1903-03-18

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 14) to amend the Canada Temperance Act.-Mr. Law.
Bill (No. 15) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900.-Mr. Clancy.
Bill (No. 16) to amend the Railway Act.- Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 17) to aid in the settlement of Railway Labour Disputes.-Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Labour for the year ending June 30, 1902.-Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock.

['MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 18) to amend the Interpretation Act.\nHe said :\tThis is the same Bill which\nwas introduced last year, and only passed its second reading. The object of the Bill Is to make railway companies liable for damage, subject to the civil law in each of the provinces. The Bill was suggested by a judgment of the Privy Council referring to a decision in the province of Quebec under the Civil Code of that province. I will go into further details when the Bill is advanced a further stage.']
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to say, in order to put myself fairly before the House, that I intend to make some remarks followed by a motion, unless the Prime Minister now says that he will move the House into Committee of Supply, when I would rather speak to the question I have in view.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: We are going into Supply.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


William Findlay Maclean: On this motion to go into Supply, I propose to call the attention of the House and the country to a grave condition of affairs that exists in my own province, that of Ontario. A political crisis exists there to-day that is attracting the attention of all the people of Canada. Certain circumstances have been made public which reflect on the moral tone of that province, which reflect on the political tone of that province ; and I say a crisis has arrived in which the honour of the province is involved, in which the honour of politicians is involved, and every one must be concerned in the settlement of that crisis. At the present moment the Lieutenant Governor of that province has exceeded his term. He was appointed about November, 1897 ; his five years consequently are up, and he is holding office, I think, very improperly. Not only is he holding office after his term has expired, but his condition of health, I believe, is such that he is unable to discharge the high functions of his office. Certainly he was unable to open the legislature last week and it had to be opened by commission. After what transpired not long ago in connection with this affair, I think it is my duty now to call the attention of the House to this condition of affairs in Ontario ; and also to call the attention of the House to the record of the hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to that question. On a motion to go into Committee of Supply, in the year 1895, I find that Mr. Mills (Both-L well) submitted the following resolution :

That, in the opinion of this House, section 59 of the British North America Act of 1867, which prevents the removal of a lieutenant governor of a province for five years from the date of his appointment, except for cause assigned, and communicated to the House of Commons by message, was intended to prevent the undue influence of federal ministers in provincial affairs ; and the practice which has become prevalent, of permitting lieutenant governors to continue in office for long periods of time after the expiry of their commissions, by which they become removable at any time, without assignment of cause, is an abuse of authority calculated to impair responsible government in the provinces of the Dominion.
Mr. Mills supported that motion by an argument, and I propose to read a few sentences from that argument. He said :
Now, the objection I make to the existing condition of things is that in the case of many of the lieutenant governors of provinces, they have been permitted to hold office for several years after their commissions have expired, and at the moment the commission expires, it is in the power of the government to remove a lieutenant governor without assignment of cause, and without any report to either House of parliament. Now, I say that this is a highly objectionable condition of things. If it is proper during the five years that the commission is in existence that the lieutenant governor should not be removed without adequate cause being assigned, and without that cause being reported to both Houses of parliament, it is obviously improper that the lieutenant governor should continue to hold office after that period has expired. If the government desire that the' lieutenant governors shall hold office for a longer period than five years, they should issue to him a new commission, they should put him beyond their power of removal for any subsequent period, just precisely as he was beyond their power of removal for the period for which he was appointed in the first instance. What is the object of the provision of the law ? The object is to make the lieutenant governor independent of the government here, and solely subject to the advice which his constitutional advisers may think proper to give him.
Then he went on
Sir Leonard Tilley held office in the province of New Brunswick from 1885 to 1893, a period of eight years ; so that for three years of his term of service he was liable at any moment to be removed from office by the administration ; and therefore, if the administration had chosen to interfere in local affairs, they could have brought pressure to bear upon the lieutenant governor if he desired to continue in offiee, which was altogether inconsistent with the duties that are assigned to him, under the law to discharge. In 1888, Mr. Schultz was appointed lieutenant governor of Manitoba, and now, in 1895, at the end of seven years, be is lieutenant governor still. For the past two years he has held office by the sufferance of the ministry, he is liable at any moment to be removed without assignment of cause ; and that being so, I say that this condition of things has become an abuse which ought to be corrected, and for that reason I put into your hands this resolution.
Then Mr. Laurier continued the debate. And here is what he said


William Findlay Maclean: The lieutenant governor of Manitoba has for sometime occupied his position by sufferance of the administration, and not by his commission upon which he was appointed. He can be dismissed to morrow and a successor can be appointed to him the day after to-morrow. He may be retained for one day or for one year, just as suits the convenience of the party in power. I ask the Minister of Justice, is that a practice which should be tolerated ? The hon. gentleman says that so far no evil has flown from this, but does my hon. friend argue that because no evil results follow from the breaking of a law, that it is right and proper that the law should be broken ? Will he maintain that because no evil results have followed that therefore we should go on without any rules whatever. If the provision of the constitution which says that the lieutenant governor shall be appointed for a term of years by commission, can be violated with impunity, and if no evil results flow from such violation of the law, the law might as well be dispensed with at once. But Sir, laws exist in all cases because if there are no laws, abuses may result, and I call the attention of my hon. friend that he has given no reasons whatever why such a practice should be defended. Indeed he has not defended it. His only argument is that no evil results have flown from it and I submit that is no argument at all.
Mr. McCarthy spoke, and X am going to quote a couple of sentences from him :-
It may be felt that when it was brought to our notice that lieutenant governors have been permitted to hold office, after their terms have expired, and during pleasure, and subject to removal of course without notice,; that we did not think it of sufficient moment to give it any attention. I therefore desire to say that I believe it to be a matter of the very gravest importance that this provision of the statute should be definitely adhered to. It does not prevent a gentleman who is lieutenant governor being reappointed, for we know that in the case of Sir Leonard Tilley that was done twice or thrice, but what is calculated to degrade the high and important office of the representative of the Crown in the provinces is that he should be in the position that he could at any moment be recalled ; and that in that sense he is put in a position to perhaps obey directions from the central body, which in his duty to his province ho should wholly and absolutely disregard. The case that has been referred to in the province of Manitoba is a very striking one, and one which exposes the mischief and danger to follow from a continuance of this practice. We are told in this House and we have been told elsewhere, that the gentleman who holds the office is most anxious for reappointment.
I wonder if there is any anxiety in this special case for reappointment.
We were told not very long ago that this gentleman had come to Ottawa for the purpose of trying to be continued in his office and was willing under these circumstances to bargain away his functions and the rights of his province. I do not know' whether these charges are true, but this I do know ; that the fact that these charges could be made tend to degrade and lower the dignity of the high office which the lieutenant governors occupy. For that reason, and that alone, I think that we should require that the statute should be

11S
adhered to, and that the abuse should not be allowed to continue to exist.
Sill Richard Cartwright continued the debate. Let us read a few sentences from his speech	[DOT]
In particular I thought that the Minister of Finance, who admitted substantially the correctness of my hon. friend's position, was exceedingly weak when he contended that no man's impartiality, no man's independence was liable to be impaired by the fact that he was a mere occupant at pleasure.
And then
There can be nothing more calculated to degrade the office of lieutenant governor than to allow those who hold that office to remain there at the mere pleasure of the ministry of the day. And I am very far indeed from believing that no evils have arisen when ministers, as we have seen on various occasions, hold their office to a certain extent at the mercy of the lieutenant governor, who in turn holds his absolutely at the mercy of the government here. Because no evil has been stated to have occurred, it does not follow that no evil has occurred. . . . Under circumstances such as are occurring to-day in Manitoba to keep in office a gentleman who holds it absolutely and mainly at their pleasure, they will expose themselves very justly to the charge of having interpreted for purposes of their own, the plain intent and spirit of the British North America Act in a manner in no way contemplated by the constitution, and utterly repugnant to the spirit of the constitution ; and their action may produce very grave and mischievous results. . . .
If it is of any use to have lieutenant governors-a thing which may be doubted and which is under discussion at present-if these officers are of any value, if it is desirable that they should be continued, if it is desirable that these petty mock courts should be maintained at considerable cost to the country, then at least the men who preside over them should be independent of the government here, or at any rate only subject to removal under such circumstances as the constitution prescribes. It is an evil-and one which may prove a serious one before we meet again-that the governor of one of our provinces should be ifi a position entirely fatal to independence ; and this parliament will be false to its duty unless it expresses a strong opinion as to the inexpediency of allowing such a state of things to continue for one hour.
The vote was taken. Among those who voted in favour of Mr. Mill's motion were Borden, Cartwright, Charlton, Laurier, Mulock and Sutherland. Mr. Speaker, I intend to hold these gentlemen to their vote on that occasion. They laid down a certain doctrine in regard to the lieutenant governors, yet, now that they are in power, and the terms of office of their first hatch of lieutenant governors are running out-the terms of two or more of them are running out-we find those gentlemen still continuing lieutenant governors in their places under conditions which these gentlemen on a motion of a want of confidence in this House declared were disgraceful. Now what does the right hon. gentleman (Rt.
Hon. Sir Wilfz'id Laurier) intend to say ?
X am not here to say anything against the character of Sir Oliver Mowat. I respect his character as I do that of any other man. He has a great record ; and I am not here to throw dirt upon it in any sense. But I am here to say something for the people of this country and for my own constituents, and to demand the vindication of the constitution. And am I to be insulted in this House, when I but ask that the constitution shall be maintained ? Am I to be told that I am going out of my way to make an attack upon the holder of a high office ? Why, those who make such an attack upon me are not defending the constitution ; they are defending the office holder. There is a lust of power in the Liberal party that is something alarming, and the condition of affairs that now exists in Ontario is due to this lust of power and of office. I am well within my rights as I stand here, and I repudiate the Prime Minister rising in this House and saying to me, even though I am a private member, that when I attempt to defend the constitution


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order. The hon. gentleman has no right to refer to a past debate.


William Findlay Maclean: I bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to a past debate. But I am told that I am doing something improper and gratuitously insulting to the holder of a high office. I am doing nothing of the kind ; as I have said, I am demanding the vindication of the constitution. I am asking hon. gentlemen opposite to immediately remove the stigma that they have put upon Sir Oliver Mowat-for they stigmatize him when they keep him in office without renewing his appointment. They must do one thing or the other-they must give Sir Oliver Mowat another term of office, or they must appoint his successor. Most of all, they ought to put his successor in office, i have no objection to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) going to government house in Toronto and setting up one of these ' petty courts ' to which he referred in the speech I have quoted. I would like to attend his ' petty court,' if he would be good enough to send me an invitation when he goes to occupy that position. I call on these hon. gentlemen to-day, in view of the grave crisis that exists at Toronto, to vindicate the constitution, to put a new man in office, and not to keep Sir Oliver - Mowat in the position in which he is to-day. He is entitled to better treatment. For all we know he may have asked to be relieved of the duties that are devolving upon him at the present time. At all events, the situation is serious, the duty is plain, the constitution has been violated, hon. gentlemen have once again, as many a time, been convictdd of being untrue to their pledges, to their professions, to the votes and to the speeches

which they have made in this House. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up any more of the time of the House, and yet I feel justified in going as far as I have done out of regard for the honour of my province, and out of regard for the honour of the first man in my province, and I call upon the Prime Minister to tell this House that he intends to put a stop to the condition of things that exists in the province of Ontario at this moment.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, I have in the first place, to express my regret to my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) that he has not accorded me the usual courtesy of giving me the notice which is generally given when an important member occupying the position which he occupies in this House- I do not know if it is the position of a prominent supporter of the opposition, or the leader of a new party; at all events whatever the position may be, it is an important one-is about to bring up a question of this kind. I regret, as I have said, that he has not given me the opportunity of knowing beforehand that he was bringing up this question. The hon. gentleman has spoken with a great deal of vehemence on this question. He has spoken of the outrage that has been committed upon our constitution. I do not know if I shall do an injury to my hon. friend or not-if I do I beg in advance to apologize, but I do not believe that my hon. friend has read the constitution of which he pretends to be such a champion. I do not believe that my hon. friend has read the clause of the constitution which provides for the appointment of lieutenant governors, because, if he had read that clause of the constitution he would have spoken differently. He would have known that the lieutenant governor is not appointed for five years, that he is not appointed for four years, nor for a term of years, but that he is appointed during the pleasure of the Governor General. He would have known that during five years he is not removable except for cause, and that after five years he can be removed for cause, that he is appointed not for a term of years but so long as the Governor General thinks that it is to the advantage of the public service that he shall continue in office. Let me therefore call the attention of my hon. friend to this clause in the constitution, which, 1 am sure, if he has read it, he has forgotten it. Clause 59 of the constitution is as follows :
A lieutenant governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor General ; but any lieutenant governor appointed after the commencement of the first session of Ihe Parliament of Canada shall not be removable within five years, from his appointment, except for cause assigned which shall be communicated to him in writing.
And so on. You see, therefore, that within five years he cannot be removed except for Mr. MACLEAN.
cause, but the moment the five years have expired he can be removed at the pleasure of the Governor General. That is all the difference in the world. But, what we called attention to in 1895 was a very different condition of things from that which now exists in the province of Ontario. In 1S95 we called the attention of the House to the fact that some lieutenant governors, for one, Sir John Schultz, Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba, for another, Sir Leonard Tilley, Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, had been allowed to remain, not for days, not for months, but for years, after the expiration of the supposed term for which they had been appointed. In the case of Sir John Schultz he had been allowed to remain in office for two years, and in the case of Sir Leonard Tilley, he had been allowed to remain in office for a longer period, and we thought under those circumstances it was quite justifiable and proper that new power should be exercised and that lieutenant governors should be appointed under a new commission. But, I call upon my hon. friend to show me a case in the long history of confederation, in the thirty-five years during which it has existed, where the lieutenant governor has been removed from office immediately at the expiration of five years during which he has been occupying that position. Such a case is not in existence. It has never been considered to be according to the courtesy of the office that the incumbent should be removed the moment the five years dui'ing which he has occupied the position have expired. On the contrary, we have granted, as a rule, to all incumbents of this office some time before we have felt called upon to name their successors. The usual course has been followed in this case. Sir Oliver Mowat was removable when the day expired; the day expired in November-November, December, January, February; March has not even passed. Yet we are told that we must appoint a successor to fill the position, that because the lieutenant governor has been four months in office, an old and venerable man as Sir Oliver Mowat is, immediately as soon as his term of five years has expired we must apply the axe, remove him and put some one else in his place. If Sir Oliver Mowat has not discharged the duties of the office with satisfaction to everybody there might be some cause which would justify the hon. gentleman in making this demand, but the hon. gentleman does not base his case on the fact that Sir Oliver Mowat has now come to the time in which he may be removed without cause, but he states that Sir Oliver Mowat is not fit to occupy the position which he occupies. Why is he not fit ? Has anything been said in the press, in parliament, or anywhere else, against the mental capacity of Sir Oliver Mowat 7 Not a word has been said against that. It is known and acknowledged that his mental

faculties are bright and keen, although Sir Oliver Mowat is not physically as strong as he was at one time. He is not as young as he was at one time and we all deplore that fact, but I say again, that no insinuation can be thrown against Sir Oliver Mowat, and if Sir Oliver Mowat were physically incapable of administering the office he has too high a sense of honour to occupy the position one day more than he felt himself able to discharge the duties attaching to it. But, if he is occupying the position to-day it is because he thinks he can fulfil admirably the duties which he has in charge. Moreover, it is true, as has been said by my hon. friend, that there is a crisis in the province of Ontario, an important crisis in which the honour or the life of a government is at stake. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, is this the time, is this the moment, when there is a grave crisis in the province of Ontario, to remove from the helm a man of such experience, of such knowledge, and of such unimpeachable honour as Sir Oliver Mowat ? If we were to remove Sir Oliver Mowat in the midst of such a crisis, I think we would be committing a grave crime against the province of Ontario, if we were to take away at this moment the firm and experienced hand that is at the head of power in the province of Ontario to-day, I believe the Conservative party themselves would protest against such a course, and at all events it seems to me that it would be the part not only of courtesy but of duty for the hon. gentleman to wait until that crisis is over before he calls upon us to remove Sir Oliver Mowat from the position which he occupies and adorns. We are familiar with these tactics; we remember them long ago, and this is only another repetition of the cry with which we have been familiar for twenty years that ' Mowat must go.' This is a new version of the cry ' Mowat must go.' How many times did we hear that cry in the old days ? How many times have we heard the hon. gentleman himself and his associates declare to the people of the province of Ontario that ' Mowat must go ' ? The people would not sanction such a cry at that time, nor do I believe they would do so to-day. Sir Oliver is not as vigorous as he was, but still he is deep in the affections of the people of Ontario, who would resent any action we would take in following the advice of hon. gentlemen opposite; advice which we shall not follow.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: It is not pleasant for the hon. gentlemen opposite to have their past record thus brought before them, and the dying words of the premier is the best evidence in the world that they do not like to be reminded of their past. The Prime Minister tells ns that we are familiar with these cries and these tactics. Yes, we are. They were admirably played for 18 years in this House by the
Liberals in opposition. What troubles; these gentlemeh now is that their chickens have come home to roost, and that no stronger condemnation can be given of their inconsistency than the very position which they have talien to-day. The hon. member for York (Mr. Maclean) distinctly declared that hei made no insinuation against Sir Oliver Mowat, but what he denounced was the pernicious principle which these gentlemen on the treasury benches themselves denounced in this House some years ago. Not a word was said disrespectful to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, but it was said that in view of the most imminent crisis now pending in that province, it is regrettable that Sir Oliver Mowat is at the present time holding his place by sufferance of the present federal government, for it is needless to say that Sir Oliver can be removed at any moment that the government here intimate to the Governor General that he should be removed, and so if Sir Oliver Mowat does not carry out the wishes of the powers here, he is at their mercy. The parallel cases cited were most apropos. They were argued at great length in great vehemence, and with strong logic by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) by the present Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), by the Postmaster-General (Hon. Sir W'illiam Mulock) and by the leaders of the opposition of that date. Will they say to-day that they were entirely wrong, or else that they were insincere. Which horn of the dilemma will they hang themselves on. If they were sincere then according to their own reasoning they made out a good case, and if their case was good then it is equally good to-day. What glaring inconsistency do we not find here ? The right hon. gentleman tells us that the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba was then overholding his office for two years, he points out which is not so in the case of Sir Oliver Mowat. What has the length of time got to do with it ?


William Findlay Maclean: That argument is absurd.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Sir Oliver Mowat's time expired last August, and the Lieutenant Governor, of Manitoba was overholding his office several months longer than that. What has that got to do with the principle at stake ? If it is wrong to hold an office of that kind for two years over the allotted time, it is equally wrong to overhold it for six months, because the same principle is involved. It is not the length of time that is questioned, but it is the system that is denounced. There is no logic in the argument of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister complained that the hon. member (Mr.' Maclean) had not given him notice of the question. Well, the right hon. gentleman had a stack of books in front of him from which he essayed to quote, but probably

finding that the quotation did not suit his purpose he refrained. Be that as it may, the incident of the books in front of him indicated that he got notice from some source. I do not believe that the Prime Minister, even with all his great ability could, tfo matter what notice he had, present arguments sufficiently strong to convince the House and the country, that the system which he is carrying out to-day, and which on a previous occasion he and his colleagues denounced, is right now, and was wrong then because the Liberals happened to be in power and not in opposition.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: Without in any way endeavouring to controvert the proposition in law laid down by the mover of this motion, I may call attention to the fact that Bourinot evidently takes the same view as was held by the hon. gentlemen opposite some six or seven years ago. We recognize perfectly that while the statute does not say in so many words that the Lieutenant Governor is to he appointed for five years, yet on a fair construction of the language used in the British North America Act, we are led to the conclusion come to by the hon. gentlemen opposite in former days ; come to by Bourinot in his work, come to by the late Mr. McCarthy and other prominent parliamentarians : That when a term of office is expressed as it is in the British North America Act, that although nominally appointed during the pleasure of the Governor General, yet within the five years the Lieutenant Governor is practically irremovable, because unless good cause can he shown he cannot be removed. Therefore it is perfectly clear that at the expiration of the term, he stands on a different footing from the footing he held up to that time. The view that strikes me in connection with the matter is simply this : That while in one sense it might be an important matter in this present crisis to the province of Ontario, yet a higher and better view can be taken on the subject.
We are living at present in a time of change. We know that our institutions are as it were on trial, and we know that the permanence of our institutions must to a great extent depend on the manner in which they work out. Now, Sir, if the present Lieutenant Governor of Ontario were a man twenty years younger ; if having occupied the position which he has occupied in that province during all these years ; while admitting his ability and admitting his integrity as I will without the slightest hesitation-still any man in the province of Ontario who takes a dispassionate view would say, that it was unfortunate, that it was regrettable, that at such a peculiar crisis as this, the Lieutenant Governor Should have been one who had been so long and so intimately connected with the party in power in Ontario, and with the gentlemen who are now the leaders of that party.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not find any fault at the appointment of Sir Oliver Mowat, and while I admit that it was a proper appointment at the time, still I think that had it been possible for the leaders of the government to have foreseen that during his term of office such a peculiar crisis as this would have arisen, X venture to say that out of regard to the opinion of the country ; out of regard to the national reputation ; out of regard to the stability of our institutions, the government would have designated some lieutenant governor other than Sir Oliver Mowat. If that be the case, how much more is it the case now when he is remaining in office as it must be admitted on the sufferance of the federal government, when this unfortunate crisis has arisen. I am not prepared for a moment to suggest that the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario would not do his duty ; I would not suggest that he is not physically and mentally competent to do his duty; but I do say that it is an unfortunate thing for a healthy public opinion in the stability of Canadian institutions and the manner of their working, that just at this time matters should be in the position they are in. I do not know that the hon. gentleman who moved the motion had any intention of suggesting that during this crisis the federal government should intervene. I take it rather that his object was to call attention to an omission on the part of this government in not filling the office of lieutenant governor, an omission which has led to the present unfortunate state of affairs. I do trust that the crisis will so work out in the province of Ontario, that the people of that province may not be hereafter led to think that if the lieutenant governorship had been kept freer from the hands of politicians that perhaps in this peculiar time a different conclusion might have been come to from that which may perhaps be come to. For, Sir-, we must not forget that if the persent lieutenant governor should support his present ministers, even supposing he was perfectly right in so doing, and if he were doing what any dispassionate, impartial man would do under the circumstances, still, many people in the province might think, and not unnaturally, that with another man as lieutenant governor, a different conclusion might have been come to. If that be the case, if any large portion of the people of Ontario should come to the conclusion that the influence and the authority of the Crown were in any way affected by such political considerations at a time when the fair fame and reputation of our province is at stake, I venture to say that one of the strongest blows at the stability of our institutions that could possibly be given would be found to have been given.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.
['I do not find any fault at the appointment of Sir Oliver Mowat, and while I admit that it was a proper appointment at the time, still I think that had it been possible for the leaders of the government to have foreseen that during his term of office such a peculiar crisis as this would have arisen, X venture to say that out of regard to the opinion of the country ; out of regard to the national reputation ; out of regard to the stability of our institutions, the government would have designated some lieutenant governor other than Sir Oliver Mowat. If that be the case, how much more is it the case now when he is remaining in office as it must be admitted on the sufferance of the federal government, when this unfortunate crisis has arisen. I am not prepared for a moment to suggest that the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario would not do his duty ; I would not suggest that he is not physically and mentally competent to do his duty; but I do say that it is an unfortunate thing for a healthy public opinion in the stability of Canadian institutions and the manner of their working, that just at this time matters should be in the position they are in. I do not know that the hon. gentleman who moved the motion had any intention of suggesting that during this crisis the federal government should intervene. I take it rather that his object was to call attention to an omission on the part of this government in not filling the office of lieutenant governor, an omission which has led to the present unfortunate state of affairs. I do trust that the crisis will so work out in the province of Ontario, that the people of that province may not be hereafter led to think that if the lieutenant governorship had been kept freer from the hands of politicians that perhaps in this peculiar time a different conclusion might have been come to from that which may perhaps be come to. For, Sir-, we must not forget that if the persent lieutenant governor should support his present ministers, even supposing he was perfectly right in so doing, and if he were doing what any dispassionate, impartial man would do under the circumstances, still, many people in the province might think, and not unnaturally, that with another man as lieutenant governor, a different conclusion might have been come to. If that be the case, if any large portion of the people of Ontario should come to the conclusion that the influence and the authority of the Crown were in any way affected by such political considerations at a time when the fair fame and reputation of our province is at stake, I venture to say that one of the strongest blows at the stability of our institutions that could possibly be given would be found to have been given.']
The PRIME MINISTER.: I know that the leader of the opposition is away on im-

portant business. I do not know tbe assistant leader, and 1 do not know whether our hon. friends on tbe other side are ready to go on with the estimates. We are in their hands to proceed or not as they think best.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that they are not ready to go on with the estimates.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Then I move that tbe Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Committee rose and reported progress.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 3.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 18, 1903.
Tbe SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Civil Service of Canada for 1902.-Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Report of Secretary of State for 1902.- Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 18) to amend the Interpretation Act.
He said :	This is the same Bill which
was introduced last year, and only passed its second reading. The object of the Bill Is to make railway companies liable for damage, subject to the civil law in each of the provinces. The Bill was suggested by a judgment of the Privy Council referring to a decision in the province of Quebec under the Civil Code of that province. I will go into further details when the Bill is advanced a further stage.


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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaRIVIERE asked :
1.	Has the honourable the Postmaster General received the following communications 7
Winnipeg, Man., February, 1903. To the Right Honourable Sir William Mulock, Postmaster General. Ottawa.
Sir,-We, the undersigned accounting postmasters of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, beg to bring to your attention the following statement of facts regarding our work which goes to show that the remuneration is most inadequate, in the hope that you may be able to grant us substantial and immediate relief. We do this the more hopefully in view of the stand you have taken on the question of the hours of labour, etc., of the working man.
1.	The postmaster is responsible for the safe handling of many important letters, and valuable parcels. In this country large amounts of money formerly sent by express, are now sent by registered mail, to wheat buyers, to enable them to carry on their business. In many places branch banks remit to, or receive from, the head office, large sums of money. This increases the postmasters' responsibility, and whore help is employed, necessitates care in the selection. The money order business necessitates the handling of large sums of money for the miserable pittance of 25 cents per $100. The amount of stamps kept on hand must always be large with the source of supply so far away. In no other line of work would persons be held responsible for the proper handling of such large amounts, with the same possibilities of irregularities and losses, without remuneration at least from five to ten times greater than the postmaster receives for his money order work. In many cases there is added responsibility to the handling of customs parcels for which there is practically no remuneration. The postmaster is expected to provide a roomy, centrally located office, without any regard to the rental which that office would command if leased for other purposes. The necessity for the correct and prompt despatch of all mails, regardless of hours of arrival and departure, is in many instances a very grave responsibility. Understanding chat the present basis of remuneration has been in vogue for a quarter of a century or more, we would respectfully point out various increases in work which clearly show that although it may have been sufficient then, it is utterly inadequate now.
Firstly-In connection with newspapers and periodicals we think it a conservative estimate to assume that a family will now receive an average from six to eight times as many periodicals as a family would be receiving twenty-five years ago.
Secondly-The use of the mails as a means of distributing advertising matter is a practice of recent years entirely and the quantity handled is simply enormous and constantly increasing. These increases affect both local distribution and assorting of matter for forwarding to outside offices.
Thirdly-The recent reduction in the rate of letter postage necessitates (in the matter of Canadian and United States postage) an increase of fully 50 per cent in the number of letters handled before an increase of revenue can accrue, or an increase of salary be hoped for. In the case of British and some other lines of foreign postage, the increase in the number of letters must be 150 per cent before we have established a basis for any possible increase in salary. A working out of the figures in this connection will establish that (he postmasters are bearing from 30 to 40 per cent of the expenses of the reduction so appreciated by the public. This appears to be an altogether undue proportion.
The introduction of the postal note system has increased the amount of labour out of proportion to the revenue attached. This method of remitting small amounts (chiefly to 'he city offices) has largely curtailed the sale of
[Stage Direction]
stamps which were formerly used. At offices where customs parcels were handled and distributed by mail to smaller offices, stamps are usually sent in payment of duty, and cash is i emitted to port of entry, again curtailing the sale of stamps received from the department.
2.	An examination into the method of handling customs parcels and the remuneration (even where any is allowed) will reveal the fact that the work actually required to be performed, which is considerable, is practically unpaid for. This is one of the points which we desire to bring to your attention, that uu-remunerative work of this sort is being multiplied while the revenue of the office is being held down by reduced rates of postage.
3.	Iu a number of the offices, besides keeping the office open throughout the regulation hours, the postmasters are compelled to await the arrival of a late evening train and again in some instances have to get up at five or six o'clock in the morning to despatch a mail, thus imposing unduly long hours of service without any allowance for any class of assistance, to say nothing of a competent assistant. In some offices, owing to the arrival of several different mails the public is entitled to call and demand individual attention several times during the day, whereas the basis of remuneration makes no special provision for this. In places where tri-weekly trains carry the mails, the postmaster is compelled to remain eleven hours a day for six days a week and provide (if he would give the public anything approaching satisfactory service) for a portion of three days a week, one or more duly qualified assistants. His allowance is inadequate for his own support at present cost of living, thus providing nothing for the payment of assistants.
4.	In view of the amount of mail matter to be re-sorted and forwarded, the forwarding allowances do not begin to pay for the work done or the extra office room required. Another department with a deficit.
5.	The allowance for rent, fuel, and light is decidedly inadequate. In practically every town where the post office is kept in a separate compartment, the room occupied could be leased for a rental in excess of the full allowance for rent, for heating and for lighting. In the town of Morris, the postmaster is allowed $100 for rent, fuel and light. For less space ir. the same building he receives from the Merchants Bank $350 a year for rent, alone. At Melita the postmaster cancelled a lease bringing him a net annual rental of $180 to use the building for post office purposes on an allowance of $125 for rent, fuel and light. Other similar examples could he cited. Fuel and light are costly here.
6.	In the matter of securing proper assistants, we could point out that labour readily commands far larger remuneration in any market than it did a few years ago. To have experienced help available is a severe drain upon the limited exchequer of the postmaster who is unfortunate enough to require it, as nearly all do. Even where help is not regularly required, competent assistance must he had if the postmaster is ever to seek recreation or relief from duty.
7.	There is another matter which affects postmasters in the west more particularly, namely, the increased cost of living. This has frequently been brought to the attention of yourself and colleagues in various ways, and we note that already you have conceded the point as in the case of the 20 per cent increase
Mr. LaRIVIERE.
allowed the letter carriers of Winnipeg. In our opinion this does not represent the actual amount of difference, but is a recognition of that difference. In all lines the cost of living has advanced during the past years, while the postmasters are receiving less pay for more work.
8.	A comparison with salaries paid in other departments of the public service and even in other departments of the postal service give an idea of our disadvantages. For example. First-class railway clerks receive $960 and mileage, second-class clerks $880 and mileage. In the city of Winnipeg, the assistant postmaster gets $2,000, first-class clerks, $1,500, second-class, $1,320, third-class, $880, and letter carriers, $720.
We do not think these are too highly paid, hut an office with a revenue of $2,000 not only absorbs all of one person's time, but requires an additional clerk at least a portion of the year. The postmaster of such an office receives for salary, commissions and allowances an average of less than $700 or less than half the amount received by a first-class city clerk, $100 less than a second-class railway mail clerk, and a trifle less than is paid to the city letter carters, and out of this modest income he must employ whatever additional help is required and furnish a suitable office and office equipment. In most cases his hours are longer and his responsibilities greater than those of any of the officials referred to. In one town where the train arrived late and departed early, the postmaster until recently received $3.50 per month for overtime, while the railway agent received $19 a month extra.
In view of the conditions and facts set forth above, we would respectfully suggest the following changes as tending to bring about a redress of our grievances :-
1st. That the straight salary allowance be based on 50 per cent on the first $1,000 worth of stamps sold, and 40 per cent on all additional sales. This would barely off-set the loss resulting from the reduction of letter postage. 2nd. That in Manitoba a special increase of at least 20 per cent be allowed to cover extra cost of living. 3. That the allowance for rent, fuel and light be doubled so as to provide a reasonable rent for the office, and a provision for the cost of light and fuel in this country. 4th. That the money order system be simplified so as to lessen the amount of work performed for the small remuneration allowed and also to increase its popularity with the business public, who now object to the restrictions hedging it around. 5th. In addition to the regular and general scale of allowances we would request, that a special allowance be granted for each extra mail which tends to bring the public again before the wicket for individual attention during the day. That the forward allowance be materially increased to distributing offices. That a special allowance be given to postmasters who are compelled to work before 8 a.m., or after 7 p.m. Among the mechanical industries the special allowance for overtime is very marked. That in the case of offices where mails are so infrequent as to have large quantities of mail matter delivered *t the office at one time, so that the public convenience really requires the employment^ of one or more assistants, an allowance be given towards the payment of such assistant or assistants. 6. In addition to the above we feel that there are a number of cases of special minor grievances which we cannot enter into in detail, but in which we think that a little
[Stage Direction]
investigation would show that redress could be effected so as to relieve the postmasters concerned without in any way impairing the efficiency and safety of the public service, which grievances have probably continued to exist because they have not been brought to your honourable attention.
And we would respectfully urge that the above matters be duly considered and that a large measure of redress be granted in the very near future. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

[Stage Direction]
Supplementary suggestions passed by executive.
1.	That all accounting offices be given an allowance for rent, fuel and light.
2.	That twine, mucilage, pens, ink, pencils, etc., for post office use be furnished by the departrfent and not at the expense of the postmaster as at present.
3.	That the department make it more clear to all publishers that newspapers must be suitably folded and that they must be addressed plainly. That where labels are used they must be In large clear type, and that if possible uniformity of colour in labels be secured.
4.	That a full list of " Suggestions to the Public " be printed by the department and supplied to all postmasters for display in their offices as tending to make it clear that certain regulations are found necessary by the department and are not based on the caprice or convenience of the postmaster. For instance, that stamps and money orders may not be purchased during the distribution of a newly arrived mail, and that money orders and postal notes are not available for purchase after the registered mail closes for an outgoing mail. Also some suggestions as to the age of children who are to be considered as proper persons to receive mail from the wicket.
5.	That when instructions are sent out for the weighing of all mails that facilities for such weighing be afforded by the department.
6.	That in view of the large sums of money at times in the mails in this country and hence often stored in the post office, and in view of the value of the stamps and the importance of the books now to be kept that safes be provided for accounting postmasters or an allowance be granted to pay for use of same when provided by postmaster.
2.	Have the requests and suggestions made in these two documents been considered ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to propose such amendments to the law as will remove the cause of complaint ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Muloek).: Such a petition has been received and is under consideration at the present time.


