1902-04-01

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 80) to incorporate the Huron and Erie Canal Company.-Mr. Calvert.

Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to the census returns numbers 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, in which the halfbreeds of Manitoba and the North-west Territories are classified as Indians. I do not think that it was the intention of the census takers to classify these people as Indians, and I believe they are thus classified owing to some mistake. Is the hon. minister prepared to make a change ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: My attention has been drawn to this, and I propose to make a change in the wording which will meet the views expressed by the hon. gentleman.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to he granted to His Majesty ; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
['PRINGLE (Cornwall and Stormont) moved the adjournment of the debate.']
Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings).: After having enjoyed, Mr. Speaker, the brief holiday afforded for the proper and due observance of the Easter period, I venture to hope that hon. members of the ministry, and the hon. members of this House in general, have returned to their duties to-day imbued with that spirit of forgiveness and forgetfulness which should characterize the feelings of every man in this country towards his fellow men. And for these as well as for other reasons I might urge I bespeak for myself that consideration which, I believe, is characteristic of this House and is accorded to every beginner in political life. We are apt, in the heat of political discussion, to make use of expressions and to give vent to feelings which, in our calmer, moments we would not use and would not give vent to. If I should, in the remarks which I shall endeavour to make to this House this afternoon, trespass in this way, I ask for myself that consideration which I would ask for any other member situated as I am situated here.
Before the adjournment, I listened with careful attention to the deliverance of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) who preceded me in this debate. I listened to the hon. member's address growing; louder and louder in denunciation of the members of the Conservative party and growing louder and louder in praise of the administration of the present Liberal government. If I might be permitted to follow 'the example set by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), I could best illustrate my feelings on hearing that deliverance by the episode of the lady who, upon one occasion was obliged to return to her home alone as the night was falling. She was obliged to pass through a considerable stretch of wood. She reached the edge of the wood as the night was coming on. But she thought she knew her way perfectly well, and boldly ventured on. Night drew on apace and the darkness thickened. Presently a thunderstorm appeared, the clouds began to roll together and thunder was heard in the distance. Louder and louder grew the thunder, just as louder and louder grew the speech of my hon. friend from Guysborough. Little flashes of lightning were seen to dart here and there across the sky. Presently, the Lady lost her way and groped in the dark. In her dilemma, she fell upon her knees and offered this praya- to the Almighty :	' Oh, Lord give
us more light and less noise.' I was very forcibly reminded of that episode as I listened to the speech of the hon. member from Guysborough. That hon. gentleman was pleased to make reference to the speech of the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson) who preceded him. Unintentionally, I think, he paid a very high compliment to the hon. member for South Grey, when he told the House that that hon.


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: member had delivered a very carefully-prepared essay and that he would not undertake to reply. If the hon. member for South Grey had so arranged his faots and so prepared his figures, and if he so delivered himself to this House, as to leave himself open to no criticism from the hon. member for Guysborough, then I say he is entitled not only to the unintentional compliment paid to him by the hon. member, but to the hearty congratulations of this House at large. I should deem it far more honourable to be charged, as the hon. member for South Grey has been, with having carefully prepared my speech, having so arranged my facts and figures as not to leave myself open to unfavourable criticism, than to subject myself to a comment I have heard since the hon. member for Guysborough delivered himself-that that hon. gentleman had the faculty of opening his mouth and letting it say just what it pleased.
The hon. member for Guysborough appeared to be very much troubled over the resolution that was moved by the hon. leader of the opposition and took occasion to inquire w'hat was the meaning of the expression used in that resolution, a ' declared policy.' Well, I am not surprised that the hon. member asked that question. Associated, as he has been for so long a time, with a party which, as a party, have had no declared or definite policy, which, as a party, could not agree amongst themselves as to what their policy should be, and whose only semblance of a policy which they have ever propounded in this House or adhered to in the country is one that they7 purloined from the Liberal-Conservative party, I am not at all surprised at the hon. member being unfamiliar with the phrase 'declared policy,' or asking the leader of the opposition what he meant by it. I do not take it to be the business of the opposition in this House to formulate and declare a policy for the benefit of the government. But I do take it to be the bounden duty of the government to formulate and announce a definite, a * declared policy ' for the benefit of the country. I can well understand the anxiety of the hon. member for Guysborough to have the leader of the opposition expose in full detail what was meant by the expression used in the resolution to which he referred and to give that policy in all its details. For, no doubt, had the leader of the opposition so declared himself, straightway the Liberal party would do as they did when they came into power-they would purloin the policy of the Liberal-Conservative party and claim credit, as they do to-day, for all the benefits growing from that policy. But let me tell the hon. member for Guysborough without disclosing any party secrets that, while we had in 3 878, a national policy, we have now an international policy, one embodying the previous one, but broadening

it, extending its benefits so that it will not only be to the advantage of Canada in particular, but will be to tbe advantage of the empire in general.
The hon. member for Guysborough took occasion to shelter himself and the government he supports from the accusation made against them of neglecting the opportunity they have been afforded during the course of their administration by these words :	' The tariff is the tariff of the Conservative party; if it is unsatisfactory, they are responsible.' Those are his words. Sir,
I deny that position and declare it to be a statement that is not only not in accordance with the facts but it is a direct charge of incompetence against this government. Had he taken occasion to state that the principle of that tariff was the principle supported by the Conservative party, but that it was defective in some of its details and that the government of the day had acknowledged the principle and had acknowledged that the application of it was wanting in some details, I would not have been disposed to quarrel with him, for then it would have been in accordance with the true position.
Sir, no one can properly estimate the detrimental effect of such a hesitating course as has characterized the conduct of this government in regard to that matter. The government has put itself on record that changes are necessary in the tariff and would be beneficial to this country; but they cannot agree amongst themselves what that change ought to be, they cannot agree when that change should take place, and they cannot agree upon what lines they should alter the tariff ; and so the manufacturer, the agriculturist, the labourer, the miner, all the people of this country are left to wallow in this maze of contradiction, and it cannot be expected, so long as this hesitating course is pursued, that capital will flow into the country, or that the industries qf Canada will flourish and increase as we have reason to expect they would increase under a proper administration of the government.
The hon. member was pleased to inform this House that there were some industries that flourished under the present tariff, and he mentioned one in the province from which he comes, the one at New Glasgow. Well, Sir, I venture the assertion that if he had taken the pains to search for evidence throughout the Dominion of Canada he could have found other enterprises, other manufactures of a different character, who are to-day, to use a homely expression, standing upon their last legs for want of some change in the tariff. I venture to say further that had the hon. member taken the trouble to look for evidence, he could have discovered why the industry he referred to in New Glasgow has flourished. It is one of the bounty fed industries of this government, and I think if he had inquired into the contracts given to it by the present government, he would have discovered the cause of the prosperity of that one industry. But, Sir, I do not pretend to say, nor does the Conservative party pretend to say, that the tariff is all wrong, but we do say that it is imperfect, we do say that it requires amending, we do say that such adjustment of that tariff could be made as would be for the advantage of the industrial pursuits of this country. But while we say that, we charge at the same time that the government have not had the courage of their convictions to make such changes as they themselves know are necessary in regard thereto.
The hon. member for Guysborough next undertook to pay his compliments to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) by soundly abusing them for having been converted to the principles of protection. In the course of his remarks he made use of this expression, referring to the hon. member for North Norfolk :
I could understand a man wavering between two opinions, but I could not understand such a deliverance as he made. ... I regret that he turned himself upside down for such a purpose.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is pretty hard language to use towards an hon. member who has enjoyed the confidence of the Liberal party so long as the hon. member for North Norfolk. It is pretty hard language to use against an hon. gentleman who, the hon. member for Guysborough himself was forced to admit, is a pious man, a well meaning man, and an upright man. Sir, I think the hon. member for Guysborough in that statement, reversed the order of things. He has not a very clear perception of the ground upon which he was treading, for the hon. gentlemen to whom he referred, in my opinion, prior to their conversion, were turned upside down, they have now got turned right side up, but unfortunately they have left the member for Guysborough still standing on his head. After the labour of 20 years, after illustration and example were so strong that it was impossible for the Liberal party longer to resist their force, one by one they are being gathered into the fold of protection, therefore there is room for hope for the hon. member for j Guysborough.
The hon. gentleman next took occasion to refer to our relations with the republic to the south of us. and referring to the resolution moved by the leader of the opposition, he said :
Against whom is he going to put up this high tariff wall if it is not against the people of the American republic ?	... In my calmer
moments the thought occurs to me that I would be serving my country better by refusing to hit back.
He then proceeded to quote at length from the Boston ' Transcript ' an article from an American Republican standpoint, professing

to teach the people of this country how they should administer the affairs of this country, and he expressed his fears at what the result might be should the resolution of the leader of the opposition be carried in this House. Well, Mr. Speaker, for myself I desire to say, from my observation of the course of the Liberal-Conservative party in this Dominion, that while respecting, American rights, and while endeavouring to sustain the most friendly relations with them, we have never so far forgotten our personality, we have never so far forgotten the possibilities of this country as to turn to the American republic for advice as to how we should administer the affairs of our country. The hon. gentleman may have his fears, but no such feeling as that pervades the breasts of the opposition in this House. If the hon. gentleman waits until such time as the legislators of the American republic advise the government of Canada how to legislate to the advantage of Canada, he will have the privilege of waiting for a very long time ; and if he cannot dispel his fears until that time arrives, I venture to say that he will depart from this scene without bearing with him the best respects of the Canadian people.
I do not entertain any such respect or admiration for the American republic as I entertain for my own country of Canada. If it is in the interests of Canada to erect a high protective wall against the American republic for the purposes of advancing our material interests, then 1 say unhesitatingly that I will be willing to lend all the force I can to the erection of that wall-not, Mr. Speaker, in a spirit of retaliation, but in a spirit of self protection. Nor would I hesitate to apply that same principle to any other country on the face of the globe. In saying this I do not forget our geographical position relative to that republic, I do not fail to recognize that we have similar aspirations, I do not fail to recognize the fact that we are descended from the same stock, that we have in many respects similar resources. But as self preservation is the first law of nature in regard to individuals, so those who are entrusted with the welfare of Canada, or of any other part of the British empire, should realize that it is their first duty to protect the interests of then-own country. If a preference is to be given to any one, let us give it in our own family. Let charity begin at home. I have such confidence, not only in the motherland but in every colony thereof, that I believe if we approach them in a proper spirit and on a fair reasonable basis, we will not be denied an adequate compensation for any favours we may give, notwithstanding the declaration of the Prime Minister that Canada wanted nothing for the favours she had already given, and notwithstanding his rejection of the offer made at the time he made that declaration.
Just as the Act of Confederation had the effect of binding together the weak and Mr. PORTER.
struggling provinces then existing into one vast dominion characterized by strength, stability and progress, so the union of the commercial interests of the colonies with one another and with the motherland, on a mutual preferential basis will have the effect of making the weak strong and the strong stronger, for in union there is strength and will better enable us, as it will every part of the empire, to withstand the fierce competition for trade of other nations and as a matter of defence and self preservation it will take away that element of dependence on other nations and emphasize our entire independence.
Already, the republic to the south of us is claiming to have assumed first place on the commercial list of the world and boasting of its possibilities in the future and that position can only be attained by obtaining possession of the best markets in the world in which to dispose of their surplus products both of manufacture and natural products and the only way to combat that attack is to preserve our own market for our own people for the whole empire to cultivate and hold as much of the markets of the empire as possible for its own people and to shut out as far as possible foreign competition. This principle might not apply and would not apply to all nations, but with Great Britain and her colonies situated as they are in every part of the globe, with the great natural resources at their disposal, with the ability to produce everything under the sun required' to build up and maintain the greatest nation on earth, such a possibility is ours.
We need not expect any favours from the United States. The course of their whole existence has been repugnant to that idea, they are our natural rivals and so keen is that rivalry that there is not a minute to lose in putting ourselves in a position to withstand it, and that is one reason why I condemn the present government for its want of action in that direction. On the other hand, it is quite natural for us to expect favours from the motherland. We have always been in receipt of favours from her and in no branch of government perhaps has England shown more concern than for her colonies and the importance and strength of such a policy has never been so forcibly brought home as within the past few years. To-day Great Britain realizes that in the strength and prosperity of her colonies lies her strength and prosperity, and recognizing that fact, I repeat, we cannot show any favour that Great Britain will not be willing to compensate us for.
And then, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member turns his attention to his admiration for the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright).
He was good enough to preface his remarks in regard to these two gentlemen by the most ardent declarations of patriot-

ism and loyalty to our mother country. He could scarcely find language strong enough to express his admiration for British connection or to express his gratitude for the shield of protection which the mother country has afforded us. With these sentiments X most heartily agree and were it possible I would paint the picture in even stronger language than he has done. But surely, Mr. Speaker, he did not get inspiration for those sentiments from the hon. Minister of Public Works whom he set out to eulogize.
Contrast if you will the utterances of the hon. Minister of Public Works with those of the hon. member of Guysborough :
Allow me to say so, and allow me to repeat it, we have remained French ; we are more and more so; we are more French than we were twenty years ago, and more than we were a year ago. (Applause)-Hon. Mr. Tarte, at Rouen, France, June, 1900.
We represent over there the France of Europe, and I do not think I am mistaken in saying that before twenty-five years we shall form the majority in North America.-Hon. Mr. Tarte, at R< uen, France, June, 1900.
Canada is much more Fren ;h than it was thirty years ago, and if the tide of English immigration were to be directed elsewhere, the French-Canadians might recover the majority.- Hon. Mr. Tarte, in ' Le Journal de Paris" April 5, 1900.
Why should London, which is on an island, become the centre of the world, rather than Paris, the city of civilization, of liberty, of justice ?-Hon. Mr. Tarte, in Paris 'Figaro' interview, September, 1900.
The question is ;-Shall the country interfere or hold aloof in England's troubles ? I say, and without hesitation, that this is a question upon which no hurried decision should be given- ; It is not a question of money, but of principle, and before the Liberal party makes- up its mind as to the proper attitude to adopt, it should pause and consult parliament.-Hon. Mr. Tarte, at Montreal Reform. Club, October 10, 1899.
These are not the sentiments expressed by tbe bon. member and they are neither called for or excusable or calculated to have any other effect than that of weakening the allegiance of the people of whom he speaks and arousing the cupidity of Britain's possible enemies. The speaker then thought the highest compliment he could pay these good men was to say that there was no evidence before the public accounts committee to show that the Minister of Public Works had ever used a cent dishonestly, and that no corruption had been shown against Sir Richard Cartwright, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. Well, Sir, X then for the first time learned that in the opinion of a Liberal you must convict them of theft before you have a right to condemn their political action. But, Sir, did the hon. member, when he was uttering these words of praise, forget that scandal known as the Drummond County Railway Deal. Did he forget the refusal of the hon. Minister of Public Works to tell where the money came from to pay for ' La Patrie ' ? Did he forget the declarations of Mr. McMullen in
1894, in opposition, when he used these words :
I must take exception in the first place to the office (the Department of Trade and Commerce) ever having been created. I do not see why It was created unless it was _ given a resting place for the balance-of his life to the'hon. gentleman who now occupies the position, drawing $7,000 a year for virtually doing nothing.
And did he forget the declaration of the hon. Minister himself when he used this language :
We have far too many ministers. To increase them to seventeen appears to he a monstrous piece of folly.
And did he overlook the fact that the hon. minister sat down in that office and quietly drew his $7,000 for doing nothing as Mr. McMullen put it, or as Sir Richard himself put it in Toronto in 1899 ' as largely an onlooker in the government.'
Did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) forget the declarations of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to the expenditures of this country ; did he forget his declarations as to the public debt ; did he forget his promises as to the reduction of taxation, and as to ' that abomination, the customs tax,' as he declared it to be. Did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) forget that he has seen that same Minister of Trade and Commerce sit down and help to administer the government of this country which has broken each and every one of its pledges which It gave to the people of Canada. Surely the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) must have forgot ten these things ; or otherwise he would not have ventured to pay the encou-iums he did to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
But, Sir, the hon. member for Guysbor-ough (Mr. Fraser) was not satisfied that he had done his whole duty in paying his compliments to these two ministers of this government, hut he must needs before ending, pay his special compliments to the Prime Minister himself. And, Sir, the only reason assigned by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) for heaping roses upon the head of the Prime Minister, was, to use his own expression ;
That the Prime Minister had been Instrumental in cementing the people of this country together, and strengthening the bond of anion with the motherland.	,
Again, I would ask : did the hon. gentlemen (Mr. Fraser) forget the speeches made by the Prime Minister to his French Canadian fellow citizens of the province of Quebec during the last elections, and the speeches he delivered in the province of Ontario '! Did, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) forget the race cry that was raised in the province of Quebec, or did he forget this utterance that was made use of by tbe right hon. Prime Minister on the floor of this House :
I hold out to my fellow-countrymen the idea 1 of independence. If we are true to our record

