1903-04-17

OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES.

Mr. J. A. C. MADORE (Hochelaga).: (Translation). I present the third report of the Select Standing Committee appointed to supervise the Official Report of the Debates of the House during the present session, which is as follows
Your committee recommend that the sum of $250, being the equivalent of a gratuity of two months' salary, usually allowed to widows of officials under the Civil Service Act, shall be
paid to the widow of the late N. H.. Beaulieu, who, during his life-time, was a member of the staff of translators of the Official Report of the Debates.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 110) respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. Ill) respecting the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver-by Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 112) to incorporate the Canada Industrials Corporation (Limited).-Mr. McCarthy-by Mr. Thompson (Haldimand).
Bill (No. 113) to incorporate the Sault St. Louis Light and Power Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 114) respecting the Nipissing and James Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Mc-Cool-by Mr. Erb.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon. Mr. Fielding :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.
['I see no objection to this motion.']
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, I must in the first place congratulate my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) on the very excellent speech from his standpoint which he delivered yesterday. That the hon. gentleman always makes the best of the situation we will all acknowledge, and while yesterday he had even a larger number than usual of very sharp corners to turn, he on the whole accomplished it as well as could be expected. And, whenever he did upset he gathered himself up quickly again and he went on in as smiling a way as ever. Now, while the speech was received by the House in a very appreciative and attentive manner, I was astonished to see what a singularly soparific effect so good a speech had on some of his colleagues. I noticed that there was not the attention given to it by some of the members of the cabinet which we might have reasonably expected. In fact, I do not think that I have ever before witnessed in this House a budget speech of interest) delivered while four of the Finance Minister's colleagues were sound asleep; and one of them enjoyed it so much that he woke up at six o'clock to protest against the debate being adjourned.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Finance Minister congratulates the country upon its prosperity. We. on, this side of the House, shall not be behind hand in

congratulating the country upon the prosperous conditions at present existing', and ill that respect we offer a somewhat differ-rent spectacle to that which was presented in days past, by the Liberals when in opposition, some of whom were good enough to offer net only to this country but to the mother country a style of literature which was found very useful indeed by American immigration agents.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Finance did not quite so strenuously as on some past occasions argue that our prosperity is due to the government, he treats of that phase in very moderate terms indeed. In fact, the terms of liis speech hi that regard are in very strong contrast to a recent deliverance of the Minister of Marine (Hon. Mr. Prefoutaine) in Montreal in which he remarked that the prosperity of Canada was entirely due to the Fielding tariff. Coming from a gentleman of the position of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that was hardly a worthy statement -it partakes more of the character of a patent medicine advertisement than of the utterance which we might hope to hear from a gentleman occupying the high position of head of one of the departments of state in Canada. It is perfectly evident that in the view of the Minister of Marine, the right hon. Mr. Chamberlain has taken an entirely erroneous view of the condition of affairs in Canada. At the recent colonial conference Mr. Chamberlain referring to the prosperity of Canada and the increase of Canada's trade from 1890 to 1902 spoke in this way :
The total imports ot Canada increased in that period 14,500,000 pounds sterling, or at the rate of 62 per cent. That shows the enormous increased prosperity in the Dominion ; it shows how the energy of its inhabitants is developing its trade.
And when you come to think of it, 1 suppose some credit is due to the business capacity and energy of the people of this country. For my part 1 have never been able to find out the exact nature of the changes in the tariff of 1897 to which the prosperity of Canada during the past few years has been due. I have inquired as to that across the floor of the House on a great many occasions and I have never got a definite or satisfactory reply. I believe that the people of Canada are entitled to some of the credit for the Increased trade and the increased prosperity of this country during the past six years, although it is quite true that speakers on the other side of the House, both in this Chamber and throughout the country affect to believe in an entirely different reason for our prosperity. If the government does not adopt my view on this question; if their friends do not adopt that view; if they do not agree Mr. BOKDBN (Halifax).
with the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who said that the prosperity of Canada was due to causes beyond the control of any government; if they do not believe in that, then Sir, they are altogether too modest, because while they have increased the trade of Canada by $184,000,000 since 1890, look what the Fielding tariff lias done for the world. The following table shows how the trade of other countries has increased during the same period.
Increase.
1896	to	1902,	Great Britain	$800,000,0001896	to	1902,	United States	
700,000,0001896	to	1900,	New	South	Wales	
60,000,0001896	to	1900,	Victoria	
35,000,0001896	to	1900,	New	Zealand	
35,000,0001896 to 1900, Australian Commonwealth	
145,000,0001896	to	1900,	West Australia	
20,000,0001896	to	1900,	Argentine	
40,000,0001896	to	1900,	Chili	
134,680.0001896	to	1900,	France	
680,000,0001896	to	1901,	Germany	
552,000,0001896	to	1901,	Mexico	
40,000,0001896	to	1902,	Canada	
184,885,084
I do not suppose, speaking in sober reality, that any of these gentlemen across the floor claim that the increases in these different countries fire due to the tariff brought down in 1897 by the Hon. Mr. Fielding. But may it not be truly claimed with regard to these different countries, that the advent of the Canadian Liberals to power in 1896 is as much responsible for the improved condition of trade in the whole civilized world as for the prosperous condition which fortunately has prevailed in Canada from 1896 t>
1902.
Let me make one more observation to my hon. friend the Finance Minister. He seems to take it for granted that as the imports to this country have increased to an enormous extent since 1896, we are to find in that a necessary indication of prosperity. Sir, I take issue with my hon. friend on that point. I say that increased imports may accompany but do not necessarily indicate increased prosperity. Look at the condition of affairs in Canada to-day. We produce from $750,000,000 to $800,000,000 of manufactured goods, counting everything as a manufacture in the production of which motive power is employed. The long delayed census returns have not yet furnished us with a statement of the annual value of our agricultural products. If our home production should be decreased by $50,000,000 in any year, that might result in increasing our importations by twenty-five, thirty or forty million dollars. To this extent the manufactures and products which are now furnished by the Canadian people would be brought in from foreign countries. Would not my hon. friend the Minister of Finance stand up in the House and point to the increased revenue resulting from that condition of things and say : Look, the trade of Canada has Increased, not $184,000,000, but

$225,000,000, and our surplus is not $13,000,000, but $25,000,000. And yet, is there any hon. gentleman in this House who would say that such a statement would indicate a healthy condition of affairs in this country ?
.My hon. friend has gone very fully into what I may call the business returns of this country, and I will endeavour, in my figures I give to the House, not to duplicate those which he has furnished. I have some documents to present in a tabulated form, and, with the permission of the House, I will follow the example of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, and hand them to the reporters without reading them in full.
In the good old days, when my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) led the attack on the fiscal policy of the government of the day, there were great laments over the burden of taxation imposed upon the people of this country. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce was very warm indeed on that point ; he was more than warm, Mr. Speaker, he was almost tearful when he spoke of the sorrows of the farmers and the burden of taxation laid upon them by an extravagant and corrupt government. 1 will present to the House a comparison of the taxation during the past six years with that of the previous six years under Conservative administration ; because I think it is right, when statements of large trade and abundant revenues are laid before the House, that we in the opposition should show the reverse side of the shield.



