buy in order to sell. I was gratified, on coming home from that meeting, to read an address made by the Finance Minister the night before at some banquet along the same line, declaring that it would be a patriotic thing for Canadians to buy Canadian goods and urged strongly, that they do so. The lion. Minister of Finance did not suppose that, before one short year rolled round the

Minister of Trade and Commerce would- from his seiat alongside of him-tell him, that people, in order to sell must buy. Now, no amount of talk, no amount of persuasion, nothing but putting up the tariff wall a little higher-a good deal higher if necessary-will induce the people of this country to buy Canadian goods entirely or nearly so. It is due chiefly to throughtless-ness. But it would be a happy condition of affairs, having the goods in this country, or having the facilities to make them to have the people induced to buy the goods. It is said that the manufacturers would charge enormous prices and that the consumer would suffer. But the government has shown, as in the case of the paper combine, that it has the remedy in its own hands. If a combination exists in any industry, the government can apply the remedy at once. Considering these facts, I think it is the duty of every member of this House to vote for the amendment presented by the hon. leader of the opposition. That amendment is certainly along the line of progress made in the past. And, judging by our experience and the experience of the United States who adopted that policy and prospered under it, such a policy must inure to the benefit of the country. Having the facilities we have, and the resources we have, under no other policy can we succeed so well. I am glad to know that there are on the other side a number of gentlemen imbued with the same spirit. I imagine that before many years the party that is now in power will take up that policy. When once the Minister of Trade and Commerce and a few more of the old war-horses who have talked so long and hard against this policy are removed to good places, Senatorships or Lieut.-Governorships, I feel sure that the master hand of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) will assert itself. And that the hon. gentleman will be supported in bringing this policy by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd). He will be supported by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell), who has of late, become a convert to the principle. Living, as he formerly did, in the county of Kent, and representing that county, a county that had beans to sell, it is natural that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) should favour commercial union, unrestricted reciprocity, free trade with the United States, and so on. But, having removed to a county where he is surrounded by protectionist influences, he has become converted. Whether it was the influence in and about Toronto, or honest conviction,
I am not prepared to say. But I am pleased that the hon. gentleman has come out boldly and ideclared his conversion. Having read some of his addresses of a few years ago in this House, I am bound to say that of all the anti-protectionists, of all the men who opposed that policy tooth and nail, he was one of the strongest.
Ml'. SMITH (Wentworth).
I do not know whether the Minister of Public Works can be spoken of as having been converted. But he is a leader in the movement; and, knowing as we do that he has the whiphand of the administration, I believe that before many years the government will do what they have done on many occasions before, steal the policy of the leader of the opposition, and that, two or three years from now, we shall have them coming before the country proposing the same kind of a tariff as is declared for in this amendment.


Mr. DONALD  A.@: MACKINNON (East Queens, P.E.I.) After the interesting addresses to which we have listened, Mr. Speaker, and considering the lateness of the hour, it becomes me, in speaking upon the subject now before the House, to make my remarks brief. The hon. Minister of Finance has made his motion for a Committee of Ways and Means and the leader of the opposition has proposed the following amendment:
That, all the words after * that ' in the proposed motion he left out, and the following substituted therefor :
This House regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries, as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians. And, while thus firmly maintaining the necessity of such protection to Canadian interests, this House affirms its belief in a policy of reciprocal trade preferences within the empire.
Now, it seems to me that the leader of the opposition must have a very keen sense of grim humour when he resurrects from a motion moved in this House in 1878 the main part of his amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. MACKINNON.: I am glad the supporters of the lender of the opposition understand that it was, in effect, the resolution of 1878-they are not working in the dark. The preference part of the resolution of course is new. The last speaker, as well as the leader of the opposition, informed us that under such a policy the people would pay increased prices. I thiuk I took down the words of the leader of the opposition correctly, that ' the people would pay slightly increased prices to protect the manufacturers.' That goes, of course, to the root of the question.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Mr. MacKinnon) does not quote me exactly. I said I thought that prices would not increase, that competition would keep prices down.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: I am willing to accept the explanation. I thought I had the words correctly. But the sentiment was reasonably clear.


Robert Laird Borden: My words are reported in * Hansard.'