we will exhibit to the world the unique, the unprecedented example of a nation achieving its independence by slow degrees and as naturally as the ripe fruit falls from the parent tree.
The Minister of Finance reproached me a moment ago that I iiad stated in Boston that the Canadian people have interests altogether at variance with the interests of the mother country.
Sir, I said so in Boston, and I say so now on the floor of the House.
I have again and again repeated that the goal o'' my aspirations is the independence of Canada -to see Canada an independent nation in due time.*
Surely the member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) did not draw his inspirations from that utterance of the present premier. Surely he must have been inspired by the utterances of the Liberal Conservative party upon that question, as voiced by Sir Charles Tupper, who when leader of the Conservative party, used this language in the Commons of Canada :
When the Loyalists withdrew from their old hemes and raised the standard of Britain on the soil of Canada it was their purpose to create a sister British nation that should be an added glory and a source of v.trragth to the British Crown.
Their work, performed amidst struggle and hardships, still lives."To us have they handed down the honours and privileges of British citizenship and the liberties which appertain to constitutional rule.
Be it ours to cherish this great heritage and to build up in this vast Dominion a nation that shall bo ever loyal to the Queen, ever attached t( the empire, and ever true to our flag.
Numbered among the British communities that encircle the globe, sharing in British glory, participating in British strength, we shall advance as we shall become a stronger ally of Britain and a brighter jewel in the diadem of the Queen.
But, perhaps, the hon. member (Mr. Fraser) had in his mind the position which the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) took on the occasion of the jubilee of our late beloved Queen when as representing Canada he was placed in the first rank of honour extended to any British colony, and when may be the Prime Minister had In his mind the titles which he called tin pot titles before he went to England, but which when he got to England he was glad to receive form his sovereign. Perhaps the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) had in his mind the high position which the Prime Minister of Canada is to occupy at the Coronation of His Majesty King Edward VII. Perhaps the member for Guysborough had all these things iu his mind when he made use of the expressions to which I have alluded. But, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) remembered these, he entirely forgot the fact that while the Premier was willing to occupy the first position given to the representative of any British colony, he was the last to call forth the efforts of Canada to assist British arms in their difficulties during the war in South Africa. Yes ; the Prime Minister of Canada was Mr. PORTER.
willing to occupy the first position when the empire rejoiced ; but on the other hand he was content to occupy the last position when the empire needed help.
Now, Sir, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) and the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) were both brought up in the Conservative school . both trained in the Conservative party, and being such bad Conservatives they were no longer continued in the party. But, bad Conservatives as they were, the hon. member for Guysborough has been pleased to say that they make two capital Liberal ministers. I was privileged to hear the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the resolution now before the House. The hon. gentleman got rid of a large amount of bile that apparently disturbed his stomach in abusing the enumerators who took the census of 1891 and the government under which these enumerators were appointed.
By a very laboured effort he endeavoured to show by a comparison of figures and by assertion as to the position of the government of that day that these enumerators were a lot of scoundrels unfit to inhabit this country and dishonest enough to violate the oath they were required to take at the dictation of that government.
And while he was bold enough to characterize the work of the enumerators of 1891 as dishonest and bad, although he was forced to admit from the returns of the present census that it was open to argument that they were wrong, he says in this case if they are wrong it is a mistake.
The one class, these of 1891, are unable to defend themselves and he calls them scoundrels and perjurers.
In the latter class they were appointees of the present government and able to defend themselves by inflicting through the ballot box the just punishment of any oue guilty of making such an accusation.
But, Sir, the hon. gentleman's allusion to the necessities of the government in 1891 are the mere outpourings of a very imaginative brain, and he is assisted in that imagination by his knowledge of the exigencies of the present government, and he entirely failed to show any necessity in the late government to falsify the census. Surely the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) must have forgotten what has been amply demonstrated since the census of 19U1 was taken, namely, that a separate and a private set of instructions were issued to the enumerators in the province of Quebec, differing from the instructions issued to the enumerators in the other provinces. Why was such the case ? What explanation has ever been given of it? I venture to say that the only explanation that can he given is the fact that the representation o.f this parliament depends on the population of the province of Quebec, and by swelling the population of that province it would lessen the representation of the province of Ontario, where the govern-

ment of the day is notoriously weak. I venture the assertion that that was the reason why these instructions were given to the enumerators of the province of Quebec and not to the enumerators of the province of Ontario.	.
Another position which the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce took in regard to the census was this. He undertook to justify the large expenditure incurred during the past year and during the years which this government has been in power' upon^ the ground that the population of the Dominion of Canada had very largely increased ; and, Sir, in the same breath he was forced to admit, from the returns which have been brought down and placed on the Table of this House, that the census of the Dominion of Canada is, to use his own language, disappointing. But, Sir, while he stated that the growth of the population was disappointing, he did not say, as he might well have said, that the expenditure of this country was disappointing and was altogether out of proportion to the population which inhabited it.
I was obliged, Mr. Speaker, to deny myself the privilege of hearing the hon. Minister of Finance deliver his budget speech. But I have taken occasion to carefully read it, and considering the past utterances of that hon. gentleman and other members of the ministry, and the members who are following them, I realize that my loss in that respect has not been so great as I had supposed. I had anticipated, and not without reason, from professions of the hon. gentlemen of the ministry, that at least something new, something startling would be announced in the budget ns having taken place in the administration of public affairs in this Dominion during the past year or that might be expected to occur within the next year. But, Sir, like many others, my expectations have not been realized in that respect, for we have had the spectacle of a Finance Minister presenting to this House this session a leaner bill of fare than has characterized similar occasions during the years the hon. gentleman has been In office. In introducing his budget to this House, he uses this language :
Mr. Speaker, It is my happy privilege to present to the House to-day another chapter in the continued story ot Canada's prosperity.
Only half the truth, Mr. Speaker, is stated in that sentence. If the hon. minister had been frank enough to state the whole case, he would have added these words :	' And
another chapter in the continued story of broken pledges, and neglected opportunities of the Liberal party of Canada.' That, Sir, would have been the whole truth and the whole statement. Or, had he stated that Canada had continued to prosper notwithstanding the incubus of the Liberal party hanging upon it, he would not have been far from the truth. But, Sir, he could not
have stated that as a part of his happy privilege. The hdn. Minister of Finance then goes on to say :
In a country so vast as ours, with such varied conditions, it would be too .'ouch to expect that every section and every industry would be able to make the same gratifying report of prosperity. But I think I can truly say that during the past few years we have approached as near to that happy condition as could reasonably he hoped for.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister leaves himself open to the charge of only stating half the case. Had he put the case as strongly as he could have done, or as he should have done, he would have said that we have approached nearer to that happy condition than could reasonably have been hoped for under the present Liberal administration. The people of this Dominion expected, and had a right to expect, from the pledges and promises made by the Liberal party when in opposition, and spread broadcast by them over this Dominion, in the public press, by speeches and in every available manner, and from the fault-finding they made with the administration of the Liberal Conservative party, that when they attained office there would be real reform in the administration of the various departments of the government. We had, I say, a right to expect that. But, Sir, I am happy to be able to say that at the time these gentlemen attained office they found- the affairs of the country under Liberal Conservative rule in such, a satisfactory condition that there was very little room for improvement. It is either that, Mr. Speaker, or the present administration stand convicted on their own evidence of lacking the courage of their convictions or of having no convictions at all. I venture the assertion, Sir, that there never was a period in the history of Canada when there was such a golden opportunity for a government to use its powers and exert its influence for the benefit and the lasting advantage of this country ; and I venture the further assertion that there has never been a period when these privileges- and opportunities have been so sadly neglected. The benign smile of Providence has been continuously resting upon i\s during that period. All that a country could hope for has been ours. Our agricultural lands have fairly groaned under the wealth of their production. We can thank Providence and the industry of the agriculturist for this ; but I am sorry to say that the hon. Minister of Finance, in delivering his budget, was not pleased to acknowledge either the one cause or the other for this prosperity, but was quite willing to take tile whole credit to the government, where credit does not belong. Our industrial pursuits have grown and have assumed larger proportions during that period ; hut I venture to say that they have not made such progress or advancement as they would have done under the adminis-

tration of a progressive government capable of taking advantage of the opportunities as they were offered. That, Sir, is the fault of the Liberal government. We had a right to expect that advantage would have been taken of this period of prosperity to lay up something for a rainy day. We had a right to expect that a substantial reduction would have been made in the cost of the administration of the government and in public expenditure. We had a right to expect that the national debt, which had assumed such large proportions, would have been reduced by the surpluses arising annually from the rapidly and continuously increasing revenues. We had a right to expect that the resources of this country would have been carefully husbanded to enable us, in the time of adversity which always follows a period of prosperity, to maintain our financial and commercial position in the world, and to avert as far as possible the evil effects of hard times.
This, Mr. Speaker, would not be expecting too much, it would only be applying the principles of ordinary business prudence to the administration of the affairs of this country. If a merchant, a farmer, or any person engaged in any business depending upon the public for its success were to apply the business methods adopted by the government of the day in increasing his expenditure, and increasing his debt, without increasing materially his sources of income during a period of prosperous trade, ruin and disaster must come upon such a person during a period of hard times as it will surely come upon this government. The principle applicable to individuals is applicable to governments only with greater force, because in the former case failure affects only the individual while with governments the whole people of the whole country share in the disaster.
The principle I would advocate would be to use the surplus revenues in wiping out the debt to the greatest possible extent consistent with the reasonable development of the country.
To expend the revenues in such a manner as will substantially and permanently increase the sources of such revenue.
In making such expenditures to keep first the prosperity and advancement of the country in view and not allow these interests to be sacrificed for the advancement of party.
As wholesome and commendable as these principles may appear, I charge and it has been amply demonstrated on the floor of this House during the present debate by various hon. gentlemen on this side, that the government of the day has entirely ignored these principles and have operated on the vicious principles of increasing the annual expenditure and increasing the national debt, increasing the per capita tax and in making these vast and ever-increasing expenditures, have not made them in Mr. PORTER.
such a manner as to permanently and substantially increase the sources of revenue, but have sacrificed the interests of the country to the retention of office by the Liberal party.
But, Mr. Speaker, this vicious principle does not appear to be confined to the Liberal party in power at Ottawa. We have had the figures quoted to show that it does apply here, but, Sir, Liberal governments appear to be all tarred with the same stick. If you will take occasion to refer to the estimates of the province of Ontario for the present year under the administration of Hon. Mr. Ross, you will find this same vicious principle in full operation there. I
have taken the figures and here they are
Main estimates	$4,004,228
Supplementaries	181,947
Further supplementaries		3,750
Railway certificates (dept).. ..	92,248
Annuities (debt)	 102,900
New railway subsidies.'	 696,000
Temiscamingue railway	 2,234,000

Estimated possible revenue.. ..$4,075,000 Excess of expenditure over receipts	$3,230,073
Net debt stood at	$5,800,000
The debt will stand	at	$9,030,073
So it will be seen that the disease is spreading. I do not know whether the Liberals at Ottawa caught the disease from the Liberal government of Ontario or vice versa, but certain it is they both have it bad, and it is high time that a long-suffering but now indignant public should apply a remedy, and 1 doubt not that, on the first opportunity, the punishment inflicted by the public will be made to fit the crime.
I have charged, Mr. Speaker, that the present administration have not done what they should and could have done to improve the opportunities of those engaged in industrial pursuits, and during the six years' administration of the present government there has been seen deputation after deputation almost without number of gentlemen engaged in various industrial pursuits waiting upon the cabinet urging with all their energies the necessity of relief or protection in some form or another to be turned away with the ' sunny smile ' and promise of ' serious consideration ' but no help. The fact is that during the years these gentlemen were in opposition they condemned in the strongest possible language and on every possible occasion the policy of protection inaugurated by the Conservative party. They had preached almost every other doctrine imaginable from free trade to unrestricted reciprocity, as the only panacea for the evils they imagined this country to be burdened with, but, Sir, when they attained power they found a legacy left to them in the shape of an infant named * Nationl Policy ' Protection, born of Con-

serva-tive parents and reared under Conservative influences, and which had grown so strong and liusky that the Liberals were afraid to touch it, afraid either because they had abused it so much or because it had acquired such strength they dared not tackle it, and so they have left it severely alone, only making slight and unimportant changes in rates but nothing in principle, but, Mr. Speaker, the infant was such a lovable thing, it was exerting such a beneficial influence in the industrial enterprises of this country (imperfect though it was) that the Liberal party simply looked on in silent admiration at its operations and one by one watched their pet theories of free trade, &c., fade away and die, and growing bold with association, they have at last adopted the child and it is a clear case of the child ruling the household, for whatever faults the child may have the present government are either afraid or incompetent to correct its manners. It has taken many years of earnest advocacy and practical administration on the part of the Conservative party to convert the Liberal party to the policy of protection. But it is gratifying to know that they have, at last, nearly all been converted to that principle. It seems to me that if there ever was a time when the Liberal party should govern this country it is the time during which they have governed it, a time when the country was strong, when the trade policy of the country was so well established and so perfect that, notwithstanding the action of the government the country could still go on and prosper. The Minister of Finance has been pleased to refer to the agricultural interest in these words :
In the paramount interest of agriculture, which must long continue to be the foundation of our prosperity, the results of the year have been most gratifying.
Notwithstanding this important statement, the hon. gentleman failed to show that the present government had, by any action on its part in any way contributed to that prosperity. There are a great many ways in which the government could have improved the condition of the agriculturists. They could have prevented the corn ol the western states and other products of the country to the south of us coming into competition with the products of the Canadian farms. They could have prevented American meat and American horses from coming into competition with the Canadian product in the Canadian market. They could have obtained, or at least, could have tried to obtain, a preference in the English market for the products of Canadian farms. But, not only have they failed to procure these benefits for the Canadian agriculturists, but they have been pursuing a policy diametrically opposed to this, they have been pursuing a policy which was indicated by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) in an expression he used in referring to a statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) :
Sir Richard Cartwright was right in refusing agricultural protection. Agriculture protection is a delusion and a snare.
If he had desired to seek further the
authority of the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) he might have quoted these words which the hon. gentleman is charged with having made use of on the hustings when he undertook to give advice to the Canadian farmer as to what he should do to better his condition, that advice being :	If you wish to
increase your prosperity you must eat less and work more. But, instead of gaining these advantages for the agriculturists of this country, the present government have seen fit to increase the taxes on those commodities which are of prime necessity for the farmers. And the Minister of Agriculture has given expression to this further phrase, speaking of agriculture protection :
This kind of thing, instead of helping the farmers hurts them. The thing is nonsense.
I would like to know what the farmers of the Dominion of Canada think of the promise that has been held out to them by the Minister of Agriculture. The Canadian farmer is entitled to every credit for the pluck and industry he has shown in the face of these obstacles, and for having done so much to bring the prosperity which has been showered upon this country. The government of the day, in neglecting the opportunities they have had are worthy the condemnation of the people of Canada".
The Minister of Finance next takes occasion to compliment the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) for what he terms the able administration of that department. And he was able to show by the collection of figures in the Department of Finance that that hon. gentleman had run the affairs of that department for the last year with a loss to the country of $489,941.08, and at the same time to show that he had had an increase of revenue during last year of no less than $235,969.77. That is, taking these figures together, had the revenue of the Post Office Department been the same as under the last year of Conservative rule, the deficit added to the increased revenue from that time to the present would have made a deficit, as compared with the Conservative administration of this department, exceeding $1,000,000, a larger deficit than has ever characterized the department under Conservative rule. Just to illustrate how this department has been run, let me give one example which comes under my own personal observation. The illustration has more -a local than a general application, but it is, nevertheless, very instructive. When the Liberal party came into power in 1896, the post office at Belleville held rank as a city office; but on the 30th of Septem-

ber, 1897, it was reduced to the rank of a country office. That is to say, prior to 1897, the several employees of the Belleville post office were on the civil service list, they were obliged to pass examinations aird to qualify themselves to fill the position which they then occupied. The number of persons employed at that time was ten; the total cost of the post office was $8,710, and the revenue collected by these ten people from the post office was $17,339.60. The change was brought about in this way-the postmaster, Mr. John Taylor, who was a Conservative, was dismissed without any charge being made against him and without any investigation-in fact in violation of the principle laid down in this House by the right bon. the Prime Minister. The assistant in the post office, Mr. Thomas Duncan was removed, and, if 1 am correctly informed, a new position was created for him in the railway mail .service, where he has since been enjoying a salary of $1,500, whereas, as assistant in the Belleville post office, he only received $1,350. Five members of the staff of the Belleville post office were superannuated, and superannuation allowances are being paid to these five people, amounting to no less than $1,166.79. Three others were dismissed who had not been long enough in the service to entitle them to superannuation, and they were paid gratuities amounting to $583.59. Only two of the total staff of ten were retained in that office. These changes, you will see, provided a position of postmaster for one of the faithful of the Liberal party, and subordinate positions for five others. It is needless for me to say that these positions were filled by the faithful of the Liberal party. Now, the present staff-and I want to compare it with that I have given you-consists of eight persons-


Mr. SPEAKER.: I would call the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Porter) to the fact that he is not discussing the question before the Chair. When an amendment has been moved to a motion for Committee of Supply, the discussion should be restricted to its subject matter. That is a well established rule.


Edward Guss Porter: I was addressing myself to the question upon the subject of expenditure by the administration in connection with the Post Office Department.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The question of that expenditure does not come within the scope of the motion now before the Chair, which is the amendment moved by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) concerning the tariff and the preference with England. I read this passage from Bourinot, page 549 :
When an amendment has been moved to the question for the Speaker to leave the Chair, the discussion should be confined to its subject ma tter.
Mr. PORTiSR.
I would draw the attention of the hon. members of the House to this ruling.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman is in order quite as much as was the Minister of Trade and Commerce who occupied an hour and a half dealing with the census of 1891, which my amendment certainly does not touch ; and the same freedom of discussion, I think, has prevailed in the speeches of gentlemen on both sides of the House. While I do not find any fault with the rule which you have laid down, at the same time I thought there was an understanding that so far as this debate was concerned hon. gentlemen were not to be confined with that strictness that you might enforce if you thought proper to do so. I would therefore submit, with all proper deference, that the hon. member for Hastinngs is quite as much within his right as hon. gentlemen who have preceded him in this debate.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: I have no doubt that the ruling you have laid down is strictly and legally accurate. But I may observe that in the budget debate we have, .as a matter of custom for a good many years, given extreme latitude on both sides, both giving and taking. It is fair to say that I have myself, on all occasions in discussing the budget, given myself very full latitude ; and I believe my hon. friend opposite is right in saying that I did so on this particular occasion.


Robert Laird Borden: We did not object.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: With the unanimous consent of the House the hon. member may deviate from that rule, but I thought it my duty to point out the rule to the House, and I would recommend that it be observed as much as possible.