[Stage Direction]
1891.. .	. ..$30,314,151	1897.. .	. ..$28,648,6261892.. .	. .. 28,446,157	1898.. .	. .. 29,576,4561893.. .	. .. 29,321,367	1899.. .	. .. 34,958,0691894.. .	.. 27,579,203	1900..	. .. 38,242,2231895.. .	. .. 25,446,199	1901.. .	. .. 38,743,5501896.. .	. .. 27,759,285	1902.. .	. .. 43,389,112$168,866,362	$213,558,036
In 1891 taxation under Conservative
government was	$30,314,151
In 1896 taxation under Conservative government was	 27,759,285
Decrease under Conservative
government	 2,554,866
In 1902 taxation under Liberal government was	$43,389,112
In 1896 taxation under Conservative government was	 27,759,285
Increased taxation under Liberal	government	$15,629,827
Total taxes collected from 1897 to 1902 inclusive under Liberal government	$213,558,036
Total taxes collected from 1891 to 1896 inclusive under Conservative government	 168,866,362
Increased taxation in six years of Liberal government	$44,691,674
Average annual taxation during six years of present Liberal government	$35,593,006
Average annual taxation during last six years of Conservative government	 28,144,394
Average annual increase under Liberal government	$7,448,612
I might point out to my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as a culmination of this statement, that according to the estimate of the hon. Minister of Finance we shall have imposed on the people of Canada during the present year no less than $47,520,160 of taxation. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he contemplates these figures, should really, for very decency's sake, pump up a few of the briny tears which he shed in the old days.
A few years ago the hon. gentleman contributed a very strong article to the 1 North American Review ' on the subject of protection and free trade, in which he said :
In 1878, the actual taxation of Canada was $17,841,938, though, as there was a deficit in that year, the necessary taxation might be placed at $19,000,000. In 1889 the actual taxation was $30,613,522, being an increase of $11,613,522.
Let us pursue the comparison. In 1896 the actual taxation was $27,759,285, in 1902 it was $43,389,112 ; being an increase of $15,629,S27, or considerably more than fifty per cent of an increase. What was the comment of the hon. gentleman when he wrote this article on the melancholy condition of affairs in 1889 :
Comment is hardly necessary, nor, indeed, does space permit me to point out the enormous mischiefs which result in a young and poor country from absorbing so large a proportion of the earnings of the people, in defraying the charges of the federal government, as is now being taken in Canada.
Well, if no comment was needed then, is it not needed now, upon an increase in taxation of between $15,000,000 and $16,000,000 in six years ? I trust that when the hon. gentleman comes to address the House on this occasion lie will give his views on the question of taxation, and explain wherein they differ from the views he held at the time he wrote this article. I referred to this same article last year or the year before, but my right hon. friend was not good enough to make any allusion to it, in the speech he then addressed to the House. I thought I might possibly have been mistaken in the identity of the gentleman who wrote the article. Although it purported to have been written by one Sir Richard John Cartwright, it might possibly have been some other gentleman than my right hon. friend who occupies the position of Minister of Trade and Commerce.
There is another consideration which I would like to present to the House. If, as members of the government claim, the pre-
[Stage Direction]
sent tariff is a revenue tariff, why is the taxation continued at so abnormal a figure ? Why does the government take from the people, for example, $1,000,000 more in excise duties ou tobacco and $500,000 more in customs duties on sugar than would have been taken under the tariff before 1896 ? And why does the Minister of Finance retain the duty on breadstuff's which he regarded as so unjust and oppressive that while premier of Nova Scotia he moved the following resolution with regard to it:
That while it is as a rule inexpedient to deal with Dominion questions in this House, in view of the obnoxious character of the duty on breadstuffs, the House must firmly protest against the imposition of such duties.
And the same view was entertained by the Minister of Trade and Commerce who, referring to Sir Leonard Tilley's surplus in 1882, said :
I asked how it was got. $1,100,000 was derived from two of the most odious and oppressive taxes which were ever imposed in any civilized country before, under similar circumstances at least, the taxes on breadstuffs and fuel. If he really wants to relieve the people, let him remove the taxes on breadstuffs and coal.
My hon. friend the. Minister of Trade and Commerce sits unmoved in his chair while a surplus of $13,000,000 is announced in this House, and forgets the commiseration he expressed some years ago for the condition of the people of this country labouring under two of the most odious and oppressive taxes which were ever imposed in any civilized country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the revenues have indeed been abundant during the past six years. There has been an increase of more than $60,000,000 over those of the previous six years, but let my hon. friend the Minister of Finance bear in mind that if the duties on tobacco, sugar, coal and breadstuffs had been removed, the condition of affairs would be very different. If my hon. friend had the courage to carry out his financial convictions, his boasted surplus would not exist by a good many millions. In making this point I do not wish to be understood as advocating the removal of the duties on these articles, but as merely contrasting the present position taken by the Minister of Finance with the former professions of himself and colleagues and asking them at present what they have to say about those promises and professions made in days gone by. I think I am warranted in putting that question by the language used by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. I have here a statement of his views with regard to the pledges and promises of public men, which I think will commend itself to the judgment of the House :
If a public man can hold one set of principles out of office and another set in office, responsible government is a farce.
You have the right to hold the politician to his pledge, just as much as you would the man Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
of business. The man who obtains goods from you under false pretenses is a cheat and swindler. What should you call the men who obtain votes by means of pledges which they never intended to keep ? I say again, if you are prepared to overlook these things then you have no right to ask for fidelity from any man who hereafter represents you.
I credit these words to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. I am told that he uttered them in days gone by. But whether he uttered them or not, I do not think he will challenge their soundness, and I ask him to apply those words to the record of himself and his political friends during the past six years as contrasted with the promises and professions which they held out to the people during the eighteen years they were in opposition.
The total expenditure of the country is a matter about which, standing on this side of the House, I think I should have a word to say. The total expenditure during the six years, beginning with 1891 and ending with 1896, reached the sum of $251,682,027. During the six years beginning with 1897 and ending with 1902, it amounted to $314,520,785, or an increase during that period of no less than $62,838,758 over the previous six years.
The figures are as follows :

[Stage Direction]
1891.. .	. .,$ 40,973,208	1897.. .	. .. $ 42,972,7561892.. .	. .. 42,272,136	1898.. .	. .. 45,334,2811893.. .	. .. 40,853,728	1899.. .	. .. 51,542,6351894.. .	. .. 43,009,234	1900.. .	. .. 52,717,4671895.. .	. .. 42,872,338	1901.. .	. .. 57,982,8661896.. .	. .. 41,702,383	1902.. .	. .. 63,970,780$251,682,027	$314,520,785
The expenditure during the past year amounted to $63,970,780. During the last year of the late administration, 1896, it was $41,702,363, showing an increase in 1902 over 1896-the last year of the present administration over the last year of Conservative administration-of $22,268,397.
The average annual expenditure of the present Liberal government during the past six years, amounted to $52,420,131. Compare this with the average annual expenditure of the previous Conservative government, which amounted to $41,947,005, and you have an average annual increase under Liberal administration of no less than $10,493,126.
When I presented similar figures to this House last year the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce was shocked and astonished that any one should so endeavour to mislead the House as to contrast the total expenditures during these two periods. Let me give my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce an authority which I am sure he will not call in question, an authority which I am sure he respects more highly than any I could cite. Let me cite to him his own authority, as contained in