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: I think we substantially agree. The hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith) said he wished to have the tariff wall put up, and that prosperity would follow such a policy, as it diid in the United States. But, in the first part of his speech, that hon. gentleman said that we already had prosperity. 1* do not see why he should revert to the old resolution of 1878 in order to bring prosperity which is already here, particularly as that resolution and the high tariff which was the outcome of it did not bring anything like the prosperity that the present policy has brought. There are a few principles laid down by the last speaker, which I think it is my duty to refer to. He stated at the outset that he was a practical man and believed in practical politics. Yet, toe does not suggest a single commodity the duty on which he desires to have changed. Had he suggested an increase in the duty on any article, I would not at once agree that the change would result in advantage to Canada. It might plainly result in good to some part of Canada. But, being something of a practical man myself, I would look into that subject and see how it affected the whole of Canada, and perhaps I would come to the conclusion that it would be better to increase duty on that particular item. That is the way, it seems to me, that a practical man should consider any question of changing the duty. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith, Wentworth) did not give us a single practical suggestion but dealt in theories throughout his whole speech. And the amendment of the leader of the opposition to the extent that it expresses anything at all, expresses a mere theory. From a practical point of view it is a resolution into Which we can read anything-even our revenue tariff or any other tariff method. Now I will admit that there is one conspicuous instance in which that tariff has not operated satisfactorily, indeed it operates unsatisfactorily,' and that is to the success of the Conservative party in Canada.


Mr. HENDERSON.: That is an old story.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: I never heard it before, I gathered that idea from reading the resolution, and noting its disastrous effects on the national policy leaders in the elections of 1900. I regret to repeat a chestnut for the hon. gentleman, because I suppose he is not accustomed to hearing it. Now, the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) says that it will not do to take the total trade of the country as an argument to show prosperity, but that we must take the imports. So he proceeds to consider the imports, and at one blow he destroys his argument by stating that the imported goods should be manufactured here. He is opposed to any importations at all. He says that the imports represent prosperity, and
in the next breath he says we should not have any imports at all ; I hardly see how he can make both these arguments coincide. He instanced Germany, and says that we should not import from Germany. He instanced Belgium and the United States, and says we should manufacture in this country the goods we import from these countries. He forgets that we export to these countries as well as import from them. For instance, in the case of Belgium, we import $3,783,919 worth of goods from that country, and export $2,806,142 worth. In the case of Germany, we exported $2,141,552, and we imported $6,679,264. In the case of the United States we imported $119,000,000, and exported $72,000,000 worth. If the principle he lays down is a solid one, and if all nations adopted it, what would happen ? Why, no nation would have any imports at all, and where would our exports go ? International trade would cease. The position is evidently one that no reasonable man can accept, because it is only by the whole trade of a country that we can gauge that country's prosperity.
Now, what prosperity have we had ? The hon. gentleman admits we have prosperity, and I wish for a moment to present some instances of our prosperity as affected by the tariff. The hon. gentleman says that the government should get no credit for the prosperity that exists, and then he proceeds to show that values do not represent the increased prosperity at all. He says that the increase in value occurs in this way : The countries that purchased goods from us, if times are good, are able to pay more for these'- articles. That is the position he takes. He admits the increase in value and not in quantity, but he does not give any credit to the government for it. One important factor he forgets, and that is the part the people themselves play in the production and manufacture of these articles. He forgets to give the agriculturist and the manufacturer credit for their work. I for one am not unwilling to give credit to the men who produce the articles. I think it is owing largely to the people themselves that we have such a large export and import trade.
We have had governments and governments, and certainly this government is deserving of considerable credit when we compare what has been going on under their administration with what went on under a former government. I intend to make a few comparisons between the two administrations. The total trade during the last year the Conservatives were in power amounted to $239,025,360. Last year the total trade was $386,903,157, an increase of nearly $150,000,000. Now, that increase did not take place under the tariff enacted in 1878, it has occurred under the present tariff. Yet the opposition bring forth an amendment declaring that the operations of the present tariff are unsatisfactory- How