Edward Guss Porter: I was about to call attention to the position occupied by the Belleville post office as showing the scale of expenditure in the Post Office Department, and to compare the present position of the Belleville post office with that it occupied under Liberal-Conservative rule. At the present time the staff is composed of eignL officials ; the cost as given in the Public Accounts laid on the Table of the House is $4,100 ; and the revenue collected in the year ending June 30th, 1901, was $14,822,80. Now those figures are entirely misleading, and one has only to look to some other parts of the Public Accounts to get the true state of affairs as to the cost of the Belleville post office. I have taken the trouble to do so, and I find that to that sum of $4,100 given as the cost of the Belleville post office, must be added the superannuation allowances which are being paid year after year to those people who were dismissed from their offices for the purpose of making room for supporters of the Liberal

cause. Those superannuation allowances amount to $1,110.69. The salary of Mr. Duncan, for whom the office was created- for if I am correctly informed the office had never been in existence before-is $1,500. That must be added to the cost. Then the gratuities that were paid the next year after this change, amounted to $583.59, bringing up the total cost of the Belleville post office to $7,350.28. Now, Mr. Speaker, you will observe from a comparison of these figures that ten officials who have passed an examination and qualified themselves for the position, were paid under Liberal-Conservative rule $8,710, or an average of $871 each ; while under Liberal rule eight officials are paid $7,350, or an average of $918 each. The revenue collected by the ten officials under Liberal-Conservative rule was $17,339.60, while the revenue collected from that office by the officials who are being paid more money for their work at the present time, is only $14,882. But this is not the worst feature of the case. Instead of Belleville occupying, as it did under Conservative rule, the proud distinction of giving a first class service, the service in that office has since been sacrificed, and almost every conceivable kind of complaint is being made from day to day in regard to that office But the full force of the point I am making is shown by a comparison of the Belleville post office with some other post offices.
I have taken the trouble to extract from the Public Accounts the figures with relation to other post offices in cities somewhat of the same size as Belleville. The population of Belleville is given at 9,914 ; the cost of the administration of the post office is $7,350.35 ; the revenue collected is $14,882.80. Now take the city of Guelph, with a population of 10,539, about 1,000 more than Belleville. The Guelph post office costs this government only $5,441.06, nearly $2,000 less than the Belleville post office; and yet Guelph collects in revenue $23,526.25, or $9,000 more than the amount collected in Belleville. Take the city of Brantford, with a population of 18,250. The post office costs this government $5,702.28, nearly $2,000 less than the Belleville post office, with a population of 9,914 ; and yet the city of Brantford collects a revenue of $28,796.60. or $14.000 more than the city of Belleville, though the officials in Belleville are paid $2,000 more for doing the work. Take the city of Brock-ville with a population nearer that of Belleville than either of the others that I have mentioned. Brockville, with a population of 9,013, costs for the administration of the post office $4,509.43, nearly $3,000 less than the Belleville post office ; yet the town of Brockville collects $21,894.19, or $7,000 more than the city of Belleville.
Now let us go into the province of Quebec for an illustration. I have taken the city of Sherbrooke, which has a population of 10.010. The cost of the administration of the office there is $5,299. or $2,000 less than 61
the cost of administering ihe Belleville post office ; yet the city of Sherbrooke returns a revenue of $17,471.92, over $3,000 more than the city of Belleville. Going down to New Brunswick we find that in Moncton, with a population of 8,000, the administration of the post office costs only $3,761.93, and the revenue collected is $13,969.68. In the case of Moncton we find 'that the administration of the post office costs about one-half that of the Belleville post office. In Sydney, Nova Scotia, with a population of 8,000, the administration of the post office costs $4,613.05, the revenue collected is $16,115.39. You will see it costs $3,000 less to administer the post office than is paid for the Belleville post office, although Sydney returns a revenue of $2,000 more.
Now, Sir, another illustration to which I would call the attention of the government is afforded by the city of Charlottetown, in the province of Prince Edward Island. Charlottetown, with a population of 12,000, costs this government $11,795.64 for the administration of the office which collects $16,582.34. Compare that, if you will, with the town of Peterborough in the province of Ontario. Peterborough is put down as having a population of 12,000, the same as Charlottetown. Peterborough costs the government $4,630 for the administration of the office. Charlottetown costs the government $11,795. From this statement I think that the deduction is fairly drawn that if it is right and proper to pay for the administration of the Belleville office a sum so large as $7,350.35, it is wrong for the government to inflict the same work upon these other offices that I have spoken of and only pay the officials one-half the salaries, or, if it is right to pay, at these other places I have mentioned, the sums I have stated, then, it is radically wrong to pay the officials at Belleville nearly twice the sum that is paid at these other places. There is only one conclusion to be drawn, and the conclusion I draw is that at the time these hon. gentlemen made the change in the Belleville post office places had to be made, positions had to be found for the faithful of the party, and it was done in this way to the cost and detriment of the country to the extent of no less than $2,000 or $3,000 a year, and I doubt not that this is only an illustration that could be drawn from the public accounts were one to take occasion to look carefully over the whole list.
Besides the compliment paid by the hon. Minister of Finance to the hon. minister I have already referred to, he only addressed words of congratulation or praise to another I head of a department, and that was to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair). But, he damned him with faint praise when he gave expression to-this language :
Even it he makes large demands he is able to show large returns. '



No doubt the bon. Minister of Finance bad in his mind at that time, the management of the Intercolonial Railway, and Sir, I have taken the pains to collect some figures in regard to the management of that railway, which, 1 think, may be of interest to the House and the country. When the Drummond County Railway deal, to which I have already referred, was before the Senate, it was pointed out there that the transaction was an extravagant and a corrupt transaction, but the answer that was given at that time was that the extension of the road to Montreal would have the effect of putting the Intercolonial Railway on a paying basis and that there would be no longer that deficiency between revenue and expenditure that had been characterizing the road hitherto. According to the statement made by the hon. Minister of Finance, during the last year there was a deficit in the management of that road of between $400,000 and $500,000 ; so that, the predictions of the opponents of that deal have been fully verified, and from the public accounts I have taken some figures, which, with the permission of the House, I will state. The deficit in the management of that road, to my mind, has been very largely occasioned by the increased number of officials and the increased salaries they have been paid by this government. Taking the last year of the Conservative management of the road I find the following in regard to the salaries of officials, as compared with the last year under Liberal rule.
Salaries.	1896.	1901.At $7,000	
0	16,000	23,750	13,600	
1	13,200	02,950	12,500	12,400	42,225	12,100	11,900	01,800	11,700	31,600	21,500	2	8
So, you will see that in 1896 there were fifteen officials on the road who were in receipt of $1,500 a year or over, and that in 1901 the number had increased, under the able management of the present hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, to no less than twenty-seven. The salaries paid in 1896 amounted to $31,900, and in 1901 to $67,825, or more than rouble. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Finance had, at the time he was paying his compliments to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, a fact in his mind which I find very tersely put in one of the New Brunswick papers, an extract from which I have taken occasion to clip. Every hon. member on the Mr. PORTER.
government side of the House will remember how, during the Conservative administration, hon. gentlemen opposite were wont to declare that the ministers of that time were lording it over the country in private cars at the expense of the people. Here is what this newspaper says in regard to that branch of the Intercolonial Railway under the present minister:
Official cars have become .'o numerous that Mr. Blair found it necessary some time ago to provide a special platform at Moncton for the convenience of the favoured ones who use them or to keep them out of the public gaze as much as possible, and the cost of the platform is charged to capital account. The extent of the private car habit on the Intercolonial Railway, may bo judged from the fact that in Moncton shops last year four received heavy repairs, ten light repairs, one was renovated and varnished and one renovated only.
I would like to know what kind of a sermon from that fact would be preached by Mr. McMullen, Mr. Landerkin and other members who then occupied seats on the opposition side of the House.
But, there occurs to me, in connection with the department of Railways and Canals, one thing which is of special interest to the riding which I have the honour to represent and which I think should be brought before the House and upon which the government should offer some explanation. I refer to the Trent Valley canal. This is an enterprise to which both parties in the House committed themselves so long ago, so that, I need not take up any time in discussing the merits or demerits of this scheme further than to say that I am heartily in accord with and will support to the fullest extent that project providing the town of Trenton is made one terminus. I was very much surprised when a few days ago in answer to a question put by the hon. member for East Durham (Mr. Ward) as to whether the government has decided or determined where the southern terminus of the Trent Valley canal should be, that is Port Hope or Trenton. The answer was given that the government had not determined. There has already been expended on that enterprise on the Trent river in and near Trenton a large amount of money. Locks and swing bridges have been constructed and the people in the vicinity of Trenton and the west riding of Hastings have been given to understand that the terminus of that canal would be at Trenton. A sum I understand has been in the estimates of this government for several years for carrying on this work and this year there is again a sum asked to be revoted, page 44 estimates, $300,000, for that purpose, although it does not appear to be the intention of the government to go on with the work and it is somewhat curious that the department should ask for this grant when they have not yet determined where the canal shall be. I think, however, Mr. Speaker, the in-

tention and object of the government becomes apparent when one looks into the occasions on which this subject has been prominently before the people during the regime of the present government.
In 189G, when hon. gentlemeft of the government assumed office the construction of the southern or Trenton end of the Trent Valley canal was made an issue and it was declared in the press and on the hustings of every riding through which the canal ran that if elected to power the work would certainly be proceeded with and large sums of money expended. This was urged with the object of inducing the electors of West Hastings to support the Liberal candidate, it was a powerful weapon in the hands of the Liberal party although a direct bribe and a dishonest means to secure the vote. It failed, however, and the electors of West Hastings were found to be men too true to their principles to be bought up in this way.
In 1898, there was another election on, this time for the local legislature of Ontario, and notwithstanding previous declarations of the Liberal party that the federal government should not take part in provincial politics, the Trent Valley canal again looms up and again for the purpose of furthering the cause of the Grit candidate as will appear by this article published in the Liberal organ of the town of Trenton.
Trfenton Courier, Feb. 21, 1898.
A million and a half for the Trent Valley Canal.
The Dominion government are carrying out their pledges to construct the Trent Valley Canal as the following letter will abundantly prove.
Office of
The Minister of Railways and Canals.
Ottawa, Feb. 12th, 1898.
Dear Mr. Biggar,-I think we are making a very substantial increase this year, as you will observe when the estimates come down in connection with the Trent Valley Canal work. We are doubling the amount which was last year appropriated for the purpose.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed). ANDREW G. BLAIR.
W. H. Biggar,
Belleville, Ont.
Now, what could have been the possible object of writing Mr. Biggar, or of disclosing the amount before the estimates were brought down or of publishing a private letter in the Grit newspaper at that time ? Simply and solely because there was an election on, because H. Bleeker was the Liberal candidate and Mr. Biggar was his champion, because that paper was supporting the Liberal cause, because they desired to bribe the electors. Again in 1900, and at the by-election in 1902, the same tactics were used and upon every platform could be heard Liberal promises of this work being carried on by the present government as a reason for supporting the Liberal candidate, but we were able to ex-614
pose the purpose and show the fraud being practiced in making use of this cry and not carrying out the pledges and promises made in regard to it and the people now understand as the people of the whole Dominion understand that Liberal promises are like pie crust, made to be broken, that it is not a Liberal principle to keep a promise but an established principle to break them. We would like to know whether this old chestnut is to do service again. If not why is it kept in the estimates. Be manly, either tell the people you do not intend to carry on the work, or be honest and go on and do it. Let me just read to the House extracts from the estimates in different years :
Trent Valley Canal.-Estimates.
Appropriation.
1897-	8	$500,0001898-	9	
650,0001899-	00	
600,0001900-	01	
845,0001901	
320,0001902	
615,000
I repeat that the government should be honest enough to take these items out of the estimates if they do not intend to proceed with the work ; or let them be manly enough to spend the money and complete the Trent Valley canal.
I took occasion during the early days of this parliament to make certain inquiries regarding the Belleville Harbour Commission. These questions were :
1.	Have any resignations, dismissals, appointments or re-appointments been made during the two years prior to the 1st of February, 1902 ?
2.	What person or persons have so resigned, been dismissed, appointed or re-appointed, with dates of such resignations, dismissals, appointments or re-appointments ?
3.	What reason or reasons existed for such
resignations, dismissals, appointments or reappointments ?	a
These questions were answered by the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as follows :
1.	Yes, that there had been resignations, dismissals, appointments and re-appointments.
2.	That Mr. Thomas Hanley had resigned his position to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the 10th of January, 1901, and the appointment of Mr. George Wallbridge was cancelled on the 19th of April, 1901. Mr. E. G. Sills, of Belleville, was appointed a harbour commissioner for Belleville on the 19th of April, 1901, and Mr. T. S. Carman was also appointed a commissioner for said harbour on the raid date.
3.	It was considered advisable in the interests of the harbour to cancel the appointment of Mr. Wallbridge and appoint another commissioner in his place, two commissioners having resigned because they were dissatisfied with Mr. Wall-bridge and the difficulty there was in getting others to fill the vacancies while he remained a commissioner. Mr. T. S. Carman was appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. Hanley, and Mr. E. G. Sills was appointed in the room of Mr. Wallbridge.
I need scarcely say that I was very much I surprised as well as disappointed at the an-

swer given by the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the questions put by me in respect to this matter, especially in regard to the reasons assigned for the dismissal of Mr. Wallbridge and the appointment of Mr. E. G. Sills in his stead. For the sake of comparison and to understand fully the motives actuating the conduct of hon. gentlemen of the government in regard to this matter I take occasion to state to the House that Mr. George Wallbridge who was dismissed had occupied the position of harbour commissioner of the Belleville harbour for a period of about twelve years prior to his dismissal.
In the Act of this parliament creating the Belleville Harbour Commission it is amongst other things provided that the mayor for the time being of the city of Belleville should be ex-officio a member of the commission, that the board of commissioners should consist of three, thus leaving it in the power of the government to appoint two commissioners.
There is a considerable revenue derived from the harbour of the city of Belleville, and which varies from year to year from $2,500 to as large a sum as $5,000, which revenue is intended to be expended for the improvement and advantage of Belleville harbour. At the time of the creation of this commission the sitting member for West Hastings in which this harbour is situated was Mr. Henry Corby, and upon his recommendation two gentlemen of the city of Believille were appointed by the Conservative government upon this commission, namely, Mr. Thomas Wills and Mr. Thomas Ritchie.
It is well at this stage of considering this subject to look at the political complexion of that commission and the action of the gentleman who tjien represented that riding in this parliament. Upon the recommendation of Mr. Corby the two gentlemen whom I have named were appointed to the commission-the one Mr. Thomas Wills, an ex-member of the local legislature of Ontario and a Conservative in politics, the other Mr. Thomas Ritchie, a large retail dry goods merchant of the city of Belleville, a prominent Liberal and a gentleman who has since been the Liberal candidate in West Hastings. The mayor of the city of Belleville at that time and for every year since the creation of the harbour commission was a Conservative. Both these gentlemen subsequently resigned their positions upon the board, and in their stead and under a Conservative government there were appointed Mr. George Wallbridge anxl Mr. Thomas Hanley, one a Liberal, the other a Conservative. It will be perfectly evident to every member of this House that in making the selection of persons lit and proper to fill so important a position the then hon. member for West Hastings did not consult political interests, he was perfectly fair to both political parties, and ap-Mr. PORTER.
pointed or had appointed to that board a representative of each party.
But, Sir, there were large sums of money to be expended by the harbour commission, not only revenue derived from the harbour of Belleville, but moneys granted from time to time by this government for the improvement of that harbour, and it became necessary in the interests of the Liberal party when it assumed the reins of power that the expenditure of these moneys and the management of this commission should be placed in the hands of those who were faithful to the party without regard to whatever sacrifices might be made as to the efficiency of the board, and accordingly we find the changes taking place. The excuse offered by the hon. minister for the discharge of Mr. Wallbridge is one which I am satisfied he could hot have given were he acquainted with the qualifications of that gentleman, with the high position which he occupies and has always occupied socially and in a business way in the community where he has always resided, and the respect and esteem with which he is held by all classes of people in the city of Belleville and the time and attention and untiring devotion given by him to the success and the improvement of the Belleville harbour. I feel sure, Sir, that he would blush with shame to offer such an excuse as was offered in the answer to the question which I put to this House. Notwithstanding the answer given by the hon. minister, I venture the assertion that it would be impossible for him to find in the city of Belleville any responsible or respectable man who would say or who has stated that he refused to sit upon the Belleville Harbour Commission because Mr. George Wallbridge was a commissioner.
But, Sir, the exigencies of the party had to be served, and no matter what the qualifications of Mr. "Wallbridge, and no matter what the considerations were for retaining him in office, he had to make way for supporters of the Liberal party and men who could use that position for the advantage of the Liberal party.
Mr. Hanley we are told resigned his position on the 10th of January, 1901, and nothing was done in regard to filling the vacancy until the 19th of April, 1901, when Mr. George Wallbridge was dismissed. This gave an opportunity of filling the board of commissioners with two appointees of the present government, and that was done on the same day that Mr. Wallbridge was dismissed. The one gentleman who was appointed to this position, T. S. Carman, is the editor and proprietor of the ' Belleville Ontario ' newspaper, an organ known arid recognized to be the organ of the Liberal party in that riding, a man wTho had had no experience and no training for the position ; the cither appointee, Mr. E. G. Sills, being a retired miller, a defeated candidate

for tlie local legislature in the Liberal interests, and a man who has never been accused to my knowledge of having qualifications of filling any particular office.
But, Sir, in this manner the Liberal party obtained the control of the harbour commission of the city of Belleville, and if I am correctly informed-and I have my information "from a source upon which I think I can safely rely-these two gentlemen since their appointment have entirely or in very large measure ignored the fact that the mayor of the city of Belleville, who happens all the time to be a Conservative, had a right to sit and act with them in the deliberations of that board, and I am told, Sir, that these two Liberals have undertaken to manage the affairs of the Belleville Harbour Commission without consulting the mayor of the city of Belleville and have refused to act upon the suggestion or initiative of the mayor.
That this change was brought about and is being used for political purposes there is the strongest possible evidence to my mind in the fact that just prior to the by-election held in the West Riding of Hastings in 1902. one of the commissioners appointed by this government, Mr. E. Gv Sills, was desirous of obtaining the nomination of the Liberal party for that election, and he accordingly resigned his position upon the board and employed the ordinary or the extraordinary means usually employed by a Liberal to'obtain such nomination, and during the time the by-election was pending, if I am correctly informed, another of the faithful in West Hastings in the person of Dr. Goldsmith was appointed to fill the vacancy. But, Sir, when Mr. Sills failed to obtain the nomination of the Liberal party for the by-election in West Hastings, the appointment of Dr. Goldsmith was cancelled and Mr. Sills was re-appointed to the position ; and, Sir, since this question was put by me to the House, another nomination in the interests of the Liberal party has taken place in the West Riding of Hastings for the local legislature of Ontario for the coming election, and this same harbour commissioner, who has been ap-_ pointed, resigned and been re-appointed, will be again resigning his position to enable him to fight out the cause of the Liberal party for the local legislature in West Hastings.
Now. Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that these facts, which are uncontrovertible, show as clearly as the noon day sun that this commission has been appointed by the present government not in the interests of Belleville harbour but in the interests of the Liberal party of this country.
Large sums of money, as I have already stated, are expended from year to year in the improvement and maintenance of this harbour, and as a necessary consequence the commissioners who control the expenditure of these moneys employ large numbers of
people who are residents of and they would fake good care to see were voters of the West Riding of the county of Hastings, and a commissioner like Mr. Sills, who has been paying out these moneys to the voters from time to time, has a strong weapon placed in his hands when he starts in to canvas for an election either for the federal or the local House in the position that he has occupied. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a dangerous and a vicious principle a principle that is not in the interests of this country, a practice that any government should be ashamed to recognize or _ have brought home to them in direct violation of the principle laid down by the premier ; and in the face of these facts the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries should have hesitated a long time, and in fact should have absolutely refused to place upon the records of this House such an unwarranted answer as he has placed to the question which I have asked.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have occupied the attention of this House longer than I intended, and I want to say in conclusion that while I entirely disapprove of the manner in which the affairs of this country are managed by the Liberal party, while I denounce the principles of expenditure employed by this government, while I rejoice in the prosperity of this country in spite of the incompetence of the Liberal government, and while I abhor their systematic neglect of the opportunities presented for furthering the welfare of this country, I at the same time declare my unlimited belief in and adherence to the principles of the Liberal-Conservative party, which have always been the principles of progress in this country. Especially, Sir, do I give my adherence to the principles embodied in the resolution moved by the hon. leader of the opposition. I shall await with anxiety, but with perfect confidence, the decision of the people. I believe that when the great jury of this country have the opportunity to try this government upon the indictment of false pretenses and neglected opportunities, their verdict will be guilty and the punishment that will follow will be sure and swift.