[Stage Direction]
an article published by him in the ' North American Review ' some years ago. In that article he made the following contrast :
In 1845 the population of the United
States was (by estimate)	 20,000,000
The taxes of the United States were. .$27,531,630 The total expenditure was	22,935,828
Then by way of comparison, to show how Canada was going to ruin, as compared to the United States, he went on as follows :
In 1889 the population of Canada was
perhaps	  4,800,000
The taxes of Canada were	$30,613,522
The total expenditure was	 36,917,854
And he made a pitiful comparison between the position of Canada and that of the United States, based on that standpoint. Is it not fair, taking the right hon. gentleman on his own statement, to make a similar comparison to-day. Let us see how such a comparison will work out:
In 1845 the population of the United
States was (by estimate)	 20,000,000
The taxes of the United States were. .$27,531,630
The total expenditure was	 22,935,828
In 1902 the population of Canada was (so far as we can ascertain from the
census)	 5,410,000
The taxes of Canada were	$43,389,112
The total expenditure was	 63,970,780
I could not get my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to pay the slightest attention to that celebrated article when he addressed the House two years ago. Might I not ask from the hon. gentleman the favour of passing reference to that published statement of his. Might I not ask him to make a comparison between the figures of our present exependiture and that which he denounced 'in those days, and especially draw attention to the fact that he attributed all the wretchedness and misery and maladministration in Canada to what do you think. To the fact that in Canada at that day protection existed. Of course we know that, according to the right lion, gentleman's view, no protection exists in the present tariff, and I think we are entitled to some other argument from the right hon. gentleman to show that that which was food for comment and criticism so severe in days gone by, is now a matter of indifference to the hon. gentleman, even though it is exaggerated a hundred fold.
Let me now, Mr. Speaker, deal with the expenditure on a per capita basis. I am not objecting to fair and even liberal expenditure. We have a young and growing country, which needs to be developed, but I must say that a good deal of public money in this country is not used for very wise purposes and not expended in a very statesmanlike way. In making the comparisons which I do to-day, I wish to be understood as not carping at fair and reasonable expenditure, because I am always willing and ready to support the government in its expenditures, so long as they are made on some systematic plan and for some wise purpose, in the true interests of our country. But it is only right that I should bring to the attention of the country, in these times of growing trade, increasing revenues and prosperity, the fact that our expenditure is also increasing by leaps and bounds ; and we may well bear in mind the words which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, uttered only two or three sessions ago, that we cannot always expect to have these prosperous times, but must look for lean years in the future, years when the public revenue will not be by any means abundant. Now, the per capita expenditure, computed from the year 1896 to the present time, shows as follows. And I may say in passing, that the estimate of population for the several years has been based upon a comparison of the census of 1891 with the census of 1901, by methods which, I think, give fair and accurate results :

[Stage Direction]
Year. Population. Expenditure. Per Capita.
1896	
5,070,000	$41,702,383	$ 8 221897	
5,120,000	42,972,756	8	391898	
5,175,000	45,334,281	8	761899	
5,230,000	51,542,635	9	851900	
5,285,000	52,717,467	9	981901	
5,340,000	57,982,866	10	881902	
5,410,000	63,970,780	11	82
The result of this is that, under the Liberal administration, our expenditure has increased about 53 per cent, our per capita expenditure, about 44 per cent and our population about 6J per cent. What a text this would have been for my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). How he could deal with this subject now if he were inspired with the same sentiments he expressed so vigorously from 1878 to 1896. I have to express again the regret to which I have given voice before, that we coaid not have the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce come across the floor-just temporarily, of course, just for a couple of hours-and deal with the circumstances which face us to-day as he used to do in other times.
It will not be out of place for me to do as I have done before and to give to the House and the country an analysis of the increase of the expenditure of the various departments of the government from 1896 up to the present time. In every instance we find a substantial increase, and, in some cases at least, we find an increase, which I think, should give to some of us, and especially to economists like the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, food for very much thought :
[Stage Direction]
Comparative Statement op Expenditure on account op Consolidated Fund for 1896 and 1902 respectively, with Increases.
	1806.	1902.	Increase.
			
Interest on debt	810,502 430	810,975,935	$ 473,505Administration of Justice	758,270	943,230	184,960Civil Government 	1,396.628	1,497,369	100,741Fisheries	427,251	548,895	121,644Geological Survey	134,368	224,015	89,647Immigration	120,199	494,842	374,643Quarantine	95,247	264,738	169.491Indians	880,408	1,057,131	176,723Insurance sui>erintendence	10,039	' 13,500	3,461Lighthouse and coast service	466,058	696,311	230,253Mail subsidies and steamship subventions	
...	534,917	624,956	90,039Militia and Defence .., ' "	1,136,714	2,060,979	924,265Miscellaneous	172,364	1,146,121	973,757Mounted Police	533,014	948,216	415,202N.W.T. government	330,703	491,924	161,221Ocean and river service	
.. .	181,452	496,191	314,739385,228	438,073	52,84522,703	60,241	37,538Public Works	1,299,796	4,221,294	2,921,498Railways and Canals	126,444	272,296	145,852Superannuation	311,232	338,764	27,532

[Stage Direction]
Customs	896,332	1,176,024	279,692Dominion lands 	119,908	158,S44	38,936Inspection of staples	2,577	13,510	10,933Post Office	3,665,011	4,023,637	358,626Public Works	159,460	498,513	339,053Railways and Canals	3,826,226	6,508,477	2,682.251Weights and measures, gas, &c	97,295	109,672	12,377

[Stage Direction]
Dominion lands 	82,184	370,838	288,654Intercolonial railway	
.	260,396	4,626,841	4,366,445Public Works	114,826	2,096,334	1,981,508Public buildings, Ottawa	Nil.	93,790	93,790Prince Edward Island railway	Nil.	475,998	475,998
I do not pretend for a moment that these increases are all unjustifiable. On the contrary, I regard some of them at least as entirely justifiable ; indeed I should be glad to see the increase larger in some cases. I should be glad to see a larger increase for the lighthouse and coast service, for I think that if there is a department of the public service which has been neglected more than another during the past six years it is this one. I should be glad also to see a greater increase in the expenditure for the government of the North-west Territories. Judging by the accounts I heard of the inadequacy of the public revenues for the purposes of the country during my recent trip to the west, I think that the grant that is made for this service might very well have been supplemented. But I bring this Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
table before the House because I think it is right that the House and the country should know to what extent the various departments of the public service have increased the public expenditure during these growing times.
As to the public debt, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has dealt with that very fully in his speech. It is quite true that he shows a very good record so far as reduction of debt is concerned, if we are to conclude that his sentiments of fifteen or twenty years ago are absolutely wrong, and the sentiments he expressed only yesterday are absolutely right. But, if any importance is to be attached to what he said about surpluses in the old days, he cannot congratulate himself as much as he felt at liberty to do on the handling of the pub-
A^RIL 17, 1903
lie debt by the present government. Considering the marvellous prosperity of the country, and of the whole world in which Canada has fortunately participated, an examination of the growth of cur net debt does not present any gratifying features. The increase of the debt for the last twelve years is shown by the following figures :