can any reasonable man state that tihe operation of a tariff is unsatisfactory under which the trade of the country has increased $150,000,000, in round numbers, in five years ? How can any reasonable man vote for such an amendment ? I appeal to the common sense of lion, gentlemen opposite whether they can support such an amendment by their votes in view of this great increase under the present tariff. I must say that when the present tariff was enacted I for one would never have dared to predict the enormous results that have resulted from its operation; and I believe that neither of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken in favour of the amendment would have dared to predict that Canada would have seen such a marvellous development in her trade as has taken place.
Now, let me deal with the imports. In 1890 these amounted to $118,011,508 ; in 1901 they amounted to $190,415,525, or an increase of nearly $90,000,000 in imports alone. The duties collected upon these imports amounted in 1901 to over $29,000,000, and in 1890 to $20,000,000 ; so that the duty amounts to only about $9,000,000 more in 1901 than it did in 1S9G. Had the famous old national policy remained in force, instead of collecting $9,000,000 more, the government of the day would have collected a much larger amount in duty upon goods imported into Canada ; and if hon. gentlemen who are in favour of this amendment think that the government should have collected many millions more of duty than they did, I beg to differ with them. Now, there is this important point to be noticed, that of all the goods imported in 1901 there came into Canada for the benefit of the people $71,730,938 free of duty. Perhaps it is that particular result of the tariff that our hon. friends opposite object to, it may be unsatisfactory to them in that respect. 1 have not heard any of them point out in what respect the tariff is unsatisfactory. For my part if all the goods came in free I think the people would be satisfied.
I will refer to the exports. In 1896 these amounted to $121,000,000 odd, and in 1901 to $196,000,000 odd, showing an enormous increase of $75,000,000 and over. I have simply gone into a few of the details of our exports and I would like to refer to them. Take our fisheries, for instance ; in 1896 the value of our exports of the products of our fisheries was $11,183,698, while, in 1901, it was $10,000,000 odd, showing a decrease. I think that the fishing industry deserves to be taken up by the government and some improvements made so that the country will derive more benefit from that important branch of industry. There are many ways in which the fishing industry may be improved and the establishment of hatcheries is one way. The government has been doing very well in providing a system of cold storage for preserving fish, and I hope it will go further with that work so that the


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: industry, instead 6f retrograding shall go ahead. Of animals and their produce in 1896 we exported to the value of $37,404,396, while in 1901, our export of animals and their products totalled $56,299,282. There is an increase of over half as much as the exports five years ago under that famous national policy. The hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) who spoke last endeavoured to make it clear that the government had not accomplished anything to encourage the development of the cheese and dairying industry of the country. But it is evident, and the country knows it well, that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has been introducing the cold storage system into steamers wherever he could. It is already in operation on some steamers, and this year, I understand, seventeen steamers will be equipped with cold storage. This is a system that I believe the hon. Minister of Agriculture is experimenting with, and we cannot expect it to be perfect all at once. If a few losses have occurred, as the hon. member for Wentworth has suggested, this must be expected, because people must necessarily run some risk in experimenting at the outset. But, to further benefit the agricultural interests I would suggest the advisability of establishing more illustration stations throughout the country. If there is one thing more than another that we are interested in it is in advancing the agricultural prosperity of the country in every way possible, and, speaking for my own little province, I can say that the farming community are now in such a position that they understand in a different way from what they formerly did any new methods that are brought to their attention, any improvements that are brought to their knowledge in the working of their farms, and they are ready now to adopt everything along the line of improvement. Of course, the farmers of Ontario for some years have been engaged in a dairying and cheese business and have led the way in those important branches of agriculture. Down in the eastern provinces we are following in their footsteps and we are after all a portion of the same body politic and we wish to share in the general advancement of the country. In agricultural products, in 1896, the exports amounted to $17,900,000 and in 1901 to $3S,568.000, an increase in value of more than double the total exports of five years ago. When an hon. gentleman says that this is simply an increase in value, he does not speak by the book, because this is too great an advance to be entirely affected by the value of these products, and I can take the blue-book and sihow him the quantities set forth proving conclusively that there has been a large increase in the volume instead of the value only having been increased. Of the produce of the mine we exported $8,000,000 worth in 1896, and in 1901 the splendid sum of $40,531,314 was realized from our exports, or over five