Mr. A. S. KENDALL (Cape Breton).: It will not be expected, Mr. Speaker, that I should follow the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Porter) through all the sinuosities of the arguments which he has just delivered. I will content myself with a brief reference to a few of the points he endeavoured to make. I think he said that the tariff of the Liberal party was practically the same as that of the late Conservative administration. Let me point out that when the Liberal party in 1893 laid down its platform, that platform was a tariff for revenue, and. if it contained any protection, that protection was only incidental to the main principle. The question now is whether or not the tariff of this


Mr. EDWARDS.: Against themselves.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: And against themselves, as my hon. friend (Sir. Edwards! says. But, speaking from a maritime province standpoint, I say that retaliation is to-day probably the worst thing that could happen to us. We are looking for extended markets. We want to send our coal, and also our fish into the American market Furthermore, I would point out to the hon. gentlemen, that while retaliation may agree with our feelings it would probably be poor policy for Canada as a whole.
I read an article not long ago, I think in the ' Morning Citizen ' of this city, which to me, appeared very attractive. It pointed out that, by an imposition of a large duty on pulp wood and on paper, it could be arranged to draw the whole of the pulp and paper industry from the United States into Canada, and that industry would be worth here, probably $50,000,000 annually. I say that on the face of it that was an enticing proposition, and one which would well merit the sober attention of any government, provided there were not behind it serious difficulties. I have not the figures at hand, but I would like to point out generally that, during the last three or four years, the export of pulp wood from Canada has not, increased with anything like the degree of rapidity that the export of pulp has increased. It is evident that the opportunities for the manufacture of pulp in this country are so great that, without tariffs or without any government meddling at all, pulp manufacture is goint to be established in this country on a large scale. But I wish to point out where the United States could strike us back, and that in a way that would make every hon. gentleman representing an Ontario constituency come to the government and demand that the duty on pulp wood be removed. There is no duty on bard coal. But supposing that, in a spirit of retaliation, the American government-put a duty of a dollar or two a ton on hard coal imported into Ontario. And if you have no duty on your coke, yet you want great quantities of coke, and will need still larger quantities. The duty on slack coal, I think amounts to only three or four cents a ton. The American government could arrange so that every ton of coal should come into Ontario under an export duty of two or three dollars a ton. In my opinion those who suggest retaliation are not wise. And I would point out also, that, at this juncture the sober, level-headed men of the United States, not only of New England from Boston to New York, but many in Chicago, and many in our border

cities are at work educating the people of tlie American Republic. And I think we see some signs that, perhaps in the not very remote future-I admit that we have to be patient for the time-there may be an opportunity for this country to establish better business relations with our neighbours to the south. I listened carefully to the speech of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell). I always listen carefully to that hon. gentleman's speeches. They contain, as a rule, a great deal of good, sound material; and, even when his argument is, as I think, wrong, I admire the ingenuity of it. But, on this side, we are indebted to that hon. gentleman for several statements, statements of immense importance as coming from that side of the House. In the first place, if I understood him correctly, the hon. member for Pictou said, in effect, that, if his party came into power he would consider it injudicious to remove the preference. I think he must have given more attention to the business situation in England than most of the hon. gentlemen opposite have done. He made a statement to the effect that there was not the slightest doubt that free trade was the best policy for Great Britain. And, best or not best, he pointed out that the public men of that country, without regard to party affiliations, were almost a unit in favour of free trade, that, in fact, not a man over there with a reputation to jeopardize would venture to advocate a policy of protection. I think that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) must have given some attention to statements made by public men in Great Britain. Now, we have so often heard that Great Britain was only waiting for an opportunity to go back to the protective policy, that, at the risk of being tedious, I am going to read a page or two from statements made by leading public men of Great Britain. Mr. Chamberlain, speaking in 1896 of a proposal that a duty should be placed on certain imports from the colonies for the benefit of the colonies, said :
It involves the imposition of a duty-it may be a small one, but it is a duty-upon food and upon raw material, and whatever may be the result of imposing such a duty the tendency is to increase the cost of living, which would intensify the pressure upon the working classes of this country, and it would also have a tendency to increase the cost of production, which would put us, of course, in a worse position than now in competition with foreign countries
in neutral markets	The advatage
offered is not enough to induce this country to take the certain loss and the possible risk which would be involved in revising altogether its present commercial policy .... The second point, which is much more important, is that our foreign trade is so gigantic in proportion to the foreign trade of the colonies that the burden of an arrangement of this kind would fall with much greater weight on the United Kingdom than upon our fellow subjects in the colonies.
I think, therefore, we may very fairly ask them to better their offer.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Lord Ripon, speaking later, said :
A consideration of these practical difficulties and of the more immediate results above indicated, of a system of mutual tariff discrimination, has convinced Her Majesty's government that even if its consequences were confined to the limits of the empire, and even if it were not followed by changes of fiscal policy on the part of foreign' powers unfavourable to this country, its general economic results would not be beneficial to the empire.
Lord Roseberry, speaking before the Manchester Chamber of Commerce in 1897, said :
Of all the maddest things we have heard in our days, the re-enactment of the corn laws is the maddest we can possibly conceive. Free trade has preserved the empire.
I believe an imperial customs union to be an impossibility, but supposing it were possible, it would be something which would place all the nations of the world in direct antagonism' to it. It is something which, if possible, they would all continue to destroy.	*
I think tlie bon. member for I'icton must have given more attention to these statements of English public men than most bon. gentlemen on liis side of tlie House, and be must realize tbat probably for years to come the people of Great Britain *will refuse to jeopardize their commerce by any such ineffective arrangement as that of a preferential tariff, at least on the basis proposed by bon. gentlemen opposite. Let me say to hon. gentlemen opposite that in theory I am an out-and-out free trader. I will go as far as to say tbat I believe it would be in the interest of Canada and in the interest of many of the other colonies, and indirectly in the interest of the mother country, if a preferential tariff could be arranged provided we had free trade within the empire. But tbat is the only arrangement upon which the mother country will grant us a preference ; and it is an arrangement which the manufacturers of this country, either wisely or unwisely, will refuse.	[DOT]
Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman made another statement that I wish to refer to. In order to let himself down easily witli his own friends, he stated that it was by the policy of protection that Great Britain had laid the foundation of her mercantile greatness. He made that statement, if I remember him correctly. Again I will ask the House to bear with me while I read some literature which I think the public men of this country should make themselves acquainted with. I want to show what kind of prosperity reigned in Great Britain as a result of her protective policy, and for that purpose I will read from Spencer Wal-| pole's history of England :
There are probably few persons who have not had occasion to study the records of the time, who have any notion of the misery into which the poor had fallen. A long apprenticeship had indeed inured them to suffering; but the misery which they endured in 1S16 and 1833 was as no-

thing compared with the protracted wretchedness which commenced in 1837 and continued to 1842. In 1839, 1,137,000 persons were in receipt of relief in England and Wales alone; in 1840, the pauper roll contained 1,199,000; in 1841, 1,299,000 ; and in 1842, 1,429,000 persons. The population of England and Wales amounted at that time to about 16,000,000; so that one person out of every eleven in the country wras a pauper. .	.	. Dead and living were crowded
together in miserable dwellings. It is on record that in one case seventeen persons were found li\ing in a room five yards square; that in another ease eight persons, two looms and two beds were found in a cellar, six feet under ground, measuring four yards by five. An inquiry was made in 1841 into the condition of some 1,600 of the poor of Little Bolton. Out of the 1,600, twenty-three had no bed to sleep in ; eight slept in the same bed ; forty-two slept, seven in a bed, in six beds; seventy-eight slept, six in a bed, in thirteeen beds; 185 slept, five in a bed, in thirty-seven beds; and 432 slept., four in a bed, in 108 beds. In Rochdale, at the same time, five-sixths of the population had scarcely a blanket among them: eighty-five families had no blanket, and forty-six families had chaff beds with no covering at all. In Paisley, 15,000 persons were in a state of starvation, with little or no clothing, and no bedding on which to lie.
Here follows a description, all of which I will not read, in order to spare the feelings of the House :
The miserable condition of the poor was, of course, due to their poverty; and poverty was
not partial, it was catholic	'I could
tell you,' so ran a letter from' Johnstone, 'of mothers dividing a farthing herring and a halfpennyworth of potatoes among a family of seven1.' .... Girls, as well as boys, women, as well as men, worked under ground. The mines were usually ill-drained and ill-ventilated. The children had consequently often to work in the wet; they were kept at work in any atmosphere in which a candle would not burn. The smallest children were employed as trappers, or in opening the traps in the seams through which the coal laden carts passed. But women, boys, and girls were also engaged as hurriers, or in walking backwards and forwards pushing the carts themselves through the seams. Many of these seams were only twenty-two to twenty-eight inches high, so that none but small children could pass through them. In some cases the child was made to push the car ; in other cases children, and even women, were made to draw it by the girdle and chain. The girdle was a band placed round the waist of th'e hurrier. The chain passed between the drawers legs, and chafed the wretched creature's thighs, as he or she drew the load. Little children of seven worked for twelve hours a day, harnessed like beasts by the girdle and chain; hut, unlike the happier beasts of burden, subjected to the task before their growth was complete and their strength mature.
Sir, I think I have read enough to convince hon. gentlemen opposite, and any one may hear of this, that the great prosperity which is enjoyed by Great Britain was not based on protection. I now propose to read from a book called 'Ashworth, Cobden and the League.' I shall not read the solemn description of misery that prevailed throughout the length and breadth of England as it is pictured and I only ask hon. gentlemen
opposite to go to the library and take this book of Ashworth and convince themselves that protection is the basis of England's greatness. I shall read a few of the concluding sentences which I have marked :
The correctness of the views entertained by the league, may be estimated by the variety and abundance of social and national advantages which have become apparent in every direction, as the result of the removal of restrictions upon our international trade. This may be said to amount to a practical extension of the area of our country. Our farmers, no longer affrighted by the cheap farming of foreigners, have embarked their capital, drained their land, improved their agricultual machinery, and thus the produce of the home land has been largely increased ; meanwhile they have also increased the wages of their labourers ; and it may be added, that although the population of the country has increased by about 17i per cent since 1841

This book was written away back in the sixties.
-the extent cf pauperism has been diminished by upwards of 25 per cent during the same period.
The writer concludes :
Tho grand truth brought out and emphasized by free trade is, that it enables millions of people more to live in the home land, and to live with less exertion than they could do without it.; that it stimulates intellect, improves machinery, and increases the produce of the land, the foundry, the machine shop and the loom, and by exchange of products helps us to utilize the prolific stores of the tropical and semi-tropical regions of the earth, and by extending our trading intercourse, to extend also at the same time our own measure of civilization.
Here follows a long list of the growing exports and imports of Great Britain and X will sincerely ask hon. gentlemen opposite when, again, in this House, or on the hustings they make the statement that it was due to protection that Great Britain developed her commerce, to look at this book and convince themselves, as they must be convinced, that the removal of the barriers to trade which existed in Great Britain gave her people more power over life, and free raw materials upon which to exert their industry.
Mr. Speaker, the government of which I am an humble supporter, is accused of making huge and unwarranted expenditures. I simply ask hon. gentlemen opposite to point out these huge expenditures, to itemize them. Ijast year and the year previous, when they were being voted upon, they refused to do so. Now, my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) made the statement the other night-and let me say that I always listen to that hon. gentleman's speeches with profound regard-that our government was doing nothing. I propose to show that our government is doing something. X wish to bring before the notice of the House a matter of great importance, and which, in view of what has occurred

in the eastern part of Canada, is deserving of far greater attention than that which has been attached to it. This government was scarcely in power before it made an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway for the construction of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. We all know that an arrangement had been made before that time for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, which I think hon. gentlemen opposite would be the first to admit did not adequately protect the settlers. By the arrangement which has resulted in the lowering of freight rates on outgoing and incoming materials, Manitoba and the North-west Territories gained $750,000 a year, or in the five years during which that arrangement has been in existence there has been a gain of $3,500,000, about equivalent to the government grant to the Crow's Nest Pass railway. That is something of importance, but, it is not nearly so important as the fact that in making the arrangement some 50,000 acres of coal lands, over which the government had no control previously, were taken over and held for the benefit of the people who may occupy that part of the country in the future. Furthermore, it was arranged that coal was to be put on board cars at a price not exceeding $2 a ton and carried over the Canadian Pacific Railway lines at figures to be decided on by the government. I point to that and I say that the generations of the future will point to that one act of this government as a most important act. Fuel in the Northwest Territories, as every one knows, is one of the prime requisites of life, and I point to this matter as I shall refer to it in a later part of my remarks in connection with a condition existing in the maritime provinces of which this government must take cognizance. We are making some expenditures in the endeavour to get the grain of the North-west Territories to the seaboard, and these expenditures are being made, so far ns possible, to produce a condition that will bring about competition. A railway is being constructed through the Rainy River district, from Winnipeg to Port Arthur. Large subsidies are being voted to construct a road from Winnipeg to Edmonton, and from there on to the Pacific coast. Will hon. gentlemen say that these expenditures must not be made ? These are great and important votes. They are votes that cannot be ignored because the conditions are such, as hon. gentlemen from the west have frequently pointed out, that neither this government nor any other government can afford to ignore the demands on the public treasury for the development of that country from which we will reap such great benefits in the future. Let me say, as I come from the extreme east, that I always listen with sympathy and regard to the requests made by hon. members on both sides of the House who come from the west in respect to this important matter of trans-Mr. KENDALL.
portation. It does not directly interest us, but any man who has been over that country and has seen its resources must realize, if he is at all acquainted with the conditions which prevail in the older provinces, that the situation in that vast western country is certainly the most promising one that we have in Canada to-day. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte), of course, is one of the great sinners, and let me say, as one of the maritime province men, that I have to stand up and vote for him every time he asks for money with winch to deepen the St. Lawrence river. In future Quebec is to be the great summer port of Canada ; still, it is necessary that the depth of the channel from Quebec to Montreal shall be maintained at thirty feet. Coal from the maritime provinces is now being transported up the St. Lawrence in boats of two, three, four and five feet more draught than formerly. In 1897 or 1898, in twenty-four days, a time when the St. Lawrence was very low, twenty-three steamers went on the ground. You can understand why the hon. Minister of Public Works had to grapple with the situation. When he took office he found that the dredges were not sufficiently large for this work and he asked parliament to provide him with money. He has been provided perhaps fairly and liberally, although he claims that he has not been given sufficient. The object of his work is one that this government cannot ignore. The deepening of the St. Lawrence from Montreal to the seaboard is a matter of national importance as well as of local importance to a great many of us.
Furthermore, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has a project which I hope in the future to be able to support, namely, the scheme for the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal. Of course we cannot fail to recognize that this is going to cost a great deal of money and that it will be a huge burden for the country to undertake, but it will be for us to consider whether the advantages which this canal will confer in the matter of cheaper transportation, may not outweigh the burdens which it will bring with it. I have been told that heavy freights cannot be carried on the railways at much less than one-half cent per ton per mile, and that on the other hand, heavy cargoes can be carried by water at from one-tenth of a cent to one-twentieth of a cent per ton per mile. From the standpoint of one who has the honour to represent a constituency in eastern Canada, I have also an interest in this Georgian Bay canal. I believe that if we have twenty feet draught in our canal system we will be able to send our coal through to the west, and we can get back what we need-and what perhaps we will need in the future more than we need now-several different kinds of iron ore which are to be found on the shores of the great lakes to carry on our great iron in-

dustry in Nova Scotia. For these reasons, this proposition appeals to me as an eastern man. It has its merit not only from tiie standpoint of the west, but also from the standpoint of eastern Canada. Of course, the interest which we in the east have in this scheme, will be almost inttnitesimal compared with the interest it lias for the western people. As to whether a company should construct this canal, or whether the government should construct it I have no very well defined view. I would prefer by long odds to see the government construct this canal, but if we can get a company to undertake to build it under conditions which are fair and which will maintain control over it by the government of- this country,
I sincerely hope that any further propositions along that line the government may see fit to consider carefully, and .to accede to them if they be in the public interest.
The hon. gentleman from We4t Toronto (Mr. Clarke) said that the present government was doing nothing. Let me point out briefly to him the history of this government in connection with the development of cold storage-not for fishermen which I am particularly interested in-but the development of the cold storage system for tne benefit of the farmers of Canada. 1 say that there are two men who ought never to be forgotten by the farmers of Quebec and Ontario, and these men are Mr. Geo. Eulas Foster and Mr. Sydney Fisher. The farmers will have reason to remember these two gentlemen for different reasons. I wish to point out that so early as 1882 a good cold storage systun was inaugurated between New Zealand, Australia, and London, and that system was developed up to 1893 and 1894, to a degree that placed the experiment beyond all peradventnre of failure. When representations were made to Mr. Foster that a cold storage system was needed for Canada, he seemed, at least not to appreciate the immensity of the requirement. I believe I am speaking the truth when J say that it was with difficulty that a niggardly vote of $20,000 per year could be got with which to endeavour to initiate this business. I find however that for several years only $5,000 or $0,000 was expended out of that small appropriation. As I say, cold storage was no longer an experiment. It was an established fact for Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina, but Canadian public men of that day laid back, and failed to appreciate the crying needs of the country. The evidence of what I say is to be found in the votes for cold storage that this parliament was asked to pass up to the year 1S96. But what happened after that ? We put a farmer into the Department of Agriculture when the Liberal government came into power. Some 'hon. gentlemen say that he is a kid gloved farmer, but I have seen him stand up in this House to defend his department, and I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated that the present
Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is not only a scientific man but a practical man as well. He took office in 1896. He was not satisfied that the products of Ontario and Quebec were being dealt with to the best advantage for the farmers of these provinces. He at once asked parliament for a vote, not of $20,000 ; but the first year he was in office he asked parliament for a vote of $100,000 and every year since he got a vote of $100,000, and he expended these votes, and the result is that to-day we have a chain of cold storage extending from the Rocky Mountains into the markets of London, Manchester and Liverpool-a systm of cold storage inferior to none to be found elsewhere in the world. I would be doing an injustice, Sir, if I did not in this connection remember the services which have been rendered to this country by Prof. Robertson, who has enthusiastically directed his great technical knowledge and skill to the successful development and perfection of this system of cold storage. I repeat, that the farmers of Quebec and Ontario should never forget that the public records show that the Hon. Mr. Foster asked from parliament for three or four years the inadequate sum of $20,000 for the establishment of cold storage, and that when the present Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Sydney Fisher, came to office, he at once grappled with the question and had $100,000 a year appropriated, which has been expended every year since then with the result that the farmers of this country to-day are enjoying a prosperity that they were strangers to before.
Now, Sir, I intend to deal at some length with the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Kecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Mr. Speaker, before the House rose for recess, I was endeavouring to persuade hon. gentlemen opposite that the conditions which have been arrived at in Great Britain since the inauguration of a free trade policy, are not based, as has been frequently said by hon. members on the other side of the House, on a prosperity that developed under a system of protection. I think I effectually showed, from the statements of different historians of the period, that never in the history of the British Islands had such a state of distress and degradation prevailed as that which pre-' vailed from 1800 to 1845. I omitted to point out that the population of the British Islands, which at that time was about 10.000,000. has since grown to some 40,000.000. a population which has almost trebled itself in the short space of sixty years; to-day in Great Britain a degree of prosperity pre-