[Stage Direction]
1891	$237,809,031	18971892	
241,131,434	18981893	
241,681,040	18991894	
246,183,029	19001895	
253,074,927	19011896	
258,497,433	1902Net debt, 1902	"	1896	Increase In net debt under Liberal rule	$ 13,331,557
In connection with this, it should be pointed out that the total revenue of the country from 1891 to 1890 was $220,081,395, and from 1897 to 1902 it was $280,719,524, an increase of more than $66,000,000. The details for the several years are as follows :

[Stage Direction]
1891.. .	. ..$ 38,579,311	1897.	$ 37,829,7781892.. .	. .. 36,921,872	1898.	
40,556,5101893.. .	. .. 38,208,609	1899.	
46,743,1031894.. .	. .. 36,374,883	1900.	
51,031,4671895.. .	. .. 33,978,129	1901.	
52,516,3331896.. .	. .. 36,618,591	1902.	
58,042,333$220,681,395	$286,719,524Average revenue for 6	years,	1897-02..$47,786,587"	1891-96.. 36,780,233
Average annual Increase during last
6 years	$11,006,354
Revenue last year Liberal government (1902)	  ..$58,052,333
Revenue last year Conservative government (1896)	 36,618,591
[Stage Direction]
It will thus be seen, Mr. Speaker, that during all these years of the present administration there has been an enormous increase in revenue. Sly hon. friend the Minister of Finance, in making his comparison in this regard, will bear in mind that if the Conservative government from 1891 to 1896 had had the same revenue which the hon. gentleman has enjoyed from 1897 to 1902, the public debt of this country could have been decreased by no less an amount than $45,000,000. My hon. friend thinks he is able to congratulate himself because, up to the end of last year, it was increased $13,000,000, and by means of the so-called surplus of the present year he will decrease it, I believe, by about $5,000,000, leaving a net increase of some $8,000,000.
Now, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was, as I said, particularly jubilant over the fact that he had a surplus, and I have no doubt that my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce shares 47
that jubilation to the greatest possible extent. Would it be out of place, Mr. Speaker, for me to call to the attention of this hon. gentleman some utterances of by-gone days
that seem to have in them possibly a spark of good sense, and to invite the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he comes to address the House, to tell us what he thinks of these utterances of the old days, and whether he is prepared to take the same view which he held from 1876 to 1896. I am afraid that my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in the touching words of the old ballad, will have to say :	.
I cannot sing the old songs I sang long years ago.
Now, the editorial utterances of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, who was almost as good an editor as he is a Minister of Finance, are also worthy of attention. In the columns of the Morning ' Chronicle ' some years ago he made this criticism of a Conservative administration :
If these surpluses were created by the government in some magic way there may be in them a cause for thankfulness to Sir John Macdonald and his followers, but when it is considered that every dollar of the surplus Is money taken out of the pockets of the people without a shadow of an excuse, money not required even by the reckless expenditure of the government, there is not much cause for re-ioicing.
Now, would my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce do his best to digest the utterances of his colleague, and let us know, when he comes to address the House, what he really thinks of the views which were then entertained. But that is not all. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance broke out in the following year, when there happened to be another surplus, and this is the way in which he bewailed the unhappy lot of a country that was afflicted with a surplus :
That millions of dollars should be unnecessarily taken yearly from the consuming classes of the country, and this, without being absolutely necessary, is a cardinal principle of the Finance Minister, to which even his best friends do not unreservedly assent.
They see that a surplus of millions at the capital is just so much money withdrawn from the trade of the country. How long can the Dominion stand the drain ? Certainly not many years longer.
There were no cheers, of course, because it was a newspaper article, but we can well understand how the cheers resounded, we can even remember how the cheers resounded, when sentiments of this kind were heard on every public platform of the country. But, Mr. Speaker, let me not neglect my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because I am always pleased when I quote any utterance of his; he has so terse and vigorous a way of expressing himself that it is really delightful to hear him, because he puts in half a dozen

[Stage Direction]
words these matters more forcibly and more eloquently than most of us could do by
speaking fifteen- minutes. This is the way the right hon. gentleman expressed himself in the old days :
Taxation is an evil that nothing but the requirements of government can justify.
And the requirements of government this year do not justify the present taxation by some $12,000,000 or $13,00,000. Yet my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce seems to be pleased with the announcement of his colleague. I do not know how he will look upon it when he comes to address the House on the subject. But It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is cqnsiderable force in the views of the Minister of Finance, which I have read to the House, as well as in the very terse statement which the right hon. gentleman the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave to the House and to the country years ago, in the single sentence I have read from his utterances. Is there not some attraction to a certain class of people in this country when a surplus of $12,000,000 or $13,000,000 is announced ? There are people in this country as well as In every other, whose chief concern about the public revenue is to appropriate some of it to their own use under the guise of a par-lamentary vote. We had an instance of that not many years ago. The acting Minister of Public Works, in the absence of my hon. friend the member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) in Paris, sent a circular around the country to his political supporters urging them to put in their demands for public work in their various localities, because it was apprehended that a general election might at no distant date be upon the country. I believe it had wonderful results. The announcement of this surplus by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance partakes of somewhat of the same character. Is it not good sense after all to look at the situation ' somewhat in the light in which it was presented to the country so forcibly by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and to ask ourselves whether it is wise, to so arrange our fiscal system that we shall come down to the House of Commons and sav to the people of the country : Look, here are $12,000,000 or $13,000,000 that the government do not really require, and all you who have any demands upon the government, all you who have been talking about public works which are not in the public interest but are in some private interest, come forward now, because the government has this money on hand, and it is a good time to put in your applications, and they will receive all possible attention.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to turn to the trade returns which have been adverted to by the Minister of Finance, and to say that there is one matter which I think he might very well have referred to in his speech, Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
which perhaps by accident he omitted, and that is the fact that our imports from the United Kingdom make a considerably better showing this year than they did last year. M.v hon. friend did not refer to that. I call attention to it, because I think that last year I called the attention of the House and the country to an opposite condition of affairs. Trade with the mother country does look better this year. I think it has increased about $6,000,000. But I wish to draw attention at the same time to the condition, as far as trade relations are concerned, which prevails between this country and the United Kingdom as compared with that which prevails between this country and the United States. Taking the imports for home consumption, and omitting coin and bullion, you find the position of affairs in 1902 to be as follows : Our imports from the United States were $114,744,696, our exports to the United States were $47,829,730, leaving a balance in favour of the United States as against Canada of $66,914,966. Taking the United Kingdom we find precisely the opposite condition of affairs. The imports from Great Britain in 1902 were $49,022,726, exports to Great Britain $117,381,221, leaving a balance in favour of Canada as against the United Kingdom of no less than $68,285,495.