TRENT VALLEY CANAL.
Mr. WARD asked :: 1.	Has the Department of Railways and Canals issued an advertisement for tenders for the construction of any portion of the Trent Valley canal, between Hastings and Trenton ?
2.	If so, when ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: 1. Yes.
2. Tenders were invited for the construction of the section of the Trent canal between Trenton and Frankford on the 24th of November,, 1899.


Mr. WARD asked :: Is it the intention of the government to havo any further survey of the proposed continuation of the Trent Valley canal between Rice lake and Lake Ontario, before proceding with the work ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The question is under the consideration of the government.


POSTMASTER AT WHITNEY PIER, N.S.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) asked :: 1.	Has Peter J. Carlin been dismissed from the position of postmaster at Whitney Pier, in the county of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ?
2.	If so, when was he dismissed, and for what reason or cause ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Muloek).: Mr. Peter J. Carlin, late postmaster, without the consent of the department, removed the post office some distance from the old site. It was considered that Mrs. Gallivan's building was a more desirable location and the change was accordingly made.


MINISTERIAL CHANGES.
The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker. In pursuance of the notice which I gave some few days ago in answer to a question from my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), I shall now proceed to give to the House the ministerial explanation which the House expects from the government as to the changes which took place some few months ago in the composition of the cabinet. In these modern days such explanations have not the importance which they had at one time, because, in these modern days, with the methods of publicity there is nothing that I could tell the House of which the House has not already been informed. In the month of September last, whilst I was in Europe, on the continent, I received several communications from Canada calling my attention to the course pursued by my hon. friend the present member for the division of St. Mary's (Montreal), at that time my colleague in the cabinet and then Minister of Public Works. It was represented to me that my hon. friend was pursuing a course which was not consistent with the rules of parliamentary government inasmuch as he was advocating a policy which was at variance with the policy hitherto followed by the government of which he was a member. I thereupon ordered that all the Canadian newspapers should be sent to me in London to await my arrival there on my way back to Canada. When I returned to London from the continent I found these news-



papers and on the long passage I had abundant time to acquaint myself with the new situation which had been created by the action of my hon. friend, the then Minister of Public Works, and I had to come to the conclusion that the representations which had been made to me certainly required an investigation on my part. The policy of the government on the fiscal question was laid "down for the last time during last session by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in making the budget speech, and on that occasion he made use of the following language :
We do not propose to make any changes In the tariff this session. I do not for a moment claim that the tariff is perfect. I think, that, on the whole, it has proved a very good tariff. Indeed, when we recall the circumstances under which our tariff revision took place, when we remember the very complicated and difficult problem with which we had to deal, we may well congratulate ourselves upon our success in devising a tariff so well adapted to the requirements .of the country, a tariff under which Canada has prospered in a greater degree than in any previous period in her history. I have occasionally pointed out the desirability of a reasonable measure of tariff stability. Nothing would be more likely to unsettle business thin a practice of introducing frequent tariff changes. Hence, we have resisted applications for many small changes and we think it well to do so to-day. But I would not have it understood that this view can always be held. As time passes, conditions change in our own country and it will be well for us to take note of this, so that we may adjust the tariff accordingly. Nor is that the only reason that might require some change. Conditions arise in other countries of which we are obliged to take account. We do not propose that we shall stand still and that this tariff shall remain unchanged, but we think the time is not opportune for making changes at present.
Then, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance went on to say that at that very moment it would not be advisable to make tariff changes, amongst other reasons, for this reason that we had just completed the census and that we had not yet before us the condition of the industries of the country revealed by the census. Another reason was that at that very moment we were engaged in some correspondence with some foreign countries, amongst others, Germany, with) the view, if possible, of bettering the condition of our trade with them, and another reason was that we were engaged to proceed at,short notice during the then coming summer to London to engage in the approaching conference, and we knew for a certainty that the tariff conditions which prevailed between the motherland and this country would be examined. These were some of the reasons why my hon. friend, speaking for the government, did not deem it advisable to have a tariff revision and he concluded as follows :
For these reasons we postpone for the present the question of tariff revision. When the moment for revision arrives, the public of Canada may rest assured that the government will


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: undertake the work in the spirit of moderation and caution that has prevailed in their past actions in tariff affairs, avoiding the extremes which almost always find advocates, and having regard to what is best, not for particular industries or particular sections of the country, but for the interests of the people of the whole Dominion.
1 have only to remark at this moment that in holding this language my hon. friend was speaking officially, that he was giving the result of the determined policy that for the present no tariff changes should take place and that we would stand by the policy which was then on the statute-book and that this was to be the case until the condition of the country might require us to recommend a departure from that policy. Such being the condition of things and the policy so laid down In the course pf that summer, my hon. friend the then Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and the present member for St. Mary's division of the city of Montreal, entered into a campaign advocating the immediate revision of the tariff in the sense of higher duties and more stringent protection. For the purposes of the present question-for the purposes of the constitutional question which is the only question at present before the House and with which I intend to deal-it was of no circumstance whatever whether my hon. friend advocated an increase of the tariff or a decrease of the tariff. The error ; the constitutional error was the same ; it mattered not whether he advocated to revise the tariff up or down. The one important thing was that being a member of the administration he was bound by the policy laid down by the member of the cabinet who had authority to speak upon this subject and whose voice had been heard upon the floor of this House in no uncertain tone, and who had laid it down as plain as language could make it : That the government would not under existing circumstances admit of any tariff changes.
I know very well, Sir, and the House need not be told by me, that the gentlemen who are assembled at the council board are not expected to be any more unanimous in their views because they sit at council, than would be expected from any other body of men. It Is In human nature to differ. It is in human nature, even for the best of friends ; even for men professing the same views politically to differ and to differ materially on some points. But the council sits for the purpose of reconciling these differences-the council sits for the purpose of examining the situation and having examined it, then to come to a solution which solution then becomes a law to all those who choose to remain in the cabinet. It would be a mere redundancy for me to affirm that the necessity for solidarity between the members of the same administration is absolute ; that the moment a policy has been determined upon, then it becomes the duty of every member of that

administration to support it and to support it in its entirety. It can be possible that a member of the cabinet who assented to that policy may not be convinced that it is for the best; it may be possible that he thinks a wiser course could have been taken. But if he remains in the cabinet, it is because he thinks that on the whole it is better that his views on that subject should give -^ay to the views of others, and that whilst his own judgment is not in accord with the judgment of his colleagues, still it is for the best interest of the country that he should resign his judgment to theirs, and continue to occupy a position in the cabinet.
I am also aware that in some instances- not in many instances I must say-a man speaking upon the impulse of the moment may perhaps be led to take a view which is not the view which would be entertained by his colleagues, but if that remains an isolated instance no serious harm could come of it. An appeal from the Prime Minister to the man who has so spoken is generally sufficient to promote harmony and to make him understand that whether he agrees or not he must come to the view held by the cabinet. But when a policy has been determined upon ; solemnly agreed upon and solemnly promulgated to the House and to the people, I need not tell the House-and I think my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) ought to be the first to agree-that under such circumstances it is not only the duty politically of a member of the cabinet, but it is his duty both as a friend and as a member of the party, to stand by that policy. And, if at a later stage he thinks that the policy is wrong, that it ought to be improved, that it ought to be amended ; then the battle, or the action is to be taken, not before the public, not before the constituencies, but the reform has to be advocated in the first place in the cabinet of which he is a member.
My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) however did not follow these rules. My hon. friend took another course and I think he will agree with me that the language is not too strong when I say, that he started upon a campaign for the purpose of advocating a policy in favour of immediate revision of the tariff in the sense of higher duties and higher protection. At the banquet of the Manufacturers' Association in Halifax he declared for such a policy. He repeated the same theory at Gananoque, at Chatham, and at several other places. If it had been an isolated expression, not repeated, not followed by any other, I think the evil done, the course pursued might have been susceptible of being reclaimed. But as my hon. friend started upon a campaign and repeated the course which he had first adopted, and made it plain to the country that what he was aiming at was an immediate revision of the tariff in the sense 1 have indicated against the stated policy of the administration of which he was a mem-6i
her ; there was no course for me to take but the course which I thought it advisable to take as soon as I landed in Canada. And as soon as I landed into Canada I came to the conclusion that the conduct and language of my hon. friend made it imperative upon me to take action immediately in that way.
I arrived in the city of Ottawa on the 18th of October. On the 19th, that is to say the following day, I had an interview with my hon. friend and I met him at his own house. The following morning my hon. friend called at my office early in the morning before his departure for the city of Toronto where he was to speak that same evening. The next stage which I had to take in the discharge of my duties, such as I understand them, was to call upon His Excellency the Governor General to acquaint him of the situation and the judgment which I had formed upon it, and then to meet my colleague which I did upon the same day, namely, the 20th. On the following day, the 21st of October, I received by mail from my hon. friend the following letter :
Toronto, 20th Oct., 1902.
My dear Sir Wilfrid,-I feel it is my duty to place my resignation in your hands, and to ask you to be good enough to have it accepted by His Excellency the Governor General.
In the interview which I had with you, you expressed the opinion that I should not have spoken on the tariff as I have done, that the government had not as yet come to any definite understanding on their fiscal policy for- the future, &c.
I shall not discuss with you' at the present time, the question as to whether I was right or wrong in the course I have followed.
You are the leader of the government, and your opinion, as far as my attitude is involved, must prevail.
You told me that my utterances are causing you trouble. I have no right and no desire to be a source of embarrassment to you or to the party with which I have been connected since 1892.
My views on the tariff are well known to you. I have, on several occasions, stated them publicly in your presence and discussed them often privately with you.
Entertaining the opinion that the interests of the Canadian people make it our duty to revise, without delay, the tariff of 1897, with the view of giving a more adequate protection to our industries, to our farming community, to our workingmen, I cannot possibly remain silent.
I prefer my freedom of action and of speech, under the circumstances, even to the great honour of being your colleague.
Before severing my official relations with you, allow me to express my sincerest hope that you will soon be restored to your health of former days.
You would greatly oblige me by conveying to my colleagues my best wishes for their welfare and their happiness. My personal relations with most of them have been of a pleasant and cordial nature. I hope they will continue to be the same in the future.
Believe me, my dear Sir Wilfrid,
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) J. ISRAEL TARTE.

Immediately I answered in the following manner :-
Ottawa, October 21, 1902,
My dear Tarte,-After having seen you on Sunday last and having expressed to you my well settled opinion upon the consequences of your recent attitude, my first duty was to wait upon His Excellency the Governor General to inform him that I was obliged to demand the resignation of your portfolio.
After having seen His Excellency, I had to acquaint my colleagues of the interview which 1 had had with you.
In accepting your resignation, it is well to emphasize the points of difference between us.
During my absence in Europe, without any communication with me, and without any previous understanding with your colleagues, you began an active campaign in favour of an immediate revision of the tariff in the direction of high protection.
I regret having been obliged to observe to you that this attitude on your part constitutes a self-evident violation of your duty towards the government of which you were a member.
I repeat to you here what I told you on Sunday : I do not wish to discuss, at this moment, tile economic theory of which you have made yourself the champion. This question, however important it might be, is subordinate to one still more important.
If you had reached the conclusion that the inteiest of the country demanded without delay, an increase of the custom duties, the first thing for you to do as a member of the government, before addressing your views to the public, would have been to place them before your colleagues, with the object of obtaining that unanimous action of the cabinet which is the very foundation of responsible government.
If 3?ou had not been able to obtain from your colleagues their assent to the course which you recommended you would have been obliged then either to accept their own views or to sever your connection with them, and then for the first time would you have been free to place your views before the public.
Such was the very simple course which was binding upon you ; but to remain a member of the government, and, at the same time, to advocate a policy which had not yet been adopted by the government, was an impediment to the proper working of our constitutional system, and implies a disregard for that loyalty which all those who are members of the same administration owe to each other and have a right to expect from each other.
I thank you for the good wishes which you express for the improvement of my health, and I will make it my duty to convey to your old colleagues the wishes which you express for their welfare and their happiness.
Believe me.
Yours very sincerely,


WILFRID LAURIER.
The Hon.  J. I.@: Tarte,
Ottawa.
Upon this the portfolio of Public Works being vacant, and also the place in the cabinet occupied by my bon. friend, I asked the assent of my colleagues to my recommending His Excellency-advice which was accepted-to call to be Minister of Public Works my colleague who was then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Mr. Sutherland, and to appoint to the portfolio of Marine Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
and Fisheries the hon. member for Maison-neuve, Mr. Prefontaine, who has since been returned for that constituency.


Hon. J. ISRAEL TARTE (Montreal, St. Mary's).: Mr. Speaker, it will be no surprise to the House if I beg leave to offer a few observations to supplement and perhaps to answer the statements which have just been' made and read by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. friend had been abroad for several months. On his return he reached the city of Montreal on the 18th of October. As it was my duty and my pleasure, I went to meet him and to welcome him. We arranged and agreed that both of us should be in Ottawa on the following day, that was Sunday. On that day he telephoned me that he would come to my house at five o'clock in the afternoon. The right hon. gentleman reproached me-informed me, rather-that some of my speeches made in his absence had annoyed several of my colleagues and were causing trouble to him. He expressed his regret that I should have made those speeches which had been pronounced on the fiscal policy. He thought I should not have taken the position I had taken. I informed him at the outset, that I had no desire to remain any longer a member of his administration-that, in fact, I had waited till lie was back in order to hand in my resignation. I then endeavoured to explain my position to him-not, as I told him, with a view to asking to be kept as a member of the cabinet, but to make my position clear to him. I reminded him then, in answer to the expression of his regret at the speeches which I had made, at what he called my new departure, that the speeches which I had made when he was abroad were not stronger, were not as strong, as several other speeches which I had made when he was here and in his presence. I told him that I thought a cabal had been organized against me, and that under the circumstances I was sure he would understand why I had no desire to remain any longer a member of the cabinet. I said to him :	" My
resignation is in your hands ; you are a sick man ; I am in the best of health ; take my resignation at once, to-day ; do not worry ; appoint in my place anybody that you like ; I will do every thing that I can to save worry and trouble to you." These were the very words I used. The Prime Minister did not agree with that view. He told me that it was preferable to leave things in abeyance till I was back from Toronto, on Wednesday. As he stated a minute ago, on Monday morning, before I left for Toronto, I called at his office, and he told me again that it was preferable to leave matters in abeyance till I was back from Toronto. On my way up, the conclusion came irresistibly to my mind that it was better for all concerned that the situation should be relieved without any more

delay. I concluded then not to comply with his wishes, and I dictated to my secretary the letter of resignation which my right hon. friend has just read. Let me read that letter again, as it is of great importance to me that the statement I make to-day should be as complete as possible :- Toronto, 20th October, 1902.
The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Ont.
My Dear Sir Wilfrid,-I feel it is my duty to place my resignation in your hands, and to ask you to be good enough to have it accepted by His Excellency the Governor General.
In the interview that I had with you, you expressed the opinion that. I should not have spoken on the tariff as I have done, that the government had not as yet come to any definite understanding on their fiscal policy for the future, etc.
I shall not discuss with you, at the present time, the question as to whether I was right or wrong in the course I have followed.
You are the leader of the government, and your opinion, as far as my attitude is involved, must prevail.
You told me that my utterances are causing you trouble. I have no right and no desire to be a source of embarrassment to you or to the party with which I have been connected since 1892.
My views on the tariff are well known to you. I have, on several occasions, stated them publicly in your presence, and discussed them often privately with you.
Entertaining the opinion that the interests of the Canadian people make it our duty to revise, without delay, the tariff of 1897, with the view of giving a more adequate protection to our industries, to our farming community, to our workingmen, I cannot possibly remain silent.
I prefer my freedom of action and of speech, under the circumstances, even to the great honour of being your colleague.
Before severing my official relations with you, allow me to express my sincerest hope that you will soon be restored to your health of former days.
You would greatly oblige me by conveying to my colleagues my best wishes for their welfare and their happiness. My personal relations with most of them, have been of a pleasant and cordial nature. I hope they will continue to be the same in the future.
Believe me, my dear Sir Wilfrid, Yours very sincerely,
(Sgd.) J. .ISRAEL TARTE.
This letter was mailed on tlie 20tk October, in Toronto. It reached my right hon. friend's office, I suppose, about ten o'clock in the morning. At one o'clock in the afternoon, my right hon. friend's answer was taken to my house. I was away. The right hon. gentleman knew that I was in Toronto. My right hon. friend wrote me in French, and I shall read the translation published in the ' Star.'
Ottawa, Oct. 21st 1902.
My Dear Tarte,-After having seen you on Sunday, and having expressed to you my wellfounded opinion of the consequences of your recent attitude, my first duty was ro call on His Excellency the Governor General, and to inform him that I was obliged to ask you for your portfolio. After having seen His Excellency, I informed my colleagues of the interview I had had with you. In accepting your resignation, it is well to precise the points of difference between us.
During my absence to Europe, without warning me and without any previous agreement with your colleagues, you commenced aD active campaign in favour of the revision of the tariff towards very high protection. I regret to have had to point out to you that this attitude on your part constitutes an open violation of your duty towards the government of which you are a member.
I now repeat what I told you on Sunday. I do not wish to discuss at this moment either the value or the opportunity of the theory of which you have constituted yourself the champion. The question, important as it may be, is overshadowed by considerations of much greater importance.
If you had reached the conclusion that the interests of the country demanded without delay the increase of the custom duties, the first thing for you to have done, as a member of the government, before addressing yourself to the public, was to have submitted your views to your colleagues for the purpose of securing a unanimous action of the cabinet, which is the very basis of a responsible government. If you have failed in securing the assent of your colleagues to the new policy which you recommended, you would have had to choose either to adopt their way of viewiDg the matter, or to part from them, and then for the first time it would have been open to you to address yourself to the public.
Such was the simple conduct which was imposed on you, but to remain a member of the government, and at the same time advocate a policy which has not as yet been adopted by the government constitutes an obstruction to the working of our constitutional system and implies a breach of that loyalty which all those who form part of the same administration owe each other and have the right of expecting one from the other.
I thank you for the wishes which you express for the improvement of my health, and I will make it my duty to transmit to your former colleagues the wishes which you express for their prosperity and their happiness.
Believe me.
Yours devotedly,



The Hon.  J. I.@: Tarte,
Ottawa'.
By the direction, I have no doubt, of nay right hon. friend, both his letter and mine were handed over to the press. They were given to the press on the 21st, the very same day that my right hon. friend's letter was written. On the 23rd October, I wrote over my own signature an article in ' La Patrie ' headed " a word to the country." Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to quote the following paragraphs, which refer to the letter of my right hon. friend :-
I see that some reproach Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the tone of the letter which he addressed to me.

The Prime Minister is fatigued-harassed- ill. The undeniable harshness of some of his words by no means changes my personal feelings towards him. I have grown old enough to take circumstances into consideration.
The Prime Minister had no right to tell me that I had failed in loyalty towards my colleagues, in using the language which I recently did on the fiscal question.
To this unjust reproach I have the right to oppose the numerous speeches which I made, in the same sense, during the last few years.
I did not organize a campaign in Ontario. I went into that province last year and this summer at the urgent invitation of the agricultural societies, of chambers of commerce, of ministerial members.
I am of the opinion that parliament is the proper place to discuss, at first, matters of this kind. I beg, then, to be allowed to emphasize as energetically as I can my objection to the Prime Minister's letter. I am speaking in all deference to him. I have a great deal of respect and consideration for my right hon. friend. I take direct issue with the statements contained in his letter as it has just been read to the House. Let me quote some of his words again :
During my absence to Europe, without warning me and without any previous agreement with your colleagues, you commenced an active campaign in favour of the revision of the tariff towards very high protection. I regret to have had to point out to you that this attitude on your part constitutes an open violation of your duty towards the government of which you are a member.
I did not commence, I did not carry on any new campaign. I went on repeating speeches that I had made before in the presence of the right hon. gentleman, of many members of the House, and of several of my colleagues on repeated occasions. There was a banquet given by the Manufacturers' Association in Montreal, in the month of November, 1901. I had the privilege of being one of the guests and one of the speakers on that occasion. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) attended that meeting. I was called upon to speak, and in the course of my speech I said :
Shall I be accused once more of being a 'Confounded Protectionist ' if I say openly, as I generally try 'o say things, that the main dovma of my political creed is ' Canada for the Canadians ?' Canada for the Canadians and for those who want to become Canadians. (Cheers).


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: Cheers from whom ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: From everybody in the hall. I went on :
I say let us be Canadians in our customs law's, let us stand by Canadian capital, let us stand by Canadian industry (hear, hear) ; let us stand by our Canadian manufacturers (prolonged cheering), and we shall, therefore, in every sense be standing rightly. We shall be standing rightly for the labouring classes, for the farming classes, for the manufacturing classes, for we ought to be one, and we are one.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I went on again :
Are the people to depend for all time upon the United States of America, our neighbour ? Our friends on the other side of the line have raised a wall against us, they show no disposition to lower it, and, if I am not mistaken, Sir, I would say that they take us by the throat every time that they can. Now, I want to know why our Canadian custom laws are not to be just as self-protecting as theirs ? I have not been able to see for the life of me, why our laws should not be as protective as those of the United States. We want to advance ; 1 do not care much about words, I care less about theories ; theories and words have given precedence to circumstances, and I say these are circumstances which we have to confront. I say why should the Americans invade our markets ? They would not invade our market if we can sell to the consumer just as cheap as tho American, and I want to know why we cannot. I am not discussing the tariff in detail, I am laying down principles. I say that the first principle for an individual, as for a nation, is to defend himself (hear, hear). In speaking as I do, I knotv I am speaking for the very large majority of the Canadian people. Now, do not believe, gentlemen, that I belong to a government where every one takes the same view. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has very rightly stated that questions of this kind are generally settled by compromise. I have been brought up a protectionist-in a protectionist school-and I have not renounced my faith (cheers), and I do not mean to renounce it. (reaewed cheering). The Prime Minister is a cabinet maker of the first rank and if I were ever to have a government I would try to have all the shades possible represented. You have no idea what a cabinet meeting is like-people fighting like blazes at times.
Let me say immediately that these last words have been, on several occasions, the subject of observations which have no foundation whatever. For, let me assure the House-and I am speaking in the hearing of my former colleagues-that we never had any such fighting as has been described in the press. I was speaking, of course, in a jocular way when I used those words.
The Prime Minister also made a speech on the same occasion. He made, forsooth, a fighting speech-a fiery speech. He said :
In connection with this, there is another feature which is now taking place. I remember, and you remember also, that since the abolition of the reciprocity treaty in 1866, we have sent delegation after delegation to Washington to obtain reciprocity. We are not sending any more delegations (loud and continued applause). But I rather expect, and I would not be surprised if the thing were to take place, even within a few years. I say, I rather expect .that there will be delegations coming from Washington to Ottawa for reciprocity (wild cheering), having learned the lesson from our friends to the South how to receive such a delegation, we shall receive them in the proper way (cheers), with every possible politeness (laughter).
After the speech from which I have quoted, I remained a member of the administration. After that I made several other speeches on the same line, advocating the revision of the fiscal policy of this country on strong Cana-1 dian, national lines. Time went on. Dele-

gation after delegation came to meet the government in Ottawa. I generally attended when meeting these delegations. On not one occasion was there a request that the tariff be lowered ; far from it ; on every occasion business men, manufacturing associations, farmers, asked for a revision of the tariff in the direction of higher protection. The government were pressed pretty hard. 1 know what was going on just as well as any of my former colleagues know. We were hard pressed. The London conference was on. The session of 1902 was called. The situation, as my right lion, friend has said, was discussed. Of course, none of us is free to say what took place in the council, but I remember very well what took place ; yes, and my former colleagues remember what took place too. The result of our deliberations was the statement made by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in his budget speech. Let me read it at some greater length than my right hon. friend has read it to the House.. The budget speech was delivered on March 17th, during which the Minister of Finance spoke as follows :
We do not propose to make any changes in the tariff this session. X do not for a moment claim that the tariff is perfect. I think that, on the whole, it has proved a very good tariff. Indeed, when we recall the circumstances under which our tariff revision took place, when we remember the very complicated and difficult problem with which we had to deal, we may well congratulate ourselves upon our success in devising a tariff so well adapted to the requirements of the country, a tariff under which Canada has prospered in a greater degree than in any previous period in her history. I have occasionally pointed out the desirability of a reasonable measure of tariff stability. Nothing would be more likely to unsettle business than a practice of introducing frequent tariff changes. Hence, we have resisted applications for many small changes, and we think it well to do so to-day. But I would not have it understood that this view can always be held. As time passes, conditions change in our own country, and it will be well for us to take note of this, so that we may adjust the tariff accordingly. Nor is that the only reason that might require some change. Conditions arise in other countries of which we are obliged to take account. We do not propose that we shall stand still and that this tariff shall remain unchanged; but we think the time is not opportune to make any change at present. There are several reasons which operate in our minds against entering upon a policy of tariff changes to-day. We have just completed the taking of a census, and while some of the results are available, others of much importance have yet to be prepared. Among these are the returns of the operations of our industries. In considering the tariff in relation to the industries of the country, it is desirable that we should have before us, with ample time for consideration, the industrial statistics of the recent census
That session came to a close. My right hon. friend and some of his colleagues went
abroad; I remained in Canada. After having settled the more pressing business of the Department of Public Works, I started on a tour of inspection, and also in search of information concerning the transportation question to which I had given as much time as I was able to do. Naturally I was called upon to answer addresses and make speeches, and I often expressed the opinion, which I had expressed in the House, that the transportation question and the fiscal policy of this country were intimately bound together. Perhaps on this occasion the storm has come from the west. Speaking at Port Arthur I had under my eyes an interview given by Mr. Greenway, former prime minister of Manitoba, in which he advocated a lower tariff. I said to the large audience before me that in my humble opinion Port Arthur and Fort William, and not Duluth, should be the centres of exchange on the great lakes for the trade between the west and the east. It was that way I was led to speak of the fiscal policy of the government. Mr. Speaker, my speeches, most of them at any rate, have been reported, and I invite criticism of my utterances during the absence of my right hon. friend. I state here that I never said in his absence what I did not say when he was here, what I would not have said had he been in this country. I have acted in perfect good faith. I advocated the policy that I had reason to believe, that I still believe, has the policy of this government before the Prime Minister and my colleagues went away. I did not advocate an increase of the tariff all along the line-and I again invite criticism of my utterances-I went on to say that this country should have, must have, a strong Canadian fiscal policy. That was the gist of my utterances, and I never went further. The right hon. gentleman reproaches me in his letter, and in his statement to-day, with having advocated an immediate revision of the tariff. Sir, the true facts of the case are these-I have already referred to them. The statement of the Minister of Finance last year was a formal promise to the country that during the present session of parliament, then the coming session of parliament, a revision of the tariff would take place. I made bold to say that I would be able to find a clear expression to that effect in some of the reported interviews that took place when my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and myself, with others, were present. It was a set-led matter. I take the responsibility of saying here that it was a settled matter that a revision of the tariff should take place this session.
I am prepared to take the responsibility of the mistakes I have made. If I have made mistakes I am prepared to pay the penalty of these mistakes, but, I am not ready to stand without protesting with all my energy and from the bottom of my heart under the

imputation that I have been disloyal to my colleagues. I cannot stand that. Whatever the position of the right hon. Prime Minister may be, and he has achieved a very high position in this country, his words cannot turn into accuracy statements that are not borne out by the facts. During my right hon. friend's absence I advocated for Canada a policy that would give us the Dest available means of transportation and a strong Canadian fiscal policy. I do not regret a word of what I have said. I know that I have acted loyally, I know that I have endeavoured to serve my country and that I have tried to serve my party to the best of my ability. I may have made mistakes, but, am I the only man after all who has talked tariff in the government ? I have advocated a strong Canadian policy on the floor of parliament and outside of it. Other members of the administration have talked fiscal policy. The Minister of the Interior (Hon. Clifford Sifton) also talked about the tariff, and I suppose that those who hold the view I hold are not the only ones to be excommunicated if any are to be excommunicated for discussing this question. The hon. Minister of the Interior, speaking on the 12th December, 1901, only a few days after I had talked in Montreal, spoke as follows : And this is not the only speech he made on the great desirability of having a lower tariff. I do not blame him. He is perfectly entitled to his opinions. I would like to have the same privilege. He was a minister as much as I was. He said
I desire before this representative convention to say a few words to put before you fairly and squarely the position of the government.
The different provinces have different interests and with these presented in parliament, it is impossible to weld them all into legislation.
If we are to have government, harmony and progress we must do in respect to fiscal legislation just what Sir Wilfrid said In regard to race and religion :-
' We must find a common ground upon which to stand.'
If you have followed the discussion in the press, you will know that there is a strong agitation for the purpose of placing a duty on lumber and increasing the duties on agricultural implements and woollen goods.
They say the reason is chat they have not sufficient protection. I say it is not. If they cannot live on a 23 per. cent tariff they had better shut up.
The government had never decided that if the woollen Industry or any other industry In the country could not live on a tariff of twenty-three per cent, they had better be shut np. We had never decided anything of the kind. The government had not pronounced more on the policy of my hon. friend-it had pronounced less, perhaps, because I verily believe it is the intention of the government to raise the duty on woollens. My hon. friend spoke in that way. Well, he has not been excommunicated.
The lumber interests are demanding a tariff of from 20 to 30 per cent.
The lumber representatives come down twice every session to see what influence they can bring to bear to have a duty placed on lumber. Sir Wilfrid sends them to me telling them that I represent the people who do not want a duty on lumber.
The government having arrived at this position on the tariff, the important thing for the people of the west Is to stand firmly at our backs and assist us in preventing any encroachment upon the position we have taken.
' Stability and no change ' is the policy of the government.
We had never decided that we should not have any change, far from It. The Minister of Finance had announced that there would he a revision of the tariff later on.
The Conservatives are in favour of a very decided advance in the duties of important com-;es all along the line.
British preference would be done away with if the Conservative party were returned to power.
Well, Sir, I made those speeches to which my hon. friend has alluded and on which we will have further opportunities to pronounce. On the 4tli of September my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, the youngest member of the administration, perhaps, not the least influential, hut the youngest member of the administration, gave an interview which was circulated broadcast all over the land in which he took strong ground against any increase in the tariff. It was a signal for personal attacks directed against me in several newspapers of importance. The Manitoba ' Free Press,' which is the personal organ of my hon. friend, the ' Globe,' the Montreal ' Herald ' and other papers attacked me very severely. Knowing well the influences that are behind the scenes in the Liberal party, as I should know them, having been six years amongst them-


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Who is behind the ' Globe ' ?