vails which is not equalled in any other European country, unless possibly iu France; and the shipping industries of the country, which at that time were considerable, have increased by leaps and bounds until to-day, there are, for every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom, from the King down to the youngest child In a foundling charity, 24 tons of shipping. I think that is an evidence of very great expansion.
When referring to the development of the iron industry in Nova Scotia up to 1890, I omitted to point out-and I am informed by a man as well qualified as any other man in America to speak on this point- that every iron business inaugurated and built up under a system of high protective duties in the United States, which existed between the state of Maine and New York, had to leave the site on which it was built up, and move away west; that to-day there is nothing but a spot of rust to mark the former sites of those original iron industries which were developed under protection; that in fact the iron business of the United States has moved to the west, where coal, iron and lime lie in juxtaposition to be worked to the best advantage. And, I pointed out that the prosperity we hope to attain from the development of iron in the eastern part of Canada depends entirely upon that industry being placed at the point where it can be most advantageously worked.
Now, Sir, I hope I shall be permitted for a short time to refer to another project which was initiated by this government : that is, the provision of cold storage for fishermen. Up to this time the success which has attended that project has been gratifying; but we have not yet grappled with the problem in the way which in my opinion is required. We have in the maritime provinces a fishing industry which is worth annually anywhere from $13,000,000 to $15,000,000. We have engaged in this business a population of 45,000 or 47,000 fishermen and fishermen's sons, who represent a population of probably 200,000. In the old days, when people were content to work hard and live in a different way from what they expect to live in to-day, our fishing population showed an inclination to remain there. But unfortunately we have to admit that under the improved conditions of life that population in the eastern counties of Quebec, in the Magdalen Islands, and on the shores of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, shows an inclination to move away from the fishing industry, and, instead of going to the North-west and other parts of Canada to take up lands, they move to the United States. Now, this is a serious state of affairs for the whole of Canada, and particularly throughout the maritime provinces, and if there is any method available by which this can be stopped or diminished, I submit that this government is Mr. KENDALL.
in duty bound to initiate a measure for that purpose. You are to-day engaged in a project to provide a system of cold storage for the shore fishermen. You have some GOO or 700 schooners fitted up for the deep sea fisheries, which lose on an average anywhere from three to six weeks out of the five months fishing season. You can understand that this means an enormous loss to the fishermen and to the maritime provinces. Now, I propose that the government should inaugurate another system for the deep sea fishermen. 1 propose that somewhere about Grand Manan, in the Bay of Fundy, or somewhere in the western part of Nova Scotia, in the Strait of Canso, and somewhere about Gaspe and the Magdalen Islands-at three or four of these places, large freezers should be erected, costing anywhere from $4,000 or $5,000 up to $15,000 or $20,000 each; and that these should be supplemented by two or three steamers built on the plan of Scotch trawlers, and fitted with refrigerators, to be used to collect bait, and to concentrate at these different points, where the bank fishermen could come and get bait. These steamers could also be used to distribute the bait to small freezers, of which we require some one or two hundred in the maritime provinces. It may be said that this would require a large amount of money. I admit that; but the industry is of such importance to us, from the standpoint of population, and it has such capabilities that I believe the government would be justified in making a very generous expenditure, say $150,000 or $200,000, to meet the requirements of this business.
Furthermore, I must point out that the government has in its custody some $5,000,000 known as the fishery award. For want of a better method to make this serve the fishermen, the government pays out the interest upon it in the shape of small bounties of from $3 to $4.50 to the owners of small fishing boats for shore fishing, and a certain amount per ton is given to the deep sea fishermen. Well, Sir, I think it requires no argument of mine to convince the government and the House that this method of appropriation, while it may be fairly good, could be improved upon; and if funds are short, it would not to any extent effect the bounty given to the fishermen, if a small amount of the capital were utilized to provide the facilities to which I have just referred. I am sure, from what we know of the development of this business on the shores of the maritime provinces, from what we know has taken place between New York and Gloucester, Boston and the Western States of America, we may with confidence look forward to results from a bold policy in regard to the fishing business which will be gratifying and of great benefit to the country.
I recollect, some three or four years ago, attending a banquet to the lion. Minister of Finance in New Glasgow, at which the

Minister of Railways was also present; and in reply to a toast the Minister of Railways said that when he removed from the arena of New Brunswick politics to that of the House of Commons to take up the position of Minister of Railways, he felt, considering the conditions which had existed on the Intercolonial railway for several years before, that it would be possible for him to do something of service to the country in connection with that railway, and perhaps win some little distinction for himself. I take the ground that the policy inaugurated by the Minister of Railways has been a bold, aggressive, successful and effective one in the interests of the country. It will not take many more years to silence the criticisms on the purchase of the Drummond road and the consequent expenditure on the Intercolonial railway. In fact criticism on that measure is practicaly dead to-day. I do not think that there is an hon. gentleman on either side who will have the courage to stand up and criticise the action of the Minister of Railways when he abrogated the arrangements between the Intercolonial Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway. By this arrangement, which existed between the late government and the Canadian Pacific Railway, the agents of the Canadian Pacific Railway were given power to corral the whole of the business of the maritime provinces for their road. Even in the very offices of the Intercolonial railway, its officials were not allowed to solicit traffic for their own road. That arrangement the Minister of Railways abrogated. Is there an hon. gentleman in this House who has sufficient courrage to stand up and condemn the Minister of Railways for his action in that respect.
We have been told that we are doing nothing. But surely this act of the hon. minister was an aggressive and a bold act, particularly in view of the fact that in the last election in the constituency of St. John a determined effort was made to fight the minister to the death on that very issue. However, the result showed that when a man takes a bold stand on a great public issue the people of the country will stand by him. We are criticised for our expendi-[DOT] tures on the Intercolonial Railway. I wish to say to the hon. gentleman opposite that the finality of the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway is not yet in sight, and some of us on this side are going to insist that much more generous appropriations be made to still further the interests of that line for the people of Canada. Before I am through to-night, I propose to show that the expenditures which have been made have already 1 been so productive of good that the result gives the people of this country, who are enthusiastic believers in the state ownership of railways, good warrant for continuing their advocacy of that policy. I would ask the House to bear with me a short time
while I read a few figures dealing with the history and development of that road.
I find that in the six years from 1880 to 1885 inclusive, the average annual expenditure was $1,243,281.62 on a mileage of 863, or an average expenditure per mile of $1,440.65. Taking the next period, from 1885 to 1896, eleven years-and this was the period during which the Intercolonial railway was starved-the average expenditure per year on capital account was $396,384 on a mileage of 1,057. Then taking the next period, from 1896 to 1901-a period of great development on the Intercolonial railway-I find that the capital expenditure only amounted to $1,381,924.80 per year on an average mileage of 1,250. In other words, the average annual expenditure per mile amounted to $1,113.54, between 1896 and 1901 against $1,440 a great many years before, and recollect that our expenditure was in the last period necessarily greater by long odds. Yet in spite of that, we did perform the service per mile at $327 less during the last four or five years than it cost hon. gentlemen opposite to perform it.
Let its look at the average working expenses, and let me again bring to the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite that a saving was affected during the last few years of the Conservative regime. But how was it affected ? By reduced wages, by an inferior train service, and by the fact that possibly there was not sufficient business to keep the train hands busy. In 1896-97, only the regular hands were constantly employed, and the train hands engaged for the special were from one-quarter to one-half their time idle. From 1882 to 1886, the average working expenses amounted to $2,382,243 on an average mileage of 891, making $2,674 per mile. From 1887 to 1891 the average working expenses had increased to $3,351,343 or $3,372 per mile, and from 1892 to 1896 the expenses had fallen to $3,083,219 or thereabouts, and the operating expenses of the road were reduced from $3,372 to $2,700 per mile. That was done by the Conservatives, but how was it accounted for ? By a reduction of wages, by inferior train service, and by the fact that there wms not sufficient business to keep the railway employees constantly at work. Last year we had a large deficit on the road. How do you account for this ? In 1896 the money paid for fuel on the Intercolonial railway amounted to $408, S61 against $973,268 in 1901, or the coal purchased for the Intercolonial Railway in 1901 cost more than twice as much as it did in 1896. But I shall deal with that matter a little later. So much for fuel. I am dealing now with the three items of fuel, the wages paid to the employees, and the repairs made on the road, and to these three I would call special attention. That is, coal in 1901 cost a great deal more than twice as much as it did in 1896. Now, for repairs, I shall compare the two years 1896 and 1901 :


Mr. TAYLOR.: That is vengeance.	economy	with a


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Sometimes, generous expenditure is the wisest economy, as I think I shall show. Now, we come to the question of wages, and for this comparison I will take three years :
Intercolonial Railway-comparison of wages for 1891, 1896 and 1901.
-	1901.	1896.	1891.Wages of drivers, firemen and clean-	8 cts.	8 cts.	8 cts.ers	
Wages of conductors, train, baggage and brakesmen . . Wages in repairing roadway, fences, semaphores, and	468,734 14	264,604 16	274,281 45452,385 55	255,412 68	259,940 94laying new sidings St a t i o n m asters, agents, clerks, telegraph operators, station bag-gagem asters, yard masters, switch -	012,571 94	353,687 70	396,937 65men and labourers	500,866 40	303,796 20	297,226 00
It will he noticed that during the five years before 1891, the wages for drivers, firemen and cleaners amounted to considerably more than in 1896 itself. Hon. gentlemen opposite who were then in power were curtailing expenses in that year, with results that we shall see later on. The wages I have given do not include salaries paid to general manager, manager, traffic manager, district superintendents and all high-priced officials. It will be seen that there was an increase in 1901 over 1896 of the total wages , Mr. KENDALL.
as I have just given them of $863,000. Now, let me recapitulate these increases in 1901 as compared with 1896 :
Increase for	coal	
$564,407" for	wages	
863[o57Repairs	
506,957Grand total of increases in expenses of 1901 over 1896	$1,934,421
I have a note to the effect that there was an increase of labour of about 70 per cent, and the receipts show also an increase of about 70 per cent in 1901 as against 1896.
Now, the freight carried in 1895-6 was 1,379,618 tons, and in 1901 the freight carried was 2,111,310 tons, or an increase of 731,962 tons. The number of passengers in 1896 was 1,471,866, and in 1901, 2,025,296, or an increase of more than half a million passengers carried on the Intercolonial Railway in 1901 over the number carried in 1896. Now, hon. gentlemen opposite talk about increased working expenses. Is it reasonable to suppose that this huge addition to the business of the Intercolonial Railway could be made without a corresponding increase in cost ? And let me remind hon. gentlemen opposite-and I do not wish to criticise the former minister too harshly-that possibly, in a legitimate desire to curtail the expenses of the Intercolonial Railway during a period of depression from 1891 to 1896, the hon. gentleman went too far and starved the road to a condition that made it more expensive than it otherwise would have been to bring it up to the condition that the trade of the country required in 1901. Now, let us look at the revenue :-
'	1895-0.	1900-1.	Increase.$	8	8Earnings from passenger traffic ....	971,426	1,607,106	635,740Freight traffic	1,788,813	3,121,006	1.332,193Mails and express freight	197,400	244,062	46,662Totals	2,957,639	4,972,234	2,014,595Earnings per mile of railway	
Earn mgs per train mile	$ cts. 2,589 00 76 97	$ cts. 3,782 00 79 39	
Earnings per mile of railway in 1891, 82,721.
Now let us compare the gross earnings of the Intercolonial Railway at different periods with the capital employed at different periods :



[Stage Direction]
Average	A verage G ross	Kate per cent onCapital.	Y early Earnings.	Average Capital.1887-01, inclusive..	$ 50,927,597	$ 2,920,278	5'731892-9(1 ., ..	55,080,771	2,979.302	5 351897-01	59,391,000	3,849,207	0-481000-01 M ..	03,975,000	4,972,000	7'77
In 1892-96 was the period when the expenses of the Intercolonial Railway for different reasons were curtailed. Now it will be observed that in the years of the reduction of expenses from 1891 to 1896, the percentage of gross earnings on capital employed fell from 5-73 to 5-33, and that percentage rose in 1897-01 to 6-48, and in the last year, as I have stated, to 7 77.
Let us compare the average deficits for several terms of years. The average deficit since the opening of the road in 1876 has been $207,478. The average deficit from 1876 to 1896 was $230,608. The average deficit of $267,461, extending over a period of . 10 years (1887-96), was reduced toy 57 per cent during the past five years.
Now, in the face of these figures 1 venture to reassert what I said a few moments ago, that the railway policy of the present administration has been bold, aggressive, and, as I said before, effective In the best interests of the country. I may also say for the information of the leader of the opposition who was not in his seat when I made the remark before, that I consider that the end of the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway is not yet in sight, that we want large sums of money for still further development. I think before long we may expect that a fast line of steamers will leave some British port for some port on the St. Lawrence, and that on the way to the St. Lawrence this fast line of steamers will probably call at North Sydney. But I want to point out that before the fast Atlantic service can be made effective for the rapid delivery of passengers and mails, a very considerable expense will have yet to be made on the Intercolonial Railway, and this expense will be as justifiable as most of the expenditures made during the previous years. I wish to point out that one of the difficulties on the Intercolonial Railway is a very heavy grade between Truro and Amherst, that is what is known as the Folly River Mountain. That grade will probably have to be avoided, and for that purpose a line of railway will have to be constructed from Amherst to Pugwash, which is now one of the termini of the short line. Furthermore, this road will have to be carried across the harbour of Pictou, a bridge will have to be built there, and then the road may be connected with the present road a little way outside of Pictou Landing. Furthermore, it is impossible economically
to convey heavy loads of freight from Cape Breton West for the reason that soon after leaving the Strait of Canso a mountain has to be climbed. This will have to be avoided, and I have no doubt at considerable expense, by sending the road around the gulf shore to the Strait of Canso.
Now, Sir, I come to a matter of considerable magnitude, a matter which cannot be much longer disregarded and that is the necessity of buildng a bridge across the Strait of Canso. Before the fast Atlantic line can be made effective we shall have to have these improvements made at the points on the Intercolonial Railway that I have indicated, and furthermore we must have a bridge across the Strait of Canso. I propose now to show to the House that large expenditures on the eastern end of the Intercolonial are not only justifiable but are demanded in the interests of the road and in the interest of the country. Sir, what is the situation ? You have a great coal business developing in Great Britain, and with unlimited possibilities. You have heard the story of the development of the Dominion Coal Company ; and I now tell you that Mackenzie & Mann, on the Inverness side of Cape Breton, have got a property which probably within a very few years will rival that of the Dominion Coal Company. It is with some satisfaction that I refer to the coal trade of this country, in the light of recent events.
I was the first public man in the eastern part of Nova Scotia who had the courage to stand up before an audience of miners and tell them that the future of the coal business did not depend on protection. It was a venturesome thing to do and the first time I did it, I was snowed under-I expected to be anyway. In 1891, when I never expected to be a politician (and I never wished to be), at a great meeting in Louisbourg, before there was a coal trade there, before there were facilities for shipping coal, before our coal was going to the United states, to South America and the Mediterranean, I met the champion of the coal trade in eastern Nova Scotia, the gentleman who is now Senator McKeen. I was a mere boy in politics then. I well remember the ridicule he poured upon me when I said the day would come when the great coal measures of Cape Breton, which had been placed there by the Almighty for the use of the people all along the coasts of the Atlantic, would be supplying coal for the markets of the world. It was his game to tell the people that the whole of the coal business depended on protection. I could not blame the people if they disbelieved me. Mr. McKeen was supposed to know all about it. The hon. member for West Prince (Mr. Hackett) was good enough to refer to the connection which Prince Edward Island has with the coal trade of Cape Breton. I am glad to see this because it shows that persons in different parts of the maritime provinces
[Stage Direction]
are looking at the relationship which exists between the different provinces of the country. I remember that he stated what I have so often heard on the hustings in Cape Breton that the development of this trade is due to the national policy. I would tell him now, if he were here, that I will agree with him that in 1878, 1879 and in 1880 the imposition of the coal duty was a benefit to the coal trade of Nova Scotia, but that coincident with the imposition of that duty on coal was a rapid lowering of freight rates from the fact that the old fashioned sailing vessels which required anywhere from 82.50 to $3.50 per ton to convey coal from Cape Breton to Montreal, were displaced by steamers, which in turn, were displaced by more modern steamers, and there came a more rapid lowering of the freight rates from $3.50 to $3, from $3 to $2, to $1.25 to $1 and on until they got down, in 1897. to 85 cents, or 90 cents a ton. I would like to ask the hou. member for West Prince : If the duty was of such great value to us, what would he consider to be the value of the reduction in freight rates to the extent of from $1 to $2 per ton ? Now, Sir, I may be taunted with the reply that the party I support has not taken the duty off coal. I will not agree to the removal of duty from coal to any greater extent than at present. I hold that for every dollar's worth of coal that we sell as the result of protection we lose anywhere from $2, $3 as the result of the system of protection, but, I am going to insist as long as I am in this House and as long as the tariff is framed as it is framed on having that duty maintained in order that Ontario may pay a fair share of the public revenues, because we are compelled by our situation down there and by the situation that the tariff creates to take enormous quantities of the products of Ontario on which we have to pay large taxes. That is our situation.
George Taylor: What taxes do you pay on produce from Ontario 1


Arthur Samuel Kendall: We pay on all your agricultural machinery, pianos, organs, sewing machines, milling machinery and carriages. Everything you produce goes down there, the trains are loaded with your products and you take nothing back.