[Stage Direction]
(Less Coin and Bullion).
1902.
Imports from United States	$114,744,696
Exports to United States*	 47,829,730
[Stage Direction]
Imports from Great Britain	$ 49,022,726
Exports to Great Britain*	 117,381,221
[Stage Direction]
* Less gold-bearing quartz, silver concentrates, coin and bullion.
Now, this is not perhaps a very happy condition of affairs. I do not say that it is a condition of affairs which can be remedied altogether by the efforts of any government, but I do say that, adopting the argument of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) it is a [DOT]' genuine practical discrimination ' against Great Britain. Thus, to show the terse way he has of putting things, I will read what that hon. gentleman said in 1897.
These returns show that, in the very last year of their term of office, we exported to England, apparently, $66,000,000 worth of our products, we exported to the United States, $44,000,000, we bought from England $32,000,000 and from the United States $58,000,000 worth. There, if you will, is a genuine practical discrimination to an enormous extent, against England and in favour of the United States, under the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Does not the right hon. gentleman see that the discrimination is increased one hundred per cent to-day ? What has he to say about

it ? Why does he not remedy it ? If this was a ground of criticism upon the policy of the late government what is he doing as Minister of Trade and Commerce that he does not endeavour to alleviate this condition ? Let us read his story of 1897 as applied to the conditions of to-day.
These returns show that in the year 1902, we exported to England, apparently $109,347,345 worth of our products, we exported to the United States $66,567,784. we bought from England $49,022,726, and from the United States, $114,744,696 worth. There, if you will, is a genuine practical discrimination to an enormous extent, against England and in favour of the United States, under the policy of hon, gentlemen opposite.
Compare our imports from Great Britain and the United States and other countries from 1890 to the present time and observe and consider the result, in view of the fact that when they came into office they apparently wished the country to understand that they had given up their old theory of preferring the American dollar to the British shilling. They became very much attached to the interests of the mother country, they became very desirous of promoting our trade with the mother country and yet the condition of affairs prevails in the present year of which I have spoken. I will point out to the House by means of a table how it has continually progressed in that direction from 1896 up to the present time. Now, the table which I propose to give to the House shows the imports, including coin and bullion, for home consumption from the United States and Great Britain and from other countries from 1896 to the present time, and I distinguish therein between free and dutiable goods. I shall not read all the details, but I will avail myself of the same privilege that I requested before and ask to have this statement placed on record in ' Hansard.'
Imports Home Consumption, Including Coin and Bullion. FROM THE UNITED STATES.
-	1896.	1897.	18C8.	1899.	1900.	1901.	1902.	Percentage of increase 1902 over 1896.$ 29,101,646 29,472,378	$ 30,482,509 31,16G,532	9 38,063,960 40,641,630	$ 44,471,824 48,535,342	$ 53,897,561 55,946,817	$ 53,600,278 56,884,730	$ 60,181,808 60,625,242	
58,574,024	61,649,041	78,705,590	93,007,166	109,844,378	110,485,008	120,807,050	106'25 p.c.

[Stage Direction]
Dutiable	24,366.179	20,217,422	22,556,479	27,521,508	31,561,756	31,701,654	35,062,564	Free	8,613,503	9,194,766	9,944,438	9,538,615	13,237,974	11,316,510	14,151,198	32,979,742	29,412,188	32,500,917	37,060,123	44,789,730	43,018,164	49,213,762	49'22 p.c.