times as much in 1901 as in 1896. Of course, the Yukon was opened up, but, possibly, if our Conservative friends had remained in power, it would have continued as it had been since Adam's time. In butter we exported, live years ago, .$1,000,000 worth, while in 1901, we exported over $3,000,000 worth, so that hon. gentlemen will see that our exports of butter more than trebled. The hon. member for Wentworth spoke of the slight decrease that had occurred compared with the year before, but he forgot to tell the House that there had been an increase of $2,243,000 as compared with five years ago in the butter trade. There is no doubt that the government are entitled to considerable credit for supplying cold storage wherever they could. They could not force it into steamers, but they have offered subsidies to such steamers as would adopt it. It is remarkable that from Canada we export more butter than they do from the United States. The figures I have of their butter export in 1900 show that they sold $3,142,378 worth, while Canada exported in 1900 $5,429,563 worth of butter. In cheese, in 1896, we exported $13,956,000 and in 1901 we exported over $21,000,000 worth, or nearly $7,000,000 of an increase in our cheese export. Of course, the largest part of this cheese was made in the province of Ontario, but I think our own little province comes second or third on the list, and this is remarkable where there is so much farming land. It shows the farmers there have been benefited by the addresses given by the gentlemen sent down to the island by the government and that a new era has opened up for that province. Everything looks brighter than in the past. This amount of cheese which we exported in 1901 was the largest amount ever exported from Canada. There is no year previous in which the export comes anywhere near to it. It was over $21,000,000 in 1901. Comparing this export with the export of cheese from the United States we find that they sent out $4,939,255 worth, or only about one-quarter or one-fifth as much cheese as we did. In 1806, in eggs, we exported $S07,000 worth, while last year we exported $1,692,296 worth, an increase of $885,000, an increase of more than double in the egg trade. In bacon and hams, in 1896, we exported $4,000,000 worth and in 1901 $11,000,000 worth, or nearly treble the amount, and yet sime hon. gentlemen grumble about the condition of the bacon and ham industry. In beef and mutton only $28,000 worth were exported the last year the Conservatives were in power, while last year over $826,000 worth were exported, showing an increase of nearly $800,000. Of fruits we exported, in 1896, $1,700,000 worth, and in 1901 $2,000,000 worth. Now, the government deserves credit for taking a greater interest than ever has been taken before in
the fruit industry and in horticulture. Of wheat, in 1896, we exported $5,000,000 worth, and in 1901 over $13,000,000 worth. Of flour of wheat, in 1896, we exported $718,000 worth, and in 1901 we exported $4,030,746 worth. Our export of our total grain products amounted in 1896 to $1,000,000, and in 1901 over $4,500,000, with one exception that of the year 1898, the largest export of grain in the history of the country.
I shall not confine my remarks to agricultural products alone, but I shall refer to a few of our manufacturing products in order to show the prosperity that exists in this branch of our national life. I have given a few examples to show that the farmer is marvellously increasing his exports, and now I trust to be able to prove that the manufacturer is benefiting as well. I am not of that class of radical free traders who would favour free trade through thick and thin and deny just favours to the manufacturers or to any other class of people in Canada. I want to see the manufacturer and the farmer working hand in hand and prospering together. I can observe now more than ever before, that in certain portions of Canada our manufacturing interests are deserving of more encouragement than I formerly thought they deserved. I did hold, and I still hold, very strong free trade views, but as one hon. member has said,
I believe in practical politics, and I believe in doing what is fair to each section of the country, so that we may benefit as a whole people. Take the manufacture of agricultural implements in Canada, and we find that $1,749,000 worth were exported last year as against $593,000 worth exported in 1896 under the old Conservative tariff. There certainly is an instance where the manufacturer has benefited under the Liberal tariff. Our people are able to manufacture more of these implements and to export more, bringing wealth back to the country, than they did before the Liberal partv came into power. Surely there is nothing "in that to show that the present tariff is unsatisfactory. I would like some solid sound reason against the existing tariff te-fore I could vote for the amendmeut proposed by the hon. member (Mr. Borden). It is true that you may find that a few manufacturers complain, but those are the men who want to make money personally. They do not complain because they seek the general welfare of the country. I believe that any manufacturer who wants any change which would be in the general interest of Canada, will get that change made by the present government, but the man who wants a change for the benefit of his own pocket will not and ought not get it at the expense of the country. One gentleman on the other side complained of the number of carriages that were imported into Canada, but I can point him to the fact that over $450,000 worth of carriages, including carts, bicycles, &c., were exported from Canada