George Taylor: You pay no taxes on that all the same.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: We pay taxes into the pockets of the manufacturers.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: Nonsense, nonsense.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: But I have digressed. I say it is some gratification, as being the first public man who took that stand, to find Mr. James Ross, the leading director of the Dominion Coal Company, a few weeks ago give an interview to one of the Montreal papers, in which he said: My assistant manager has just returned from the Mediterranean, where he has found markets for Mr. KENDALL.
our coal. I well recollect the ridicule I had to submit to from the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite, when I said that our coal would go into the Mediterranean. 1 also recollect having my own political friends pull me down and say : For God's sake do not make our party ridiculous. It is with some gratification that I point to the fact that the leading man in connection with the Dominion Coal Company made the statement that his assistant manager has just returned from the Mediterranean and that he had found markets not only for their own surplus coal, but, markets for the other collieries in Nova Scotia for all the coal they had to send. Now, I come to another matter and as I think it is somewhat important, I would ask hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House to give it their earnest attention. We have had a great development of the coal business. We are glad of it. We have endeavoured to make the conditions under which these large companies operate as generous as possible, consistent with the public good, but before I go into this question, I wish to point out that the Liberal party in Nova Scotia, of which the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was at the time leader, was charged with having created a coal monopoly. There is no monopoly. Right across the water the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company have purchased the property of the General Mining Association and instead of being content with an output of
250.000	tons a year they have an output of
300.000	tons, they are making preparations for an output of 600,000 tons and they will probably before long, have an output of nearly a million tons. Other coal companies in Nova Scotia are operating coal mines. There is no monopoly, and here I wish to point out and I am going to deal with a serious condition, but, I wish to point out before doing so, that this monopoly which the Liberals were said to have brought into existence is selling its coal cheaper than the other companies.
Now, we are confronted with a serious condition. We have a coal business in the maritime provinces which is one of the most strongly placed industries we have in Canada. Sir, this business is getting too strong. The coal producers in Nova Scotia are taxing all the people from Montreal down to Halifax and Cape Breton, a great deal too much for coal. They are taxing the Intercolonial Railway too much for coal; they are taxing the Intercolonial Railway to an extent that will surprise you when I mention the figures. I say that on the Intercolonial Railway last year we paid at least $300,000 too much for coal-an amount which would this year wipe out the whole of the deficit and leave a large amount to the credit of that road. And, Sir, the serious feature of the thing is that we have got to be thankful to these coal companies that they have not charged us at least 50 cents or 75 cents

more per ton. It is in their power to do so. They are within their rights in their charges. I do not quarrel with them on that score. But, a certain condition of things has arisen. These_ coal producers are the masters of the situation; they are the masters of a natural monopoly, and by combining they can dictate terms to every consumer of coal, including the government, from Cape Breton down to Montreal.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is to be done about this ? Every factory, every railway, every householder, is paying too much for coal, and what are you going to do about it ? The coal companies are within their rights.
An hoif. MEMBER. Take the duty off.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Taking the duty off will not help it, because coal from England or from the United States cannot get into that territory. I defy refutation of that statement. Then what is to be done about it ? A condition like this is not entirely new in the history of the world. To-day I pointed out that in British Columbia, when the government was making its arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway, as one of the concessions required in return for the sum of $3,800,000 given to that railroad, the government took over some 50,000 acres of coal land and stipulated that when the coal was mined it should be put on board the cars at a price not exceeding $2 a ton, and should be carried to the North-west at rates to be decided upon by the government. I referred to that this afternoon in connection with what was in my mind with regard to the Nova Scotia situation. What is to be done ? The government, as I have shown, has to a certain extent dealt with a similar situation in the North-west. A few years ago In New Zealand, tlie premier of that colony was confronted with a similar condition. Manufae-turers came to him and said : The coal producers of New Zealand are charging a price for coal that absorbs the profits of our business; we have some thousands of people employed; the situation must be met; we have got to get coal cheaper or the government of New Zealand must take upon itself to support the thousands of operatives whom we must throw out of employment. Mr. Seddon was the premier of New Zealand at that time.
I do not suppose that he acted in a hurry There is no doubt he thought the matter over and talked it over. When the crisis came he went to his telephone and called up the leading coal operators and said in effect-I am not going to have 6,000 or 8,000 operatives of factories thrown on the hands of the government for support while you destroy the business of the manufacturers for the benefit of your coal trade; your coal trade is making too much money; you have got the opportunity.and you are taking advantage of it: the industries of the country 62
are suffering; we have a government meeting to-morrow at twelve o'clock and I give you until twelve o'clock to-morrow to say whether or not you will supply the manufacturers of this part of New Zealand with coal at such a figure, and if you will not do so, the government will telegraph to England to get out mining machinery and will mine the coal itself.
. Now, Sir, there is the situation that I believe the government of Canada has to face. Recollect that the coal companies are within their rights; they can charge us nearly what they like. There is plenty more coal to be developed there but if small operators go there to develop coal mines the large operators will absorb them or put them out of business. Let a Montreal or a Quebec coal dealer undertake to bring coal to any considerable extent from England or Wales, and what would be done ? The coal companies in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia will at once lower the price of coal and teach these men a lesson that they will not want to read again. They Pan undersell them to almost any extent they wish.
I say, Sir, that the time has come, or the the time has pretty nearly come when that situation which interests some three millions of people from Montreal to the sea board, must be met, and particularly so as the government of this country is a large purchaser of coal, and will be a larger purchaser in the future than at present. Now Mr. Speaker I shall make a statement to the House on the strength of two of the best mining engineers of Nova Scotia, one ot whom has mined millions of tons of coal I say on the strength of the statement of these engineers: That to-day, whereas in Cape Breton you are paying $2.70, $2.80 and $2.90 per ton for coal ; the government could mine that coal and put it on its cars tor $1 per ton. I say, that in Pictou on the ""Y'J land, where you pay anywhere from $3.00 to $3.25 per ton ; on the statement of two of the best mining engineers of Nova Scotia, men of large experience-I could give the names in confidence to the hon leader of the opposition but I do not wish to make them public-on the strength of the experience of these men, I say that this government could in Cumberland and in Pictou put coal on board the cars at $1 25 per ton, for which it is now paying $3 apd $3.50 per ton. That would mean a saving of $600,000 or $700,000 a year on the purchases of coal by this government. Is that a small item ? When we were confronted with deficits on the Intercolonial Railway, and when the tax payers of Canada are told by the hon. gentlemen opposite and perhaps by the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House : That the Intercolonial Railway should be made to pay ; and when with honest efforts to make it pay the result has been that we have during the last few years an average deficit of $114,000 a



year-although I am happy to say that notwithstanding the high price of coal during this current year there is a possibility that the Intercolonial Railway will come out on the 30th of June next without very much of a deficit-I say that when this very large sum can be saved to the people of Canada on the purchase of coal alone, is it not a matter for us to consider ? It would be not only a saving of $600,000 or $700,000 a year to the government, but on the basis of the present purchases of coal it would mean a saving of anywhere from $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 to the factories, the other railways, and the householders from Montreal east who purchased this coal. Of course in the near future, with the larger purchases of coal, that saving would be greatly increased.
Now Sir, there is one weak point in what I have stated, I would not advise the government to go into the mining of coal unless the miners of Nova Scotia were willing to make a compact with the government. I wish to tell the hon. gentlemen opposite who are not acquainted with the men who operate the mines in Nova Scotia, something about these Nova Scotia miners so that there may be no misgivings on this point. It is admitted by persons who have travelled over the collieries of Europe and of America, that the Nova Scotia miners are probably the best class of any miners in the world. What is the history of coal mining in that province ? Labour there has been organized and highly organized. The mining labour there does not consist of numbers of unorganized men. They are a strong organized body, probably the best organized body of labourers in Canada. They are not like the shifting mining populations of the western states. They are a class of men who are citizens, who own property and have a stake in the country, who are zealous to maintain their churches and schools. And just here let me interject the remark that with all the development that has taken place there, I am a little apprehensive. I would prefer not to see too rapid a development. The danger of a too rapid development is that we may have to draft into our mining population large hordes of men from outside, who will not assimilate with our people, whose aspirations and whose civilization are not the same. Therefore, I am a little apprehensive on this point, and the mining population are a little apprehensive. They are also beginning to see that the ambitions of the capitalists are factors which they may have to fight in the future as they have never had to do in the past, and they want to be left in a position to meet that situa-
Mon.	.
I say the miners of Nova Scotia will not be content to have their normal aspirations as citizens crushed out. I do not know' whether the miners will agree with this or


Arthur Samuel Kendall: not; but I say that if the government should go and put a fair proposition before the miners, they will at least consider it. I believe the government will be in a position to put a proposition before them that will be attractive ; and if an agreement is made, these miners will stand to it. Let me tell you that in spite of our strong organization in the county of Cape Breton we have not had a strike for 16 years. In Cumberland and Pictou there have been several strikes ; but they were due largely to the fact, I am sorry to say, that the managers were probably more unreasonable than the men, for I have heard the statement made by those well qualified to judge that if the same managers who operated the Cape. Breton collieries had been in charge of the mines in other parts of the province, many of these disturbances would probably never have taken place.
Now, Sir, there are certain features which I believe can be attached to a policy of governmental mining of coal that will be attractive. You are aware that in other countries, particularly in New Zealand, Great Britain, Belgium and Switzerland there is a movement on foot for the betterment for the condition of labour. I say if the government undertook to secure to the mining population fair wages, compensation for injury and death, and old age pensions- and it would only cost a few cents per ton on the coal to initiate these measures-and if we could guarantee that the present position of the miners as regards their comfort and independence would not be disturbed, I believe it would be possible for this government to make a working arrangement down there that would be highly profitable to all concerned.	.
My proposition would be that an independent commission should be formed to work these mines. There are numbers of properties which can be expropriated, and a number which can be obtained without expropriating, sufficient to furnish the coal required bv the government in the eastern part of Canada for the next hundred years. I believe this proposition would find favour in the minds of the people, who feel that the situation as regards the high price of bituminous coal is becoming intolerable, and I suggest to the government that they investigate this proposition. I do not ask for any hurried action ; but I ask that they go over the ground to see that the coal is available, to consult with labour organizations of the country, and to see if some arrangement cannot be made whereby the existing evil may be overcome. These great coal companies will sell coal to-day in the city of Portland at a far lower price than they will to me, who lives w'ithin ten miles of the place where the coal is produced. It is true, they may sell there 5,000 tons and to me only one or two tons, yet the diffeience in the price is so great as to constitute a

burden for which if possible a remedy should be found.
Allow me to come back to the question of bridging the Straits of Canso. I believe that this question has been investigated by an engineer (Mr. Donkin) who has a reputation as wide as Canada, and who holds that the structure can be built for about $4,000,000. I know that when I speak of more millions in connection with the Intercolonial Railway, people are apt to stop for breath, but, Sir, the situation that is developing there is one that will warrant the country in making further large expenditures. I pointed out just now that Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann are developing a great coal property. Other properties are developing. The Dominion Coal Company will greatly develop. The Nova Scotia Steel Company is developing not only its steel plant, but also its coal beds. I made a prophecy a few years ago that our coal would go to the Mediterranean, and I think I will venture another prophecy to-night ; that is that where to-day we mine about 3,500,000 tons of coal on the Island of Cape Breton, before the end of another ten years will mine 10,000,000. To this add the development of the iron industry.
There are other public works in the county of Cape Breton and in connection with the Intercolonial Railway to which I must ask the consideration of the Minister of Railways. I said not long ago that we expected before very long to have a fast Atlantic steamship service, and that the point at which the steamers will meet the Intercolonial Railway in Cape Breton will probably be North Sydney. The present accommodation at North Sydney is not sufficient for the present business, and I want to point out this again in justification of many of the acts of the Minister of Railways. In the autumn of 1897, when the Minister of Railways visited the town of North Sydney, he found that the railway had not been extended down to the water. The Messrs. Reid had completed their railway across the island of Newfoundland, and it was necessary In the public interest that a considerable amount of money should toe expended in connection with the steamship service and the railway of Messrs. Reid, in Newfoundland. An extension was made which for a short time met or nearly met the requirements of business ; but to-day the business between the Intercolonial Railway and the Reid system of railways has grown to such an extent, that the present facilities providede by the Minister of Railways are entirely insufficient to meet the requirements of the trade, and I am going to urge upon him to make very considerable appropriations in order that the wharf at the end of the Intercolonial Railway may be made wider and longer, and that the water about it may be dredged, so that we may be in a position to acommodate any vessel of any size that is likely to come there. The Intercolonial Railway will be crippled 62J
I _
if some appropriations are not made for providing increased facilities, particularly for the eastern end of the road. I wish to point out that that part of the road between St. John and Truro and Halifax and the Sydneys is the part that pays the best, that the expenditures made on it up to this time have been justified by the results, and that still more expenditure is required in order to get still better results. I should also say here that the Webb syndicate are building a railway from the Strait of Canso to Louisbourg, which will open up a valuable piece of country, and in its connections will certainly develop a considerable amount of trade. What its future connections may be is, of course, a matter of conjecture at present.
I have spoken at some length appreciably of the Intercolonial Railway. There is another matter to which I would draw the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals and concerning which I cannot congratulate myself, as a representative of the county, or him as a minister. I have pointed out that the amount of money expended on that road has greatly increased. I have to admit in the hon. minister's favour that the rate of wages to a great many people employed on the track has been increased, but I believe that no industry ought to exist, in this or any other country, which cannot stand on its own bottom and pay its employees sufficient wages to keep them and their families according to the requirements of our civilization. That is a proposition which the people will endorse. I say that there are three classes of labourers on the Intercolonial Railway, the trackmen the mechanics and the freight handlers, who are altogether inadequately paid. The con-
!ud0IL0LS0mem0f tllese men in large places like Halifax, Truro, and Sydney is simply
pitiable. Everybody knows that no man wdh a wife and family of three or four children can live decently, where he has to pay a rent of from $io to $12 a month, on a wage of $1.25 to $1.30 per day, and I shall have in a few days, I hope, the pleasure of supporting the resolution of my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) that in the opinion of this House, the time has come when at least nothing under $1.50 pei day shall be paid to the workingmen on the Intercolonial Railway. I cannot too strongly emphasize my discontent with the conditions of many of the labouring men along that road.
There is another matter on which I may speak a few moments without wearying the House, as it is one of very great importance to the larger part of our population, the labour element, the hon. members on both sides may as well recognize that this is a question which will not down, and that the movements on foot in other countries are today getting a start in Canada. This question, Sir, has got to be dealt with. I congratulate

the lion. Minister of Labour on what he has done. He lias done considerable in the interests of labour, and I am happy to know that he has measures yet in contemplation which he proposes to put on the statutes for the benefit of our labouring men. Not long ago a deputation from the Trades and Labour Council of Canada waited on the government. By the courtesy of one of its members I happened to be present, and I think that the members of the government who were there must have been convinced that from British Columbia to Nova Scotia there is a deep-seated conviction in the labour element of the country that labour does not get a fair share of the profits of industry. I think that that point was emphasized, and I take the ground that while we cannot initiate some measures in the interests of labour in this parliament, and that while many such measures must be introduced in the local legislatures, the government of Canada, so far as it is an employer of labour, should be a model employer of labour. I think that that is a proposition which no one, when he goes before the people, will venture to contradict. Some of you may recollect that last session I requested the government to collect during recess from other countries measures that have been there adopted for the benefit of labouring men. The late Mr. Harper was engaged in collecting this information when he came to nis death by drowning, and shortly before his untimely demise he intimated to me that he had collected a considerable amount of information on this matter, and told me where I could find the balance, and I am indeed indebted to him for having secured the amount of information I have now in my possession. My hon. friend from Cumberland, as you are aware, Sir, has on the Order paper a notice of motion with regard to rates of wages on the Intercolonial Railway, and I have also a resolution on that paper asking that the government recognize that the time has come when the provisions of the British Workmen's Compensation Act should be made available for the labourers of this country. I quite recognize that this is a very radical measure. Lord Salisbury put it through in 1897, at the instance of Mr. Chamberlain, and shortly afterwards one of Lord Salisbury's supporters resigned his position in the House, and wrote a pamphlet against him entitled ' Conservative or Socialist, Which ? ' I saw that in 1898. I got a copy of that measure and showed it to the premier of Nova Scotia in 1898 ; and the following year, when he visited Great Britain, he inquired into its working with the result that he came back convinced that the Act was a workable one, and introduced in Nova Scotia what Is known as the Employer's Liability Act, which contains many of the provisions of the Employer's Liability Act of Ontario, with those of the Workmen's Compensation Mr. KENDALL.
Act of England grafted on it. I take the ground that what is not too good for the British workingmen is not at all too good for his Canadian fellow-labourer, and if this Act has been found workable and beneficial in England, it is a fair proposition for the government to put it on our statute-books for the benefit of its employees.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer very briefly. The Dominion Irou and Steel Company, of Sydney, is, in a certain sense, a child of the government. It receives a large bounty from the government. It has received concessions from the town of Sydney, from the legislature of Nova Scotia and from this government. The country is making an investment in that business, an investment which will probably meet me initial losses which are always incident to the inauguration of a new industry. Sir, I say that business is to a certain extent the child of the government ; and I take the ground that when this parliament bonused that institution and several other similar institutions, it supposed that Canadian labour would not be discriminated against at least. Our workmen down in Nova Scotia-and we have also a number from other provinces-are not narrow-, minded-men. They recognize that a large amount of skilled labour had to be brought in from the United States in order to, operate mat plant. No exception is taken to that. And, Sir, I am not one who would deny to a man from the United States a day's work in Cape Breton or anywhere in Canada ; and, if he came over and, as a good citizen was ready to cast in his lot with us, we would do everything we could to help him. But I do not want to see men brought in here if they are going to displace our own men, particularly when the taxes of those men are drawn upon to pay bonuses to these companies. I think that is a fair proposition. I do not wish to be harsh, but I will say that the spirit of the Alien Labour Law has been impudently violated by that company. I say that Canadians have been discriminated against; I say that men have been brought in here who are not required.
I admit that a great many men were brought in who were

required. Many of them are able, capable men. and their services will be of value in assisting our development. But I emphatically protest against discriminations against our workmen. To my knowledge, capable men who were occupying similar positions to those filled by friends of the managers are being paid only 50 or 60 or 70 per cent as much as men brought from the United States.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: For the same work ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Doing the same work. If I hesitate, it is because I wish to be a little careful, for I feel inclined to say, perhaps. a little more than I will say. I shall reserve anything further for a later day, lie-