[Stage Direction]
Dutiable	
Free	13,771,934 15,261,780	15,520,834 4,711,958	14,004,649 5,486,850	17,439,840 6,544,464	18,887,478 7,282,730	20,667,824 7,066,992	23,413,124 9,357,659	19,033,714	20,232,792	19,491,499	23,894,304	26,170,208	27,734,816	32,770,783	70-59 p.c.
We see that the imports from the United States increased over one hundred and six per cent, from other countries nearly seventy-one per cent, and from Great Britain omy a little over forty-nine per cent. I would gather from this that the Right Hon. Min-fact that when they came into office that the alleged efforts of this government to promote trade between Canada and the mother country as compared with trade between Canada and other countries has not been very successful, to say the least.
There is another aspect of the case which might be put before the country. From 1867 to 1902 our average importation from 47i
Great Britain, excluding coin and bullion, was $42,549,216, in 1902 our importation was $49,022,726, or an increase of $0,473,510 over the average. During the same period our average importation from the United States was $51,608,862, and in 1902 it was $114,744,696, or an increase of $63,135,834 over the average. What is the cause of the enormous increase in our trade with the United States and the comparatively small increase in our trade with the mother country ? It may be and very likely is due to some causes over which the government cannot possibly exercise any control. We know that we are in close proximity to the United States and
[Stage Direction]
merchants can get goods more quickly from the United States than they can from the mother country. Then again, the American manufacturer perhaps caters a little more to the requirements of the Canadian market than the British manufacturer, but after all, you will observe that comparing the rates of duties, even taking into consideration the preference which prevails, as between ourselves and the mother country, and as between ourselves and the United States, the United States have practically the same rates as Great Britain, if you only take into consideration dutiable goods, and taking into consideration all classes of goods they have very much the advantage indeed. The rates on goods imported from Great Britain are: dutiable 24-03 per cent, dutiable and free 17-18 per cent; from the United States, dutiable 25-18, dutiable and free 13-20 per cent, or 4 per cent less than the average rate dutiable and free as applied to goods from the mother country; from all other countries, dutiable 27-26, dutiable and free 16-46 per cent.
Great
Britain.
Dutiable.. .. 24-03 Dutiable and free	1718
United	All
States.	Countries.
25-18	27'26
13-20	16-46
Thus, taking the average rate on dutiable and free goods, we see that Great Britain, even taking into consideration the preference, pays a higher rate than any other country and a very considerably higher rate than the United States. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) was interrogated about this condition of affairs in a reciprocity convention in the United States, I think, two years ago and he made the following very straightforward answer ;
The Canadian tariff against England has a rebate of 33J per cent, but the goods imported from the two countries are dissimilar and the rates of duty on the goods from England happen to be higher than the rates of duty on the class of goods coming from the United States, and the net result, the total duty, is almost the same.
I was somewhat amused at my hon. friend's use of the word ' happen ' in that regard. I think we all pretty well know what was done ; goods coming to us from the mother country had the duty increased upon them in 1897, and then the merchants of the mother country were presented with a preference which left the rate of duty practically the same as that which is paid on the imports from the United States, even if you take into consideration dutiable goods alone.
Mr. Chamberlain brought this matter to the attention of the Canadian ministers at the colonial conference, and as the Minister of Finance has read a portion of the answer to Mr. Chamberlain's remarks it is perhaps only right that I should place be-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
fore the House what Mr. Chamberlain said on that occasion. At pages 7 and 8 of the report, speaking on the British preference, Mr. Chamberlain said :
But in Canada, before the conference of 1897, the Canadian- government had decided to give us a preference which then amounted to 25 per cent, and this subsequently was increased to 33& per cent. This was a preference voluntarily accorded by Canada on British taxable goods imported into the Dominion. Canada has therefore anticipated the general proposal of the premiers, and the time which has elapsed has been sufficient to enable us to form a judgment of the effect of an arrangement of this kind, and I have to say to you that, while I cannot but gratefully acknowledge the intention of this proposal and its sentimental value as proof of good will and affection, yet that its substantial results have been altogether disappointing to us, and I think they must have been equally disappointing to its promoters.
I shall circulate to you another paper which contains very fully the whole of the statistics showing the course of trade in Canada since 1897, and the results of the preferential tariff. But I may give you in a word or two the most important conclusions. I am comparing now the import trade of British goods into Canada in the year 1896-97, with the last year for which I have the returns-1900-1901. The total imports of Canada increased in that period £14,500,000, at the rate of 62 per cent. That shows an enormously increased prosperity in the Dominion ; it shows how the energy of its inhabitants is developing its trade. Fourteen and a half millions and sixty-two per cent ; if you will kindly bear in mind those figures as showing the total result of all the .import trade. Of that the free trade, upon which no duty is levied and upon which therefore no preference is given to British goods, increased £6,250,000, or at the rate of 67 per cent. The general trade, that is the trade from foreign countries which came under the general tariff, also increased £6,250,000, or at the rate of 62 per cent. But the preferential trade-the trade upon which this advantage had been given to British goods, only increased in the same time £2,000,000 and only at the rate of 55 per cent. So that the rate of increase under the preferential tariff was actually less than under the general tariff and also under the free tariff. Or taking it in another way, the total increase of the trade of Canada with foreigners during the period named, this is including both the trade subject to the tariff and also the free trade, was 69 per cent while the total increase of British trade was
only 48 per cent	
But now I want to point out another thing which I think will be of great importance, and which I am sure the government of Canada must have taken into their serious consideration. What return has been made to them by the foreigner for the advantage which the foreigner has derived from their tariff ? The exports from Canada to foreigners have decreased 40 per cent, while the exports from foreigners to Canada have, as I have said, largely increased. On the other hand, in spite of the tariff, in spite of everything in the natural course of trade and communication, the exports to the United Kingdom have increased 85 per cent in fifteen years, and the net result, which I desire to impress upon you, is that in spite of the preference which Canada has given us, their tariff has pressed, and still presses, with the
[Stage Direction]
greatest severity, upon its best customer, and has favoured the foreigner who is constantly doing his best to shut out her goods.
Of course it is only right that both sides of the question should be presented, and it may be said in reply to Mr. Chamberlain that while the imports of Canada from the mother country are only 29-62 per cent of the aggregate trade between the two countries, nevertheless the imports of the United States from Great Britain are only 23-20 per cent of the aggregate trade between those two countries. In other words, Great Britain buys from the United States nearly four times as much as the United States buys from the mother country. This has continued year after year, notwithstanding the opinion of some that you cannot sell to any nation from which you do not also purchase. The experience of these two countries does not bear out that argument. The trade relations between Canada and the mother country are much more favourable to the latter than are the trade relations of the mother country with the United Sates, and yet we receive, notwithstanding the preference, exactly the same treatment as the United States does
in the British market. This is a circumstance which we have urged upon the attention of this House over and over again. On this subject the Finance Minister has scoffed at our views in his speeches of days gone by, but they are views which according to his speech of yesterday he is prepared to take into more serious consideration than ever he did before.
There is another aspect of this matter which Mr. Chamberlain did not bring to the attention of the Canadian ministers, and which shows in even a more striking manner than the figures which he presented, the trade relations as between the mother country and other countries as compared with Canada. Let us look at the statement of the exports from the United Kingdom to foreign countries and to Canada during the past ten years. In preparing this table I have taken the latest returns that were available. I could not get returns later than 1899 for some of these countries and with regard to others I was not able to get the returns for the year 1890, with which I started the comparison. But giving the House the comparison as it is, here is what we find :
Statement of Exports from the United Kingdom to Foreign Countries
and Canada.
	1890.	1896.	1900.	Percentage of Increase 1900 over 1896.
				
France	£ 25,175,280	£ 20,424,280	£ 26,986,320	32 19Holland	23,634,607	21,304,250	24,024,334	12-77Italy 	12,802,240	9,195,560	14,350,760	56-06Belgium	8,517,680	8,224,720	12,034,240	45 TOSpain	7,783,120	6,188,360	9,973,000	6116Sweden	6,048,278	5,490,778	9,805,778	78'58Norway	3,673,778	3,500,950	5,742,778	64 03Portugal	2,984,092	2,739,825	4,308,983	57-27Mexico	2,133,750	1,976,250	2,620,750	32 67Switzerland	2,094,900	2,068,280	2,493,120	20 54German Empire	1891. 28,258,050	27,565,650	35,959,500	30 45Russia.. 	1890. 9,334,000	11,130,900	1899. 13,601,313	22 19Denmark	3,753,389	4,348,000	1900. 6,005,167	38-11Canada	
,.	8,928,033	6,785,956	9,215,994	36 00
Canada stands eighth in the percentage of increase and ninth in actual increase among these fourteen countries, notwithstanding the preference which has been so much relied upon by hon. gentlemen opposite as a means of creating better trade relations between Canada and the mother country. None of these countries gives to the mother country any preference ; they stood on the ordinary trade relations, and yet taking these fourteen countries, we find
that so far as percentages are concerned, Canada stands eighth, and so far as actual increase is concerned Canada stands ninth.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to come to one or two matters that were dealt with by my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in his speech, and the first thing I desire to touch on is the post office revenue. The Minister of Finance told us that the Postmaster General in a recent speech which he delivered in Toronto, made a perfectly fair
[Stage Direction]
comparison of revenue and expenditure when he omitted the Yukon.	Why did
not the Minister of Finance omit the Yukon when he made comparisons of trade returns ? If it is a perfectly fair thing for the Postmaster General to omit the Yukon in post office comparisons, surely it is a perfectly fair thing for the Minister of Finance to omit the Yukon in trade comparisons. The Minister of Finance spoke of the decrease in letter rates which the Postmaster General has made, but why did he omit to mention the fact that upon almost every other class of mail matter the Postmaster General has Increased the rates ? Was it not well to bring both these matters to the attention of the House ? And why does not the Minister of Finance say something about the wages which the Postmaster General pays to his post office employees and to his letter carriers. I have to go down nearly every session to the Postmaster General's office attending deputations of post office employees from all over Canada, who point out that their wages have not been increased for the last twenty or thirty years, and that they really have not enough now to keep body and soul together.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: The Postmaster General boasts of a surplus. Why, two of his mail drivers were fined in the city of Montreal yesterday because they were driving horses that were not in a fit condition. Why does not the Postmaster General invoke the services of the fair wage branch of the Labour Department ? Why does not the Postmaster General call in the Minister of Labour to assist him in giving a fair rate of wage to the post office employees ?