1488'
last year. I can see no reason why carriages should not be imported into Canada just as well as we export them from Canada to other countries. Again let me point out that $75,000 worth of boots and shoes were exported from Canada in 189(5, and that last year we exported $200,000 worth ; in 189(5 we exported leather and manufactures of leather to the value of $1,995,000 and last year to the value of nearly $2,500,000. Surely these enormous increases show increased activity in trade. These figures strike me, Sir, as very excellent reasons why we should support the present tariff. Under this tariff the country has progressed by leaps and bounds and when the hon. leader of the opposition proposes that we should change existing conditions, he should be able to give some sound reason to induce us to make the change. That reason I have not yet heard. Reference has been made during the debate to the increase of the public debt. There is no doubt that the public debt lias been slightly increased, but we should remember that if there is a large public expenditure it is in the interests of the country that it should be so. If there is any unwise expenditure of public money then it should be condemned, but no man who knows the extent of our country and the resources which we have to develop, will deny the necessity of an increase in the public debt for useful public purposes. I will take some credit to the present government for some features in connection with the increase in public debt, and I will make a comparison. In 1896 we paid in interest on the public debt $10,502,429. and in 1901 the interest amounted to $10,807,954. We are now paying $305,000 more interest on the public debt than we paid five years ago, but on the other hand this government is receiving more interest on its investments than the Conservative government received. In 1896 the government received as interest on investments $1,317,000, and in 1901 we received from the same source $1,784,000 making an increase of $414,833, or a balance in our favour-comparing the interest which we pay now on the public debt with the interest which was paid in 1896, and the interest which we receive now on investment with the interest which we received formerly-a balance in our favour of $109,308. On the whole this government is paying less interest than did the Conservative government, and we are having the benefit of the expenditure of more money in the country. I call that good financing, and I am quite sure that the gentlemen opposite will give credit to this government where credit is due. 1 repeat that in view of the larger rate of interest we receive on our investments, we are actually paying less interest charges than did the Conservative government five years ago. I shall not trouble the House with a reference to the expenditure because gentlemen on the other side have voted for each ' Mr. MacKINNON.
I item of almost this total expenditure session after session, and to that extent they have endorsed the expenditure. That is the best answer to any complaint that may be made as to the increase of our annual expenditure. As another indication of the prosperity of the country I might mention that the total deposits in the Post Office savings banks alone have increased by $11,000,000. I would point out also that the larger share of our exports during the year have gone to Great Britain. We sent to Great Britain $105,000,000 worth and to the United States $72,000,000. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) has suggested that we should follow somewhat in the footsteps of the United States. I take issue with him there. His amendment is intended to retaliate in some measure against the United States. That would be an unwise policy for us to adopt. We as sensible men, must use our judgment and frame our tariff regardless of the tariff adopted by any other country. It would be foolish for us, because they increased their tariff that we should increase ours in proportion in order to hit back. It would be a senseless policy for us to adopt. We are after all but a young country in comparison. Many of our people are living happily on the other side, and the disposition of the United States towards us is, I think, friendly, as our disposition towards the United States should continue to be. They have put up a high protective tariff, but we have the word of the late President McKinley in his last speech that their intention was to reduce their tariff and gradually get it to a revenue tariff basis. I believe that if President McKinley had lived he would have changed the old United States tariff, which undoubtedly was injurious to us at the time it was adopted.
I have now a few words to say with reference to the administration of our railways. The Intercolonial Railway is to-day in splendid condition and its accommodations are equal to those of any railway on the American continent.


Mr. BROOK.: Does it pay as well ?


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: It pays better than when the Conservatives were in power; that is the point. You cannot expect a railway to make as good a showing when it is being thoroughly equipped-(when new cars are being built, new engines being purchased, new ties and rails being laid. The revenue from the railway in the past year has, I think, been greater than in any previous year. Then, there is the Post Office Department, from which we are all deriving great benefits. A great many new post offices have been opened up throughout the country, and greater conveniences have been given to the people. The new system adopted by the Postmaster General will cause his name to go down to posterity side by side with some of the postal reformers of England.

I cannot close without referring also to the Public Works Department, which we all know to be one of the most important departments of the government. We find from one end of Canada to the other public works being constructed for the general improvement and advancement of the country, and transportation facilities being provided. All these things will help the farmers and manufacturers ; we cannot do without them. We find hon. gentlemen opposite complaining of the increase of the debt, and yet asking for more public works-a very peculiar position to take. I feel satisfied, as a representative of the people, that in every department of the public service we have men in charge who are entitled to the public confidence and the praise of men of good judgment, for their ability in managing the affairs of the country ; and they are led by a leader who is beloved and trusted by our people all over Canada. What is the use of our people sending up this prayer from our churches and elsewhere :
With bounteous times our cities crown, Our fields with plenteousness.
If when that prayer is answered hon. gentlemen come into this House and say that this country is dissatisfied with one of the methods by which this prosperity is brought about.
Mr. RICHARD BRAIN (Peel) moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 20, 1902.