cause I have been promised by certain uirec-tors in that company that the state of affairs will he improved. But 1 wish to point out to the directors of the Steel Company and the Coal Company, that they and the great banking institutions have made a great investment in Cape Breton in coal and iron, and it will pay them to make an investment in the good feeling of the country. I wish to say-and I feel a little restraint in making this remark-that a document was put into my hands not very long ago issued by the company to the workmen under twenty-one years of age, intimating to these young men that if they did not sign away their rights under the Employer's Liability Act of Nova Scotia, which I have just spoken of, they could consider themselves dismissed. Sir, I say that that is an arbitrary act, that is an act that can only be characterized as an act of oppression. And what I now say I say with deliberation, having thought it out, and I am prepared to take the responsibility of it-that, if the great Napoleons of capital of this country undertake to crush out the legitimate aspirations of our labourin' population, if they ignore and violate the regulations and laws of the country which are the offspring of civilization, if I may say so, then I hope to live to see the time when such tyranny will bring to its perpetrators the retribution that tyranny has frequently brought to its perpetrators in the past-I hope to live to see the day when men who make war on humanity will be outlawed. Now, Sir, having made this statement I wish to say again to the investing public : We have a strongly organized labour in Cape Breton, perhaps the most strongly organized in Canada, but I point to the record of that labour element. It is an element that can be relied upon. For sixteen years in the great collieries in the southern part of Cape Breton, we have not had a strike. I say that that is the best security that investors in Cape Breton can have. That is an asset which investors should not undervalue ; and again I say that the great operators, the great manipulators of capital in placing investments there should see to it that they make an investment in the good-will of the people. I wish to say to them still further that a policy of antagonism to the legitimate aspirations of labour will be fatal, and I sincerely hope that a wise policy will prevail on the part of those who come to develop that country, as it will be developed. Some years ago, in the local legislature of Nova Scotia, the island of Cape Breton was referred to by one bon. member of that body as the tin can at the tail of the dog. But one of the members representing a Cape Breton constituency said: Not the tin can at the tail of the dog, but the jewel in the swine's snout. Sir, we anticipate great developments, and we want to have not only material development but social development as well. And we want the processes which have developed our mining population up to its present status
during the last thirty or forty years to be continued, and are determined as far as possible that elements which are calculated to break up the happy condition that now prevail shall be, as far as possible, thwarted.
Mr. Speaker, I have occupied the time of the House longer than I anticipated. But I did want to say a word or two about the resolution now before the House, and I will content myself with a very few words indeed. I may say to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that I sympathize with him to a certain extent in putting that resolution before the country. I did hope, when he began to read the resolution that it would shed some light upon his fiscal policy, that it would not be merely nebulous and indefinite. There may be some light in it, but it reminds me a good deal of a ray of moonlight in a very foggy night. I cannot understand what the hon. gentleman seeks to do. I would like him to particularize, to point out just where he is going to improve the tariff. I would like to remind the hon. leader of the opposition that a gentleman who occupied the position of leader of the Dominion government, the late Right Hon. Sir John -Thompson, spoke on one occasion of ' mouldering branches ' in connection with the tariff, which, in his opinion, might be lopped off with benefit to the country. We have heard no demand for tariff changes except only from hon. gentlemen on this side who think that the tariff is too high, except from one industry, the woollen industry. I wonder if he ever thinks that possibly this woollen industry may be one of the mouldering branches which the late Sir John Thompson had in his mind. Let him not misunderstand me. I am not anxious to see the woollen business suffer to any greater extent than it does today. I suppose that is one of the industries to which he wishes to give added protection, but I wish to point out that when a million dollars worth of woollen goods are made in Canada, as compared with a million dollars worth produced in Great Britain, the manufacturer of this country still has an opportunity to sell that million dollars worth for $1,233,000 under the preferential tariff.
Sir, the hon. gentleman proposes to frame a policy for this country, and I was thinking the other day that possibly when he takes a bird's eye view of half a continent, and looks at those resources of Canada which must be the backbone of our prosperity in the future, the four great natural industries :	The mining and fishing of
British Columbia, the farming of the Northwest, the fishing, farming, lumbering and mining of Ontario, the fishing, farming, and lumbering of Quebec, and the similar industries of the maritime provinces ; and when he looks into the future and thinks which of the industries at present in existence are most likely to build up the country, can he doubt what is the best policy for us to,pursue ? It is best to pursue a policy of developing the great natural in-

dustries, of the country, or a policy of fostering a number of manufactures which can scarcely be expected ever to stand alone ? Now, there are some manufacturing industries in this country that can stand alone, and one of these is the manufacture of agricultural implements. I have heard statements made by one of the men prominent in that business that to-day they are practically independent, that to-day they can take certain of their implements and sell them in Australia and in Europe in competition with similar implements from- the United States ; that as a matter of fact they are not able to-day to supply the home market, and that a number of American implements come in here for the reason that our implements can be sold in Europe to better advantage than they can be sold at home. That statement was made to me not fifty feet from where I stand, a few days ago, by a gentleman who knows as much about the business, I presume, as most any one. There are a number of manufacturing industries in this country that are almost as independent as those of fishing and agriculture. Sir, I say that the great natural industries of this country are those to which we can direct our energies the most profitably. I am sure that in the province from which the hon. gentleman comes he can find scarcely an industry that is likely to be benefited by a higher protective tariff than the present one.
Let me say that being a free trader in principle, I agree that the present tariff is merely a tentative measure. I believe that the present is a better tariff than the one that formerly existed, yet It is not the best system, though perhaps it is the best which is within practical politics to-day. I beileve that with the system that prevails in Great Britain, a system of direct taxation on all incomes over $750, the great bulk of our people would be better off than they are today. I make the statement that the burden of taxation falls on the shoulders of the people who have to earn their living by the sweat of their brow, and that the rich people of this country are escaping more and more their fair share of taxation. I point to the fact that in Great Britain no man pays a penny on income until he earns over $750 a year, unless he pays it on his spirits, and tobacco, and a few other articles of luxury. His food, his clothing and the materials with which he must work and gain a livelihood, are as free as they can be got anywhere in the world. I believe that system is one which would work in this country, although I admit that it is not within practical politics. I would advocate that system also as a tentative measure, because I'believe there is another system of taxation even better, and that is the single tax, or the land tax, but this form of taxation will probably originate in civic and municipal politics.
Now, Sir, before sitting down I wish to say that I defy hon. gentlemen opposite to


Arthur Samuel Kendall: show me whereby a protective tariff can help the fishermen of this country, whereby it will help the fruit-growers of this country, the miners of this country, or to any great extent the lumbermen or the pulp producers of this country, and the agriculturists of this country, except it may be the market gardeners who produce a few bundles of rhubarb and bunches of summer savory. I say that the great natural industries of this country that depend upon foreign markets and which are the backbone of this country, can in no way be benefited by protection. I accept it as a tentative measure, and only for the present, when we find it difficult to keep our population at home. I accept the present system in order to keep the population in the country, until such time as we will have a number of manufactures well established, not rooted in protection, but rooted in the solid and successful development of the natural industries of this country.


Bennett Rosamond: I have no desire to emulate the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall) who has just taken his seat, in making a lengthy speech. He has spoken about two hours and three quarters by the clock, While I am sorry that I cannot compliment him on the brevity of his speech, I regret also that I cannot compliment him upon having given us any new ideas. He has given us a long and rambling speech without saying anything noticeable upon the budget. He told us just before sitting down that he had no desire to injure the woollen industry. Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we ought to be very thankful to him for that much. One would have supposed, if he had been in a patriotic mood, that he would have desired to benefit the woollen industry, but I suppose we must feel grateful to him that at least he has nodesire to injure that industry. He was unable to see any light in the amendment which has been moved by the hon. leader of the opposition. I am reminded of the old saying that none are so blind as those who will not see. I think if the hon. gentleman had read that amendment properly and if he had carefully listened to the speech of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), he would have seen a great deal of light and would have been benefited by it. In the early part of his speech he said that some woollen manufacturer in the province of Nova Scotia told him that he could not get wool enough to run his mill. Well, with my knowledge of the facts, the only conclusion I can come to is that gentlemen must have been having a little amusement wlth( the hon. gentleman.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Not at all.


Bennett Rosamond: He must have been trying to pull the wool over his eyes, as a matter of fact there are tons of Canadian wool looking for buyers. He went on to say that it was doilbtful if we could

attempt to manufacture in Canada m competition witli England and other countries. I really think that we cannot wonder at the fact that our population does not grow as rapidly as it should when an hon. member of this House, no doubt a representative man from the province from which he comes, is so pessimistic, or so lacking in ambition for the progress of his own province, that he discourages the establishment of industries in his own province, or in the country. Can we wonder that so many people from the province ot Nova Scotia 'are to be found in the city of Boston and in the New England states . I think this is one reason why the people ot the province of Nova Scotia are said to be unambitious in regard to progress in manufacturing. The hon. gentleman read some extracts from some ancient works giving harrowing accounts of the condition of the working people of England many years ago. Well, I think there can be no question that had he given us the facts of the case relating to the condition of the working people of England he would have pointed out that it was owing to the fact that the corn laws were in existence and that food was dear and difficult to get. This is no argument against protection. Those who are in favour of protection are in favour of enabling the workingman to live as cheaply as he possibly can and he could not live cheaply if the articles of necessity were taxed heavily. The hon. gentleman went on to refer to the great benefit which the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) had conferred upon the country by expending large sums in carrying out cold storage. He did not tell us that cold storage was established by the preceding government, that it was then in its infancy and that a moderate sum was all that was necessary to endeavour to carry it into effect. He failed also to tell us at the same time that the leaders of the opposition of that day when, ?20,000 a vear was being expended, did all they pos sibly could to prevent it. They pitched into the government and opposed them nr every way possible for expending so much money uselessly and recklessly. If he had told us this I think we could have discounted some of the great praise he gave to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Listening to the hon. gentleman's speech I was at a loss to understand whether he was a protectionist or a free trader, or half way between. At the close of his speech he announced himself1 as a free trader pure and simple, but, when we consider that he wanted, in the early part of his speech, more advantages for the fishermen, a greater expenditure of public money, and that he was unwilling to take the duty off coal, I think we will agree that these demands are hardly consistent with the profession he made in favour of free trade. He made some reference to the Intercolonial Railway and he made a strong appeal in favour of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) on account of the abrogation of a certain arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am not conversant with railway matters. I am not living anywhere near the Intercolonial Railway, but, I think the only conclusion that any practical business man can come to in the matter is to judge by the results of the running of the railway, and when we consider that during this last year there lias been an increase in the capital expenditure of $3,652,313.46 and that in addition to that there was a deficit of $488,186.77, we must believe that there is something radically wrong witli the working of the railway. Last week while in Montreal I happened to meet at the Windsor hotel a prominent and a practical railway man, one who is thoroughly conversant with the running of railways and has been for years. I will say, while not wishing to disclose his identity, that he is not connected with the Canadian Pacific Railway. He gave it as his decided opinion that there was no railway on the continent of America that was so badly managed as the Intercolonial Railway. I do not think I need refer to that matter any further than to say that if we carried out the idea of the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) with reference to the mining of coal, if the government took into their hands the coal industry and managed it in the manner that they manage the Intercolonial Railway,
I am quite sure there would not be a business man in this country but would be anxious and desirous that it should be taken out of their hands as quickly as possible. When In Halifax last fall, I happened to see in one of the newspapers of that city a letter written by a prominent commercial man, a man not in public life, but a practical commercial man and a supporter of the present government, as I believe, who was writing in the public press advocating that the Intercolonial Railway should be taken out of the hands of the government and handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway to manage. There can be no other reason for his wishing that that course should be adopted than that the management of the Intercolonial Railway by the government was so outrageously bad, so detrimental to the best interests of the country, so injurious to it in every way that the only course to be taken by practical business men would be to take the road out of the hands of the government and have it managed by some people who could manage it properly. I have no desire to emulate the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat in making a long speech. When I listen to a long speech like that I am reminded of a verse in the psalms of David which says :
A man full of words shall not prosper upon the earth.
Evil shall hunt the wicked person to overthrow him.
If any are to follow me, I hope they will take that to heart and carry out the lesson.


Bennett Rosamond: were properly understood, English capital would be seeking investment over there all the while.
The supply of British capital for Canadian manufacturing industries would also help to find employment for that large class of young men who, we are told, unable to find it at home and being unsuited to agricultural work, are seeking their fortunes in more southern climes.
I do not think we need wonder that British capital should fail to come to Canada. There is no sentiment about capital. Just as water seeks its own level, capital seeks where it can find the most profitable employment, and it certainly will not come to Canada so long as the present condition of things continues to exist. AVe need still less wonder at capital not coming to this country when we find our Finance Minister in 1898 using these words :
I am afraid there is no rest for the protected manufacturer. I am inclined to think, Sir, that he will find eternal vigilance is the price of his protection. He must he on guard all the time against the attack he knows must always come.
Capital is a most sensitive thing and will certainly not seek employment in Canada so long as we have a Finance Minister imbued with these ideas. One would suppose that a Canadian Finance Minister would desire to see his country prosperous and be happy to do all he possibly could to encourage native industry in its endeavour to find employment, but we find the contrary to be the case under the present regime. Then again we find the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) saying :
Some of the woollen factories are closing up. They say the reason Is that they have not sufficient protection. I say it is not. If they cannot live on a 23 per cent tariff, the sooner they shut up the better.
But another strange .feature about some of the supporters of the government is that while they are loud mouthed in their professions of free trade, we find them very anxious for protection on certain things. AVe find, for instance, the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) wanting protection for the farmers who raise horses. AVell, if I were to apply to him the language of the Minister of the Interior, I would say that if our western people cannot breed horses profitably under present conditions, they had better give it up altogether. Then there is the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Morrison), who wants protection on lumber and lead products. To him also I could apply the language of the Minister of the Interior. There is another western member, the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith), who wants protection for Canadian labourers against the Chinese. But if he is to be governed by the doctrine announced by the Minister of the Interior, then if white labour in British Columbia cannot compete with the Chinese the sooner it leaves British Columbia and goes somewhere else where it can get employment, the better. But that doctrine will never make Canada prosperous. Until, as an hon. member on this'-side said some time ago, we are actuated by a broad spirit, until one and all desire that the whole of the country shall prosper, that every industry shall flourish, we never can expect to see Canada in the position she ought to occupy. For my part, and the same may be said of all protectionists-in fact it is the keynote of the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition-we want our farmers protected as well as everybody else. Our farmers have been protected to a considerable extent. They are protected by duties on many of their products such as bacon, cheese and butter. Large sums have been expended on experimental farins in their interest and on arrangements for teaching them how to make cheese and butter profitably. A large staff of men has been employed for this purpose, agricultural colleges have been established at various places, and experimental farms, all at the expense of the Canadian people.
I have no objection to that. On the contrary I am delighted to see it, but if we want Canada to prosper we must not confine our attention to one class. We are all anxious to see the country grow, not only in wealth but in population, and until we are actuated by the broad spirit recommended by one of the members for Toronto, we need not expect this country to attain that degree of prosperity which she ought to enjoy. I do not think I can better close my speech than by quoting something which was said, and so well and so profitably said, by the leader of the opposition. At the outset, I stated that I was not going to make a long speech, and I have only now to quote these words which, perhaps the hon. gentleman from Halifax (Mr. Borden) will pardon my using :
We want to know what will he the policy of this government, as a government, with regard to the fiscal affairs of the country. We want that to he a declared policy so that the people will know what to expect. In asking that we are asking nothing unreasonable or unfair. We want a policy of protection to our labour, agri-culturing, manufacturing and other industries.. We want a policy which will give to our people the advantage in their own market-a policy of Canada for the Canadians ; and Canada for the Canadian means not the less Canada for the empire as well. Because in seeking to promote the development, prosperity and advancement of Canada, we are but doing our duty to that portion of the empire which has been specially committed to our charge. And, lastly, we believe in a policy of mutual or reciprocal trade under whicjj. while protecting Canadian interests, we shall give to and receive from the other portions of the empire preference over foreign goods.