Mr. KEMP.: Where is the Postmaster General to-day ?


Robert Laird Borden: I am sorry that the Postmaster General is not in his place to-day. I have long thought that the services of the Department of Labour could not better be employed than in endeavouring to do something for the post office officials from one end of Canada to the other, who are complaining that while the necessaries of life have increased from 25 per cent to 50 per cent during the past six years, their wages have remained the same in order that the Postmaster General may boast to this House and to this country, that by leaving a portion of Canada out of consideration he really could pretend that he had a surplus in the year 1902.
Then the Finance Minister referred to the government railways. He told us that there is an alleged surplus-No, he did not say that there was an ' alleged ' surplus ; he said that there was a surplus, but I
Mr. BUKUJiiN (Hamax).
would prefer to call it an alleged surplus. Every one knows that the mode of arranging charges as between capital account and revenue account in the Railway Department has been changed by this government; and if the Minister of Finance appreciates so much the methods adopted by the Postmaster General, why did he not give us a comparison of the railway accounts on the former basis ? Let us look at the way he got his surplus of last year. He charged no less than $4,626,841 to capital account, and then claimed a surplus of $57,898. And my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce thinks that a most gratifying exhibit of the railways of this country for the year 1902.
The hon. Minister of Finance told us what the government had done with regard to trade matters during the past six years. They had had trade negotiations with the mother country, and the net result of these negotiations, Mr. Speaker, you will regret to learn, is nothing. They have had trade negotiations with France, and you will also regret to learn that up to the present time these have resulted in nothing. They have had trade negotiations with the United States, and these negotiations up to the present time have resulted in nothing, except the interchange of very polite letters between the Prime Minister and Mr. Senator Fairbanks. Then, they had certain negotiations during the past six years with Germany. We bitterly complained last year and the year before that the papers relating to these negotiations had not been brought down. The year before last I went to the papers which were laid on the Table of the parliament of the Australian Commonwealth, and I got information there which should have been laid on the Table of this House. We were told that the papers were of a confidential character. They were brought down at the conclusion of the speech of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance last night, and we do not find anything very confidential in them. I am not sure that they have all been brought down; I shall ask my right hon. friend about that perhaps, on a subsequent occasion ; but I do say that there is nothing on the face of the documents brought down which in any way could justify the government in voting down the motion of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) when he 'asked last session that [those papers might be laid on the Table of the House. They began negotiations with Herr P. Hatzfeldt, I think ; they continued them with Graf Yon Posadowsky ; but during the past two years they have been negotiating altogether with Herr Bopp, and the communications with Herr Bopp have been laid on the Table ; and really, Mr. Speaker, the attitude of Canada in these negotiations has been a most remarkable one. We urged the government two years ago by a resolution' which we proposed in

this House, to take some stand with regard to this matter. We urged them again last year. Two years ago when I moved a resolution on the subject I spoke very strongly with regard to the treatment of this country by Germany. That resolution, which the government voted down, was as follows :
This House is of opinion that equivalent or adequate duties should he imposed by Canada upon the products and manufactures of countries not within the empire in all cases where such countries fail to admit Canadian products and manufactures upon fair terms, and that the government should take for this purpose all such available measures as may be found necessary.
Strong language was used on the subject by members on this side of the House, but with no effect on the government. Indeed, the lion. Minister of Finance, so far as one could understand his language, seemed inclined to justify the attitude of Germany. The attitude of this government with regard to Germany reminds me very much of that well known play ' The Private Secretary.' You remember that when the old Indian colonel comes home and meets the poor littlte curate, the private secretary, and mistakes him for his nephew, whom he expected to find no milksop, he addresses certain questions to him. ' The young man gives very weak replies in very ef-flminate tones. By and by the old gentleman gets so exasperated that he seizes him by the back of the head, cuffs him and kicks him about the room, beats his head against the wall, and generally uses him very roughly. The young gentleman makes no response, but submits to it all, until after receiving an incredible amount of ill-usage, he braces himself up and says :
' now, look heah, if you do that again, '111 get weal cwoss with you.' That is about the attitude of the Canadian government towards Germany during the past six years. Germany has been excluding our products from her markets by Imposing upon them an enormous tax, while admitting the products of other countries under her minimum tariff ; and all we have been doing during these years has been to say to her, ' if you do this again, we will get real cross with you.' Now, we are getting really cross with her, because we are going to impose a surtax against her. That may be a very good thing ; but, in the first place, I think action of that kind should have been taken by the government four or five years ago, instead of voting down resolutions which we proposed, and refusing the House any information on the subject. In the second place, so far as this surtax is Concerned, I think we are getting too much government by Order in Council in this country. Practically the whole tariff is in such a position that the government can deal with it by Order in Council-can deal with it on the eve of a general election. If we are going to deal
with Germany, we had better put the Act on our statute-book, and deal with her at once. I am willing to stay here all summer, if necessary, or any reasonable time, for that purpose. But if the surtax is to be imposed by Order in Council, why does the hon. gentleman deal with it in such a way that he will have to come to the House by'and bye and have it made more elastic? In his speech he pointed out the necessity of making the tariff more elastic with regard to the importation, of raw materials used in manufactures, and one would have supposed that in dealing with the surtax, lie would have taken a similar course, instead of applying it to all products alike ; and if he gives the Governor in Council power to impose a surtax


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is nothing about the Order in Council. The surtax is imposed directly. It is in force to-day, subject to the qualification that the Order in Council may make regulations with regard to it.


Robert Laird Borden: It is dealt with now ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is dealt with now.


Robert Laird Borden: If that is the ease, I am glad to know that it is in line with what we on this side of the House have advocated. But if the tariff on German goods is to be dealt with during the present session, it would be well to make the surtax elastic, because there may be goods imported into this country from Germany upon which it would be unwise to impose a surtax of 33 i per cent, while on other goods it might be wise to impose a very much larger amount.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Who is to determine the difference ?


Robert Laird Borden: This House, I think, ought to determine the difference ; and we will have an opportunity of dealing with that question when the hon. gentleman's resolution comes up for discussion. I think the House ought to deal with these matters instead of leaving them to be settled by Orders in Council. Certainly there is a number of instances of this practice in the resolutions.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Are there not some instances of this in the resolutions which the hon. gentleman proposes ?
The MINISTER OB1 FINANCE. Not with relation to Germany.