Mr. BENNETT.: Hypocrisy.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I understood at a glance what was going on and I resolved to withdraw from the government at that very time, not because I had differed in the past in many points with the government policy, but, because I felt then and I feel now that when things have come to such a pass that members of the same administration are assailing each other, either in the newspapers, or elsewhere, they must part. It is better for all concerned. I then fully resolved to withdraw from the government, and it will be within the remembrance of some of my former colleagues that at an Informal meeting of the cabinet, presided over by Hon. Mr. Scott, the Secretary of State, I told my colleagues of my determination. I consulted some friends who were good enough to take some interest in me. They represented to me that it was better that


Joseph Israël Tarte: I should wait the return of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. I waited. I have explained the circumstances under which my resignation was placed in his hands. My right hon. friend states in his letter that after having met me at my house on Sunday and on Monday in his office he thought it was his duty to proceed to His Excellency and inform him that he had to ask for my portfolio. Sir, I handed my resignation to my right hon. friend both on Saturday and Monday morning. He asked me to delay, to leave things in abeyance till I would be back from Toronto. I ask him now, would it not have been fair on his part to state at least to His Excellency that if he thought my resignation should be handed to him, that I had handed such resignation to him. It may not have a material effect on the question, but I state the facts as my right hon. friend knows they are.
I said a minute ago that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) had talked of the tariff. A good deal of freedom has been used perhaps by members of the administration. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has been rather free upon pretty broad questions. Not very long ago he made a speech on the railway policy of the government. When I left the cabinet, the government had not decided to build out of the public exchequer a trans-continental railway. The Minister of Railways and Canals speaking on the 2nd of November, to a reporter of the Sunday 'Sun,' of Montreal in his own house in Ottawa, said this-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me. I never had any interview with that gentleman, and never authorized the publication of such an interview. I was amazed later when I heard that such an interview had been published. I paid no attention to it, but I certainly did not have the interview.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, I am amazed at thd amazement of the Minister of Railways and Canals. The hon. gentleman never took care to state that he never had that interview which was of a grave nature and which has been discussed generally in the press. Of course I accept the statement but I will read the interview just the same.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hern* hear.
Hon. Mr. TxYRTE. If I had chosen to do so, it would have been most convenient for me to deny the reports ofi my speeches on the fiscal question. Of course I will accept the statement of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair), but I will read the interview for the information of the House.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not object to my hon. friend reading it. but I say that I had no interview with any gentleman at all representing1 the Montreal ' Sun ' in my life.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The Montreal ' Sunday Sun,' however, published a long interview which took place after a speech which was delivered by the Minister of Railways and Canals at Vancouver on the same lines. I read the speech as I read the interview, and the speech and the interview are built out of the same material.
I will perhaps quote the speech later on, but here is the interview :
One of the things that pleased me most of all was that everywhere an almost general, if not, in fact, a general opinion was to he found in favour of a government railway right through to the Pacific coast. The people want such a railway because they are convinced that it is the one great thing that w'ill bring about the equalizing of rates, that will prevent the farmers from continually being at the mercy of the railways. They even claim it as their right to have one, and after seeing what I have of the country I agree with them. There cannot any longer be any doubt that there is a great future before a government railway in that country. As a result of my visit, I hope, as Minister of Railways, to show parliament the necessity for a government railway through the west, for there cannot any longer be any doubt that the future of the Dominion lies greatly in the districts beyond the great lakes.
I say again that this interview is but a repetition of the speech that the hon. gentleman delivered in Vancouver. However he states that he did not have that interview, and I accept the statement.
I fully grant, Sir, that the members of an administration must be agreed on their policy. Now, in the speeches which I have delivered, have I disagreed with the policy for which the Liberal party as constituted to-day is responsible. The right hon. the Prime Minister said on another occasion that the policy of the present administration has been laid down and propounded in the tariff of 1897. I grant that. The Liberal party-the ministerial party as constituted to-day is not responsible for the utterances that may have been made previous to the adoption of the fiscal policy of 1897. But the fiscal policy of 1897 has been supplemented by the statement of the Minister of Finance in 1902, which was, which is for all men of good faith; for the business community who read it, a promise to revise the tariff and to increase the tariff on many lines. That was the promise; the country took it as a promise; I did not advocate anything else. I have advocated a policy for which I am responsible; that is to say the tariff of 1897 supplemented by the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance last year.
I ask :	Are then the statements of my
right lion, friend's letter fair to me ? I speak here with no spirit of regret or rancour, but simply to put my position right as it is my duty to do. The right hon. gentleman has reproached me for advocating what he styled in his letter, a new policy. I am within the judgment of the House, within the judgment of the country,

14S
and within the judgment of history when I say:	That I had advocated years and
years before to his knowledge the same policy that I have advocated in his absence. Then, Sir, he says in his letter, and he has repeated it on the floor of the House today, that he had informed His Excellency that he had asked for my resignation. I say again that my resignation was iu his hands. He had it, but he thought fit to leave the matter in abeyance. Again I ask him whether he has been fair to me. I am, I repeat, within the judgment of the country and of history on these two points.
Sir, I have quitted office without regret. I know that as long as I occupied the important position of Minister of Public Works I endeavoured to the best of my limited ability to do my duty towards my country and my duty towards the party with which I have been connected. My aim has been to promote and complete a system of transportation which would make this country independent of the United States. My aim has been, through a strong Canadian policy, and through the best possible means of transportation, to unite more and more the different parts of this Dominion, and the Dominion with the British empire. I do not say that I have always fulfilled the expectations of some of my opponents in the Liberal party; but I believe that I have left the treasury benches with an honest record. My department has been administered honestly and squarely. I am able to say, without any fear or hesitation, that to my knowledge not one single dishonest act was committed while I was at the head of that important department.
Before taking my seat I wish to thank on the floor of parliament, as I have done elsewhere, the right hon. gentleman for the great honour that he did me when he chose me as one of his colleagues. We are all glad to see him restored to health. So far as I am concerned, whatever the differences of the past have been, whatever the differences of the future may be, I will keep an affectionate souvenir of my relations with him and with most of my colleagues. Let me also thank the members of the House on both sides for the support that I have received at their hands on all the important questions with which my department was connected. I have left in the hands of the right hon. gentleman a report in which I have mapped out a plan of improvements which I had made up my mind to try to persuade parliament to proceed with. That document is a public document. I hope that my former colleagues will take up the various important questions with which X have dealt in that document. I am sure that my successor at the head of the Department of Fublic Works will give to the transportation question the earnest attention that I have always tried to give to that important national matter.


The Hon.  J. I.@: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend who leads the government sometimes expresses surprise because we on this side of the House do not understand what the fiscal policy of the Liberal party is. Slay I be permitted to draw to his attention a circumstance that occurred during the recent visit to England of himself and some of his colleagues V One of the admittedly ablest men in the cabinet made an absolute and utter mistake as to what the fiscal policy of the Liberal party was; and I suppose, after that somewhat singular circumstance, we shall not in the future have from my right hon. friend any expression of surprise that we on this side of the House are not able fully to understand what the fiscal policy of the Liberal party is at the present time.
It was well known, Sir, that the Minister of Finance made an important announcement in his budget speech of last year. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) arose in his seat during the budget debate and stated that he understood that announcement to be that the tariff would be revised this session, and would be revised along the line of higher duties; and although members of the cabinet were sitting in the House at the time, not one of them ventured to put aside the interpretation placed upon the remarks of the hon. Minister of Finance by the hon. member for Alberta. I can bear testimony to the accuracy of at least one portion of the remarks of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Hon. Mr. Tarte), because I myself had the pleasure of being present at that banquet in the city of Montreal to which he has referred, and of saying a few words on that occasion. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister and I responded to a certain toast. The toast, I think, was the toast of Canada; but my right hon. friend's remarks were directed altogether to the question of the tariff, on which he made an exceedingly non-committal speech. It is true, he did venture to suggest to the manufacturers there assembled that the tariff was almost perfect, having regard to the present condition of the country. That remark was met with vigorous cries of dissent, whereupon my right hon. friend, with that readiness which has always characterized him, remarked that there were even spots on the sun, and, therefore there was no occasion for surprise that some gentlemen in Canada might find fault even with the tariff. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance spoke afterwards in response to another toast, and his speech was equally non-committal. He wanted the tariff taken altogether out of politics, and he wanted to have it understood that the tariff as it then existed was as good a tariff as could be had for Canada. His remarks did not find much favour. Then my hon. friend who has just spoken rose and made in the presence of his leader and in the pre-


Joseph Israël Tarte: sence of the Minister of Finance, one of the strongest protectionist speeches I have ever heard in my life. My right hon. friend has sought to shake the force of that circumstance by saying that an isolated remark does not call for action by a leader of a government, but that a campaign is necessary. What does my right hon. friend think constitutes a campaign ? Is it not enough that a member of his cabinet in his presence makes a speech which, as distinctly as words could do so, advocated a very great increase in the customs duties of this country ? Was it necessary to make that speech twice or three times in order that the right hon. gentleman who leads the government might be made acquainted with the opinions and the policy of a member of his cabinet'! What does my right hon. friend mean by a campaign ? If he wanted any campaign does he not know that even before he went to the mother country, the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) again spoke in Montreal and used language, as reported in one of the Montreal papers, as follows :
Our American friends are making tremendous efforts to crush this country. We who are in office know that they are leaving no stone unturned to crush this Dominion, both industrially and commercially.
I have been accused of talking too much, but I may tell you that it is never a crime to speak the truth, and I do not believe in secrecy in public affairs.
There is a crisis at hand. Our American friends are endeavouring to make a slaughter market of this country. In consequence of this attempt let us have a tariff that will protect our natural industries and waterways, that will protect our national trade.
Language could not be very much more explicit. Yet my right hou. friend says that a campaign is necessary. But the position which the right hon. gentleman takes is really the result of an attempt on his part to bind together in the one cabinet men of exactly opposite opinions with regard to the fiscal affairs of this country. My right hon. friend seems to think that such is the highest aim of statesmanship. He seems to think that the ideal cabinet is that which has been described by Mr. Burke in a famous speech -
He made an administration so checkered and speckled; he put together a piece of joinery so crossly indented and whimsically dovetailed; a cabinet so variously inlaid; such a piece of diversified mosaic, such a tesselated pavement without cement; here a bit of black stone, and there a bit of white; patriots and courtiers, King's friends and republicans, Whigs and Tories, treacherous friends and open enemies, that it was indeed a very curious show, hut utterly unsafe to touch and unsure to stand on.
Is 'that the sort of ideal cabinet which the right hon. gentleman has endeavoured to create, because some of the characteristics described by Mr. Burke are not wanting in the present cabinet, if we are to believe
my hon. friend from St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte). Has not my hon. friend, in an article replying to a letter addressed to him, and published in the newspaper which he controls, called attention to the cabals and conspiracies against him which had been going on in the Liberal party many years ? Did not the hon. gentleman, in an editorial in his own paper, signed by his own hand, call attention to the fact that one of his own colleagues in the cabinet had paid the rent of a hall where a club met weekly for the purpose of heaping abuse on him ? Does my right hon. friend know any circumstance of that kind ? Is he able to indicate the member of his cabinet to whom my hon. friend has referred ? The country would like some information on that point. My right hon. friend is not able to furnish it, but surely the colleague who took that somewhat extraordinary course might have the manliness to stand up and say that he is the person who did that important work on behalf of a certain section of the cabinet and party.
It is quite evident that the attention of my right hon. friend has not been directed to the utterances of two members of his cabinet, which have been referred to by the hon. member for St. Mary's division this afternoon. We can well understand that on account of the right hon. gentleman's absence, and on account of the enormous number of newspapers he had to peruse when crossing the Atlantic, and by reason of the fact that his attention was mainly directed to the utterances of the hon. member for St. Mary's division, he has not, up to the present, become aware of the utterances of the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton). Has the cabinet decided that there shall be no increase of duty on woollen goods or lumber or agricultural implements ? Will my right hon. friend now stand up and say that such a policy has been decided on by the government ? If so, I shall sit down and give him an opportunity to do so. My right hon. friend does not avail himself of the opportunity. It necessarily follows, if his reason for the dismissal of the hon. member for St. Mary's division be correct, that he should, on the adjournment of the House this afternoon, instantly call upon the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) for his resignation. It is a mere matter of forgetfulness that he has not done so already, and I know that my right hon. friend, with that high regard for constitutional principles which he so well expressed in his letter to the hon. member for St. Mary's division, will not lose a moment after the House adjourns in calling on His Excellency and informing him that he cannot any longer conscientiously avail himself of the services of the Minister of the Interior.
And what of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair),

who thought, as he said to the people of New Brunswick not long ago, that the resignation of my hon. friend from St. Mary's division would not create even a ripple. Well, did it not create something more than a ripple on the part of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals, this afternoon. And what of the very important project which he has launched on the country ? I would like to ask my right lion, friend whether or not the cabinet has decided to build, as a government railway, a transcontinental line across this continent ? Will he get up and declare that any such policy has been decided on ? Again I give my right hon. friend the opportunity to rise in his place and make that declaration if he sees fit. Again he does not avail himself of the opportunity I give him, and therefore there exists every ground for the immediate dismissal of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, who has committed this cabinet to the project of building out of the moneys of this country a transcontinental line across this continent. Not only that, Sir, but it was announced by every Liberal paper in the west that that railway was to be built by this government for the purpose of keeping down rates on other transcontinental railways, and the admiration of Liberals was called up in all our western country because of the magnificent, bold and patriotic course which the Minister of Railways and Canals had announced on behalf of his government. Is there any reason why the right hon. gentleman who leads this government should not immediately proceed to His Excellency and inform him, that having been made aware this afternoon, for the first time, of the fact that one of his colleagues had laid down a policy in so important a matter, which, to use the right hon. gentleman's words, has not yet been adopted by the government, he deems it right that he should no longer avail himself of the services of the Minister of Railways and Canals. If my hon. friend is to be consistent, surely he must deal out the same justice to the Minister of Railways and Canals which he has already meted out to his long, tried friend the hon. member for St. Mary's division in Montreal.
But there are somewhat curious circumstances in connection with the incident which occurred this afternoon. We all know that my right hon. friend who leads the government began his career in public life as a protectionist. He has not, I think, been remarkable for his consistency in public life with regard to trade questions. But he seems to have developed, during the past few weeks, a great love for consistency on the part of public men. His first utterance in public life on fiscal questions in this country was this :-
What my hon. friend has said as to my protective proclivities is perfectly true, and I do not deny that I have been a protectionist.
His next was :


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: We have within ourselves the ability to create an industry. If it he shown that we cannot maintain it, unless by legislation either in the way of premium or prohibitory tariff, then I should be prepared to take that into consideration.
And again later on :
Although nature has been marvellously prodigal in her gifts and has done so much to make this a manufacturing country, we are yet dependent on foreign countries. It is our duty to foster our national industries.
And then in his letter to the late Mr. Bertram in 1896. he said :
Whether a policy of absolute freedom of trade would or would not be injurious to the manufacturing industries 'of this country is a question which I will not stop to discuss here. There is no occasion for such a discussion as the intention of the Liberal party is not and never was to establish free trade in this country.	***** j SUbmit also that, apart
from the community as a whole, the manufacturers have not only not to suffer, but much to gain from the substitution of a revenue tariff for the present system.
And his last utterance, conveyed to this country by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) was this :
I am, as I always have been, in favour of legitimate protection to our national industries and like my leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier I will ask and require protection for the interests of the different classes of the population.
I have in my hand a number of utterances of exactly opposite tenor given by my right hon. friend during his political life, and a few of them at least I think it is well to bring to the attention of the right hon. gentleman and the country. At the Liberal convention at Ottawa in 1893, he said :
Let it be well understood then that from this moment we have a distinct issue with the party in power. Their ideal is protection; our ideal is free trade. Their immediate object is protection, ours tariff for revenue and for revenue only. Upon this issue we engage in battle.
Brantford, in 1894, he said :
I propose that we should follow England's example and open our ports to the products of the world.
And at Quebec, on the 20th January, 1894, he said :
Gentlemen, the only way in which Quebec can recover its old time prosperity as a maritime city is by adopting the policy of freedom of trade as it exists in the mother country, Old England ***** The system of protection has been the bane and curse of Canada ***** The Liberal party believe in free trade on the broad lines such as exist in Great Britain.
But he spoke also in the cities of the west. At Winnipeg for example, he said :
I come before you to-night to preach to you this new gospel of freedom of trade, new- yes-new to this country. New on this continent, new on the other side of the line-the American republic, but not new on the other side of the water, in the Old Country
In

the American republic you have the line of cleavage which exists between the Liberal party and the Conservative party-the question of free trade.' We stand for freedom. I denounce to you the policy of protection, as bondage-yes bondage, and I refer to bondage in the same manner in which the American slavery was bondage
* You have to toil and sweat for the privileged masters ; you have to toil for those who use protection which I claim is bondage * * I protest against this policy of protection-protection cannot be attained on any fair principle. What has protection done for your own Manitoba ? Manitoba is a young giant manacled
Can you expect reform from those who do not believe in reform ? Can you expect reduction of taxes from those who have always told you that taxation makes a country prosperous ?

I would invite my right lion, friend's attention especially to these words of his uttered two years before he came into power :
Although it will be a hard fight we shall not give in one inch or retrace one step until we have reached the goal and that goal is the same policy of free trade as exists in England to-day.
Now, X mention this to my right hon. friend because I think his memory is bad. He sometimes has cast the reproach upon me across the floor of this House that my memory is not very good. I think from some recent utterances of his that the right hon. gentleman's own memory has become very bad indeed. And, as touching the question of consistency, I would like to call his attention to the fact that, in 1894, he told the people of this country by his speech in Winnipeg that free trade was the goal which the Liberal party was looking forward to, and within eighteen months after that he had written to Mr. Bertram, of Toronto, and told him that no party in the country had the slightest idea that there could be any such thing as free trade for Canada. Does not my right hon. friend think that is a delightful exhibition of consistency ? X have some more of his record here, but I do not think it necessary to use it. Perhaps, if his memory proves bad, I may use it on some future occasion ; but I may tell him that it exhibits as distinctly contradictory statements on important public questions as these utterances which I have just read.
Here we have six utterances, every one of them a strong pronouncement in favour of free trade; here we have six other utterances, every one of them a strong prononuneement in favour of protection. To use the common phrase :	You pay your money and you
take	your choice. Some of these
utterances are available for one part of the country, and some for another part of the country. And it is upon principles of this kind that the right hon. gentleman has seen fit to build up his cabinet. He seems to regard it as a great act of statemanship that he has brought within that cabinet men who possess such absolutely different
opinions upon vital public questions. Sir, I do not consider the creation of a cabinet on such lines a very high achievement in statecraft. It seems to me rather that the cabinet should contain men who, on all important; questions-on all questions of principle at least-have the same ideas and follow the same ideals. I do not think, for example, it a great act of statesmanship, after my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) had proclaimed, in 1896, on the floor of this House, that the independence of parliament was being sacrificed by reason of the appointment of members of this House to offices of emolument under the Crown, after he had pledged his faith to this principle and had staked his reputation as a public man upon it, that my right hon. friend should succeed in inducing the Postmaster General to remain in a cabinet, which, from 1896 down to the present time, has appointed to offices of emolument under the Crown no less than twenty-one members of this House of Commons. Does not my right hon. friend think that it would be better that the Postmaster General, in this House or elsewhere, should take an early opportunity of stating whether or not he was sincere when he professed these principles in the House and introduced a bill for the purpose of remedying the evil he complained of ? We have a right to believe he was sincere. If he was sincere then, does he adhere to the same principles at the present time 1 If not, when did he change, and what was the occasion of that change ? I do not think I am exceeding my duty in bringing to the attention of the House and of the country this instance as an illustration of the wonders which the right hon. gentleman thinks he has accomplished by bringing into his cabinet men of so diverse ideas on great public questions.
Now, the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has told us that the announcement made last session by the hon. Minister of Finance was properly understood by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). It was intended by the cabinet as an announcement to the country that the tariff would be revised, and that it would be revised along the line of higher duties. Well, Sir, what then was the meaning of the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) last year ? In replying to me he called the attention of my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to his speech in Winnipeg from which I have just quoted. He said that those words when uttered by the right hon. gentleman were true and just words that he believed them to be true and just words still. Does this mean that at the present time the Minister of Trade and Commerce still retains the enmity which he expressed for eighteen years against anything in the nature of protection ? Take

every one of his free trade speeches of days gone by, and you will not find in them anything stronger than the pronouncement against protection which was made on that occasion by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, a member of the cabinet in this very House. He told this House that protection was inseperable from corruption, inseparable at least under existing conditions in this country. We have the statement on former occasions of my hon. friend who has just sat down (Hon. Mr. Tarte), we have the statement of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton)* we have statements from other members of the Liberal party, that the present tariff is a protective tariff, and every one knows that it isl so. So we have in the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce another illustration of the kind of policy which this party has pursued on the fiscal question.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that it is a good thing for this country to have a ministry which either has no policy on fiscal questions, or which is afraid to announce that policy openly and fearlessly to the people of this country. As for the Conservative party, we have announced our policy on the floor of this House over and over again, and I have already pointed out that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. I'refontaine) has made a declaration in a manufacturing constituency during his recent election which brings both himself and my right hon. friend who leads the government into the Conservative ranks on that important question. I have under my hand the utterances of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in whict he told the people that he like his leader (Rt Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was in favour of legitimate protection to Canadian industries. And almost while he was uttering these words, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was telling the electors of Yarmouth that the sole difference between the two parties in Canada was that the Conservative party advocated a higher tariff, while the Liberal party advocated a low tariff. My right hon. friend is not correct in stating that the announcement last session was the latest announcement by the Minister of Finance, because the Minister of L'inance has made the later announcement to which I have referred in the county of Yarmouth, in at recent by-election. Now, we have the present attitude of the right hon. gentleman as defined by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries during the recent election, namely, that the right* hon. gentleman is in favour of legitimate protection to the industries of Canada. Does my right hon. friend hold to that doctrine to-day ? That statement was made two months and a half ago, I do not know whether he entertains the same opinion still, but if he does, it is in striking contrast to that which is entertained by his Minister of Finance who, on questions of this kind, as my right hon. friend has pro-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
perly said, speaks for the government at all times and on all occasions.
Now, I will not take up further the time of the House with regard to this incident, but I will close by reading to the House an extract from the words of a great Englishman of 50 years ago, with regard to an administration then carrying on public affairs in England ; and I would ask my right hon. friend to consider whether these words have or have not an application to the administration which has conducted the affairs of this country from 1896 down to the present time :
It is an administration totally without principle, refusing to put in practice what it pretends to support in theory, bound together and bound to office only by the vulgarest and lowest motives-the love of place, or of patronage, or of money. If a party be allowed to remain in power without any policy, or, if it have a policy, without attempting to act on it, to ask for support in one place as the friends of protection and to disarm opposition in another by treating free trade as a fait accompli, the people of England will become as indifferent to parliamentary government-at least to parliamentary government on the existing system-as those of France were.
With regard to the attitude of this government on fiscal questions at the present time, those words seem almost prophetic. We have seen Ministers of the Crown, as I have pointed out, within the last two or three months going to different constituencies in this country and advocating different policies. In this constituency of Argenteuil the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Agriculture told the people that this was a free trade government, and if I am correctly informed, they carried on a free trade campaign. My hon. friend for St. Mary's division, Montreal, says, I know not with what truth, that my hon. friend, the Minister of Customs is a protectionist at heart. I do not know whether that is the case, I do not know whether he is one of those who have fallen under the malign influence of my right hon. friend who leads the government and whether he has therefore abandoned the principles which he has at heart. I understand that at least with regard to some articles in the tariff, he did not shed any tears when the duties were maintained, and when the duty was on one article increased. But these gentlemen have gone into Argenteuil and carried on a free trade campaign. They have carried on a free trade campaign in the county of Yarmouth. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance summoned to his assistance the member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser), and the member for Guysborough conducted a thoroughly free trade campaign, and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was not far behind him. Then, in the constituency of Maisonneuve, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries conducts an exactly opposite campaign, and tells the people of that constituency that
157	MARCH 18, 1903	153
both himself and the right hon. gentleman who leads the government are in favour of protection. Now, which of these gentlemen are we to believe ? My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) has also conducted a free trade campaign in the west, although I believe his ardour in favour of free trade is not as" great as it was in 1896. In 1896 my hon. friend conducted a campaign for the late Dalton McCarthy, in Brandon, I believe, and he had posters up all over the town : ' Vote for McCarthy and free agricultural implements.' Lately, however, he has been explaining to the people of that part of the country that really it will not do to take the duty off agricultural implements because to do so would close up certain important Canadian industries. My hon. friend seems to have become confused. He wants the woollen industries closed up unless they can exist under 23J per cent of protection, but he seems to place the agricultural implement industry on a somewhat different basis. My hon. friend some years ago in the House used a well known expression which he will pardon me if I apply, to him to-day. He said, referring to some gentlemen on this side of the House, that he appealed from Philip drunk to Philip sober. Now I appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober, I appeal from the hon. gentleman in 1902 to the hon. gentleman in 1896 ; and I trust that some time during the progress of this session he will be willing to make known to the people of this country whether he is in favour of removing the duty from agricultural implements or whether he thinks that duty should remain ; whether he believes it should be increased, if necessary, to protect those industries, and whether he is in favour of the announcement made by the Minister of Finance last year that there should be at an early date a revision of the tariff in Canada along increased protection lines.
Mr. Speaker, I will close with one more remark. What are the facts ? A Minister of the Crown has been removed, according to my right hon. friend, or has resigned, according to my hon. friend from St. Mary's division. At all events, a vacancy has been created in the cabinet. For what alleged reason ?-for the reason that the policy which my hon. friend from St. Mary's division (Montreal) has been advocating for four or five years at least, a policy which I believe he always advocated, had been announced by him in the absence of the right hon. leader of the government during the past summer. AVell. under these circumstances another gentleman is appointed to take his place, and the hon. gentleman who takes his place announces to the people of this country practically the same policy as that which my hon. friend from St. Mary's division announced. The Hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. PrSfontaine) shakes his head. Does he say that he did not advocate, in the constituency of Maisonneuve, such
adequate or legitimate, protection as would be sufficient to maintain and preserve Canadian industries ? Will he deny that ? No, he will not deny it. Did my hon. friend the hon. member for St. Mary's division go farther ? His position, as I understood it, was this :	At the present time we have
American manufactured goods coming into this country to the extent of $65,000,000. I think the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) is correct in that estimate. The hon. member for St. Mary's took the position which I have taken myself on more than one occasion in this House, that when the inevitable time of depression comes, when prices are lower, when the protection for that reason will be decreased, when the Americans will be slaughtering their goods in Canada, we will stand a very good chance indeed of having a number of our industries crushed out, and for that reason he urged that the immediate revision of the tariff was necessary, because, not only he, but his late colleagues in the government, have been telling the people in this country that they must expect a period of depression at an early day. Then, where is the difference between my hon. friend from St. Mary's division and the Hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries ? The hon. minister seems to think there is a difference. Will he be good enough-I will move the adjournment of the House if necessary-to stand up in this House and tell us in what respect the policy which he advocated in Maisonneuve during his recent election differs from the policy which my hon. friend from St. Mary's division advocated ? I am not very much in the habit of throwing challenges across the floor of the House, but I do almost feel inclined on this occasion to send a little challenge to the Hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries n regard to that matter. I do not think that he will accept, and I am certain that if he does accept he will find himself in very great difliculty indeed and that he will sit down without enlightening the House very much as to what the actual difference is. I think when we have this extraordinary state of affairs existing under which one minister of the Crown is, according to the word of my right hon. friend who leads the government, dismissed from his position as a cabinet minister and another hon. gentleman takes his place avowing what I consider exactly the same principles that an occasion of that kind surely would justify an appeal to my right hon. friend to state fully and frankly to the House what the policy of the government is on fiscal matters provided it has any policy. I admit that if it has no policy my right hon. friend is in a hopeless difliculty. I believe he is in that difficulty to-day because I do not think, judging by the course of his party from 1896 down to the present time, that it has any policy at all in regard to the fiscal matters of this country except such a policy
1S9

as it thinks from time to time will give it a longer lease of power. It is willing to appeal for support to free traders, it is willing to appeal for support to protectionists, and any policy which for the time being will tend to serve its political fortunes, any policy which will give it a longer term of office is the policy and the only policy it is prepared to adopt on any particular occasion. I do not believe, notwithstanding the lessons which my right hon. friend has given us in regard to the best method of forming a government, that this a right state of affairs. The question of the tariff is a great question in this country. Situated as we are alongside the United States of America, situated as we are with enormous resources of our own we are surely entitled to have the government of the day inform the people whether or not they propose to adopt the policy which will give our industries a fighting chance for existence and which will enable the people to develop the resources of this country as they ought to be developed. Not one word has fallen from my right hon. friend with regard to that matter to-day. He says his policy is embalmed in the tariff; therefore, he never can alter an item of that tariff without changing his policy. Surely my right hon. friend will draw some distinction between a policy and the result of a policy as exemplified in the tariff. Is there no such thing as principle which is to be acted upon in fiscal matters ? Is there no such thing as a tariff which is adopted because it is a fair result of the working out of a broad principle ? My hon. friend the leader of the government has not given the country one ray of light on the policy of the government, he has not given the country one ray of light as to what we may expect in the future. Last year we were to expect a revision of the tariff at the present session. This year we do not know what we are to expect for the present. I conclude by expressing for the future my very great regret that under the very peculiar circumstances which have been disclosed in the remarks of my right hon. friend the leader of the government and my hon. friend the member for St. Mary's division, and which have been accentuated by the avowed policy of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, we have not had a single word from the right hon. gentleman which would give to this House or the country the slightest light as to what the fiscal policy of the government party really is.