Mr. R. HOLMES (AVest Huron).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest and pleasure, and, I will admit, with a certain amount of profit, to the discussion on the motion now before you. But I have been amused at the course of reasoning of some hon. gentlemen opposite and

the inconsistencies into which it leads them. The hon. member for North Lanark (Mr. Rosamond) admitted, at the outset of his remarks, that this country was enjoying unbounded and almost unexampled prosperity. Yet, in closing, he told us that unless we adopted a certain policy laid down liy the leader of the opposition, we could not enjoy the prosperity we ought to have. But the hon. gentleman is not different from any of his friends in that they contradict not only each other but themselves. We on this side have been twitted with not being a unit in our opinion, and I am free to admit that we are not a unit on all points. But, if that be a crime, which I certainly do not at all admit, we are not alone in our guilt. The hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith) opposed all imports and declared that no country could be made rich by imports, ignoring altogether the fact that Great Britain has imports larger than those of any other country, and yet enjoys a great measure of prosperity. The hon. member for Teel (Mr. Blain) took similar ground and said that we ought to adopt a uniform tariff with that of our American friends, implying that if we put a tariff on natural products our people would derive benefit therefrom. In other words, the hon. gentleman would exclude absolutely products from the United States. But the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) stated that he was in favour of a reciprocity treaty, if it could be had. And the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), in opposition to the views of those who would keep out imports, wanted efforts made to increase our trade with Germany. So, Mr. Speaker, you will find diverse views among hon. gentlemen on the other side as well as among supporters of the government. And, if the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is reported correctly in the newspapers-and I have not seen any contradiction-that hon. gentleman has one set of views for Quebec and another set for Ontario.
I have just a few remarks to make upon the speech of the hon. member for North Lanark, and I shall run over the points hurriedly, endeavouring to follow the good example of the hon. gentleman and speak but briefly. In replying to the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) the hon. member for North Lanark sought to justify his position by saying that the corn laws of Great Britain had brought that country to a bad condition by making dear the bread of the common people. The hon. gentleman ignored the fact that the resolution of his leader, which he supports would, if carried out, re-establish a system of corn laws in the old land, make food dear in that country, and so tend to bring back the condition of which he speaks. I do not feel bound to justify everything that has been said in the House by hon. members on this side. It is true that some years ago Mr. HOLMES.
they said that the expenditure should be kept down, and that the increase of the debt should be kept within reasonable bounds. I believe that their arguments were good, that they were sincere, and yet I believe that increase of expenditure is perfectly justifiable at the present time. I would remind the House that the late leader of the opposition stated on this floor that the expenditure and the debt of the country must inevitably go on growing with the development of the resources of this country. I am sure that the people will find no fault with the government that increases the debt, so long as its increase is legitimate and honourable, and so long as is not disgraced by such transactions as marked the increase of the debt in connection with the record of the previous administration. I had hoped that my hon. friend from North Lanark would speak more in detail on the tariff on woollens. That is an article witli which he is, of course, familiar. But I can understand his modesty in not alluding to it at length, because it might be said that he was, as the common expression goes, talking shop. But I wish to take issue with the hon. gentleman on that point. I wish to say, and I say it without mental reservation, that, if the woollen manufacturers are not satisfied with a tariff at 23J per cent, and the difference of the freight between the old country and here, which, at the lowest rate, would raise the protection of these manufacturers to 25 per cent, if these woollen manufacturers cannot prosper with that protection in a country like Canada, where woollens are a prime necessity and must be bought-by the people, then, it is time for these manufacturers to turn their investments and their attention to some 'other branch of industry. I was going to say it is a woeful admission for hon. gentlemen to make to this House and this country, to convey the impression that the woollen manufacturers cannot carry on a legitimate business unless they are allowed to tax the people more than 25 per cent on their purchases in this line. The statement is made in the press, and made repeatedly, that the woollen industry is suffering. So far as I have been able to learn, I have not found that statement borne out by the facts, and I ha've grave doubts of the ability of any man to prove it. A short time ago I met within the walls of this House a gentleman who is engaged in the woollen industry. I asked him if he was one of those who objected to the preferential tariff, and if his woollen mill was suffering because of importations. His answer was :	No, he was not one of
those who were objecting, and he did not believe that the others had good ground for objecting, because they were so busy they could not fill their orders. I myself could name woollen mills that are working overtime to catch up with the demand and fill the orders that they have. If this is the

state of the case, the woollen manufacturers have no grievance which would justify us in giving them greater protection than they have at present.
1 Reference has been made in the course ot this debate to the action of the government in refusing to yield to the delegations that have come down here asking for an increase in the tariff. As one representing the people, as one representing the masses instead of the classes, I want to express my commendation of the government which has had the manliness to stand up against the pressure that has been brought to bear upon them. I am not alone in voicing that sentiment. I want to quote from a paper of Conservative leaning, the Ottawa ' Journal,' which thus speaks of the attitude of the government upon this question :
This year, the Dominion government holds out against increase of the tariff, to its credit be it said. Manufacturers' hopes were high that from the government would come the. squeak, 'Don't shoot. I'll come down.' But there are to be no tariff changes. Some may think that this is a small thing to put to the credit of a party one of whose slogans while in opposition was 'free trade as they have it in Britain,' but to those who have any conception of the pressure which the government has to withstand, any idea of the force, the persistence, the heat, with which the protected interests urge their demands, the government's stand must appear well worthy of credit. The manufacturers, long with the taste of blood in their mouths, and now fully recovered from the terrors of 189G, are in full scent after the prey. To balk them is no light job.
That quotation is from the Ottawa 'Journal ' whose editor was formerly connected with the ' Toronto ' Mail,' and who now takes an independent position. I want to say further that It seems to me that some of the delegations that come to Ottawa asking for assistance have no other idea than that they should he enabled by law to put their hands in the pockets of the consumers and enrich themselves at the expense of the people. If they had no protection, and if they were not enjoying a certain amount of favouritism already, their request might be reasonable; but it seems to me some of them are decidedly unreasonable. I take as an illustration the cement manufacturers. I have no hostility whatever to the cement men, I would be only too glad to see an industry of that kind flourish to the utmost extent, for cement is an article entering into very general use, and will be much more largely used in the future, because it is being used for new purposes every day. The cement manufacturers came down a short time ago and asked the government for an increase of duty. They have a duty at the present time of 12i cents per 100 pounds, or equal to 421 cents per barrel of 050 pounds. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, when you add the freight of about 30 cents a barrel on imported cement, the Canadian manufacturer ought to be satisfied with a tariff of about 75 cents a barrel on cement.
The resolution presented by the hon. leader of the opposition proclaims that the present tariff is unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory to whom ? It surely is not unsatisfactory to the manufacturers, who are so busy all over this land that they can scarcely fill their orders. Go into any place in the province of Ontario, at any rate, for which I can speak, and I think I nan say the same for Quebec and the other provinces-go into any of the manufacturing towns in Ontario at the present time, and you will find that all our industries are running to their fullest capacity. I am glad indeed to see that the manufacturers are prospering as they are, because I believe it is due in a measure to the reduction of duty on raw materials, and to the advantages they 'have under the present administration. Therefore the present tariff cannot he unsatisfactory to the manufacturers: It cannot be unsatisfactory to the artisans, who have all the work they can possibly attend to. If you look into the newspapers at the present time you will find that there is a greater demand for artisans of various classes than has existed for a very long time. In all branches of manufacture, or in nearly all, there is a very keen and earnest demand for artisans, and that at very good wages. The present tariff therefore cannot be unsatisfactory to them. Neither can it be unsatisfactory to the farmers, because it has relieved them of certain burdens which formerly rested upon them. One hon. gentleman on the other side, in the course of his argument, alluded to the introduction of free coni as detrimental to the farmers of this country. Well, I am here to take issue with him. The statement was made, I believe, that the introduction of fr'ee corn had the effect of reducing the price of coarse grain. I Challenge that statement; I defy any hon. member an this House to prove that, as a general rule, the introduction of free corn has lowered the price of coarse grains one iota. I challenge any man to prove from the market reports or otherwise that the introduction of free corn has had any such results. I assert on the other hand that it has been a most decided benefit to the farming classes. In my neighbourhood I have asked cattle raisers, both Conservatives and Liberals, I have asked cattle buyers, both Conservatives and Liberals; I have made considerable investigations along that line, and almost without exception, men of all classes have endorsed and upheld the action of the government in throwing off the duty on corn as an action in the interest of the farming community. It has enabled the farmer to finish his cattle and stock at a less cost, and to put them on the English market in a better condition, than they would have been if fed on coarse grain alone. The Canadian farmer has to compete with

the American farmer in the English market, and by the use of corn he is able to put his stock on the English market in competition with the American farmer more successfully than he could do without free corn.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had a good many figures given us in this debate. I do not want to weary the House with them, but when figures tell certain truths and when they are advantageous, I think they should be put on record. I will give our friends on the opposite side of the House credit for this, that where they find what they believe to be a weak spot in the armour of members on this side of the House, they make the most of it. I believe in that principle, and when we have a certain fact to lay before the people, I think we should bring it forward and not let it be lost sight of. We contend on this side of the House that the present tariff is better than the old one. Our friends opposite are continually saying that the era of prosperity, of progress and advancement we arc now enjoying is due entirely to Providence, no credit is due to the government at all; and they say in the very next breath if you accept their policy or if you accept the resolution moved by the leader of the opposition, a still greater measure of prosperity will be the result. Now if the policy of our friends opposite would bring about greater prosperity, then by parity of reasoning this government is entitled to a certain amount of credit because of the prosperity Canada has been enjoying during the past few years. The policy that hon. gentlemen opposite desire us to adopt is practically the policy that was in force for eighteen years, but it is a policy that was rejected by the people. It was tried and found wanting. They are now bringing it forward again, and claim that it will produce the beneficial results which it failed to produce before. I am surprised that, in view of the present state of prosperity, in view of several things that have occurred recently, our friends opposite should endeavour to put before the House the fallacious arguments to which they have resorted.
The present resolution is simply a reiteration of the old national policy. They may claim credit for it if they like, but the old national policy has been condemned by the people at the polls. It was condemned in Lisgar. The policy of hon. gentlemen opposite was condemned by the independent electors of that riding. It was condemned in Beauharnois and it was condemned by the people in the general elections. The national policy was introduced in 1879, and the trade of the country increased from $135,000,000 in 1879 to $230,000,000 in 1883. In 1881. under the alleged beneficent influences of this policy, it fell to $207,000,000; in 1888 it fell to $198,000,000 ; in 1889 it dropped still to $189,000,000 and in the year


Robert Holmes: 1895 it increased to $224,000,000, or $6,000,000 less than it was in 1883. If there is any value in the arguments of hon.' gentlemen at all, if any reliance can be placed upon them, will they tell me why it was that in the years they had that policy in operation it did not produce the results which they say it will now produce ? In 1896 when the present government took office there was only $9,000,000 of an increase in the trade of the country, as compared with the year 1883, after thirteen years of the national policy. From 1879 to 1896 there was an increase of $85,000,000, while, since 1896 to the present year, the trade of the country has increased by $160,000,000, possibly by $170,000,000, or twice as much in six years as in seventeen years under the old regime. It is no wonder that hon. gentlemen opposite try to minimize the efforts of the present government and the advantages that are accruing to the country from this expansion. Hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that they want a clearly defined declaration of policy. To my mind they are simply playing upon words. I think when the government nave a policy that has stood before the people for a certain period of time they have a clearly defined and clearly declared policy. I fancy that anybody who reads between the lines c-au easily see that our friends opposite have some view other than getting a clearly defined policy for the present in connection with their arguments. They are simply playing upon words as far as a clearly defined policy is concerned, but what they are endeavouring to do is to persuade the leaders of the government into the declaration of a line of policy that they intend to pursue before they go to the Coronation ceremonies, in order, if they are not successful in securing what they desire, they may be hauled over the coals hereafter. I suppose it would suit some hon. gentlemen opposite to have a fresh declaration of the policy every day and to change that policy to suit the changing circumstances of the times. It has been said, and said with a great deal of truth that cannot be controverted, that you cannot protect the farmers. The resolution provides that you shall protect the labouring class, the farming class and every other class in the community. I am sorry that at this late stage, not of the session, but at this late day we are apparently having to go over all the arguments that have been threshed out in this country for the last twenty years.
It is an exploded fallacy to talk of protecting the farming interests. The farmers know this only too well at the present time and our friends on the other side of the House, with all their persuasive eloquence and argumentative ability, will not be able to convince the farmers by any hocus pocus proceeding, that by taxing them for the benefit of the manufacturers they can make them prosperous.
A point that I want to call attention to,

and it is only incidental to this debate, and has not yet been touched upon, is the commendable action of the government in connection with the paper combine. I do not say that as one of those who has derived ! any benefit therefrom, as I come within the class that do not derive any benefit from the action of the government. But, I want to commend the government for the attitude they have taken towards the paper combine, and 1 want to say a word in regard to the peculiarity of that action. I believe that the people of this country realize that the judgment delivered by Judge Taseliereau is of very far reaching importance and is fraught with important consequences to the consuming community. The peculiar feature of the government's action is that it is endorsed by Conservatives and Liberals alike. There is not a solitary Conservative newspaper but has endorsed the action of the government in reducing the duty on paper. If it is a benefit to the consuming classes to reduce the duty on paper, as I hold it is, because this combine was charging excessive prices, X think a similar reduction of other lines would meet with as _ large a measure of approval. Our lion, friends opposite talk about securing a preference in the mother country. I have no objection to securing a preference in the market of the mother country provided it can be obtained, but it seems to me that on the part of Canada taking the position that we do, it is a piece of presumption and impertinence on our part to attempt to dictate to Great Britain what shall be' her policy as far as the colonies are concerned. If Great Britain chooses to put a moderate duty on grain, that is her own business, and though we would derive a benefit therefrom, I am quite willing to allow Great Britain to pursue her own course and do as she thinks best. But. a very striking thing in connection with the matter is that all the arguments of lion, gentlemen have been that this course would be for the benefit of Great Britain. Pure unselfishness on the part of those who speak for Canada ! No benefit to us at all ; it is all to Great Britain's benefit ! It is the old argument of doing something for some other fellow rather than for the man who is going to derive the benefit. I think that if Great Britain told us that free trade for Canada would be the best policy for us to pursue we would very quickly tell Great Britain to mind her own business. I think Great Britain has the same right to tell us to mind our own business when we interfere in an affair with which we have nothing to do. Our friends opposite dwelt a good deal on patriotism. It seems to me that this protestation of patriotism comes with exceedingly bad grace from hon. gentlemen opposite whose organ, when the national policy was introduced and when it was said it would interfere with British connection, reiterated the statement through the length and breadth of this country :
Then so much the worse for British connection. These are the hon. gentlemen who talk about patriotism and about doing something for the mother land and who, when they were told, as they were told, that a Policy of that kind would interfere with British connection said : So much the worse for the British nation. In an earlier part of the session one of the hon. members on the other side of the House endeavoured to get the ear of the right hon. the leader of this House (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier)-I suppose, perhaps, due to the fact that he had his own ear to the ground and misunderstood certain sounds that he had heard-and attempted to dictate to him the course he should pursue at the Coronation. He endeavoured to convey to him the idea that he should represent in England that the people of Canada were lying awake at nights hoping that Great Britain would adopt a policy that would be absolutely and entirely for the benefit of the colonies and of Canada in particular. I have sufficient respect for the honoured leader of this House to know that he can gauge public opinion just as well as any man on the other side can gauge it, and I have sufficient respect for the leader of the Liberal party to know that when he goes to the Coronation he will not take the dictum of this member or of that member, but he will do what he believes to be in the interests of Great Britain as well as in the interests of Canada.
If there was one question, Sir, more than another upon which the present administration gained the confidence of the electors in 1900, it was on the question of tariff reform. This was an important issue in that election, and on that issue the people voted for the government. I know that some of our friends opposite say that we have not got tariff reform, but in one breath they tell us that we have tariff reform which is injuring the woollen industry for example, and in the next breath they tell us that this government has not reformed the tariff. They say it is not a tariff such as gives adequate protection to the manufacturer. For my part, I wisih to assert that I believe the confidence of the electors of Canada can be maintained by the government standing in the direction of tariff reform. 'I believe that while the people of Canada are willing to concede to the manufacturers a reasonable amount of protection, they are not willing that that protection shall be unreasonable. I believe that the people of Canada are willing to give to the manufacturers sufficient protection to enable them to compete with outside competition, but they are not willing that the tariff shall be excessively high. If this government wishes to pursue a policy which shall be in the interests of the people and which will be endorsed by the people, then they will pursue the same policy of a moderate tariff and stability that has

characterized their regime. Canada is tired of the tariff that the hon. gentleman opposite seek to reintrocluce. This country has tided the policy which hon. gentlemen opposite would endeavour to again saddle upon the country, but the country has shown upon two successive occasions that it has no sympathy with the resolution of the leader of the opposition, and has no desire to again put in practice the extreme principle embodied in that resolution.
I am one of those, Mr. Speaker, who do not believe in the fast Atlantic service- perhaps that is due to the fact that I live far from the sea-l>oard. I believe this country can get along very well without a fast Atlantic service, as I understand it, and I think we have been wise in goiug slow in that respect. If the time comes when we are able to have a fast Atlantic service without too much cost to the country, perhaps it may be advisable and advantageous, but I believe we have been prudent in not hurrying into a scheme of that kind without very carefully considering what we are doing.
The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Rosamond) told us that the census was disappointing, and that we have not the population we would have, had we pursued some other policy. Let me point to the hon. gentlemen the fact, that the loss of our population to a very large extent took place during the period when the hon. gentleman's friends were in power. Is it not a fact that the failure of our population to increase as we should expect it would increase, happened during the period when the national policy was in operation; a policy practically identical with that set forth in the resolution of the leader of the opposition ? The census was no doubt disappointing to all Canada, but if the policy of the Conservative party failed to create the industries which they say would have increased our population, is it at all reasonable to suppose that the reintroduction of that policy would have any effect ? I contend, Sir, itlhlat the more you can make this country a cheap country to live in, without seriously interfering with the existing industries, the better it is for the country. Canada would have been infinitely better off if it had confined itself to what we understand to be a revenue tariff, and had never adopted what is known as the national policy. I know that it is difficult to get people to acknowledge a distinction between a revenue tariff and a protective tariff , for 2o per cent or 35 per cent even may be a revenue tariff and yet afford considerable protection. It is only a difference of degree between the two, but however ,e; 1 believe that our industries " oiild have been just as prosperous ; nay more so, if we had never resorted to the extreme features of the national policy. It removed from the people that spirit of self-dependence; that spirit of Mr. HOLMES. *
active energy; that spirit of determination, that spirit of self-assertiveness which would have prevailed had we not depended upon the assistance given us by the government. If our manufacturers had been thrown upon their own resources; if our manufacturers had catered to the wants of the people; if our manufacturers had endeavoured ' to branch out according to the legitimate demands of the country, I believe that our industries would be more prosperous than they are to-day, and that the country would have been all the better for it.
It is apparent to all who observe, the conditions in this country that for a considerable length of time, if not for all time Canada must be first and foremost an agricultural country. We have the mining and the lumbering and the fishing industries of course, but with our vast area of fertile territory I repeat that Canada must be first of all an agricultural country. Therefore it is our duty to do all that we can to improve the condition of our agriculturists. When we can make it possible for him to earn more by the labour oil his farm ; wnen we can enable him to have more money to spend, that of course would mean an increase in the production of manufactured goods, because tile farmer will spend more money ou implements and upon clothing and other necessaries. Therefore, the prosperity of the agricultural class of the community means the prosperity of the manufacturers and of every other class of our population. The argument was advanced by the hon. gentlemen on the other side of this House, that because we did not adopt the policy advocated by the Conservative party, British capital was not being invested here, but during this very debate we have heard gentlemen on the other side declaim in unmeasured terms against the fact that American capitalists were investing money here. They claim that we were being Americanized ; that the Americans were buying our railways, our steamship lines, our manufacturing industries, and that we were going to be completely at the mercy of American capital. Well, Sir, I can see no distinction between being at the mercy of American capitalists and being at the mercy of British capitalists, so far as this is concerned. If American capitalists are willing to invest in our railways, surely these railways must remain here and he worked here and so much the better for the welfare of the country. I certainly shall not raise my voice against American capital or British capital being invested in Canada.
Let me say a word or two as to the transportation question. I believe that the government is doing what it can to solve the transportation problem in this country. Gentlemen opposite find fault with the government for not doing as much as they can to increase our transportation facilities, but when the government wisely expends money in improving the Intercolonial Railway or in

improving our water ways, these same gentlemen condemn the government for that expenditure There is no consistency in their arguments on that score. For my part, I shall not find fault with the government even if it increases the present large expenditures for the betterment of our transportation facilities, because 1 believe that these expenditures are like investments that are wisely and judiciously made, and in the end will redound to the advantage of Canada. I am glad that I am not called on to support the fallacious resolution that was placed before the House by the hon. leader of the opposition. Let me say that in general, I believe that the policy pursued by the present administration is a policy that meets with the cordial approval and support of the people of the Dominion as a whole ; it is a policy which is building up our industries, developing our resources, adding to our wealth and prosperity, and therefore worthy of the confidence of this House and of the country.


Mr.  R. A.@: PRINGLE (Cornwall and Stormont) moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the' Minister of Finance, the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 2, 1902.