The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) who has just taken his seat has spoken upon almost every conceivable subject except one and that is the subject at issue. The hon. gentleman has travelled the old record, has gone back almost as far as the deluge, in order to discuss questions which are not to-day before Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
the House. The last words spoken by my hon. friend are to the effect, forsooth, chat I have not declared what is the fiscal policy of I he government. Certainly not 1 I have done nothing of the kind, and if it be a crime on my part on sucli an occasion as this not to have given to the country what is the fiscal policy of the government I am guilty to the hilt. But, I ask my hon. friend is it his conception of parliamentary government, is it his conception of the duties of the leader of a great party that when I rise to make the usual ministerial explanation as to the crisis which took place some time ago I must launch into the fiscal policy of the country ? My hon. friend knows that there is no sense in that and I mxxst express to him my surprise because his mind is usually logical. How can we expect, on this occasion, when the object of the present debate is simply to make the ministerial explanation as to the reasons why there were changes in the government, that I should make a statement as to the fiscal policy of the government ? Yet, at the last moment, my hon. fi'iend makes it a matter of reproach "to me that, forsooth, I did not tell him what would be the policy of the government. Let me tell him once and for all to satisfy his fastidious curiosity that the policy of the government is to-day what it was last year when announced by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding). Such it was on the 17th of March, 1902, and such it is on the 18th of March, 1903, and there has been no discrepancy since that time. But, my hon. friend, in the course of his remarks, after having dilated upon diverse subjects which had no more connection with the question at issue than with the man in the moon, made a long speech on what he calls my inconsistency. I must admit to my hon. friend that I have sometimes been inconsistent in my career, and I may tell him that to-day after having had a good deal of experience of life I have not the same ideas which I had when I was a green young boy. In my young and verdant days I was a protectionist as he is to-day, but I have learned since that time.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have learned; I have grown old, and I hope my experience is not in vain. In those days of my youth I held the same heresy that my hon. friend holds to-day, but as I say, I have learned. Sir, am I the only man in this House who has changed his views upon fiscal questions? I know that in other countries precedents may be found. Sir Robert Peel grew from a px'otectionist to a free trader; not a mean authority. Mr. Gladstone grew up to be a free trader from being a protectionist; not a mean authority either. For my part I rather admire the man who has the courage to grow into better ways of aetioix and better ways of thought. But
MAE Oil 18, 1903
what shall I say of the man who falls from grace ? What shall I say of the man who was once a Liberal and who becomes a Conservative ? What shall I say of a man who was once a free trader and becomes a protectionist ? These things will happen, but it is not for the man who is inconsistent himself to tax me with being inconsistent. I will not be wanting in courtesy; I will not say who that man is, but my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), who has spoken of inconsistency, can perhaps point the moral of the tale.
But, Sir, all this is not relevant to the question; I care not to go any more into it, and I shall come at once to the speech of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Public Works. There is some discrepancy between the versions of what took place between him and me when I came back from Europe. I care not to enter iuto a controversy as to that, but I will come at once to the defence which my hon. friend made, and it consisted simply in this : That he had not in my absence advocated anything else than he had been advocating all through; that in my absence my hon. friend had stated what he had stated before me publicly on several occasions and in numerous private conversations. As to the private conversations, I will not mention what took place. As to what took place publicly that is a fair ground for discussion. I do not remember that my bon. friend (Mr. Tarte) upon numerous occasions took the same line of argument which he did in my absence, although I will do him the credit of saying that on one occasion he took exactly the same line. At the Manufacturers' Association banquet in November, 1901, my hon. friend made a speech which he quoted from to-day, advocating a higher tariff and a higher protection. That was in the month of November, 1901. Sir, I cannot go into cabinet secrets, but the result of what took place in the cabinet was laid before the House. On the 17tli of March, 1902, the Minister of Finance made a declaration upon this question, and he stated in this House that there would be no change in the tariff. This was three or four months after my hon. friend (Mr. Tarte) had spoken; and now I ask my hon. friend, when having spoken two or three months before and having given his views in favour of higher tariff, and the government having by the mouth of the Minister of Finance declared that there would be no increase in the tariff, was it justifiable


Joseph Israël Tarte: The Minister of Finance said ' this session.'


The PRIME MINISTER.: Was it justifiable-


Joseph Israël Tarte: * This session.'


The PRIME MINISTER.: Was it justifiable on his part to take the attitude of advocating a higher tariff ? Sir, it was the 6
duty of every member of the administration, so long as he remained a member of the administration, to remain firm by what had been said by the Minister of Finance and to advocate the policy which had been advocated by him. Why, Sir, where would we be and what would become of parliamentary government, if after the policy of the government has been declared, solemnly declared by the minister who has authority to do so, what would become of our institutions if it were allowable for every member of the cabinet to then advocate any policy which he thought would be wiser than the policy which had been resolved upon by the government. There could be no such thing as parliamentary government under such circumstances. But, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tarte) said 'this session.' If it were to be ' this session,' then my answer to the hon. gentleman is simply this : He should wait. It was not to be ' this session,' and he should have waited until the time came for the Finance Minister to make a declaration of the policy of the government. As to the words of the statement of the Minister of Finance upon that occasion, which in the judgment of my hon. friend (Mr. Tarte) implied or meant that it was a promise of a tariff revision this year, it is more than I can understand how he draws that conclusion. If the language has any meaning at all, there is no meaning to it but that the government was not prepared to go into a policy of revision then, and that this policy of revision would be taken at the proper time as soon as the circumstances would warrant. The Finance Minister said-and I quote his words again :
We postpone for the present the question ot tariff revision. When the moment for revision arrives, the public of Canada may rest assured that the government will undertake the work in the spirit of moderation and caution that has prevailed in their past actions in tariff affairs, avoiding the extremes which almost always find advocates, and having regard to what is best, not for particular industries or particular sections of the country, but for the interests of the people of the whole Dominion.
Sir, if my hon. friend was not satisfied with this decision-this is my last word to him upon that question; I appreciate the manner in which he has spoken this afternoon, for notwithstanding the differences we have had we have remained personal friends.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I appreciate all that, but let me tell the hon. gentleman this as a friend : That if he was not satisfied at the position then taken by the government; if, as he says, at a certain moment he had made up his mind to resign from the cabinet, and if as he stated-though I am sorry to say I cannot follow him upon this ground-he had made a statement to members of the cabinet when I was in Europe (first of all I do not conceive how he can mention here what passed in the cabinet)



but if my hon. friend bad made up his mind to resign, if he thought that the policy which we were pursuing was not consistent with the best interest of the country, then he lost a good opportunity to resign when the Finance Minister delivered his budget speech last session. That would have been the time and the occasion for my hon. friend to have carried out his views. However, the hon. gentleman thought well to act differently. I shall not question his conduct any further. It was with regret I had to take the position which I did take, but I have to say that in my interpretation of the parliamentary system of government under which it is our privilege to live, there was no other course for me to take than the course I did take; and since my hon. friend thought we were not acting wisely to let him have all the opportunity he wanted of advocating the interests of the country as he thought best. But so long as he was in the cabinet, so long as it was his decision to remain as an adviser of the Crown, lie could have no other views and no other words than the views announced in the words which had been spoken by the Finance Minister, speaking in the full sense of his duty.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Mr. Speaker, I rise, with the indulgence of the House, to make a few words of personal explanation. The point I want to make clear is : That I never intended to advocate a policy which I did not think was the policy of the government as announced during last session of parliament. My hon. friend the Finance Minister then said to the House, to the country, to the business men, to the manufacturing community of Canada, that there would be uo revision of the tariff during ' this session,' meaning of course last session of parliament. If it meant anything, it meant that during the next session a revision of the tariff would take place. I know large interests which took great risks after having read that declaration. They were losing money and went on losing money with the expectation, or rather the certainty, that a revision of the tariff would take place. And not one of my former colleagues who followed the deliberations closely will rise in the House and on his honour state that it was not understood that we should have a revision of the tariff in that way. It was understood in that way, and, as I honestly believed it, I went on advocating the policy which I had advocated with the knowledge of the Prime Minister.
Now, my right hon. friend says, and very rightly, that we have remained personal friends. The friendship of long days, of young days, cannot be broken by political differences, I hope. He has said that I have been of some service to him. I endeavoured to be so at any rate. When he read my utterances on the other side of the Atlantic, why did he not cable to me that Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
I was wrong ? If he had done so, I would immediately have stopped talking or would have resigned. Why did not the acting Prime Minister, Sir Richard Cartwright, tell me that I was wrong ? If I was wrong,
I say it again, why did not the Liberal members who invited me to their ridings and who listened to my speeches, tell me so ? Why did the Prime Minister of Ontario welcome me to his own riding ? Because they thought, as I think now, that I was advocating the policy of the Liberal party.
Now, I may be wrong, but I think I am right. The government will carry out the revision of the tariff in the way I have said-not because I have said it, not by any means ; I am only a very feeble factor in 'the political arena of this country ; but because they know that it is the right policy. My speeches will be scrutinized. I ask my right hon. friend, now that he has been restored to health, to scrutinize my speeches, not as they may perhaps have been reported to him privately, but as I have pronounced them. I have not said one word more than I would have said on the floor of parliament after the statement of the Minister of Finance last year. If I was trespassing on the proprieties of parliamentary or ministerial life, how is it that he, an old friend of mine, did not warn me ? How is it that he only found that I was trespassing on the constitution when he was on the soil of Canada ?
Sir, I hope that this incident is closed. I have acted in good faith. I do not ask anything else from my political friends than to believe that I have been in good faith. If I have made a mistake, so much the worse for me from a certain standpoint. I am out of ministerial life. I am a private member of parliament. In that capacity I will go on advocating the policy which I think is best for this country. My friends on the treasury benches having the responsibility of being at the head of affairs, I will give them credit for their good faith, as I ask them to give me credit for my good faith.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise for the purpose of engaging in the general debate, for I think that would be out of order, no motion being before the House, and it is only by the courtesy of the House that we are permitted to have this discussion. On the occasion of a formal ministerial explanation, we are properly confined to the constitutional question, and that question has been so fully dealt with by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that I would not think of entering upon it at all.	Neither would I
think of following my hon. friend the leader of the opposition in his wide discussion of the fiscal question in which we are all interested. There will be a proper time for the discussion of that question ; but, as my right hon. friend has pointed out, we

can surely all realize that on the occasion of merely formal ministerial explanations, it is not the time for entering into a general discussion of that character. I would not say a single word but that the attitude of my hon. friend and late colleague, the exMinister of Public Works forces me to say a word or two on one point. I have observed that my hon. friend, in defending what we understand to he his mistake, has quoted my speech made in the House of Commons last year as a justification, claiming it as a promise that there was to be a revision in the following session. In the first place, I hold that if he wras right in that it is no vindication of his action, because if there is a promise, as there was not, and if there was to be a revision of the tariff, it does not follow that it would be on the lines which my hon. friend has stated at all. But I want to go beyond that. The speech has been read by the Prime Minister, and also by my hon. friend from St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and no reasonable man who reads it can find in it any promise beyond the engagements of the then present session. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that good judges agree that it is not well to decide anything beyond what is before them ; and, I dealing last sesion with the events of the session, stated- that we had decided that we would make no revision of the tariff that session. What we should do in another session was to be decided when another session came. Whether we -shall make tariff changes this session or not is a question yet to be considered, and it will be dealt with in due course. But there is nothing in the speech of March 17, 1902, to justify the statement of my hon. friend, though I know he makes it in good faith, that it was intended to be a promise. I noticed to-day that, feeling apparently how weak that proposition was, my hon. friend introduced another. He stated that he could find in reports of interviews with deputations the statement made by me that the tariff would be revised this session. I want to tell my hon. friend that he cannot find any such statement; I do not believe it exists, but if it exists, it is a fabrication, for no such statement was ever made. I think hon. gentlemen who know me at all, will believe that I am not in the habit of making statements beyond what the occasion requires. It was known that I was to speak last session of the policy of the government ; but it is never the part of wisdom for any public man to make engagements as to what he will do in the future until he is fortunate enough to have the light of the future to assist him in his judgment. So I stated last session that, for the various reasons set forth, there would be no tariff changes that session. We did not claim that the tariff was perfect; but as the days rolled on, and as matters should be presented to us under changing conditions, 6i
changes might become necessary ; but when those changes should be made, or whether the tariff should be increased or reduced, were questions which were not discussed in that speech at all, and no intelligent person can truthfully say they were. I am just reminded that my hon. friend said that that was Intended to be a pledge for this session. I do not wish to differ from my hon. friend. We have been good friends, and I desire, as no doubt he does also, that we should continue good friends, but I am bound to say that that in that respect he is mistaken,


Joseph Israël Tarte: If my hon. friend will allow me, would the Minister of Finance undertake to say that he did not tell several deputations to wait until next year ? Will he deny that it was told to deputations, who came here asking for an increase in the tariff, to wait until next session ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, I never made any statement which would convey the impression that the government bound itself to do anything with regard to the tariff this year. I have no doubt told deputations that we could not do what they wanted at present, and of course, I knew that they would come back next year, and every other year until they got what they wanted. But if my hon. friend wishes to convey the impression that, either directly or indirectly, speaking either for myself or the government, I ever gave any assurance which would bind the government beyond the then existing session, I am bound to tell him that he is entirely mistaken. The object of any statements of mine was to deal with the occasion as it presented itself, and when the future would come, we would deal with that future in the light then before us.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, in the discussion which took place this afternoon we heard a good deal about the loyalty of a member of the cabinet to his colleagues and to his chief. But there was something else which was not referred to, but which I think is equally important, and that is the loyalty of the head of the cabinet to a former member of his cabinet. If there was ever an exhibition of disloyalty to a former' colleague, that exhibition was made here this afternoon. An attempt was made, in the explanations offered to the House, to show that, in some way the Prime Minister had dismissed a colleague, when the facts go to show that that colleague the late Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) had tendered his resignation to his chief and that the chief had asked him to hold his resignation in abeyance, that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) went on

a journey, and that opportunity was taken to make it appear that he had been dismissed. I think that is one of the most discreditable things in the history of cabinet government of this country. And not only have we seen an exhibition of disloyalty on the part of a chief to his colleague, but we have also seen a case of disloyalty manifested by one member of the cabinet to another. It comes to this, that, as between the late Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) on the question whose view is to be accepted, I am inclined to take the view of the Minister of Public Works instead of that of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding). The late Minister of Public Works has this in his favour-that he resigned to maintain a principle, while the other hon. gentleman holds his position through a lack of principle. There is no possible explanation of his position before us to-day except that he is a free trader by profession and a protectionist by practice. Let me show the evidence on which 1 charge the Minister of Finance with being unfair to the late Minister of Public Works. The late Minister of Public Works says that it was clearly understood in the cabinet when he was a member of it that there was to be a revision in it and that revision was to be on the lines of protection. The hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) says that that is not the case. The late Minister of Public Works makes of his case but he is not the only witness that we can call. We have the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) also. That hon. gentleman himself is not here, but we have his words, and I propose to read these words. On March 21st, last, discussing this very declaration of policy which the leader of the House says is their policy, the hon. member spoke as follows :
Therefore when the Finance Minister speaks of changes, he is not referring to changes brought to his notice by the low tariff friends of the government, and consequently he must refer to those asked for by their high tariff friends
* Those of us then who are In favour of a low tariff are in a serious position, and I would like to say to the Minister of Finance that in making the announcement which he did, in his presentation of the budget, he has placed every supporter of the government, representing a constituency in which the low tariff idea predominates, upon the defensive in his own constituency before his own friends. It is, therefore, necessary on thiS' occasion that members holding that position should make themselves understood, so that whatever misunderstanding there, may be as to the intentions of the government, there should be none as to their position with regard to those proposed changes.
I cite that statement of the hon. member for Alberta as in every way confirmatory of the statement of the late Minister of Public Works. And, above all when we have the fact that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) sacrificed himself for principle
while the man who disputed his position refused to sacrifice himself for principle, the weight of testimony is altogether on the side of the late Minister of Public Works. And, if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are guilty of being unfaithful to a colleague, they are guilty also of this-that they sacrificed a colleague because he was a protectionist. That is a thing that the people of Canada will be interested in and will take into account-namely, that a member of the cabinet was sacrificed because he had declared in favour of a policy of protection. The hon. gentleman, so far as we can gather to-day was sacrificed to duplicity. He was a member of the cabinet in which two views were held-in that cabinet there were both protectionists and free traders. The duplicity with which he was treated is far from creditable to the government, and the people of Canada will not lose sight of it. And what about the Minister of Murine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefon-taine) who has lately come into the cabinet? Is he to be sacrificed also ? If what the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) tells us is correct, the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is liable to be sacrificed any day, for he too professes to be a protectionist. He told the people that he believed in adequate protection. He is not only liable to be dismissed, but he is liable to be treated by the leading paper of the Liberal party as the late Minister of Public Works was-and that paper called the hon. gentleman ' The Busy Izzy of the Cabinet.' And what were the relations of this so-called ' Busy Izzy of the Cabinet ' to the lender of the party ? If ever there was a man who saved his party and carried his province for the support of his leader, it was the late Minister of Public Works. Yet the reward he gets is that he is sacrificed because the charge is laid against him that he is a protectionist. The Prime Minister this afternoon appealed to the record of Mr. Gladstone and to the record of Sir Robert Peel. We know that both these gentlemen changed their opinions on the tariff question. And the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) claimed that he had changed his opinion. But there is this difference-that when Sir Robert Peel changed his opinion or when Mr. Gladstone changed his opinion, the whole world knew exactly where he stood. I defy any man to say where the right hon. gentleman is. I ask any man who sits behind him to-day to say where the right hon. gentleman is, whether he is a protectionist or whether he is a free trader. He is everything, he is both, he is nothing, he is what circumstances happen to require. The government is nothing but a cabinet of latitudes and longitudes. The greatest latitude, apparently, was to be allowed to every man on that question. The late minister took the opportunity to avail himself of that latitude.


William Findlay Maclean: Now, last session a very interesting spectacle took place in this House. It has been referred to this afternoon, and I again recall it. It was that celebrated speech' made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It reminded me very much of the circumstances attending the falling of Elijah's mantle upon Elisha. You remember the story. Elijah crosed the river and Elisha followed him. And Elijah said :	What would you
have from me ? Elisha answered : I pray that I may have a double portion of your spirit. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was the Elijah, and the Prime Minister was the Elisha, upon whom the mantle was to fall. But we have never yet fouud out whether the Prime Minister desired a double portion of the spirit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to fall upon him. Indeed the Minister of Trade and Commerce was suspicious of his leader, and he took occasion to tell him so in a fatherly way. This is the substance of what he said : Remember-, my boy, you said in Manitoba that protection was corruption, that protection was bondage. Remember that you said the tw-o things must go together, you said! that in Winnipeg ; and remember that I intend to hold you to it. That is what the declaration meant last year, and it was supposed to be the final deliverance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Somehow the ascension which was to take place about that time did not take place. Why it did not, is clear to-day. But the whole country knows that the Minister of Trade and Commerce suspected his colleague, and others in the cabinet suspected him in regard to this matter, and he tried to hold him to the one view or the other. So to-day their position, if it is anything, is that they believe that protection is slavery, that protection is corruption, that protection is not in the interest of the country.
Now. if these hon. gentlemen did not intend to introduce a protectionist policy or to consider the question fully this session, what did they mean ? The late Minister of Public Works certainly thought that they intended to adopt a protectionist policy and to give the country more protection this year. The great question before the people to-day is not one of a constitutional issue, but it is whether there is to be a revision of the tariff, and whether it is to be on protectionist lines. The right hon. gentleman is a lawyer, and like most lawyers he takes refuge in a constitutional issue whenever a question of great public interest is involved. He has always taken refuge in constitutional issues, and always fails to tell the people in clear-cut language what his views are in regard to great public questions of present importance. What do the people of Canada care about the constitutional issue ? The people of Canada care everything about the fiscal policy of this country, and they do not want to hear more talk about constitutional issues, and rebukes of colleagues
for violating constitutional practice so much as they desire to get a clear-cut statement of the intentions of the government upon this great public question.
Now, there are to be a great many deputations visiting this government from now on. We are told the budget speech is soon to be delivered. Are these deputations coming here to be told, as we have been told here to-day, that a protectionist minister cannot continue in the cabinet ? Of what use is it for deputations to come this week, or to come next week, if the only answer they are to get is the one that was given here to-day, that protection is a fraud, that a protectionist minister is deserted by his colleagues and has to be read out of the party ? Hon.\ gentlemen will say that this is a constitutional issue. Sir, the public want more than that, they want a definition. They want more than a statement that there was a constitutional disagreement and that the late minister acted in an unconstitutional way. There is more than a theory, there is an actual fact, involved in this question, and it is incumbent on the right hon. first minister, notwithstanding wliat he said this afternoon, to say whether he is a protectionist or a free trader, whether he desires to promote the interests of the people of this country, or whether he will simply get rid of the responsibility by saying that he believes in free trade as they have it in England. He cannot escape that issue to-day. The people wish to know What the position of the government is in regard to that question, and particularly do they expect from the Prime Minister a statement of his position in regard to it. Now, I have no hesitation in telling this House, and the people of this country, where I am. There is no trouble about the Conservative party here to-day in regard to their policy, both; in regard to protection and in regard to free trade.
The hon. gentleman takes pride in the fact that he has changed his opinion. I thank God that I hold the views my father taught me on this question. He taught me that if a thing is good it is to be adhered to, and to be taught by one man to another, I was taught the principle of protection as being beneficial to this country. No one who holds that view is ashamed to declare it. It is the view that all nations take to-day. The right hon. gentleman makes a nice exhibition of himself when he talks about the humanitarian idea and the brotherhood of man. The principle that rules the world today is the struggle for existence between nations. Life is a struggle, l)Oth as between men and between nations, and so great is that struggle to-day that all the nations of the world are either protectionists or becoming so. England is becoming protectionist, and the greatest statesman in the British empire, the man who is destined to consolidate the British empire, Mr. Chambei'lain, is fixed in the view that the

only way to bind the empire together is by a policy of protection. Mr. Speaker, I believe in protection, I believe in a customs tariff, I believe in bounties, I believe in export duties, I believe in reciprocity of tariffs, I believe in the maximum tariff as applied to nations that are unfair to us and I believe in all these things because I think they will make the nation great. I believe in these things because I think they will build up this country as we expect it to be built up. I believe the principle of protection is good for the English speaking people and that it is good for the French speaking people of this country. I believe it is good for the east, I believe it is good for the west, that it is good for the interior, that it is good for the frontier, that, in short, it is the one kind of fiscal policy that is good for all of the country and will build it up. We have the example of the United States, we have the example of all the rising and great countries to-day and that example is all in the direction of protection. No man need be ashamed of protection, or need be afraid to let the people know where he belongs. No, it is the men who are double-faced on this question, the men who are guilty of duplicity, who are guilty of disloyalty to colleagues by reason of this duplicity, that have not the hardihood and the courage to stand up and declare where they are. We, at least, have clear cut views on this question and the people of this country want clear cut views, an out and out explanation, no such exhibition as we have seen this afternoon and no sucli disagreement as appears to have resulted between the late minister and his colleagues. Hon., gentlemen on this side of the House need never fear any reproach in regard to a question of this kind. It has been a painful exhibition that we have had here this afternoon. I do not think we have often seen a similar spectacle, but it was a painful spectacle to see the right hon. leader of the House try to convey the impression that he dismissed a colleague for being a protectionist, when, as a matter of fact, that colleague offered his resignation and his chief at the next moment asked him to hold it in abeyance and then gave the public to understand that he had dismissed him. The whole public of Canada, under these circumstances, will side with the late Minister of Public Works. The whole public of Canada will see that the Liberal party is not to be relied upon on an issue of this kind, the whole country will see that the late member of the cabinet was sacrificed because he was a protectionist and the new Minister of Marine and Fisheries will see, if he is long in the government, that he is liable to be sacrificed in the same way. Cabals will be formed against him and we have been told that cabals exist. I wonder who is the minister referred to in connection with the cabals. I wonder if he came from the North-west. Perhaps before this discussion Mr. MACLEAN.
is over we will know who really was at the bottom of these cabals and who it was that sacrificed the late Minister of Public Works. I see the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) there and he takes all the responsibility of the statements made by the right hon. the first minister this afternoon. Let me read a short extract from a speech made by the late Minister of Public Works in Toronto, less than a year ago, in connection with the United Boards of Trade. The late minister and the hon. Postmaster General were invited to the dinner as representatives of the government and here is the speech made by the late minister in the presence of his colleague. It was on .Tune 5th, 1902, and it was reported in the papers of June 6th. The late minister said:
We must have a Canadian policy on every line, in every direction. We must have a Canadian tariff. We are not here to discuss the principles of free trade or protection. Free trade may suit certain countries ; it suits England ; another system, the protective system, may suit other countries. I suppose that we have made up our minds to suit ourselves. We have in French a proverb that my friend, Mr. Mulock, who is a French scholar, will understand : ' Charite bien ordonne. commence par sol mfime.'


Joseph Israël Tarte: Read it again.


William Findlay Maclean: Let the hon. Postmaster read it. Here is the translation :
They must fight their opponents with their own weapons. He could not understand why Canadians were obliged to give markets to a people who raised barriers against them. He had been accused of being an inconsistent man, Mr. Tarte went on. He did not care, so long as he was regarded as a practical man. 'Down with theories ; theories are no good. (Applause and laughter). Business is business. (Laughter). That is to say, if my hon. friends and neighbours want to strangle me, my first duty is to prevent them. Canadians must have a tariff to suit themselves, Mr. Tarte went on. If 25 per cent was not enough-speaking for himself alone-he would have no hesitation in raising it to 30 per cent or 40 per cent. 'I don't care.' he said, amid the laughter of the audience.
The hon. Postmaster General never repudiated that speech on that occasion. Why did he not repudiate that speech on that occasion if he did not think his colleagues in the right ? We have not been told by the hon. Postmaster General that one of his colleagues had been driven out because of his heresy on this question and it is quite evident now that what the ex-minister said this afternoon is true that he did nothing but what he had done ail along, that the greatest latitude had been allowed, that he never said anything but what lie had said long before in the presence of the right hon. first minister before he went to England. He had made no change, he had only acted at that time as he had acted in the past. But, he confesses that he had found out that his colleagues were not true to the principle of protection and that he intended

to leave them. That is the serious fact which is presented to this country to-day. That is the fact that will go to the people of Canada from one ocean to the other that a member of this government was sacrificed by free trade colleagues because he was a protectionist, that he was sacrificed because they did not believe in protection and the lesson which this teaches to all those people who are seeking protection in this country and think protection ought to be employed is that the Liberal party are not to be trusted on this question. It also shows that if the people of this country desire a policy of protection they must go to that party which has always been true to the great national policy of this country.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in the month of November last past, the newspapers of this country were crowded with information in reference to the withdrawal of the then Minister of Public Works from the cabinet and there was great diversity of opinion as to whether the minister had been dismissed or whether he had by his own free will, quitted the administration. It is quite true that the Liberal press of the country stood to gain by making out that the late minister had been driven from the Laurier government and to that end every means, of course, was taken. In the great province of Quebec, from which both of these hon. gentlemen come, there was a great diversity of opinion as to what the facts really were. I am free to say that after the discussion that has ensued to-day and the statements that have been made by the right hon. leader of the government and the late Minister of Public Works the general public will be as much in the dark to-day as they were then. On the one side there is the clear cut statement of the right hon. leader of the government that having been, as he had been, in the old country, that having been acquainted with certain facts relative to the conduct of the late Minister of Public Works the decision brought about by himself, namely, the dismissal of the minister was arrived at upon his return to this country.
Now, the statement of the Prime Minister is lacking in definiteness. He told us that some one supplied him with newspapers whilst he was in Europe, but he neglected to tell us who they were who were caballing against his colleague (Hon. Mr. Tarte). The Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) were on this side of the water then, and the pointed remarks of the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to-day would lead us to think that he had these two ministers of the cabinet in his eye. It is an accepted theory that there can be no effect without a cause, and considering the relations which have existed between the Minister of Railways and the ex-Minister of Public Works since they were thrown
together in the cabinet, it might fairly be said that these relations were somewhat strained. The Department of Railways is intimately associated with the Idea of transportation in which the great province of Ontario is deeply interested, but I will be bound to say that the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) might promenade through all the towns and cities in Ontario without causing a ripple, while, if the Minister of Public Works appeared anywhere his presence would be the event of the day. From the first there seems to have been animosity between these two gentlemen. We all remember when the Minister of Railways came to the committee in connection with the Kettle River Talley Bill and there announced that the policy of the government was that the Kettle River Company should be granted its charter. But shortly afterwards the Minister of Railways was forced to admit that he could not get the followers of the government to support him-the reason being because the ex-Minister of Public Works was against the policy of the government thus announced and so the Minister of Railways was defeated and his colleague (Hon. Mr. Tarte) triumphed. We saw what happened in connection with the Intercolonial Railway deal. It was first introduced by the Minister of Railways but it was soon dropped by him and relegated to the ex-Minister of Public Works, who took it in hand. I am fairly within the judgment of the House when I say that in regard to the question of transportation which has been engaging the serious attention of the people of Canada, the Minister of Railways played only a second part. Where was the Minister of Railways when the ex-Minister of Public Works announced the policy of the government as to the construction of the canal system by way of the French River V Sir, it is patent to us all that a deep gulf separated the friendly relationship which ought to exist between these two ministers.
Sir, the Minister of the Interior made a certain amount of capital for himself in the North-west by his advocacy of a lower tariff, and while the Minister of the Interior was advocating that gospel in the west the ex-Minister of Public Works was busily engaged propagating the high tariff theory in the east. The Minister of the Interior found it necessary to be interviewed by the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' and in it he announced that his policy would in the end prevail against the policy of his colleague (Hon. Mr. Tarte). But if the Minister of Railways and if the Minister of the Interior wei-e placed in an unenviable position, what have we to say of the humiliating position into which the cabinet ministers from Ontario were placed. Last year after the session, when it was announced to all deputations that came here that they might hope for tariff revision, throughout the whole province of Ontario boards of trade and cor-

porations of one kind and another held meetings at which they wished to obtain the views of ministers upon the most interesting of public questions. My hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Ross) was to have a demonstration in the town of Oshawa in his constituency. In Oshawa there is a large carriage establishment, one of the largest not only in the province but in the whole Dominion, and to the humiliation of the cabinet ministers from Ontario, especially the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), who, one would think, had a special interest in the matter, they were placed aside by the member for South Ontario, they were not invited, and in their stead the member for South Ontario brought forth the Hon. Mr. Tarte, because that minister held a larger place in the public eye. The hon. member (Mr. Ross) passed over the Minister of Customs and the Postmaster General, and he invited the ex-Minister of Public Works to perform the interesting ceremony of laying the corner stone of an addition to the factory of McLaughlin Bros. At the public meeting which was held the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Beith) and the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Ross) were side by side with the ex-Minister of Public Works, and as if to add eclat to the occasion, the Hon. John Dryden, minister of tlie Ontario government, came along also. Now, what passed on that occasion


An hon. MEMBER.: Money.


William Humphrey Bennett: My hon. friend is thinking of Mr. Stratton when he talks about money having passed. This was Mr. Dryden who was present. Here was the exminister (Hou. Mr. Tarte), who was not connected with the Finauce Department or the Customs Department, who was not even an Ontario minister, here he was invited because he was an advanced protectionist and because the member for Soutli Ontario (Mr. Ross) believed that his presence would be acceptable to the people of the constituency. Judging by the report in the local papers and by the report in the ' Globe ' also, the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) made one of his characteristic speeches prophesying high protection, and the newspapers tell us that that speech was cheered to the echo. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) pointed out that .fl,000,000 worth of carriages liad been imported to Canada the preceding year, and he told the people of Oshawa and the people from the rural districts there assembled, that if they had more protection for that industry more hands would be employed and greater prosperity would follow. And then we saw the Hon. John Dryden announcing that although he had been a free trader in the past, the light had come to him at last, and he was thoroughly in accord with every statement made by the Hon. Mr. Tarte-and the member for South Ontario applauded. After that there was to be a demonstration in your town of Goderich, Mr. Deputy Mr. BENNETT.
Speaker, and the Minister of Public Works was invited. I am sure that the gentleman in whose constituency Goderich is had something to do with the invitation which was tendered to the ex-Minister of Public Works. Again the Minister of Customs and the Postmaster General were overlooked. Why ? It was because they occupied such an inferior position in the public eye of their own province, that the hon. gentleman from West Huron (Mr. Plolmes) thought it better to invite the protectionist Minister of Public Works. At the Goderich meeting the Hon. Mr. Tarte was cheered to the echo. Then there was to be a large demonstration in the city of Brantford to advocate protection of the manufacturing industries. On that occasion there sat at his feet the hon member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) applauding every statement to the echo. Why, Sir, these lion, gentlemen all know that their very existence in nine out- of every ten counties in the province of Ontario depends on this very question of protection. This was the unkindest cut of all administered by the citizens of Brantford, for this reason, that the hon. Minister of Customs was a very Islimaelite in that city, having been driven out from it by the electors, and to his mortification he had to suffer the agony of hearing the ex-Minister of Public Works applauded to the echo in the town in which he had lived almost his whole lifetime. But that was not the only place. In the town of Berlin the ex-Minister of Public Works was brought before the public and again applauded. But perhaps it was in the town of Orillia, which is in the riding that I have the honour to represent, that the Minister of Public Works received one of the greatest ovations given to him in the whole province ; and that must have been gall and wormwood to the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock), because he was overlooked and did not appear. Take up the public press of Ontario during the past year, look where you will, and you will find reports of receptions tendered to the ex-Minister of Public Works in almost every county in that great province. One can imagine the painful feelings of the hon. Postmaster General and the hon. Minister of Customs, under these circumstances, in taking up the public prints every morning and seeing how they were being sidetracked by their own supporters, while in almost every public demonstration an opportunity was afforded to the ex-Minister of Public Works to impress himself upon the public as the big. man in the cabinet, the power behind the throne, the one who could wield an influence. What happened ? Not only did they show that they were in accord with him, in public demonstrations, but where demonstrations were not held these gentlemen went out of their way to show that they were in entire harmony with the sentiments he expressed. The hon. Minister of Finance this afternoon tried to make out

that no intimation was given last session that there was to be a revision of the ta riff. Then the ex-Minister of Public Works mast have been extremely dense, because he does not seem to have arrived at a correct iitea of what the change in the tariff was to be. But I am going to read wbriT another hon. gentleman on that side of the House thought was the view of the ad-mi nisi ration and what was the promise made. He is a gentleman whose political existence in this House depends on protection being adopted by the government to a greater extent than it is to-day. The gentleman I refer to is the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). In that hon. gentleman's riding the city of Guelph, a city of considerable proportions, depends for its very breath of life on the continuance of a protective tariff. That hon. gentleman as reported in the ' Globe ' of the 21st of October last, said :
There is no concealing, and there is no use in denying, that the province of Ontario is protectionist. There would be no sense in hurting ourselves by mere blind retaliation against the United States. What we must do is to frame our tariff for our interests, keeping in view the fact that from hard experience we are driven to conclude that our American cousins will hit us without hesitation whenever they think such a course to be for their own advantage. I am satisfied that in saying this I voice the general feeling of Ontario without distinction of party.
It will be for the hon. member for South Wellington to explain why he gave utterance to such an expression of opinion as this. Was it due to the fact that he had received an intimation, or had understood, as the ex-Minister of Public Works did, that there was to be a revision of the tariff ? If the cabinet intended that there should be no change in the tariff in the present year, would it not have been more honest and more decent on their part to have told the manufacturers long ago that they need not come here asking for changes ? That would have put an end to the whole business. But, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance to-day, the government stand convicted of giving those people to believe that they were going to make some changes in the tariff, while they intended to do nothing of the kind. Now, until this question is settled by a change of front on the part of either the first minister or the ex-Minister of Public Works, there must continue to be a strong doubt on the public mind as to which of these gentlemen is making statements in accord with the facts. The statement of the ex-Minister of Public Works is that there was a cabal instituted against him in the cabinet, that it has existed for a long time, and that it became so acute in the month of September last that he determined to sever his connection with the government. That statement is corroborated by a statement made by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon.
Mr. Prefontaine) in an interview with a reporter of the Montreal ' Herald,' which I will now read. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries said :
I unhesitatingly say that the removal of Mr. Tarte will make for the strengthening of the party, and especially in this province, where I verily believe Mr. Tarte has not a single partisan. You may remember the time that Mr. Tarte was taken into the cabinet. Well, I have been all my life on the best of terms with the financial and industrial interests of this country as a public man should who desired the prosperity of the country. When the Liberals were returned to power in 1896 these interests, or the representatives of these interests-expressed no me this feeling : ' We respect Sir Wilfrid, we believe him honest ; but there are certain elements in the cabinet which we distrust ; and this distrust has never ceased.'"
From this statement I think it is plain that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was caballing against the ex-Minister of Public Works ; and I have seen a statement in 1 La Patrie,' charging the Minister of Marine and Fisheries with having without cessation done all in his power to destroy the influence of the ex-Minister of Public Works in that province. Taking the extrinsic evidence, I think it is plain that there did exist a cabal or mutiny against the hon. ex-minister in the province of Quebec. But be that as it may, there is no doubt that in the cabinet last fall there was not displayed that loyalty or fairness towards one member of the administration which he had a right to expect, and the right hon. first minister owes it not merely to the ex-minister, but to the House and the country to state exactly who the members of the cabinet were who made the complaint to himself with respect to the conduct of the ex-minister. Times have changed very greatly the relations between the first minister and the ex-Minister of Public Works. It will be in the recollection of the public, more particularly in the province of Quebec, that a strong bond of friendship formerly existed between these gentlemen. One recalls an attack made on the ex-Minister of Public Works some years ago by a certain club in the city of Montreal, I think the Letellier Club, which demanded the ex-minister's head. I think it was the Letellier Club which demanded the head of the Minister of Public Works. What did the right hon. the first minister reply ? He replied unhesitatingly that if Mr. Tarte had to go out of the cabinet, he would go too. 1-Ie raised no question then as to whether the Minister of Public Works was in accord with him or not, but made that reply without reserve. To-day the hon. member for St. Mary's Division (Mr. Tarte) has declared that a state of affairs was existing which the public will readily believe did exist. He declared that nearly a year ago at the Manufacturers' banquet at Montreal, he made a strong pro-

tectionist speech, and that the ideas and policy he then enunciated were not disproved by the right hon. gentleman, who was present. If the ex-Minister of Public Works committed an offence last year in making strong protectionist speeches throughout the country, why did not the other members of the cabinet bring these speeches to the attention of the first minister. Was it not their duty to have done so and had not the first minister a right to complain of this omission on their part ? The public were left in the dark last fall as to the reasons why the ex-Minister of Public Works left the cabinet, and their doubts will certainly not be dispelled by the ministerial explanations given to-day. They will have to look to the extrinsic evidence for a solution of the question. On the one hand, we have the antagonism existing between the ex-Minister of Public Works and certain members of the cabinet, and on the other hand we have the fact that these discontented colleagues took the premier by the throat and compelled him to give up the head of the ex-minister. But there is this to be said to the credit of the hon. member for St. Mary's Division, that when he found his chief to be in a poor state of health on his return, he acted towards him in a much more decent and commendable manner than did these other gentlemen. The ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) had under his control the party affairs in the province of Quebec and possession of the state secrets of his party. Not one of those secrets has he divulged to the public, but in every way has preserved them inviolate and respected his honour. But there is no doubt in the mind of anybody that, if he chose, he could bring before the public certain facts regarding the government which would damn it in public opinion. Here we have evidence of the loyalty of the ex-minister as contrasted with the braggadocia and swagger of those mutineers who went to the first minister and threatened that if the hon. member for St. Mary's Division did not go out of the cabinet they would no longer remain in it; and to relieve the first minister of the dilemma in which he was placed, the hon. member for St. Mary's Division handed in his portfolio to the right hon. gentleman. The enmity shown towards the ex-Minister of Public Works emanated, I believe, chiefly from Ontario. If it did not, there was certainly abundant reason for it, because if ministers were ever humiliated it must have been the Minister of Customs and the Postmaster General, both from the great province of Ontario, who were tabooed in every city of that province, while the exMinister of Public WTorks was brought into the field in their place and occupied a position far higher than these two gentlemen did together.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I doubt very much if the explanation given Mr. BENNETT.
this afternoon from the treasury benches will satisfy public opinion. It will not certainly in the great province from which I come. Will you allow me, Mr. Speaker, to say to the right hon. gentleman who leads this House that if he has passed the age of green boys, as he told us this afternoon, there are many green boys in the province of Quebec who will require something more than the explanation given by the Prime Minister to account for the retirement of the ex-Minister of Public Works. Let me briefly call attention to one phase of this singular question which was glided over very quickly by the right hon. gentleman, and to which none of his colleagues saw fit to allude. At the time when the dismissal or the resignation of the ex-Minister of Public Works was being prepared, the right lion., gentleman was in Europe. Who were those who denounced the ex-minister to the right hon. gentleman ? They were surely not men sitting on this side, and I would ask my hon. friends opposite, who are not on the treasury benches, if they will be content to remain silent under the suspicion of having, during the absence of the right hon. the first minister, unknown to the exMinister of Public Works, denounced his conduct to their leader, and denounced it so artfully and cunningly that the first minister, on his arrival in this country, came to the conclusion that a great constitutional principle had been openly violated by the hon. member for St. Mary's Division, which demanded his immediate dismissal. I doubt whether the public at large will accept the superficial explanations given this afternoon. They will believe that within the cabinet there were men who were plotting the destruction of the ex-Minister of Public Works. And what we are entitled to Know is who are those members of the cabinet who denounced the ex-minister. Who are those who, without giving the ex-minister a word or warning, saw fit, by correspondence and obscure denunciation-the secret of which we have not even now learned-to bring about his dismissal. Who are those men and why have they not to-day the frankness to explain their position and conduct ? The ex-Minister of Public, Works was not always in my province a persona grata with the mass of the Liberal party. My hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) was never very favourable to him, and my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prcfontaine) has been on such terms with the ex-Minister of Public Works for a long tune that he was known as one of those who anxiously desired his downfall. Is it in the province of Quebec, is it amongst certain clubs encouraged, maintained, helped along by hon. gentlemen opposite who occupy high positions in the Liberal party that this conspiracy was begun ? Or is it in the province of Ontario, where I find my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) the present

occupant of that position ? Is it through the influence of the ' Globe ' ? Is it through the influence of the Postmaster Genei'al (Hon. Sir William Muloek) ? Or is it possible that the heart of that conspiracy exists in the province of Manitoba and the Northwest, where, it is well known, by every means at his disposal, the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) sought to bring about the downfall and dismissal of liis colleague. Or must we leave the immediate vicinity of Montreal and go down to the city of Quebec, where, as is well known throughout my own province, the present Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) was ready to join those who were willing to make efforts to obtain the effacemeut of the Minister of Public Works. Surely, when the right hon. the Prime Minister tells us that he acted upon denunciations received by him when abroad and verified by documents sent him, we are entitled to know who are the members of this House who played the part of spies and informers on that occasion. After all, will it be propounded seriously here that the utterances of my hon. friend from St. Mary's division (Hon'. Mr. Tarte) were of such a character at that time as to make him so greatly at fault in regard to the constitution, to place him so gravely in error, that nothing but his immediate resignation upon the return of the Prime Minister could satisfy the ends of justice ? Why, Sir, what utterance have we had from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) ? Has not the latter of these gentlemen, time and again in the west, in public meetings and in the newspapers which served him as organs of publicity, declared that the tariff was out of politics and that it was not to be increased ? What authority had he for that declaration ? Have we not, quite recently, the speech delivered in British Columbia by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) declaring his approval of a scheme for a new transcontinental railway ? And yet have we the declaration from that hon. gentleman that, at the time he made that important declaration he had the authority of the Prime Minister or the cabinet ? I venture to assert, without fear of being contradicted, that, if we turn up the utterances of the Minister of Finance since he introduced the tariff in 1897, we shall find, year after year, in almost precisely similar language, declarations by that right hon. gentleman that for that year at any rate there would be no increase in the tariff. And, if we couple that circumstance with the facts that have been declared here to-day, and not contradicted as far as I am aware, that when that hon. gentleman as the minister particularly charged with the fiscal policy of the government, received a deputation he postponed till another session the satisfaction of their claims, can we blame the ex-Minister of Public Works for
having, when invited by his own political friends in the province of Ontario and elsewhere, proclaimed what was well known as his firm opinion, that the policy which he believed in was the one which was believed in in my own province, the policy of Canada for the Canadians and a tariff sufficiently strong and sufficiently high to prevent our being engulfed and ruined by our powerful competitors to the south and other countries ? Can we blame him, under these circumstances for having expressed his own opinion ? And will anybody familiar with the British constitution as it is to-day contend that under the circumstances of indecision wrhich have existed on the treasury benches for many years past and with the reasons which hon. gentlemen have given us this afternoon, he was not entitled constitutionally and equitably to make these declarations of his own belief ? No, Mr. Speaker, I think we must go a little further for the real cause which brought about the expulsion-if it was an expulsion-or the resignation-for	they are two totally
different things, and the resignation was explained to us this afternoon by that hon. member-we must look a little further than the province of Quebec, and, no doubt, than the province of Ontario. We will look a little further for the real, true, and acting causes of that important movement.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, consider, and will this House consider, for a moment, what a strange position this administration occupies ? The very man who was called upon to replace the hon. member for St. Mary's division in the cabinet, in the constituency which he chose as the one in which he wished to be elected-the Maisonneuve division of the city of Montreal-in words of the very clearest character, in speeches reported verbatim in the paper which supported him in that contest, declared that, so far as the tariff was concerned, his position was too well known to require definition, that he was a protectionist and, if the tariff in its present form was not acceptable to those who had at heart the great industrial interests of our country, he pledged him-self-and I believe pledged himself in writ-ing-that he would be prepared to give a sufficient extension to that tariff to completely assure the protection required by our manufacturers in the city of Montreal. What kind of logic is there in such a position as that ? When we take the circumstance that, as stated this afternoon by the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte)-and, as we all know, for it is a matter of notoriety-that, as stated by my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) when he visited the province of Ontario a simultaneous campaign was begun against him by the ' Globe ' newspaper, the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' and the Montreal ' Herald,' I tell you, Sir, it will be very difficult for the public at large to believe that it was the speeches of that hon. gentleman and nothing more that

brought upon him the visitation referred to this afternoon by the right hon. premier in giving his explanation. There is something in all this that cannot be joined logically and legitimately under the circumstances. Why, Sir, the right hon. gentleman, in returning from Europe, never, by reproof, by admonition or in any other way, called upon that gentleman to restrict his utterances or to give some explanation of them ; but, according to the statement made to us this afternoon, immediately asked for his resignation. The public at large will believe, as we all believe on this side of the House, that beyond that trifling circumstance-because I think I can qualify it as such-there were in the cabinet a set of men, and perhaps some others outside of the cabinet, I who had determined that on account of his public profession of these views the late Minister of Public Works should disappear. Sir, they went about it in a very singular manner ; and to the public at large I venture to say that it will appear strange that these men, whom we can suspect but whom we do not know, because they will not declare themselves-these men, instead of warning their colleague, instead of jointly calling upon him to moderate his utterances until the return of the Prime Minister, adopted instead a silent and hidden way of securing such a result that happened the moment the right hon. gentleman returned from Europe. I say that to a large section of the population it will appear that these men, who are probably better known on the other side than on this side, in proceeding in that singular manner, had something else in view than the preservation of a great constitutional principle.


William Barton Northrup: Whether the change of portfolios that followed the return of the right hon. the Prime Minister from the motherland, be for the weal or for the woe of this country, at all events I think that on this side of the House we can congratulate hon. gentlemen opposite and congratulate the country that to-day, through this discussion, we for the first time since 1896, have been able to form a fairly intelligent opinion as to the fiscal policy of hon. gentlemen opposite. When the Prime Minister was speaking this afternoon, and when the Minister of Finance also spoke, for the first time I think we got an accurate definition, not only of what their policy was not, but also of what it is, when we were told that the government had not come to any definite decision as to the future, and that therefore the late Minister of Public t\ orks was wrong in discussing fiscal questions before the country. We were informed by the Prime Minister that after six years tenure of office the party in power have not yet come to any conclusion as to whether protection or free trade is the proper fiscal policy for this countrv, and therefore they had not formed any


Frederick Debartzch Monk: plans for the future. Sir, when the right hon. premier, a little later, told us, pointing dramatically to the Hansard of last year, that there, in the speech of the Finance Minister, was embodied the policy of the government, then we at least knew what-that policy was. For, Sir, I defy any man to read the speech of the Minister of Finance last session and come to any other conclusion than that the only policy so laid down was that policy of masterly inactivity of lying behind the lines of Torres Vedras, of which lion, gentlemen have been accused before. Why, Sir, the Minister of Finance did not even pretend to shed the faintest light on the vexed question as to whether or not, when the government did come to revise the tariff, they would do it in the interest of protection or of free trade. He told us nothing would be done last year, he told us something would be done in the future, be intimated very clearly that this year is the year that it would be done, because, from the reasons which he gave showing why they could not revise the tariff last year, the only possible conclusion to be drawn was that they would revise it this year. But beyond that opinion, not a word of information did he give. So we find that hon. gentlemen opposite are in this position, that to-day, in the seventh year of their office, they have no other policy than that of masterly inactivity, waiting like Micaw-ber, for something to turn up.
Now, Sir, when the right hon. gentleman was speaking of his policy being embalmed in that speech of the Finance Minister, it did seem to me there was a striking illustration of the difference between the policies of the two parties. The Conservative party, go back as far as you will, has had a policy, be it right or be it wrong, so clearly defined, that every man in this country from one end to the other, knew what it was. Hon. gentlemen opposite not only have failed to decide on any policy, but they seem to think, from the premier down, that the word ' policy ' means something entirely different from the meaning attached to it in all times gone by. I venture to say they pay a poor compliment to the intelligence of the people of this country when they refuse to deal with pressing questions, and there is none more important than the fiscal question. Yet they expect these people will go on year after year, and election after election, supporting sixteen or seventeen gentlemen who do not pay sufficient respect to tlie remaining five or six million people in this country even to tell them whether, when they come to revise the tariff, they will do it on protective or non-protective lines. Let me say this, for the information of hon. gentlemen opposite, who seem to be ignorant of the meaning of protection, that hon. gentlemen opposite to-day, in consequence of the lack of policy, which has characterized their legislation for years, are not in a position to give protection to the people

of this country even if they wished. For in protection there are two factors: There is the measure of protection, and there is the stability of protection. Hon. gentlemen opposite can give as large a measure of protection as they like, but in view of the dismissal from office of the late Minister of Public Works because of his advocacy of protective principles, it must be evident that ho matter how great a measure of protection they may give the manufacturers of this country, that so-called protection must lack the element of stability, which is just as important a factor as the measure of protection itself. And if we are to see this country grow as we would like to see it grow, if we are to see capital unlocked and expended in promoting the various industries of which this country is capable, it is just as essential that the stability of the tariff should be assured as that protection should be given.
Now, I was rather surprised to hear the Prime Minister defend himself for his change of views by saying that when he was young and green he was a protectionist. If language has any meaning, if the people of this country who are deprived of the right which they should possess of hearing directly from the lips of the Prime Minister what his views are on fiscal questions, if they are obliged to do the best they can with the information given them, surely they can draw but one conclusion from such a description of protection as that, namely, that the Prime Minister is not a protectionist, and that therefore, so far as he has gone to-day, he has adopted the views expressed by the Minister of Customs in the debate last year when he said : We stand for a revenue tariff; and the views expressed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the same debate last year when he said that honesty and protection were simply incompatible in the administration of public affairs.
Now, Sir, when the Prime Minister referred to two great statesmen of the motherland, it occurred to me that we might draw both a lesson and a warning from the history of those two statesmen. In speaking of the propriety of a public man changing his views, he referred to the fact that W. E. Gladstone and Sir Robert Peel had themselves changed their views. Mr. Gladstone commenced life a Tory, and he ended life a Liberal. Sir Robert Peel commenced life a Tory and ended it outside the party ranks. As I said before, I think there is both a lesson and a warning in the history of these two great statesmen. When Mr. Gladstone went down to his grave he went down as the idol of his party, leaving a name honoured throughout the length and breadth of the empire; a name which the proudest families in the motherland might be proud to bear. And it is to be said of W. E. Gladstone when we come to read his epitaph, that if he had anything to say he so expressed himself that from the beginning to the end of his career the people knew where W. E. Gladstone stood. There was another statesman, Sir Robert Peel, who began his life a Tory and who ended it in the ranks of tiie opposition party. He left a name very different from that of W. E. Gladstone; he left a name, which, it is agreed by every historian of every school we have in Great Britain, was tarnished and disgraced by his conduct at the time he changed his political views. Sir Robert Peel had a perfect right, as we all will admit, after beginning life as a Conservative protectionist to change his views. If he honestly changed his views it was his right to do so, following up his new information and new light upon the subject, but, Sir Robert Peel did this : Sir Robert Peel, a Conservative, went to the people of Great Britain, asking their support, on the ground that he was a protectionist, and having come into power as a protectionist, he used the power and authority he had got on-that ground to introduce an entirely different policy. Will the right hon. Prime Minister study the history of Sir Robert Peel, will the Prime Minister remember the fate that befell a British statesman who, appealing to the people on the ground that he was a protectionist, when he came into power betrayed those who had placed him in office on the ground of his being a protectionist, and will the Prime Minister remember that in this not distant part of the empire, having appealed to the people on the ground that :
We denounce the principle of protection as radically unsound and unjust to the masses of the people, and we declare our conviction that any tariff changes based upon that principle must fail to afford any substantial relief from the burdens under which the country labours-
And having come into power and finding a protective tariff in which there are 448 items, leaves 244 untouched, increases 54 and decreases 34-will he ponder over the history, the promises, the faithlessness and the fall of Sir Robert Peel.


Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker, naturally, both the House and the country had a great deal of interest in finding out if possible-and I suppose that is the reason why ministerial explanations are a recognized feature in parliamentary life-why our friend the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) left the government of the right hon. leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I have listened with a very great deal of care to the speeches made in the course of this debate, I have heard the statements made by the right hon. leader of the House and the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works, and I must admit, that, so far as I am concerned, I am yet at a loss to understand why the hon. ex-Minister of Public j Works has been required to leave the government. I think, generally speaking, that 1 the country, after reading the report of this

debate, and even after a careful perusal of every word of this debate, will come to the conclusion that the true reason for the change in the government has scarcely been unfolded to the House when the Prime Minister has stated that in this matter he was vindicating the proper principle upon which parliamentary government by cabinet can alone be carried on, and that is that no member of a cabinet can, in the country or in the House, advocate views which are inconsistent with the general opinion of the cabinet. Now, that would be a very satisfactory answer and explanation of the matter if it could be made to lit in with all the facts, but, here, we have, in the course of this debate, discovered that not only the lion. ex-Minister of Public Works gave utterance to views in the country or elsewhere inconsistent with the course laid down by the government, but that other representatives of the administration have done the same thing and that while the lion. ex-Minister of Public Works'has been called upon to resign on account of these utterances, others, notably the bon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Siftou) and the hon. gentleman who at present fills the position of Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prf'foutline) are still remaining in the cabinet, although, so far as I can understand, their offence, if offence it be, is precisely the same as that of the lion. ex-Minister of Public Works. Now, that being the case, 1 am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that the explanation given by the right lion, leader of the government is not sufficient to explain all the circumstances. We know that members of the government and members of the party in the House are very much troubled to understand an expression that has been used by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) when he speaks of 'adequate protection.' It seems to afford these hon. gentlemen an immense amount of difficulty to understand what ' adequate means. I think we have in the course of the explanation made here to-day an excellent opportunity of learning what * adequate ' means; that is by its contrary, because, it appears, so far as I am concerned, that the explanations given by the right hon. gentleman are not adequate. They do not explain all the conditions of the circumstances leading up to the last circumstance why one member of the administration is compelled to withdraw from his position in the administration for doing precisely what other ministers are allowed to do without punishment of any kind whatever. The offence of the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works was, that, being a member of the administration and it at that time being determined upon doing nothing in the manner of tariff, he continued to advocate an increase of tariff. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) who filled his place, did not require to run an election; but the position of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was made vacant Mr. BELL.
and the hon. gentleman who had to go to the people in order to have his seat given back to him, committed precisely the same offence, if offence it be, as that charged against the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works. In the course of the contest which was necessary in order to reintroduce him to the cabinet he took the same course which had been followed by the ex-Minister of Public Works. He secured a seat in Ma? sonneuve as an advocate of increased protection and he sits in the cabinet to-day, having, even at the time when the right hon. gentleman tells us the government had come to the conclusion upon this subject to do nothing, advocated increased protection to the same extent although not, perhaps, quite as frequently, as did the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works. Can it be possible for us to believe that there is nothing more in this matter than these utterances of the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works, or are we not forced to come to the conclusion that the retirement of the hon. ex-Minister was owing to a struggle that had arisen in the cabinet, or in the portion of the cabinet which was left in Canada during the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister, resulting in the Prime Minister being called upon to make his choice between the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works and the other members of the cabinet who had determined no longer to remain in the cabinet with that hon. gentleman ? We know perfectly well, it has been stated in the most open fashion, it has been circulated everywhere in the press, that a demand was made on the Prime Minister for the scalp of the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works, and I must say, so far as the discussion to-day has gone, that I think every reasonable man who listens to the arguments and statements that have been made here to-day will come to the conclusion that it is the true explanation that a struggle had arisen in the cabinet in which one party or the other had to be defeated, and that the Prime Minister, being compelled to make a choice, did make a choice which resulted in the effacement for the time being, or for a long time, I dare say, of the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works. There is another explanation which may be possible; here, we have the case of a minister, the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, advocating protection at a time when the government is said to have decided upon a position of inertia, or stability, by maintaining its present position on the tariff without change; the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is left unharmed while the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works, on the other hand, for precisely the same offence, is called upon to retire from the administration. The offence is the same; the punishment is different. Why is it ? It is believed that the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works was marked out for destruction, or else that there must be some difference between the quality of the offence in the hon. ex-Minis-

ter of Public Works and tbe bon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It may be that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not mean what he was saying and the fact was recognized at the time that he was using the license which members of the administration are using all the time by saying that they are protectionists or free traders, as the case may be, and as required for the purpose of carrying elections. A license is apparently given to them for that purpose. On the other hand it may have been believed that the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was honestly saying what he meant, that he was a staunch advocate of protection and that being in earnest lie was introducing into the political arena a question which it was inconvenient for the administration to have discussed at that time. It was realized that the Minister of Marine (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) was ready to talk protection to-day and free trade tomorrow, but that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) might be relied upon to 'continue his crusade for the protection of Canadian industries.
There has been in the course of this discussion a wide difference of opinion between the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding). The ex-minister pretends that he had every reason to believe that the announcement which was made by the Minister of 1 inance last session was an indication that changes were to be made this session in the direction of a higher tariff. The Minister of Finance explicitly stated to-day that no such intention exists, but so far as the opinions formed by hon. members are concerned-at least on this side of the House-they are in.accord with the construction placed by the ex-minister on the language of the Finance Minister. A great many circumstances which arose in the course of last session indicated that we were to have tariff changes this year. Early in the session the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who has a close relationship with the cabinet, reviewed our commercial position and pointed out that our fiscal policy placed us at a tremendous disadvantage in doing business with the United States. His speech led us to the conclusion, that so far as he could influence the policy of the administration he would persevere in a course which would lead the government of the day to adopt a higher tariff. For some reason, possibly because of an understanding with the premier, the resolution was not pressed to a vote but it might fairly be looked upon as a feeler to discover what was the sentiment of the House and of the country. Here was a member of the Joint High Commission, associated with members of the government to negotiate a reciprocity treaty with the United States, a gentleman who is in the next rank to that of a cabinet minister ; a gentleman who enjoys the confidence of the Prime Minister ; here was that gentleman
arguing to show that there was in the Liberal party a strong impression that the present tariff was not sufficiently high to enable us to maintain our position in competition with the neighbouring republic. Then we had the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) advocating increased protection for the industries in which he and his constituents were interested. A thousand times over voices came from that side of the House during that session showing that pressure was brought to bear on the administration not to continue the existing conditions, but to give us higher protection. Deputations came without number, and we had the assurance of the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that these deputations were merely imt off for the time, were given to understand that the government was not opposed to an increase in the tariff but might under certain circumstances grant it, and were not dismissed hopelessly with a refusal. The impression created on the public mind throughout the country was entirely in favour of the construction placed on the words of the Minister of Finance by the ex-minister. It is abundantly clear therefore that the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was absolutely justified in every utterance he made during the recess, which went to show that the intention of the government was to frame a higher tariff at this session. It seems to me therefore that he did not travel outside of a course consistent with perfect loyalty to his leader and to his party, when he tried to bring forward rapidly the day when a policy of high protection would be entered upon.
Then as to the manner in which the resignation was received or the dismissal accomplished. The hon. ex-minister said, and the premier did not deny it, that he had twice tendered his resignation and that his leader asked him to leave the matter in abeyance until he returned from Toronto. We find however from the premier's own words that so soon as his colleague had left for Toronto he put himself in communication with the Governor General in order to secure His Excellency's consent to his asking the minister for his portfolio. That is almost entirely a personal consideration, and it may be left for settlement to these gentlemen themselves. But there was one statement made by the ex-minister which struck me as of great importance. He stated, and repeated the statement, that if at any time when he was advocating increased protection he had received a request or an order from his leader he would have desisted. He even told the House that if the acting premier had given to him the slightest suggestion that his course was looked upon unfavourably by the cabinet, he would have stopped his advocacy of a high protective tariff. How can we doubt for one moment that when the ex-minister and the premier met in Ottawa the ex-minister did not state to the premier as he tells us he did state : If the

course I have followed in your absence lias been inconsistent with your views of my duty to you ; if I have said or done anything other than I have said or done in your presence before you left Canada I am here now honestly holding these opinions but ready to desist from the further expression of them, and should I find it impossible to remain a member of your cabinet after giving up that propaganda, I am prepared to retire from your cabinet in an honourable manner. I think, Sir, that this much ought to have been granted by the premier to his colleague ; a colleague who has supported him as we have reason to believe with the greatest power, success and ability-it does seem that the premier should have 'given this colleague some decent length of time in which to make his exit in a dignified manner instead of pitch-forking him out of the cabinet as he did. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that he repudiated the idea that when the term of a lieutenant governor expired his successor should be appointed immediately as if the administration was anxious to get rid of him. Apparently, a lieutenant governor is to have months or even years to make a dignified exit from, government house, but a gentleman who has been of the utmost service to the administration, who has probably done more than any member of the cabinet to preserve Canada %om that destruction and luin which an interruption of the National Policy would have brought on all its interests ; a gentleman, who, if I am not mistaken, has been an advocate of protection from the time he entered the cabinet, whose hand may be traced in every word of that tariff under which these gentlemen claim Canada has attained such prosperity-such a gentleman is to be pitch-forked out of the administration in the most unceremonious fashion, and even in violation of a courteous request made to him by his premier that the matter of his resignation should be left in abeyance until he returned from Toronto t) the Capital. These, however, are largely personal matters. It strikes me that all we have heard in the course of this discussion tends to convince any reasonable man who has listened carefully to it, and who tries to make all the facts of the case fit in with the explanation offered by the Prime Minister, that we have not had the true reason given for the dismissal of the ex-minister, but it is an evidence of the fact that on this occasion at least, in the absence of the Premier, the members of the cabinet not only fought like blazes, but the end of it was that one of the combatants suffered very serious damage.


Mr. RUFUS H. POPE (Compton).: Mr. Speaker, coming from the province of Quebec, I take particular interest in the shuffle that has taken place in the cabinet and in the difficulty that has arisen between the Prime Minister and the ex-Minister of Pub-Mr. BELL.
lie Works. Since the days of confederation, the great Department of Public Works has been entrusted to a member from the province of Quebec, and as a rule if not invariably to one of French Canadian origin. Living among the French Canadian people, I can well understand that no kick would come from them on narrow lines ; but it is important to that province, as one of the large provinces of the Dominion, that it should have its fair share of the administration and of the patronage in the government of Canada ; and without wishing to raise the question on narrow lines, I simply wish to enter my protest against the removal of the portfolio of Public Works from the province of Quebec to another province, especially as the first minister called to his aid a man who is supposed to be well versed in public works, who has had large experience in the great city of Montreal, as mayor and leading alderman in that city for many years. Possibly the Prime Minister may have discovered in the administration of those public works in the city of Montreal some cause why he did not care to entrust that hon. gentleman with the larger public works of Canada. Of course, that is not for me to say ; but with the numerous applicants which the right hon. gentleman had for the vacant portfolio, he certainly was not confined to the hon. gentleman who now occupies the position of Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine). And it was humiliating to observe that after the services of the ex-Minister of Public Works were dispensed with in such a summary manner, it took something like three weeks to find a man to take his place, so great a factor had he been in the administration ; and after they had discovered him, they felt that they dare not trust him with the portfolio which had been vacated, but they took some of the patronage of the Department of Public Works, and by reconstruction patched up a special portfolio for the new minister. As the ex-Minister of Public Works says himself, he has made some mistakes ; but in my judgment, after hearing the speeches to-day, and casting my memory back over the record of the Liberal party in Canada for 25 or 30 years, I am convinced that the greatest mistake he ever made in all his life was when he joined that gang opposite. I venture to say that if the hon. gentleman could stand up in this parliament untramelled by his oath of office as a member of that government, he could tell a round of stories that would prove that statement to be correct. It is not my intention to take up much time in this discussion. The question has been threshed out very thoroughly, but very unsatisfactorily so far as the explanation of the first minister is concerned. We are left practically in the dark ; but what are we to expect ? The other day the right hon. gentleman made this astonishing statement in parliament, and to the country. He said :

What is my position ? I am first minister in what kind of a camp ? Part of it protectionist and part of it free trade. What is my great duty ? It is to conciliate-to maintain power at all costs by acts of conciliation. True you should have a bold national policy, a great policy of protection ; but 1 cannot give it to you and retain power. 1 am not here to lead public opinion. The time has gone by when it is regarded as the duty of a great statesman who is Prime Minister to lead public opinion. Instead of that, it is his duty to knuckle down to it, and reconcile the factions as best he can, in the hope of retaining power in this country at any cost. That is the confession of the Prime Minister, and under these circumstances you cannot expect to get from him a very clear statement of the reasons why he chose to decapitate the exMinister of Public Works. While I do not wish to enter into the family troubles of hon. gentlemen opposite, to any great extent, it is well to recognize that the ex-Minister of Public Works was of great service to the right hon. gentleman in the hour when he needed great services, when it was not " Laurier and luck " that carried the day, but when he needed an organizer in the province of Quebec for his special benefit. When I first read the letter which the right hon. gentleman addressed to the ex-Minister of Public Works, I said, it is ingratitude, such as I did not expect from him. The first minister must know better than I do the obligations he was under to the exminister. We regretted to see that the right hon. first minister, when he returned to this country, did not enjoy the health which we are all glad to see him enjoying at this moment. He was suffering extreme weakness, and I think he must have been visited in that hour of weakness by that miserable combination who had decided that the ex-Minister of Public Works must go. What did they care about their leader provided they themselves got rid of the hon. gentleman and secured the position he occupied and all the influence that goes with it. As has been shown over and over again, it was not the speeches made by the exMinister of Public Works which brought about his resignation. Why, last session we had speech after speech from the other side to exactly the same purport. We had only one free trade speech among the lot, and that was made by a gentleman who has since gone to the Senate to receive his reward as a free trader. He has passed from our midst and gone up above to remain there until he goes still higher. We had a good many speeches from these hon. gentlemen opposite and but one free trade speech among them all. There was not an hon. gentleman on that side, with the exception of the one I have just mentioned, who did not have a jack-knife or harness or carriage
factory or horses in the great west or silver mines in British Columbia, or something else down by the sea, which wanted protection. All along the line we had protectionist speeches, not one of these men has been read out of the party, and yet we are asked to believe that the ex-Minister of Public Works lost his position because he attended public meetings at the request of these very men and delivered speeches along the same lines as those to which they had themselves given utterance in parliament. Such an explanation lacks honesty and frankness and is an insult to the intelligence of a democratically governed ' country like Canada. As to the future policy of the government, that will be precisely of the same indeterminate character as its present policy. You have got a cabinet composed of men holding the most contradictory views upon the vital question of protection. The right hon. first minister has told us that he has protectionists and free traders behind him in about equal numbers. Prom a government composed of such discordant elements, what else can you expect but a weak policy? And the manufacturers of Canada, the men who are interested in our natural deposits, the men who are waiting for government encouragement in order to develop our natural resources-these men will wait in vain. True, they may now and then get a little something but they will only get a half-hearted policy. We are to-day receiving hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the United States as well as from other parts of the world. There has been no time since confederation when wideawake, energetic, broad-minded men were more necessary at the helm of state. There has been no time when a strong resolute policy was more required. We must not forget that these people are going into our North-west and that our great North-west is separated from eastern Canada by the rock bound shores of Lake Superior for about 1,000 miles. One would imagine that these were intended to be the divisions of two separate nationalities, and if we are to bring the west and the east into close unity, we in the east will have to adopt a broad national policy. What do these Americans tell us, who are going into our country ? Do they tell us that they have left then-own because they are dissatisfied with it ? Not at all, they say that they are proud of the United States, and if they are leaving, it is because they can sell their farms in the United States at $50 an acre and buy farms in Canada at $5 an acre. How comes it that they are able to sell their farms at $40 or $50 an acre ? It is due to the industrial policy of the American government, and if we wish to satisfy these men, if we are to give a similar increase in value to our land in the west, we will have to adopt a similar policy, we will have to adopt a



policy that will build up industries in Canada which will rival those that a protective policy has developed in the United States.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: 2Q0.
Lancaster,	Wilmot,
Lang,	Wilson and
Lauri'er (L'Assomption),Wright-182.
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do" consist of Twenty-five members.
No. 4-ON MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messieurs :
Kidd,
LaRivi&re,
Lavell,
Lavergne,
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Logan,
Loy,
Macdonald,
MacKinnon,
Maclean,
McCool,
McCreary,
McGugan,
Marcil (Bagot), Meigs,
Mignault,
Monet,
Monk,
Morin,
Morrison,
Pope,
Power,
Pringle,
Proulx,
Puttee,
Roddick,
Rosamond,
Ross (Victoria), Russell,
Schell,
Stephens,
Stewart,
Sutherland (Essex), Sutherland (Oxford), Tobin,
Tolton,
Tucker,
.Turgeon and Wade.-78.
Alcorn,
Avery,
Ball,
Beland,
Belcourt,
Bell,
Bennett,
Birkett,
Bourbonnais,
Brock,
Brodeur,
Bruce,
Bruneau,
Calvert,
Carroll,
Carscallen,
Casgrain,
Cochrane,
Cowan,
Culbert,
Desjardins,
Douglas,
Dugas,
Dyment,
Earle,
Ethier,
Fitzpatrick,
Fraser,
Galliher,
Gauvreau,
Gibson,
Gilmour,
Girard,
Guthrie,
Hackett,
Harty,
Hughes (King's),
Johnston (Cape Breton)
Kaulbach,
Kendall,
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of ten Members.
No. 5.-ON STANDING ORDERS.
Messieurs :
Ball,
Bazinet,
Brown,
Cargill,
Clancy,
Clare,
Copp,
Davis,
Demers (Lfivis),
Demers (St. John), Douglas,
Erb,
Fortier,
Gallery,
Grant,
Guthrie,
Halliday,
Hughes (Victoria), Ingram,
Johnston (Cape Breton) Kaulbach,
Kendall,
Lefurgey,
Mackie,
McEwen,
McGugan,
Marcil (Bagot), Matheson,
Morin,
Puttee,
Reid (Restigouche), Richardson,
Roche (Marquette), Ross (Rimouski), Sherritt,
Smith (Vancouver), Stewart,
Tolmie,
Tolton,
Tup per (Sir Charles Hibbert),
.Turgeon,
Vrooman,
Wilmot,
Lancaster,	Wilson and
Lang,	Wright.-49.
Laurier (L'Assomption),
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Seven Members.
No. 6.-JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.
(Members to act on the part of the Commons).
Messieurs :
Bennett,
Casgrain,
Clarke,
Davis,
Holmes,
Hughes (Victoria), Hyman,
McColl,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Oliver,
Parmelee,
Prefontaine.
Richardson,
Scott,
Johnston (Cape Breton)Sut.herland (Oxford) Johnston (Lambton), Taylor
La Rivifire, Lavergne, Loy,
Maclean,
Thompson (Haldimand and Monck) and Tisdale.-24.
No. 7.-ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Messieurs :
Barker,
Beith,
Bell, Bennett, Bickerdike Birkett, Blain, Blair,
Lancaster,
Laurier (L'Assomption), LeBlanc,
Lennox,
Leonard,
Loy,
MacKinnon,
Maclaren (Huntingdon),
Borden (Sir Frederick),Macpherson, Campbell,	McColl,
Carbonneau,	McCreary
Carroll,	Mclsaac,
Cartwright (Sir Richard)Madore, Champagne,
Clancy,
Clarke,
Cochrane.
Costigan,
Cowan,
Demers (St. John),
Desjardins,
Emmerson,
Fielding,
Fitzpatrick,
Fowler,
Fraser,
Ganong,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gould,
Gourley,
Haggart,
Henderson.
Holmes,
Hughes (King's), Hughes (Victoria), Hyman,
Kemp,
Malouin,
Monk,
Morrison,
Murray,
Northrup,
Oliver,
Porter,
Pringle,
Riley, '
Roche (Halifax),
Ross (Ontario),
Ross (Yukon),
Sifton,
Smith (Wentworth), Sproule,
Tarte,
Taylor,
Thompson (Haldimand and Monck),
Thomson (North Grey), Tupper (Sir C. Hibbert), Turcot,
Wade,
Ward and Wilson.-74.
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Twenty-one Members.
No. 8.-ON BANKING AND COMMERCE. Messieurs :
Kaulbach,
Kemp,
Kendall,
Kendrey,
Lang,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier (L'Assomption), Lavell,
Angers,
Archambault,
Avery,
Barker,
Beith,
BSland,
Bell,
Bennett,


Wilfrid Laurier: 201	MARCH 19, 1903	202Bernier,	Law,	Calvin,	Marcil (Bagot),Bickerdike,	Lefurgey,	Carbonneau,	Martineau,Birkett,	Lewis,	Cargill,	Matheson,Biain,	Lovell,	Carscallen,	Mayrand,Borden (Halifax),	Loy,	Charlton,	Meigs,Borden (Sir Frederick),Maclaren (Huntingdon),	Clancy,	Morin,Bourassa,	McCarthy,	Clare,	Muloclc (Sir William),Boyd,	McCormick,	Cochrane,	Oliver,Brock,	McEwen,	Davis,	Parmelee,Brown,	Mclsaac,	Delisle.	Pope,Bruce,	McLennan,	Douglas,	Proulx,Bruneau,	Madore,	Dugas,	Reid (Grenville),Bureau,	Malouin,	Dyment,	Reid (Restigouche),Calvert,	Marcil (Bonaventure),	Erb,	Richardson,Calvin,	Mignault,	Ethier,	Robinson (Elgin),Campbell,	Monk,	Farquharson,	Robinson (Northumber-Carbonneau,	Morin,	Fisher,	land),Cargill,	Murray,	Fortier,	Roche (Marquette),Carscallen,	Osier,	Galliher,	Rosamond,Cartwright (Sir Richard(Paterson,	Gauvreau,	Ross (Ontario),Casgrain,	Pope,	Gilmour,	Ross (Victoria),Champagne,	Porter,	Girard,	Rousseau,Charlton,	Power,	Gould,	Schell,Christie,	Prefontaine,	Grant,	Seagram,Clancy,	Puttee,	Guthrie,	Sherritt,Clarke,	Reid (Grenville),	Hackett,	Simmons,Cochrane,	Reid (Restigouche),	Halliday,	Smith (Vancouver),Copp,	Richardson,	Harwood,	Smith (Wentworth),Costigan,	Riley,	Henderson,	Sproule, [DOT]Cowan,	Roche (Halifax),	Heyd,	Stephens,Culbert,	Rosamond,	Hughes (King's),	Stewart,Delisle,	Ross (Ontario),	Hughes (Victoria),	Talbot,Demers (LSvis),	Ross (Rimouski),	Ingram,	Taylor,Demers (St. John).	Ross (Victoria),	Johnston (Cardwell),	Thomson (North Grey),Earle,	Ross (Yukon),	Johnston (Lambton),	Tobin,Emmerson,	Rousseau,	Kendall,	Tolmie,Ethier,	Russell,	Kidd,	Tolton,Farquharson,	Schell,	Lang,	Tucker,Fielding,	Smith (Wentworth),	LaRiviere,	Turcot,Fowler,	Sproule,	Laurier (L'Assomption),Turgeon,	Fraser,	Stephens,	LeBlanc,	Vrooman,Gallery,	Sutherland (Oxford),	Lennox,	Wade,Galliher,	Talbot,	Leonard,	Wilmot,Ganong,	Tarte,	Lewis,	Wilson andGeoffrion,	Taylor,	Logan,	Wright.-119.Gibson.	Thompson (Haldimand	Lovell,	Gould, Gourley, Haggart,	and Monek), Thomson (North Grey), Tisdale,	And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Twelve Members.	Harty,	Tobin,	The PRIME MINISTER moved:	Henderson,	Tolmie,	Heyd,	Tupper (Sir C. Hibbert),	That the report of the special committee ap-	Holmes,	Wade,	pointed to prepare and report lists of members	Hughes (King's),	Ward, '	to compose the Select	Standing Committees ofHughes (Victoria),	Wilmot,	this House be concurred in.	Hvman,	Motion agreed to.	Ingram,	Wright.-130.	Johnston (Cape Breton),	And that the Quorum of the said Committee do	DRAINAGE ON AND ACROSS RAILWAY	consist of Twenty-	one Members.	PROPERTY.	No. 9- ON AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZA-	TION.	Mr. M. K. COWAN (South Essex) moved	Messieurs :	for leave to introduce Bill (No. 19) respect-	Angers,	Loy,	ing drainage on and across the property of	Ball,	Macdonald,	railway companies.	Bazinet,	Ma ckie,	Beith,	MacLaren (Perth),	Some hon. MEMBERS. Explain.	Bell,	Macpherson,	Bernier,	McColl,	Mr. COWAN. . This is practically a copy	Biain,	McCool,	of the Bill which I	introduced last sessionBourassa,	McCormick,	and which I explained on that occasion. I	Bourbonnais, Boyd. Broder,	McCreary, McEwen, McGowan,	prefer to defer further explanation until the second reading of the Bill.	Brown, Bureau,	McGugan, McIntosh,	Motion agreed to,	and Bill read the firstCalvert,	McLennan,	time.


COMMON'S WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT-AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL (West York) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 20) to amend the Weights and Measures Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: This is a Bill to regulate the size of milk cans and the quantity they shall contain. I will give further explanation at the proper time.


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


Mr. TAYLOR asked :: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: It would be much preferable if my hon. friend would put this question in the shape of a motion for a return.


PRICE OF BINDER TWINE.
Mr. BLAIN asked :: Has the government published the prices of binder twine for the current year ? If not, when will they be published ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: To the first question the answer is : No. To the second question the answer is :	When the spring trade in that
class of supplies opens. The fluctuations in the fibre market have been such for some time past that it is not deemed advisable to fix prices at present.


THE SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCE OF JUDGES.
The PRIME MINISTER (for the Minister of Justice) moved :: That the House go into Commitee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution,
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend chapter 138 of the Revised Statutes, with respect to retiring allowances of Judges, and to provide that, any judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any Superior Court in Canada who has :-
(a.) Attained the age of seventy-five years, and has continued in oflice as such judge, or as such judge and as judge of any Superior Court in Canada, or as such judge and as stipendiary magistrate of the North-west Territories, for twenty years or upwards ; or
(b.) Attained the age of sixty-five years, and has continued in office as such judge, or as such judge and as judge of any Superior Court in Canada, for thirty years or upwards,
May resign his said office ; and His Majesty may, by letters patent, under the great seal, reciting such judge's age and period of office, grant unto such judge an annuity equal to the


Mr. COWAN.: salary of the office held by him at the time of his resignation, to commence immediately after his resignation, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved :: That the House go into Commitee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution,
1.	Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, and to provide that if the period of service includes a fraction of a year less than one-half, the service shall be taken to be the number of years served, not including the fraction. And if the period of service includes a fraction equal to or greater than one-half, the fraction shall be deemed to be an entire year.
2.	Resolved, that it is expedient to confirm all superannuation allowances heretofore granted, calculated in the foregoing manner.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['']
Robert Laird Borden: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, at how early a date we may expect the Redistribution Bill, which was referred to in the speech from the Throne.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am not prepared to say what date we will be ready with that Bill, but it will likely be at an early date. Perhaps to-morrow I will introduce a resolution with regard to the Chinese Bill, and my right hon. friend the Minister of Railways will introduce at an early date his Bill with reference to the Railway Commission.



George Taylor: When I put my question which is on the Order paper to-day, the Minister of Finance asked me to move for a return. I asked for that information in order that I might be able to base some remarks on it this session. I do not see why the hon. gentleman should ask me to move for a return wherr I simply want to know what is the expenditure on account of taking the census up to the 1st of March, 1901, and the estimated expense further. That is a very simple question and the minister should answer it without asking me to move for a return.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My remarks were not intended in the slightest degree to delay the information getting to the House. I can assure the hon. gentleman that when his motion is made there will be no delay in bringing down the return.


Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothwell).: I will call the minister's attention to page 44 of the Public Accounts and he will find there, that the information with regard to the cost of the census expenditure has all been included under one item instead of being in a separate column as in the past. That is all the greater reason why the question of my right hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) should have been answered.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If there is any departure from the usual mode I will inquire what the reason is and I will let my hon. friend know.


THE SOUTH SHORE RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. VICTOR GEOFFRION (Chambly and Vereheres.) Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I wish to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to a state of things which he will agree with me demands immediate attention. We have a railway running from St. Lambert through the counties of Verchgres, Chambly, Ya-maska and Richelieu. That railway has lately been sold to some speculators from New York and other cities of the United States. They paid for it and commenced to operate it, but soon afterwards they became engaged in a lawsuit before the courts in regard to the ownership of the road, and ever since the road has been so neglected that it has become dangerous for the public to travel on it. Some of the employees of the road I know have not been paid for five or six months, and the result is that some sections of the road are left entirely unattended. I received telegrams and letters two or three days ago, and again yesterday, calling my attention to the dangerous condition of the road and bridges, especially at this season of the year. People who have examined it say that if it is not attended to immediately, some very disastrous accident may happen. I need not quote the law to the hon. Minister of Railways. He is familiar with that section of the Railway Act which says that the Minister of Railways and Canals, on being informed that any railway is in such a state as I have described, may send an engineer to inspect the road and make a report, and if the report is unfavourable, the minister shall have power to close the road. I am told also that the engines have not been cleaned for several months. In fact, the whole railway is in such a condition that the public are afraid to travel on it, while the owners are fighting among themselves, and in case of accident we do not know whom to apply to. We have been very unfortunate with that road. The gentleman who first promoted it, got the charter and had the first administration of it, expropriated lands belonging to some well-to-do farmers, and a good many of these farmers have not yet been paid. There is not a better locality in the province of Quebec. This gentleman ran
the road for a certain time, not to suit the public, but to suit himself. Afterwards it was taken hold of by Mr. Beauchemin and other gentlemen, who gave satisfaction to the public. We had nothing to complain of so long as they managed the road; but unfortunately they sold it, and since then it has been going from bad to worse. I do not know whether or not there are any subsidies due to this railway; but if there are, I hope the hon. minister will see that those subsidies are not paid until the poor people who have been working for the road without wages for some time, are paid. I would especially mention the manager of the road, Mr. Lalonde, who has done wonders with the little means at his disposal. I hope the hon. minister will see that not a cent of subsidy is paid to the road until justice is rendered to these people.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I understand that my hon. friend from Chambly and Verdures complains that the railway from St. Lambert to Sorel is not in a safe condition for traffic, and wishes that an engineer of the department should, in accordance with the law, be sent to go over the road and make an examination of it, and report to the department whether or not the information which has reached us is well founded. I understand that is my hon. friend's desire.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman would be kind enough to give me in writing at his earliest convenience a memo, of the particulars in which he has been informed the road is in the condition he states, so that the attention of the engineer would be called to those particulars, when he goes to look over the road, I would be glad to take immediate steps to have the inspection made. The information given to me in that form would be a matter of record, and I think the law contemplates that there should be a written complaint to facilitate the work of the officer in making the examination. I assure him that the department will give the matter its immediate attention.


Victor Geoffrion: The whole plant is in bad order; but I will, as the hon. minister suggests, give him all the particulars I have in writing.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN.
Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, for two years in succession I have moved in the House of Commons for the return of certain papers relating to the late general officer commanding in Canada. In my absence certain garbled and distorted extracts were brought down to the House, while the papers I moved for were reported

not to have been found in the Militia Department. For two years in succession the House has ordered these papers to he brought down, and I would like to ask the lion. Minister of Militia why the order of the House has not been obeyed.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: I can only say that the return to which my hon. friend refers was, I believe, prepared under the direction of the then general officer commanding. Last year I gave directions that a further return should be prepared and brought down, and I am surprised to hear that it has not been brought down. I will make inquiry, and be prepared to make a further statement to my hon. friend as to why the return has not been brought down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Governor General's office including salaries, $10,900 ; contingencies, $15,100.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The increases are the usual statutory increases.


Robert Laird Borden: Are these statutory increases given generally or only in isolated instances ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are general. There is no exception where the party is eligible.


Samuel Hughes: Does that apply to all the departments ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the general rule has been to give them to all who are eligible.
Office of the King's Privy Council, Canada- Salaries, $31,875 ; contingencies, $9,300.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There are no
increases in that item except the statutory increases, with the exception of one junior second-class clerk transferred to the second-class.


Mr. INGRAM.: Who was the clerk who was transferred ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. McElroy is promoted from one class to the other.
Department of Justice-Salaries, including one junior second-class clerk at $800, and allowance to the private secretary of the Solicitor General, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $35,390 ; contingencies, $12,370.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The increase is more apparent than real. It is due to a reorganization of the department. When we come to the penitentiary estimates, my hon. friends will see that the increase is more apparent than real.


William Humphrey Bennett: As we are now on the items of the Department of Justice, would the hon. minister allow me to put a question to him on a matter indirectly connected


Samuel Hughes: with this expenditure ? The principle was laid down by the late Sir John Thompson, when Minister of Justice, that the government should go outside of the counties where the vacancies occur to find men to fill the position of county court judge. For a long time that principle was acted upon by Sir John Thompson and some of his successors, but it has been ruthlessly departed from by the present administration. Does the hon. minister think it desirable that the vacancies now existing should be filled up by gentlemen practising in those counties where there are vacancies ? That is certainly the course he has followed. Take the county of Huron, Judge Masson had retired on account of illness, and the then junior judge was promoted. It was expected that an outsider would have been appointed judge of the county court, but the government appointed Mr. Holt, who was practising in the county. I am acquainted with Mr. Holt and I know that his reputation at the bar was good, and that he could make an excellent judge. Still he had been a politician in the riding, he was a partner of Mr. Campbell who was long a member of this House, and had been spoken of frequently as a probable candidate for either the local legislature or for the House of Commons. The hon. minister, I presume, takes the responsibility for what goes on in his department. The other day, in the matter of Brunet's pardon, he said that although the recommendation did not come from him, he took any blame that might be attached to it. Is he going now to lay down the rule that these appointments will be made solely with the view of suiting political exigencies ? Because I am informed that in the case of Huron, the county judge was taken from the local bar. I need not go over all the arguments adduced in the past to show why this principle is a pernicious one. In appointing a man from the local bar, you appoint oue, who in nine cases out of ten, has been prominent in politics, and the result is inevitable that the people will view such an appointment with suspicion. In Leeds and Grenville also, the county judge was taken from the town of Brockville, and lately in the province of Ontario a number of appointments to the position of county judge have been made from the local bars. If that is to be the policy of the administration, it will be well for the House to know it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think that the rule contended for by my hon. friend, namely, that county court judges should be chosen as much as possible from the outside bar, is a very wise one. I quite agree that the late Sir John Thompson expressed the view that these appointments should, as far as possible, be made from the outside bar, and that view was concurred in by the different Ministers of Justice who followed him, but if my hon. friend

will look over the appointments, he will find that even in Sir John Thompson's time that custom was more honoured in the breach than in the observance. So far as I am concerned, I propose to follow that rule as closely as possible.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have here a memo, of the various appointments lately made. Four have been made since the hon. gentleman's party came into power. Mr. Liddell was practising at the bar in Cornwall when appointed to a junior judgeship there. Mr. Reynolds was practising in Brockville and Mr. Holt in Goderich, and we have further, the case of Mr. Monk, who was made a junior judge at Hamilton when practising at the local bar in that district. There is at present a vacancy in the county court judgeship in the county of York. Has any decision been arrived at as to who is to get the office ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not yet, but my hon. friend will realize at once that the rule he advocates would be difficult of application, as far as the appointment to the county of York judgeship is concerned. It might be hard to go out of Toronto to find a man for that position, so that the objections to appointing a man from the district would not apply with the same force to the city of Toronto. With regard to the appointment of Mr. Holt, for which I; was responsible personally, that appointment was made at the unanimous request of the whole bar of the county. I realize that because of the sympathy existing among members of the bar, irrespective of politics, there would naturally be a tendency to help one another in a case of that sort, and while that may not appeal very strongly, still it is some justification for departing from the principle stated by my hon. friend.


William Humphrey Bennett: No doubt the applicant for judgeship, if prominent in the locality, will have the support of the local bar, who will be anxious to get him out of the way and share his clientele among themselves. What I would like to know is whether from this out there is to be any settled rule with regard to these appointments, or whether each case will have to stand on its own merits ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, but I would like to qualify that statement by the addition that I think the rule contended for by my hon. friend is a wise and salutary one.


William Humphrey Bennett: But not to be followed.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As far as possible.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: This discussion is going entirely outside the resolution. As the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) rose to-


Mr. LENNOX.: But is it going outside the resolution, Mr. Chairman V


Peter Macdonald: We cannot, under this vote, if we are to observe the ordinary rules, discuss the policy of the government with regard to the appointment of judges.


Haughton Lennox: We are dealing with the Department of Justice, surely-


Peter Macdonald: That is my decision. The item we are discussing is as follows
Civil government-Department of Justice- salaries, including one second-class clerk, $800, and allowance to the private secretary to the Solicitor General, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $35,390.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Justice, and I do not see why this discussion is not perfectly relevant.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Strictly speaking, this does not cover the point, but I have no objection to the discussion.


Haughton Lennox: I was going to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the statement he made that, as far as possible appointments to the position of county judge should be made from outside the county.
I do not see why that rule should not be carried out and men appointed who are not practicing in the county. We are all aware that there are large numbers of persons who are eligible and desirous of becoming county court judges. I was informed the other day that the Department of Justice has a list of gentlemen desirous of taking that position. I understand that the names of some gentlemen have been upon the list for a number of years. Under the circumstances, I fail to understand how there can be any impossibility of securing suitable persons outside of the county. If we are to have the rule at all, we ought to have a full explanation from the Minister of Justice of the reasons for his action in any case where the rule is not observed. In the case of Mr. Holt I understand the hon. minister to suggest that the requisition presented by his brethern at the bar was, to some extent, the reason for Mr. Holt's appointment. But I do not understand the hon. minister to put it wholly upon that ground. I would therefore asic the hon. minister to inform the House specifically what reason was in Mr. Holt's case for departing from the very salutary rule which has been referred to. In addition to the reasons suggested by my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) many others could be mentioned against the practice of appointing judges from their own county. For instance, it frequently happens that the person appointed has a large family, including a number of sons practicing at the bar. Or, if his own sons are not practicing, he has nephews or other connections.

This entails serious difficulties, and, at the very least, causes prejudice to exist in the minds both of other members of the bar and the public generally. The expediency of the rule is not questioned, as I understand-it could hardly be questioned. Nor can the expediency of carrying it into effect, except in special cases, be doubted. If, however, there is in any case, a good and sufficient reason against carrying out the rule, surely that reason can be definitely and distinctly stated. I fail to understand that, as yet, the hon. minister has given any reason why an exception was made in the case of Mr. Holt.


Andrew B. Ingram: While the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) was speaking. I could not see whether the Minister of Justice assented to what he said. But I take it that the hon. minister has a list of lawyers in the province of Ontario whom he proposes to promote to judgeships. I would like to ask if the name of Mr. Jackson of the town of Ingersoll is on that list.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would like to gratify my hon. friend's (Mr. Ingram's) curiosity, but I do not think my memory enables me to state off-hand the number of applications I have had. But I may tell my hon. friend that the list to which he refers is one of very long standing and dates very far back.


Andrew B. Ingram: If Mr. Jackson's name is on the list, I would suggest that his name be struck off at once. In the case of an appointment I suggest to the hon. minister the propriety of having the Act amended, or some legislation passed by which, if a member of this House is appointed to a judgeship, he shall be precluded from acting on an election trial for five years from the date of his appointment. Such a law, I think, would be in the interests of justice. It has been my painful duty to attend and observe some of the election trials that have taken place recently, and I have never experienced more partisanship in this House than I have seen in some of these trials. These gentlemen should not be allowed to act on an election trial until they have had time to forget that they are partisans.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There have been grievances on both sides. In my own province of Quebec I have never heard of such a thing, but I have heard of such things in Ontario, and I can say that the complaint does not apply exclusively to one side.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not wish to cast reflections on either one side or the other, but, whether regarded from a Liberal or a Conservative standpoint, the position I take is in the interest of the dignity of the bench.
I think that if we refer to the election trials, the dates upon which they were supposed to take place, and the judgments which


Haughton Lennox: have been rendered as well as the peculiar method in which they are rendered are sufficient to confirm my complaint of partisanship shown by judges on the bench.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: I would ask the Minister of Justice if any appointment has been made of a county court judge in the
county of Grey, or if the junior judge has been promoted?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: None made.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think that, notwithstanding the explanation of the Minister of Justice this is the proper time to give us the explanation of this increase of nearly $1,500. It is not wise to leave it until some other department or some other item is under discussion. We should have the details now.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am quite ready to give the information. In the first place there is the promotion of a 1st class clerk, Mr. Gisborne, to a chief clerkship.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Where was he before ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He had been in the department ten or twelve years. He certainly deserved promotion. The statutory increases of $50 each have been given to three 1st class clerks, Mr. Chisholm, Mr. Narraway and Mr. Clarke. Statutory increases of $50 each are given to four 2nd class clerks, Messrs. Mullen, Burpee, Yerret and Harris. A similar increase of $50 is given to one junior 2nd class clerk and $30 to each of two messengers. Then we have added to the department Mr. Creighton who was removed from the accountantship of the Kingston penitentiary and brought here not being replaced at Kingston.
Mr. TAYLOR, I believe there are seven 1st class clerks in the Department of Justice and only three of them allowed statutory increases. Why is that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Every clerk in the Department of Justice who is entitled to a statutory increase has received it. The others referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) have reached the maximum of their class, and of course, they can not be given increases.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if there has not been some delay in the appointment of a county court judge in the province of Manitoba.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon.
gentleman explain what it was ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is the case of the appointment to the vacancy created by the promotion of Mr. Justice Prendergast from the county court bench to the Superior Court.


Robert Laird Borden: I knew that
there was a vacancy, and that It has continued for some time. I would like to know during what time it continued, and what was the reason why the position was left vacant so long.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot give just the period of time, but I think it must have been almost a year. During that time the duties of the offices were performed by another county court judge who appeared to be in a position to fill the duties satisfactorily, and so the appointment was not made for some time.


Robert Laird Borden: That seems a rather remarkable reason. I suppose that judge is as able now to perform] his duties as he was before. If the reason is of any value, it would be a good reason for not making the appointment at all. Is there any political reason ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not that I know of.


Robert Laird Borden: Then my hon. friend ought to have an assistant. He is evidently not able to discharge the duties of his office. Now, it has been openly charged in the west that this vacancy has remained unfilled for the reason that the gentleman who was slated for the position held a constituency which was doubtful, and this government colluded with the opposition in Manitoba to keep this appointment open and let the public interest suffer for the mere purpose of obliging the Liberal opposition in the province of Manitoba. I see no reason why we should not accept that explanation, unless the Minister of Justice can give us some better reason for his inaction than he has yet given us. There is a vacancy in the office of the county court judge and the vacancy stands for a year. We ask the Minister of Justice for an explanation, and the only thing he can say is that some other judge of a county court was able to perform the duties of the judge who had been elevated to the superior court. Well, surely this government don't want to place themselves in a position of that kind before the country. I trust before the item passes my hon. friend will try-I know it is a big effort-but at least that he will try to give the House and the country some better explanation than he has given up to the present time. We know pretty well what the real reason is, but will he not exert himself and try to put forward some plausible reason, at least ? He has not given any plausible reason so far, and for the sake of the Department of Justice, for the sake of the traditions of that office, I would like my hon. friend to make one more effort.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am afraid I cannot accommodate my hon. friend. He says he knows the real reason and he asks me to give a plausible one. I do not think I can accede to that request.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Perhaps I can throw a little light on the subject


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Thank you.


William James Roche: I hardly think the Minister of Justice is quite frank when he states there was no political reason. I happen to live in the town and in the constituency where the gentleman who has * been appointed to this vacant judgeship resides, and it is a well-known fact that it was political exigencies alone which caused that vacancy to remain so long unfilled. Now, I have a question on the Order paper which the Minister of Justice will have an opportunity of answering. I think it was on the 21st of last February, 1902, that the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. La-Riviere) asked the question in this House when the vacancy caused by the promotion of Judge Prendergast to the superior court bench, would be filled; the reply of the Minister of Justice was ' in the immediate future.' Some six weeks after that I asked a somewhat similar question, and the Minister of Justice replied, ' Forthwith, immediately at the close of the session.' Now we have waited anxiously for this vacancy to be filled; and I may just say that the Minister of Justice is hardly seized of all the facts when he states that the judge for whom assistance was required had made no complaint, because that same gentleman, Judge Walker, of Winnipeg, had given an interview to a reporter of a Winnipeg paper stating that he was overworked and actually could not take his holidays. We know that case after case, upwards of a dozen cases, went from one court to another because he was unable to handle them without some assistance. This interview appeared in the Winnipeg paper last fall. Now I will give the reason why this vacancy has not been filled. Mr. Myers, who has been appointed to the position, is a fellow townsman of my own. He had the promise of the position in his pocket since last summer, all his political friends knew that he had been slated for it, he has openly expressed himself in that direction. I do not blame the Minister of Justice, for I know he acted upon the advice given him by the Minister of the Interior, who states that he is going to look after western interests, and who undoubtedly did exercise his influence in order to have that vacancy remain open for Mr. Myers until it wras impossible for the vacancy in the local constituency to be filled before the last session of the local legislature. Now, Mr. Myers did not receive his appointment until the beginning of the year, and this rendered it impossible for the local government to have the by-election to fill that vacancy before this last session. So that by the action of the Minister of Justice the administration of justice has been clogged in that province. As I said before, case after case has gone over

to the succeeding court; and not only that, but the people of the constituency of Minne-dosa have been disfranchised, have not had the privilege of being represented in the local legislature during last session. Here is a local constituency unrepresented simply because the Minister of Justice has not filled that position last summer by the very gentleman who was slated to fill it, and he has been kept in that position until the beginning of this year, when it was too late to have the by-election, knowing that he could not possibly be succeeded by a gentleman on his own side of politics. This, 1 think, is the true reason, and the Minister of the Interior is fully cognizant of it, if the Minister of Justice is not.


William Humphrey Bennett: Since my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) has given the information relative to the appointment that was delayed and has at last been made in that county, perhaps it would be well to let the House know how it came about that Mr. Holt was appointed in the county of Huron, because apparently the Minister of Justice is kept in the dark as to all the facts. I say it is unfair to the Minister of Justice, because he has a high reputation as a barrister, he has a high standing at the bar, and it is rather hard for that hon. gentleman that, on the threshold of making a great career for himself, as Minister of Justice of this country, party exigencies have to be considered on every possible occasion. The Minister of Justice stated with a certain amount of definiteness, when the hon. member for Marquette asked the question last year, that the position would be filled at once. Well, why was not the appointment made ? It is plainly evident that it was delayed for one reason, and that was to meet the party exigencies of his Uberal friends in the province of Manitoba. Now let me tell the Minister of Justice the reason which caused that well-known principle of making legal appointments to be broken into in the county of Huron, although perhaps the minister may have had a hint of it. But the minister, of course, had to keep his eyes closed to a certain extent on that question. Now these are the facts of the case; There was a Mr. Cameron asking for the nomination to the local legislature. Mr. Cameron was very anxious to receive it; and at the same time Mr. Holt was very desirous of the nomination, and popular favour was directed towards Mr. Holt. But Mr. Cameron had a lot of facts In his possession, particularly facts in reference to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Was he not the Mr. Cameron who had helped to stifle the Cook investigation ? Was he not the Mr. Cameron who had all the facts of that case, and was he not the Mr. Cameron who had taken the government by the throat and told them, here and at Toronto, that unless the Liberal nomination were given to him in West Huron all the facts were to be disclosed in relation to that Cook Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
investigation ? Perhaps the Minister of Justice may have heard of this. If he did not hear of it, it was well known, not only in the county of Huron, but throughout western Ontario. The fact is, that the Minister of Justice, if he intends to make a reputation for himself, in that high office, has got to assert himself. Let him put these party exigencies to one side, and let him assert himself. He will be called upon, and no doubt he is being called upon to-day in the county of York, and why ?-because the junior county court judge, Judge Morgan, is aspiring to the senior judgeship. It is a notorious fact that Judge Morgan has been in the political field in the interest of the Hon. Mr. Davis and that there has been a departure altogether from the way in which a judge should act because he has been doing work for the Liberal party that certainly should never have been done by a judge. He has brought the judiciary of the county into disrepute by the course which he has pursued. We have seen the spectacle, because I was in the county myself, of a statement being made by Judge Morgan in the endeavour to bolster up and help the cause of the Liberal party in the local legislature, which has been used on every platform in the riding, and we have seen the spectacle further of the candidate on the Conservative side declaring that that statement was a tissue of falsehoods and daring the judge to come on any platform and defend it. Yet, party exigencies are behind the Minister of Justice in the endeavour to force his hand and to secure the appointment of Judge Morgan to this position. I hope for the honour of the judiciary of this country that the Minister of Justice will rise above party exigencies in the county of York in making the appointment of a senior judge.


Mr. BOYD.: Before that item is passed I really think the hon. Minister of Justice should give some better explanation to the committee than he has given regarding the delay in making the appointment in Manitoba. I do not mind saying to the hon. Minister of Justice that the position he occupies in the eyes of the people of Manitoba, owing to his connection with this case, is not one that he should be proud of. I feel that he has been compelled by his political friends in this House to refrain from doing justice in regard to the appointment that has been complained of here to-day. Mr. Chairman, if we are to rely on anything in this country, must we not rely on the statement which the ministers of the Crown make on the floor of this House ? If we cannot believe the statements that are given to us by ministers of the Crown in answer to questions across the floor of the House what can we believe ? On two occasions the hon. Minister of Justice stated, and I believe at the time he made that statement he thought he was stating the fact, that the appointment was to be made immediate-

ly, but, it is held off to within a few weeks of the meeting of the legislature in Manitoba, until it was impossible to hold an election in the county of Minnedosa and for the reason which has been given by the hou. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) the county of Minnedosa was not represented in the legislature of Manitoba during the session just closing to-day. I would ask the honest members at the back of the government if they approve of using the judiciary of this country as a political machine to further the political interests of the party in different parts of the country. If any hon. gentleman on the government side of the House, or any member of the government, will stand up and defend the action of the government in this matter I would be very pleased to hear him do so and the people of Manitoba will be pleased to hear an explanation from the government and especially from the hon. Minister of Justice who stands very high in his own party,
I look upon him as a young man who is bound to make a reputation for himself in this country but, it will not be by such explanations as the one that he has lent himself to and which he has given to the committee this afternoon.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. Minister of Justice, perhaps, would like to have his memory refreshed as to what he really did say on this subject last year. There was a previous reference which I have not been able to find, but on the 6th of May, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) said :
I believe there is a vacancy at present on the bench of Manitoba caused by the elevation of Judge Prendergast to the Supreme Court beach of the North-west Territories. I think about six weeks ago the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. I.aRiviere) asked the Minister of Justice if it was the intention of the government to fill that position, and the minister replied that it was the intention to fill that position forthwith. I would ask if the vacancy has been filled, and if not, is it the intention to have it filled at once ?
MINISTER OP JUSTICE. Yes. It is the intention to fill it in the immediate future.


William James Roche: Forthwith ?
MINISTER OF JUSTICE. Practically. I want to wait until the session is over to be able to give the matter a little more consideration.
The session concluded about the 23rd of May and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice did not make the appointment until-how long ago ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The 3rd January.


Robert Laird Borden: If the statement made to the committee, which has not been contradicted by the hon. Minister of Justice, is correct, if cases have been standing over in the county court and if the county court judge who has been performing these duties has been complaining that the public business of the country is being
prejudiced surely we want something more from the hon. Minister of Justice than we have had already. There have been suggestions made throughout the country that this government has been willing on more than one occasion to deal with questions appertaining to the administration of justice for purposes of political expediency and this is one of the worst examples we have had of it. The Minister of Justice is not able to say one word in his defence. Surely he does not pretend that it has taken a whole year to select Mr. Myers for the position. It has been stated by the hon. member for Marquette, and the Minister of Justice has not contradicted him, that it has been well understood in Manitoba for nearly a year that Mr. Myers was to be appointed to the position and it has also been well understoood that Mr. Myers was not appointed because it was not desirable in the interests of the Liberal party that that particular constituency should be opened. Now, if that charge is correct, and the Minister of Justice has not denied it, I say it is a most disgraceful incident that an appointment to the judiciary should be delayed for months, for nearly a year, in order that a particular constituency might not change its political allegiance, in order that the constituency of Minnedosa might be nominally represented by Mr. Myers and might remain disfranchised during the present session of the legislature of Manitoba. Surely my hon. friend the Minister of Justice had better let this item stand until the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) comes in and gives us an explanation of it. The Minister of Justice does not seem to be able to say very much. Perhaps the .hon. Minister of the Interior will tell us something about it. I should think that we ought to have some better explanation of what has taken place, or rather of what has not taken place, before the item is allowed to pass.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The statement as to the inconvenience occasioned to the business of the court because of that vacancy is not absolutely in accordance with the facts as I have them in the Department of Justice. Of course, I make this statement subject to the better information of the hon. member for Marquette who has been on the ground, but I may say to him that Judge Prudliomme was appointed for the purpose of assisting Mr. Justice Walker and I have never, so far as the Department of Justice is concerned, received a single word of complaint in respect to the administration of justice there. If Mr. Justice Walker had any complaint to make it seems to me that the proper course would have been to make it to the Department of Justice and not through interviews in the newspapers. In respect to the delay in making the appointment, I quite admit that when I made the statement here to

the House last year my expectation was that the appointment would be made at a	much earlier date.	I
can assure the House, and I am sure that the statement which I will make will be accepted in good spirit; that I know absolutely nothing about Mr. Myers being connected with the constituency of Marquette. I knew he was a member of the Local House but it never occurred to my mind that there was any political consideration in connection with the matter. I may say that I had. in my mind another gentleman for the position. There were other names suggested of course, but so far as I was personally concerned I had the name of another gentleman in my mind. My hon. friend Mr. Roche, Marquette), must bear in mind that my knowledge of the bar of the provinces outside of Quebec, must of necessity be extremely limited, and when it comes to the selection of a man to occupy the important position of judge it is necessary for me to get information as to the qualification of the person to be appointed. It seems to me that out of necessity I am in that case limited to a large extent to the opinion of the members of the cabinet who represent the different provinces. If a colleague of mine from a particular province makes a suggestion to me, and if after investigation I find that the gentleman whose name has been suggested is worthy, I have not much else to do than to make the appointment. If his qualifications are such as in my judgment entitle him to the position, then I think the discretion of my colleagues should be exercised as regards the selection. My hon. friends have complained a great deal about the delay. The political history of this country so far as the criticism of the government is concerned seems to begin in 1896 with the hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not want to go back into ancient history. I have no reason to complain so far as I am personally concerned of the tone of the debate, or of the manner in which I have been treated, but at the same time I would remind the hon. gentlemen opposite of the delay connected with the appointment of Mr. Masson to the county court judgeship of Huron, and the circumstances under which the appointment was made. I repeat that I do not want to travel over the records, nor do I wish to apply the tu quoque argument, because I think the tu quoque argument is a very poor one indeed. However, my hon, friend (Mr. Roche) has got all the facts. If I have been remiss in the performance of my duty,
I must bear the odium. I do not ask the Minister of the Interior or any other minister to defend me if I make a mistake. I have to take the responsibility for my own acts' and no matter on whose suggestion I acted I am responsible for what I have done and I do not ask anybody to defend me. I will rely on the defence which I am able to put before the House, but I prefer to rely on a very broken reed so long as it is my Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
own reed, rather than to lean on a heavier prop supplied by somebody else.
Mt\ BENNETT. The Minister of Justice was unfortunate in mentioning the case of Mr. Masson. The facts in connection with Mr. Masson's appointment were that certain legislation was enacted by the Ontario government which w-ould have debarred Mr. Masson from receiving his appointment, but since these hon. gentlemen themselves came into power they have repealed that very legislation, and the evil complained of that there were too many junior judges in the province of Ontario was immediately accentuated by this very government with the result that they were able to fill up a num-berl of junior judgeships.


Mr. HOLMES.: The insinuation thrown out by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) concerning the appointment of Mr. Holt is entirely unfounded, and is purely a matter of imagination on the part of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett). If his facts on other matters are not more reliable than in the present case, there is not very much reliance to be placed on his statements. The hon. gentleman said that it was common rumour in the province of Ontario-


William Humphrey Bennett: Common rumour is as good as your word.


Robert Holmes: As a matter of fact it was not common rumour in the province of Ontario. Mr. M. C. Cameron was brought out by the largest convention ever held In the county. Mr. Holt was never a candidate in the county of Huron. He expressed a desire not to be a candidate. His name had been mentioned but Mr. Holt determined a number of years ago that he would not be a candidate under any circumstances, and so his name was not mentioned at the convention because the people knew perfectly well that he would not accept the nomination. If Mr. Cameron was in possession of the facts, as the hon. member for East Simcoe said, how comes it that our Conservative friends did not elicit the facts from him when he was in the city of Ottawa. They apparently allowed that opportunity to pass. At all events the statement made by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) that this was a matter of bargain and sale, is altogether a gratuitous insult.


William James Roche: Another distinction between the case of Mr. Masson and the ease of Mr. Myers is to be found in the fact that in the former case we have the definite promise of the Minister of Justice last session that there would be an immediate appointment, and in the other case there was no such promise. The Minister of Justice has given no valid reason to-day why that promise was not fulfilled. I 'have supplied the reason, and that reason he cannot controvert. He says that he had another gentleman in his mind and I have no doubt that the other gentleman that he had in his

mind was Mr. Royal of St. Boniface who openly stated that he had the promise of this position. When Mr. Myers heard this he took a hurry trip to the city of Winnipeg, saw some of his leading political friends, read the Riot Act to them, and had political pressure brought to bear on the government of the day so that he was promised that after the mid-summer vacation, which would be in the month of September, he would get the appointment. In the meantime some of these political friends had a little conversation together and had come to the conclusion that it would not be discreet to open the constituency of Minne-dosa and Mr. Myers was therefore asked to do without this position until the beginning of the year when it would be too late to have a local election. He did so. This he stated openly as the reason, and in the meantime he made his business arrangements in order that he might accept this judgeship at the beginning of the year. The facts, as I have stated them, with reference to Judge Walker being overworked are undeniable. I do not know what facts the Minister of Justice has in his possession, nor am I going to discuss the propriety of Judge Walker giving an interview in the press. Such an interview appears to have been given, not voluntarily on his part, but at any rate it was clear that ease after case was going over from one court to another, and he stated in his interview that it was a physical impossibility for him to get through the cases unassisted as he was. As a result he could not take his holidays and there is no doubt that he was overworked. Any person who lives in Winnipeg or in the province of Manitoba knows that what I am saying in this regard is absolutely true. Now, Sir, this is a most pernicious system. If there is any department of the government that should be kept free from political influences to as great an extent as possible, it is the Department of Justice. It is unfortunate that people who are engaged in cases before the court must have their cases held over from month to month at great expense and inconvenience, simply in order to suit the political exigencies of the government of the day. There is no reason to be seen, nor has any reason been given, why this vacancy was left unfilled for one year, except it be to suit the purposes of the local Liberal party in the province of Manitoba.
Civil government-Department of Militia and Defence-Salaries including A. 0. Lambert at $800, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $48,300 ; contingencies, ~$10,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Sir Frederick Borden).: I desire to move to reduce this item by $2,000, owing to the fact that since these estimates were made up there has been a chief clerk superannuated. There are statutory increases in this item which amount to $1,490. These are the ordinary statutory increases except in two cases
where there have been promotions from one class to the other, and in the third case, that of Mr. A. O. Lambert the increase is $100 instead of $50, because he had been brought to my notice as a very deserving clerk who was receiving only $700 a year. There is an increase of $1,000 in contingencies and it will be in future necessary to take this vote particularly with reference to the increased printing and stationery. I move that the amount of $48,300 be reduced to $46,300.


George Taylor: Who was the first class clerk who was superannuated ? Why was he superannuated, and what was his age ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Mr. Benjamin Suite was superannuated ; his age I think was 62 years ; he had served 35 years or over and he wished to retire on account of ill health.


George Taylor: Did Mr. Lambert pass the Civil Service examination ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, but we are increasing his salary $100 instead of $50 and it is necessary to insert that provision in the item.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does this item include travelling expenses for the minister ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: I notice that $1,000 was spent last year. I might draw the attention of the members of the government to the fact that there are a few sinners left yet. I remember when they used to find fault with these large items for cab-hire, but they still continue. Perhaps they can justify these items now. I see that the hon. Minister of Militia is down for $96. The Minister of Finance is also down for a handsome little sum.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I shall have great pleasure in explaining the items of my account. I had the misfortune, on the first day of the visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York, to have my leg broken. I was very anxious to attend the different military functions later on, and I got out at the end of three weeks, at considerable risk, and, not being able to walk, I thought perhaps the country would not object to paying my cab-hire.


Andrew B. Ingram: And I wish to say that I have no objection to ministers having a reasonable amount of cab-hire. I am simply reminding hon. gentlemen of some of their old arguments.
Department of the Secretary of State, $47,940.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The increases are all statutory with the exception of the increase to Mr. Baker, for whom the Secretary of State recommends an increase

of $100. The contingencies are somewhat increased, owing to an additional amount for printing and stationery, due to the fact that the work of the department in connection with the issue of patents has greatly increased, though the number of employees has not increased and the expenditure has increased only to a very slight degree.


Mr. WILSON.: How long has Mr. Baker been in the service, and what is the reason he is given this $100 increase ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: The Secretary of State has given me a memorandum in which he states that the only change in the salaries beyond the statutory increases in the case of ten clerks is an extra $50 to Mr. Baker, who besides being a third-class clerk, is an important shorthand writer, and as such often remains at work till six o'clock and sometimes later.


George Taylor: I understand the hon. minister to say that the increase of the contingencies is due to printing and stationery. 1 observe that last year the expenditure for stationery increased $500, while that for sundries increased $1,400. I suppose that is for sealing wax, stamps, etc.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: Probably some increase would be justifiable even for sealing wax, according to the figures furnished me by the head of the department. For instance, in 1896, there were 11,071 letters received, while last year there were 29,000. So that if a reasonable portion of the increase should go to sealing wax, it would probably be wisely employed, because it is well to seal these government letters. This is really becoming a self-sustaining department, because the memorandum shows that the receipts of the office, which, in 1896 amounted to $8,776, last year amounted to $35,800, and for the current fiscal year, up to the end of February, $31,-
000.	All this shows that there is a much larger amount of business being done by the department, and the increase of expenditure is small in proportion to the increase of revenue.
Department of Public Printing and Stationery, $40,840.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Secretary of State informs me that there is practically no change in the salaries of this department, though the item seems to show an increase. The explanation is that three clerks, whose salaries were hitherto paid out of the vote for the House of Commons staff, have been transferred to the Printing Bureau, in accordance with a recommendation made by a committee of the House, who thought that these gentlemen were more properly connected with the Printing Bureau than with the House.


Uriah Wilson: Explain the $800 for Mr. Foran.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mr. Foran is the housekeeper of the Printing Bureau, and his salary has been increased from $700 to $800.
Office of the Comptroller of the North-west Mounted Police, $12,550.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is no Increase except the statutory increases.
Civil government-office of the auditor general-salaries, $33,562.50 ; contingencies, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This represents the usual statutory increases and also some increases in contingencies which the Auditor General thinks have been made necessary by the growing business of the department.
Civil government - Department of Finance and Treasury Board salaries-The salaries of the staff of the department may be readjusted and appointments made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $52,340.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am asking the House to give me the same privilege which they gave me several years ago with very excellent results; and I can assure hon. members that I shall be as anxious to administer the vote this time as I did before. Lest there should be any misunderstanding, I may say that I have not in my department a single clerk who has not passed the civil service examination. There are a couple of messengers who have not passed that examination. Under the liberty given me before, I employed one or two persons temporarily until the next civil service examination, but required them to pass that examination, which they did. I am endeavouring to readjust the service of the department by putting in a number of young men to, fill the places of officers who have been removed either by death or superannuation. It is an advantage sometimes to give some of these young men a little more than the Civil Service Act will allow. Not long ago, we had no bridge between the $400 of a temporary clerk and the $1,100 minimum of a second class clerk. We created one bridge by making the third class or junior second class clerks. But all you can give a junior second class clerk when he begins is $600. Sometimes you can get a particularly good man who is not prepared to go in for $600, but you might get him for $700 or $800. If he cannot be got in this way you will be obliged to appoint him as second class clerk at $1,100. I may mention another case as an illustration. I desired to have in my service a gentleman who had had experience in banking and, naturally, I looked to the banking field for the person. I found a man who had many years experience in the chartered banks. But, of course, he had not a civil service certificate.


Uriah Wilson: How old was he ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Thirty-five or forty-he went into the chartered


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 

bank service as a boy. Under the Civil Service Act be could not be appointed for lie bad passed tbe age allowed by that Act. But, it will be admitted, that a man with that experience would be admirably qualified for tbe appointment. That gentleman was appointed, but be has since retired because be found better employment outside. I may wish to renew that same class of appointment, and if I could find a gentleman who bad bad many years experience in a chartered bank that fact of itself would be ample guarantee of bis qualification. But such a vote as this would be necessary to enable me to employ him. I assure the House that it is not my desire, except in some special case, to appoint anybody who has not passed the civil service examination. I value tbe examination, and my desire is to adhere to it very closely. If tbe House is good enough to allow me to have tbe vote in the form in which it is put here, as it did once before, the vote will be administered in the same spirit, and, I am confident with the same result.


Robert Laird Borden: This is practically a repeal of the Civil Service Act.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As respects this department and temporarily. My hon. friend was not present when I began my explanation-


Robert Laird Borden: But I am sure I have heard some things as good in previous years, because they are the same every year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, I have not had this every year.


Robert Laird Borden: I should be glad to hear something new.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) needs it.


Robert Laird Borden: On this point I certainly do. For this thing goes on year after year in the same way.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, not in my department.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) Why, we have it in every department every year. The hon. gentleman knows it. Take up the estimates any year during the past five or six years, and you see in the votes for practically every department this same provision,
* Notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.' I have brought this to the attention of the government time and time again. It is a most irregular proceeding. The effect of it is that one branch of the legislature repeals an Act of Parliament. For the Senate cannot deal with this provision in the estimates-they must either reject or accept them in their entirety. And so, year after year this branch of the legislature repeals the Civil Service Act. Surely 8
my hon. friend the Minister of Finance can devise some better system. There may be something very new or valuable in the first part of his explanation which I missed. I shall read it with a great deal of care. I must say that I have great doubt that I shall find in it sufficient reason for following in this case the example of other years. I wish to enter my protest against this provision, subject to having my opinion altered by reading what my hon. friend has said.
Civil government-Department of Finance and Treasury Board-contingencies notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $8,510.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, why does tliis also apply to contingencies ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That point I did not explain, and my hon. friend has not missed anything with regard to it. Temporary clerks and messengers are paid out of this contingent fund. They do not go on the ordinary civil service list. There are two young ladies who have hitherto been employed in another branch of the service who are to be employed in the Department of Finance as stenographers. Their salaries are something less than $900. That is the chief item in this vote.


Robert Laird Borden: Why must they be removed from the operation of the Civil Service Act ? Why do we need to repeal the Civil Service Act with regard to them. I may be very dense but I confess I do not understand that point so far.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The necessity for this provision here arises from the case of the two messengers to whom I referred who have not civil service certificates. I do not think that it is so important in the case of a messenger as it is in the case of a clerk, and these men are thoroughly capable messengers. The provision is not for the young ladies, both of whom have certificates.


Robert Laird Borden: And, so far as the young ladies are concerned the Civil Service Act may remain ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, this covers the case of two messengers who have passed the age limit provided for by the Civil Service Act. They have been in the department for a number of years and are eminently fitted for the position.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, I do not see why the hon. gentleman introduced the young ladies at all.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not wish to introduce the young ladies to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax).


Robert Laird Borden: I am obliged to my hon. friend, but I think that after being in his department they can stand almost anything.


Uriah Wilson: Do I understand that only ] those messengers who have passed the civil service examination are entered in the regular list and have their salaries paid out of the salaries vote, but these others must be paid out of contingencies ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Temporary clerks are paid out of contingency fund. The only persons in my department who have not civil service certificates are two messengers who have been there for several years.


Uriah Wilson: That applies to all departments ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot answer for all departments, but it applies to mine.
Department of Inland Revenue-salaries, $37,460.


Robert Laird Borden: I must congratulate the Minister of Inland Revenue. 1 think he is the only one of the ministers who gets along without violating the Civil Service Act. There is an increase of $2,000. Perhaps he will be good enough to explain that.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: That increase is made up of the following items:	Statutory increases, 5 first-class
clerks at $50; the names are : J. F. Shaw, J. A. Doyon, T. Westman, Geo. Fowler, R. Quain; 5 second-class clerks at $50 each; the names are : L. E. Hudon, P. A. Hughes, A. McCullough, W. A. Halliday, R. E. Bon-chette; 5 second-class juniors at $50, $250; L. G. Roy, B. Chevrier, E. M. Lawless, B. Hagerty, E. Charbonneau; 2 messengers, R. P. Yetts and Napoleon Potvin, one at $20 and the other at $30. In my estimates for next year I propose to ask parliament for two additional second-class juniors. For many years back we have been in the habit of employing what they call temporary clerks. I have two or three in the department who have received salaries under other heads, and I propose to ask for $1,200 more in order to place the salaries of these two second-class juniors at $600 a year, according to the Civil Service Act. In regard to contingencies, there is a decrease of $300; I suppose the hon. gentleman will not blame me for that.


William Humphrey Bennett: Last year I asked the Minister of Inland Revenue a question with reference to the purchase of wood alcohol by his department. May I now ask the minister to explain in detail what is the principle of the purchase of this so-called article, wood alcohol.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Some five years ago a contract was entered into with the Standard Chemical Company for the supply of wood alcohol for the department. That contract is still running, Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
and will expire, if I am not mistaken, in July next.


William Humphrey Bennett: In order to aid the minister to give the desired information, I will place a few facts before him. In the township of Rama, which is situated in the county of Ontario, there is a concern owned by this Standard Chemical Company, and I find on reference to the Auditor General's Report last year that no less a sum than $22,605 worth of this article was purchased by the department from this company. I am not surprised at the statement made by the minister that a long contract was made with this company. Perhaps before the matter closes the minister will explain the nature of that contract. It is a contract of considerable importance in view of the large sums of money paid by the government to that company. Perhaps the minister knows that the owners of this concern are very prominent Liberals, and in a recent election in that riding the owners of this concern exerted themselves vigorously on behalf of the government candidate. Let me read for the benefit of the minister a statement made by one of the officials of this company, which appeared in the ' Globe ' newspaper of March 3rd :
He desired to start his present business before the change of government. He wanted a little help, and went to Ottawa thinking that as an old Conservative he would have little difficulty in his lobbying. He found it impossible to even see several of the ministers on whom he called, and he came away quite disheartened. After the change of government he went down again. He had no difficulty in seeing the ministers, received a fair and businesslike hearing, and he found that when the ministers were shown a reasonable proposition and one that was likely to be of benefit to the country, they would assist it. Assistance was promised him, and the result was the establishment of his business in five Canadian towns, and the expense of several millions of dollars. He did not know that the industry would have been started if there had not been a change of government. He thought the government were an honest government, and that the prosperity of the present time was largely due to them. Some manufacturers were complaining that they wanted a higher tariff. This, he thought, was something of a joke. The government would be wise to make no change until they saw some person losing money or going to smash.
Now this statement is made by one of the stockholders of this company, and it is quite plain that having, as he has, the contract with the government, on fair terms, his company are quite satisfied with the tariff. Now, what is the position 1 One of the leading members of this company is Mr. Tudhope, the Liberal member in the local legislature for East Simcoe. As this gentleman, Mr. Peuchen, stated, he found it impossible to make terms with the former government for the manufacture of wood alcohol; but when he came down here, the other gentlemen associated with him being

good Liberals, be found no trouble whatever in making terms with the government for the production of this article. I find In the answer given by the minister last session, that he stated :
I understand that the price was fixed by the department. The department is entirely free to buy where it pleases.
Now, it is a most extraordinary state of affairs that here a number of gentlemen have applied to the former administration, and on the terms they were proposing were unable to make a contract, but with the new government they very easily made a contract. These good Liberals come down here and by reason of their influence-and a very powerful influence they no doubt had, which they exerted to the utmost- they are able to make a contract with the government without tender, without any public competition, practically fixing between themselves and the minister the price of this article; and if report is correct, the profits on this business are something enormous. What does the minister propose to do with Mr. Smith, and Mr. Jones, if they start a business ? Are they going to have competition with this company, or is this company to have a monopoly of the business ? It is one of those cases that we find going on all over the Dominion to-day. Here are a few favoured Liberals who come into the field, and without any tender, not in the open market at all, as should be the case when public money is being disbursed, these gentlemen are practically given their own price, and the result is that they secure an enormous sale of over $22,000 worth of their product last year to the department. What do they do in return ? Well, the figures of the last contest answer. In this neighbourhood, at the time of a general election, or at ail events of a prior election, the powerful influence of this company went for nothing; but now since they are backed up and buttressed by this government, the result is that, with the aid of this bounty, or subsidy, or whatever you may call it, they succeed in increasing the Liberal vote in that vicinity by 100, in round numbers. Then the Postmaster General comes back and says it is a great triumph for a lower rate of protection. One of the greatest changes in the whole riding of North Ontario was made in this very district where a company of friends of the government are paid a handsome subsidy, and where pressure was brought-because there has been pressure brought-of course it is fair to the minister to state that at*the time he was not the head of the department. But I think it is fair to the House and to the country to explain how it was possible that, without any competition, the government should give to a party of their friends a contract which enures to the benefit to the tune of over $22,000 in a single year. I think the matter is one for fair discussion 81
and comment; and 1 ask the minister now to explain what is done with all this wood alcohol, and what is its selling price after it is purchased by the department ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: If the hon. gentleman had thought proper to wait until we reached the item which concerns that article, I would have been in a better position to satisfy him with the information he desires to get. I have stated that a contract was made with the Rath-bun Company and the Standard Chemical Company about five years ago by which the government was to buy from these firms the wood alcohol needed for the manufacture of methylated spirits. The price agreed upon, if I am not mistaken, was $1.40, with the condition that if the company could not supply the quantity required the department would be at liberty to buy the same article in the United States or elsewhere. The contract has been running since 1898 ; and I am surprised to hear to-day that the Standard Chemical Company, or some members of it, took an active part in the last election campaign. By-elections have taken place, and general elections have taken place since the contract was made, and these gentlemen who are said to have exerted great influence in that section of the country in the last election, do not seem to have exerted the same influence in elections in days gone by. I presume my hon. friend will not hold me responsible for any change of opinion that may have taken place in North Ontario, any more than I would hold him responsible for the persistence of opinion in the province of Quebec. But if my hon. friend desires to have more information with regard to that matter, I advise him to wait until we reach that item later on in the estimates, when I will be glad to give him all the information I have in the department. I may add that under this contract the department purchases every year from the above companies wood alcohol to the value of about $20,000. At the time that contract was made there was no other concern in Canada in a position to supply the government with wood alcohol, except the Rathbun Company at Deseronto, which, I understand, was afterwards merged with the Standard Chemical Company. That explains how it is that this contract was given to the combined companies.


William Humphrey Bennett: Now that the minister has thrown a little light on the subject we understand why this company exerted their influence. Some two years ago, I understand, the company did nof interfere in the same manner in which they did on this last occasion. According to the ' Globe,' the Postmaster General was present at that meeting, which was addressed by other members of the company, and perhaps the fact that the contract would expire next year might not be renewed on similar terms, was an inducement to that company to act

in the way they did, pitching into the fight and muzzling their men as they did on that occasion. Of course the minister is not aware of that. But the fact remains that here is the department making a contract with party friends, without public tender, without public competition at all, a contract for a five years' term; and it is a well-known fact in the neighbourhood that the undertaking has been a very profitable one to those gentlemen. And the fact that the term is about to expire, and that the company were looking for a renewal of the contract will probably explain why they put the screws on as they did in this last election, and brought about such a change of the vote in North Ontario. There was no change in any other district of the county to the same extent, and 1 think it is reasonable to conclude that the change was owing to the active influence of this company, bon-used, or subsidized, or subventioned, or whatever you may term it, by the government.


Robert Laird Borden: How is the price ascertained ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I understand that the price agreed upon was exactly the same that we had to pay when we imported the article from Germany. There is almost a prohibitory duty on the same article imported from the United States, $2.50, I think. When the contract was made, that was the only concern in a position to supply wood alcohol.


Robert Laird Borden: Do I understand that $1.40 is the price at which a similar article could be imported from Germany without paying the duty ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I am informed that before the contract was awarded a contract was entered into with a Montreal firm who used to import the same article from France and Germany, and who sold it at $1.40. The same price which we pay to the Standard Chemical Company.


Richard Blain: Is it the intention of the government to ask for tenders at the expiration of this contract ? I think some notice should be given to the public so that other parties may have an opportunity of making offers for the supply of this article.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The department has not yet taken any action
as respects that matter. I presume before the session closes we will ask for tenders, but the department has not yet concluded what course to adopt.


Richard Blain: Has there been any correspondence with the company with respect to a renewal of that contract ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.


Richard Blain: Has the manager of the company interviewed the government on that point ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No, not to my knowledge.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think it is very odd that when one of the gentlemen, in fact, the very gentleman who made that speech was here in the city, in view of the fact that the contract is about to expire and that he must, of course, sooner or later, see the minister about it, he did not call upon the minister.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: He called upon me.


William Humphrey Bennett: So that the question of renewal went without discussion.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: He must have come down to report the good work he had done at the election.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: He had to report to some other people perhaps.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think it would be unfair to the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue that he should have to shoulder this contract, because, when it was made, he was not the Minister of Inland Revenue. The gentleman who apparently took to himself the credit at this public meeting at Longford was the hon. Postmaster General who, according to the report of the Toronto ' Globe ':
Recalled the interviews he had had with Mr. I-'euchen in reference to the establishment of this industry and the promise of the government to encourage it by traffic regulations, and buy, after its establishment, part of the product of wood alcohol for the manufacture of methylated spirits. Tt was simply the duty of the government to give Mr. Peuehen a fair hearing. They desired to thanks for that, and any other gentleman with an equally good business scheme would be entitled to, and would, of course, receive as careful consideration from them.	*
Does the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue echo these sentiments ? I presume he will, but in the first place, I want to know whether he is prepared to enter into a contract for the purchase of an article to the tune of $20,000 without competition. There was no competition when this contract was made, and yet the Postmaster General, with his usual modesty, at this public meeting at the works, took great credit to himself for having made the contract. I think it is fair for the committee to know, and I am going to ask the hon. minister for an answer, because I may not happen to be here when his estimates are taken up, as to whether the minister is pre-


William Humphrey Bennett: pared to give a similar contract to this company for five years without any competition when the present contract expires ?


The MINISTER OP INLAND REVENUE.: I may say to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) that I have waited, and I will wait two or three months till the expiration of the contract before doing any thing in the matter. I have been informed that some other people want to start a similar business in another part of the Dominion, and if there are other people engaged in the same line of business I will do what we have done in regard to the distillers-buy our supply according to the production of each of these concerns.


William Humphrey Bennett: That will be a very encouraging reply to give to gentlemen who wish to engage in this business. It is quite as vague as the promises made by the government to the manufacturers of this country. The hon. minister states that he will wait until the contract expires and then pronounce his ultimatum as to whether there are to be tenders called for and competition invited in the purchase of this article. How does the hon. minister expect that any person else is going into the manufacture of this alcohol if he is not to know until the expiration of the contract what the minister's policy is ? Does not the hon. minister think that it is due to himself to state what his policy is, because, after all said and done, this $22,500 which is paid during the year to this company, is not the personal money of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue. It is the money of the people of Canada. What does the hon. minister propose to do next year ? Is he going to buy this article from the company without any competition 1 Would it not be better for him to say frankly, so that if any person else wishes to engage in tire manufacture of wood alcohol he can at once invest in the necessary plant, that there will be competition in the purchase of this article ? Is the hon. minister prepared to go that far ? I have reason to believe there are other people who are anxious to engage in the sale of this article, but knowing the influence of these gentlemen who are behind this concern, they have reason to believe that if they had this article to sell they would not find a purchaser in the Inland Revenue Department, because the rule must prevail, as it has prevailed for the last five years, that the purchase of this article should be made from this company exclusively. Here we have the hon. Postmaster General stating that he had arranged with this concern, that they were to be encouraged and that their output was to be taken, or a part of it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I challenge the statement.


William Humphrey Bennett: I will simply read for the benefit of the Postmaster General, as
he was not in before, the statement made at the meeting at Longford, where these works are situated, as reported in the ' Globe ' of March 3rd :
Sir William recalled the interviews he had had with Mr. Peuchen in reference to the establishment of this industry and the promise of the government to encourage it by traffic regulations, and buy, after its establishment, part of the product of wood alcohol for the manufacture of methylated spirits.
Nothing more definite could be said than that.
It was simply the duty of the government to give Mr. Peuchen a fair hearing

Mr. Peuchen did not care for the fair hearing; what he wanted to get was a standing contract that would guarantee him for five years the privilege of selling this article to the government. It stands on a par with the arrangement made by the government with the American Bank Note Company-first making a contract and then establishing the concern. Before this industry was established he made that arrangement with them. The department is bound down under a contract without competition, to take wood alcohol to the extent of $22,500 a year, and the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue goes farther ; he says that to-day he will not state publicly that he will purchase this article by open competition, but if there is another establishment doing business in Canada, he will see if he cannot do business with them. Surely it is unfair to use the public money in this manner, .and the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue owes it to himself to state that no more contracts for the purchase of wood alcohol will be made without open tender in competition.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I quite recollect the interview I had with the gentleman who was engaged in promoting the industry some years ago and at the meeting in question I narrated as accurately as I could remember the events of the occasion. I stated that this gentleman and Mr. Thomson called upon me in Ottawa as a minister, though the matter was not in my department, and told me that this was a very important industry, that it had scarcely an existence in Canada then, and that it was entirely suitable to Canadian conditions. They showed me that out of raw material which we have in such lavish quantities in Canada, valuable products could be obtained. I was convinced of the usefulness of the enterprise and stated to them that it being so suitable to Canada, the industry was deserving of all reasonable encouragement. As to my saying to them that we were going to take the output, I suppose that mistake arose on account of the reporter having to condense the statement. Mr. Peuchen and Mr. Thompson spoke and they may have given their views to the press.

They may have said how they had been aided by the government in bringing their industry into existence, and if they stated that they stated what was perfectly right, proper and justifiable. They felt very grateful to us that we had given an intelligent hearing to their application. Mr. Peuchen told us that he at one time was a Conservative, that he came to Ottawa during the regime of the Conservative party, that he endeavoured to lay his case before them, that he did not even get a courteous hearing ; that in fact a hearing was refused him. He said he went away having lost all sympathy for the Conservative party because of the treatment extended to him on his attempt to submit to them an industry entitled to fair consideration. That is what Mr. Peuchen stated publicly.


Mr. COCHRANE.: What has that got to do with it ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He stated publicly that was the treatment accorded to the enterprise by the late government, and the very opposite treatment which was accorded by us is what has secured for us the good will of that enterprising concern that is now establishing these industries in Longford, Deseronto and Compton and perhaps other places, employing I do not know how many men and spending perhaps 3150,000 or 5200,000 a year amongst the people.


James Clancy: What was the nature of Mr. Peuchen's request ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not state that Mr. Peuchen made any request.


James Clancy: The Postmaster General said Mr. Peuchen had a hearing and that his request was granted. What was his request ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: When Mr. Peuchen spoke to me on the subject he laid before me in a general way the advantage to Canada of an enterprise such as he proposed to embark in. As to the particular form of encouragement to be given him, I do not remember what it was, nor as a matter of fact did X ever have occasion so far as I recollect to interest myself in the matter after that interview. I was impressed with the idea that it was an important enterprise especially adapted to Canada, and I am of the opinion still ; but it did not happen to be necessary for him I suppose to enlist my active services because I have no recollection of ever having interviewed any minister on his behalf in any respect whatever. I gave him what sympathetic encouragement X could and if he had desired any assistance from me at a later stage, I would be pleased within proper limits to have extended it to him. My connection Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
with the matter began and ended I think with the interview which I have alluded to.


William Humphrey Bennett: As the Postmaster General was not in the House a while ago, I will read to him what Mr. Peuchen stated at that meeting. Mr. Peuchen does state in effect that his proposition was not received favourably by the Conservative administration and I can readily believe that. Here was a company coming to the Conservative administration and asking to have what is practically a monopoly of the manufacture of wood alcohol in this Dominion. Mr. Peuchen says that he asked for this monopoly and he was refused it by the Conservative government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He does not say that. He says he could not get an interview. He never asked for a monopoly.


William Humphrey Bennett: I will read what he stated.
He desired to start his present business before the change of government. He wanted a little help and went to Ottawa, thinking that as an old Conservative he would have little difficulty In his ' lobbying.' He found it impossible to even see several of the ministers upon whom he called and he came away quite disheartened.
It is plain that he wanted a little assistance as he puts it, and he thought some lobbying would do it, but what he desired was to get a hard and fast contract with the Department of Inland Revenue at that time for the sale of his product at his own price, and he tells us quite frankly that he could not get it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That he could not get an interview. .


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister need not be so facetious about a person not being able to see a cabinet minister. Why there are times when some of the ministers of the present day won't see one another ; we had an exhibition of that yesterday. I have no doubt whatever that Mr. Peuchen found it impossible to make the bargain with the Conservative ministers which he made with the present Liberal ministers, because the arrangement which he wanted then and has now received was a preposterous arrangement. Mr. Peuchen says :
After the change of government he went down again. He had no difficulty in seeing the ministers. received a fair and businesslike hearing, and he found that when the ministers were shown a reasonable proposition, and one that was likely to be a benefit to Ihe country, they would assist it. Assistance was promised him and the result was the establishment of his business.
According to the Minister of Inland Revenue the assistance to be given was that this company was given a contract for
rr

the sale of their product. The Minister of Inland Revenue tells us that this Mr. Peu-clien was here the other day and after Mr. Peuchen made quite a change in that constituency he comes down for his reward and the Minister of Inland Revenue tells us that his reward is to he that for the next five or ten years this company is to have a monopoly for the sale of this article. Does the Minister of Inland Revenue believe that in view of the approaching expiry of this contract, it is not a good business proposition to call at once for tenders for the sale of this alcohol. Is not that the proper way to conduct public business. The Minister of Inland Revenue knows well that it is, but apparently he is being held up by this company and has to give them the contract.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: Mr. Chairman, l wish to say a few words on this wood alcohol. I am fairly well conversant with the prices which prevailed for this article prior to the present arrangement being made by the government. At one time the wholesale price of wood alcohol to the public was $2.25, but we are able to buy it now for $1.35. I may also say that the consumption of wood alcohol has increased possibly three times what it was before. The general public, at all events in the part of Canada I came from use wood alcohol in large quantities and this arrangement made by the government has reduced the price practically one-half to them. I think I am not going too far when I say that if the Minister of Inland Revenue was able to make arrangement whereby the price of wood alcohol was reduced by one-half, he is deserving of every commendation. So far as I am personally concerned, I have spent thousands of dollars in the purchase of wood spirits, and to-day I am able to buy for the same price nearly double the quantity that I bought formerly, and able to give the general public the benefit of this decreased price.


George Taylor: The Postmaster General said that when Mr. Peuchen came dosvn here and introduced himself, there was no other industry of the kind in Canada. Now, I wish to contradict that statement right here and now. Wood alcohol has been made at Deseronto by the Rathbun Co. for years, and they supplied the late Conservative government with it. When the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., (Hon. Mr. Costi-gan) was Minister of Jnland Revenue, I went with Capt. Carter time and again to the department to urge them to take larger quantities than they were doing, because they were then importing a certain quantity from Germany. The Rathbun Co. offered to supply it at the same price as the price in Germany without any duties added, and they claimed that they ought to have some protection on this article. The Rathbun Co. are making wood alcohol yet; and
yet the hon. Postmaster General tries to make the people of this country believe that by his entering into this corrupt bargain with a Conservative in order to get him to support the Grit party, he is helping to establish a new industry, whereas the fact is that it is an old industry.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think 1 am correct in saying that until I heard Mr. Peuchen speak the other night, I was not aware that he had a contract with the government. What my hon. friend means by talking of my making a contract I do not know. I think he ought to explain, or not make such a statement. Mr. Peuchen made a contract with the government some years ago, but under what circumstances he did so I do not recollect. Certainly it was not made with me. I do not suppose there was anything wrong in the contract ; I presume the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue can explain it. Nor did I say that the industry of wood alcohol had not before existed in Canada. I said that Mr. Peuchen pointed out to me the importance of the industry treating wood in the way they proposed to treat it. He produced some figures showing the extent of the industry in the United States and the great importance of such an industry in Canada ; but whether or not it had a footing in Canada before, either in a sickly or a healthy condition, I am not aware. My impression is that it was proposed to put the industry on an extensive footing by the Peuchen and Thompson enterprise.


William Humphrey Bennett: I want to call attention to one remark the hon. Postmaster General made that night, according to the statement that appeared in the ' Globe.' The statement is that the members of the government, and the hon. Postmaster General was one of them, promised assistance to this industry.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: When was it ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I presume it was five years ago, when he came down here. That assistance was not by way of bounty, because there is no bounty payable for the production of this article. AVhat was the assistance that was promised ? According to the statement of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue, without any public competition, without asking for tenders at all, a hard and fast bargain was entered into with this company to take a great part of its product. What has been the result ? That under the arrangement made, this company has had an exclusive contract with the department; and the worst of it is that the Minister of Inland Revenue, in face, of the fact that next year the department will, probably require $25,000 worth of this article, and in view of the fact that this contract is soon to expire, is not prepared to tell the House that he proposes to call for tenders for the supply of this article.

but he says that when the contract expires, he will then make up his mind what he will do. Surely he does not expect that other companies will go into the enterprise when he practically informs the House that this company will have the contract for all timei to come.


Mr. HEYD.: It appears that the government have entered into a contract whereby wood alcohol, which was formerly made in Germany, is now made in Canada. I do not think they should be condemned for that. According to the statement made by the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor), although wood alcohol is made in Deseronto, in order to induce the late government to buy it, the manufacturer had to get the whip of the Conservative party to intercede for him, and through his influence they bought some part of this man's product at the price they were paying to Germany. That was the condition of affairs apparently at the time the present government made a contract with a concern which established an industry in Canada for the purpose of converting wood by-products into alcohol. The result has been a reduction in the price to the community and the establishment of a new industry in the country ; which is something for which the hon. gentlemen opposite ought to congratulate the government. What plan will ultimately be followed only time and ci)rcumstances can determine. But hon. gentlemen have no right to assume that a dishonest agreement will be entered into because the agreement that has been entered into has inured to the benefit of the people of Canada by reducing the price of wood alcohol and introducing a new industry into the country.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue what he does with this wood alcohol.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I find a very interesting item in the Auditor. General's report bearing on this matter. It appears that the Minister of Inland Revenue is buying some $20,000 worth of wood alcohol from the Standard Chemical Company without any competition. I find that in 1896 we bought $19,000 worth of wood alcohol from the Rathbun Company without any competition ; but there is this important difference between the two cases : at that time we paid $1.60 a gallon, while under the present arrangement we pay $1.40 a gallon.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood the hon. gentleman from Burrard to state that the ordinary price in Canada now is $1.35 per gallon and that the price is now one half what it formerly was.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He referred to the methylated spirits, and not to wood alcohol pure, if I understood him rightly. I think he mentioned methylated spirits.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: He did not do so.


Robert Laird Borden: I was discussing what I understood the hon. gentleman to have said. I would like to know what the tctal production of the company is and the cost.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We cannot ascertain what is the total production of the concern. I may say that when that contract was made, there were only two firms manufacturing that article- The Standard Chemical Company and the Rathbun Company. They both amalgamated, no doubt in order to secure the contract. The price given before was from $1.40 to $1.00. The contract was entered into five years ago. I do not care whether the parties were Liberal or Conservative. My impression is that Mr. Rathbun was a Conservative and so was Mr. Peuehen. The contract was given them because there were no other manufacturers of that article in the country. We could not get people to enter into the manufacture of alcohol for the sake of securing a contract of $1,500 or $2,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Would my hon. friend have a little patience ? I have said that gentlemen have approached me and asked if I would give them the contract provided that they would engage in that business. I said no, but they might go into the manufacture of that article and I would do* with them as I did with the distillers. I would give each manufacturer an order according to his production and buy from each at the current price.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The objection raised is that this contract, which is about to expire in two months, is to be renewed with the same parties in order to prevent others from tendering.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The only fair way would be to advertise now for tenders, so that others might have the right to compete. Let me tell the hon. minister what perhaps he does not know, and what may explain why the present contractors are so anxious to have their contract renewed. A very large German firm is now investigating with a view of manufacturing wood alcohol by a new process, which has been accepted by the leading chemtets in Germany and by which it could be manufactured at one-fifth its present cost. It is therefore only natural those people who have the contract to-day should be anxious to renew it for another five years. But it is not fair to the country that such a contract should be renewed. There is every reason why the government should advertise for tenders and let the public know two months in advance.


Samuel Hughes: 1 would like to ask the Hon. Minister of Inland Revenue if he has any data to show the price of wood alcohol in other countries ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No, I could not say.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. minister not know that the price which the government is paying is abnormally large ?
The MINISTER OF INLAND REA'ENUE. It may be, but we have no choice.


Samuel Hughes: Did the Hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) make any pledge to the Standard Chemical Company that the contract would be renewed or did any other Minister of the Crown make any such pledge ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I suppose we shall all have to rise one after another and give an answer. I have offered no pledge.


Richard Blain: Has there been any change in the duty since this government came into power and about the time the contract was entered into ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.


James Clancy: The tariff of 1896 on wood alcohol was $2.25, but this free trade government made it $2.40. We have now the secret of Mr. Peuchen coming down and interviewing the government. The government did not turn a deaf ear to his request. He got a contract and he also got security that the Germans would not be allowed to send any alcohol in at the same price. I think that the Minister of Inland Revenue and the Minister of Finance might have taken the House into their confidence an hour ago and given us the inner history of this contract.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman's explanation is very ingenious, but there is a little bit of an anachronism about it. The' interview took place a few years ago and after the tariff of 1S9T. The tariff was revised in 1897, and I understand the Minister of Inland Revenue to say that that contract was for five years and has not yet expired. Therefore, it cannot date further back than 189S. Therefore, it cannot be earlier than 189S.


James Clancy: Quite so, but you are more generous than the hon. gentleman anticipated. First Mr. Peuchen got in advance of the tariff, and then he came a second time and got the sole contract.


Adam Carr Bell: As I understood it, the sale of methylated alcohol is entirely in the hands of the government. Now7, what is the price at which the government sells ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: A dollar ten.


Adam Carr Bell: What is the proof strength ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Sixty-six or sixty-seven over proof.


Adam Carr Bell: Is it the same now as in 1896 ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It is a little stronger.


Adam Carr Bell: What percentage of wood alcohol is added to the ethyl alcohol ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Twenty-five per cent.


Adam Carr Bell: Is that alcohol proof strength?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Sixty-five over proof.


Adam Carr Bell: Then it is sold at a dollar ten?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: A dollar ten for grade No. 1, and $1.40 for grade No. 2.


Mr. PORTER.: The evil effects of the course which has been pursued in the department in dealing with this matter are very apparent from the discussion which has taken place. Wood alcohol, it has been stated-in fact it has been admitted by the Minister of Inland Revenue-was manufactured in Canada before the Standard Chemical Company obtained a contract from this government. It was manufactured, to my own personal knowledge in Deseronto, by the Rathbun Company. As Canadians with their money invested in an enterprise, they had a perfect right to be allowed at least opportunity of free competition with any who might come against them. But we find that this has not been allowed. The contract was made with the Standard Chemical Company, and the Rathbun Company were not given an opportunity of applying.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I beg the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Porter's) pardon. I stated only a moment ago that the contract was given to the Standard Chemical Company and the Rathbun Company, and that they amalgamated.


Edward Guss Porter: What I say is that the contract was let without tenders being called for, and it was given to the Standard Chemical Company. Of course I accept what the hon. minister says. But notwithstanding that, the facts are that, after this contract was given by the government, the Rathbun Company leased their works and concern to the Standard Chemical Company. And why ? Because they were driven out of business by the action of the government in dealing in this matter. And the unfairness of the action of the government will become more apparent when I point out the fact that the lease which was taken from the Rathbun Company after the contract was given by this government does not expire until after the contract now ex-

isting between the Standard Chemical Company and this government expires. What position is the Rathbun Company in to-day to enter into competition with the Standard Company ? The Rathbun Company are Canadians who have established themselves In this country. And are the Standard Company Canadians ? They are importations from the United States to a large extent. This is not fair treatment, nor is it good principle for the government to go upon to give these contracts without open competition by advertising for tenders.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Porter) is in error in saying that the personel are from the United States.


Edward Guss Porter: I did not say entirely- they are largely from the United States.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know the whole personel of the company. The only two I know are Mr. Peuchen and
Mr. Thompson, of Longford.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman is forgetting Mr. Tudhope.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know whether Mr. Tudhope is in it or not. But, even so, he is a good Canadian now. He has cast in his lot with us and has been here for years, and he rendered excellent service in North Ontario.


Peter Macdonald: It being six o'clock


The PRIME MINISTER.: It was understood with the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that we would not sit to-night. Perhaps it would be well to let this item pass and adjourn.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Adjourn.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If hon. gentlemen opposite wish to sit to-night I have no objection.


George Taylor: Carry out the agreement with the leader of the opposition, and let the House adjourn.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This item has no relation to the subject we have been discussing. The Minister of Inland Revenue has stated that this question would come up in its proper order.


Peter Macdonald: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Another item will come up upon which the subject which the committee has been debating can be discussed.


John Graham Haggart: I think that is perfectly right.
Some resolutions reported.


Edward Guss Porter: 


REPORT PRESENTED.
[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Marine for the year ended 30th June, 1902.-Hon. Raymond Prefontaine.
On motion of the Prime Minister House adjourned at 6.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 20, 1903.