Robert Laird Borden: I am dealing with the general subject of Orders in Council and with regard to materials for manufacturing steel rails, my hon. friend has

adopted that system, which, I think, is an unwise one.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That has been in the statute for years.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Robert Laird Borden: in which the representatives of this government concurred :
This conference recognizes that the principle of preferential trade between the United Kingdom and His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas would stimulate and facilitate mutual commercial intercourse and would by promoting the development of the resources and industries of the several parts, strengthen the empire.
There is a difference in the language of the two resolutions, but none whatever in the meaning, yet my right hon. friend called on his followers, in the year 1900, to vote down the very resolution which he subsequently proposed to the colonial conference. In all the debates in this House on this subject we were told that we had a preference in the British market, and that we were not to approach the mother country in any huckstering spirit. The hon. Minister of Agriculture, in addressing more than one gathering on the other side, told his hearers, with the sanction, no doubt, of his colleagues, that Canada wanted no compensation for the preference given. Mr. Speaker, who is doing the huckstering now ? Who is not only huckstering now, but, by the somewhat undignified threat in the memorandum handed the imperial government, and expressed more broadly yesterday by the Minister of Finance is telling the British government that unless we get some compensation, the preference will be repealed. I wonder if, in such an event, we shall stand up and sing ' God Save the King,' or what action will we take. Perhaps when this preference is repealed, my hon. friends on the other side will get up and sing the ' Star Spangled Banner.' We were told that Canada had a substantial preference in the British market. If it had, why are my hon. friends demanding anything from the British government at present, and why are they threatening to repeal this preference ? Look at their whole attitude. Only two years ago my right hon. friend, in answer to myself, said that it was perfect folly to discuss the question of preferential trade unless Canada was prepared to adopt free trade. If the right hon. gentleman doubts my word, let him send for ' Hansard.'' Last year my hon. friend the Minister of Finance told us that this oue-sided preference was a good thing, not only for the mother country, but for Canada. Well, Sir, if it is a good thing for Canada, why are hon. gentlemen opposite huckstering about it ? Who are the hucksterers now 7 My right hon. friend told us on one occasion that we had the attitude of those who were willing to wound, but afraid to strike. Who are willing to wound but afraid to strike now ? Who are making undignified threats ? Did you ever, Sir, in all the course of your parliamentary experience, see a more extraordinary exhibition of somersaults than that which the government has given us ? The fact is they began with Great Britain, as with the United States,

by giving up everything. They gave Great Britain a preference with a great hurrah. They told the mother country that we gave it in return for the splendid freedom we enjoy, that we wanted no compensation and did not want to see Canada cursed with protection. Five years afterwards they went to the colonial conference, and getting down upon their hands and knees, they asked for a preference in the British markets, and threatened, if refused, to take away from Great Britain that preference in our markets, which they said we had given to the mother country without desire for compensation and as her due. Let me point out that these gentlemen who were so merry about a certain resolution which I proposed to this House last year and also the year before, had better turn their jests on their own leader now. I was told then that protection to Canadian industry was absolutely inconsistent with the idea of mutual preferential trade. Yet here in black and white, in the records of the colonial conference, is the very proposition which I put before the country then.
I said to the people of this country that, as between the British manufacturer and the foreign manufacturer, we might, and we ought, to give a preference to the British; but that in doing that we should always safeguard the interest of the Canadian manufacture!-. Here in this book we have the very self-same argument which was then, so jeered at, placed by the Canadian representatives before the colonial conference :
But the Canadian ministers pointed out that the Canadian tariff was by no means prohibitive, that large quantities of goods were imported, and that a great proportion of these came from foreign countries. In any lines in which it appeared that the goods would be manufactured in Great Britain it might be possible to so readjust some duties as to give an additional advantage to the British manufacturers, and thus turn over to him a volume of trade which at present is held by the manufacturers of foreign countries.
The Canadian ministers stated that if they could be assured that the Imperial government would accept the principle of preferential trade generally, and particularly grant to the food products of Canada in the United Kingdom exemption from duties now levied, or hereafter imposed, they, the Canadian ministers, would be prepared to go further into the subject and endeavour to give to the British manufacturer some increased advantage over his foreign competitors in the markets of Canada.
But I do not dwell upon this, having a number of other matters, perhaps of more importance In connection with the trade question, to deal with before I conclude, and I do not wish to impose upon the patience of the House.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance says that this is not an opportune* time to
make any revision of the tariff. He talks to the protectionists and the free traders of this country very much as he did in 1897 and 1898. The time is not opportune to do certain things. He has put into his speech as much of protection as he thought his free trade friends would swallow, and as much of free trade as he thought his protectionist friends would support; and he has extended to the manufacturer this year the same invitation which he gave before and to which he referred in his speech- ' call again.' There was a little bit of controversy between the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) as to what was said to the manufacturers last year. The ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is not usually regarded as a very stupid man. Some people in this country have occasionally considered him as a man of very acute intellect. Yet that hon. gentleman failed to grasp what the Minister of Finance meant when lie was talking to the manufacturers last year. If the hon. gentleman's (Hon. Mr. Fielding's) colleagues were deceived, it is probable that the manufacturers were deceived also. The Minister of Finance tells us that he invited them to call again because he knew they could call again in any case, not only this year, but next year and the following year. So, he considered there was no implied promise in saying :	We will do nothing for
you this year, but come next year. But the manufacturers might understand it differently. What was it we had the year before last ? Oh, yes, the Joint High Commission. It had escaped me for the moment. It was because of the meeting of the Joint High Commission that we had no revision of the tariff in 1901-and I do not go further back than that year. In 1902, it was the Colonial Conference. This year it is a combination of both-the result of the Colonial Conference coupled with the possible resumption of the Joint High Commission. Now, of course, every one will regard that as highly satisfactory, and, in some quarters it will be applauded as very ingenious. The government holds these gentlemen off by threatening to repeal the British preference, and also by telling of another meeting of the Joint High Commission. The Minister of Finance tells them in effect:	We do not
know that it will amount to much; and, if it does not, we will take the tariff of other countries into consideration. This will be very pleasant for the gentlemen who are interested in this matter. In fact, they are told to call again next year for perhaps something may happen in the meantime to enable the government to grant them what they ask. We make no promises, says the Finance Minister ; it may happen that a free trade sentiment will spread over the country, in which case, we can tell you to go about your business, for we liavej made no

promises-but you bad better come back and see us next year. And, no doubt, these gentlemen are very highly pleased with the position of affairs; and the Minister of Finance, no doubt, will accomplish the result which he intended by putting his speed) in that highly diplomatic form.
The character of our imports has something to do with the question, whether or not there should be a revision of the tariff this year. We all admit the necessity, as I have already said, of a liberal public expenditure for Canada and of a tariff which will produce a liberal revenue. But look at our tariff, and then also consider whether we have in Canada any resources which can be developed, any raw material which can be utilized ini order that some considerable proportion of the commodities which we are buying from foreign countries may be made by our own people. I have here a statement giving a comparison of our imports from the United States in a number of lines. I do not confine it to articles imported for home consumption as I find that it would be too difficult to make the consumption owing to the way in which the returns are made up :


IMPORTS FROM THE UNITED STATES.
[Stage Direction]
Fisheries		1896. Free. $ 52,819 2,054,423	1896. Dutiable. $ 318,674	Total. $ 371,493 2 054 423
Animals and pro-			
ducts 		3,811,278	1,482,114	5,293,392
Agricultural pro-			
ducts 		2,672,S95	8,045,580	10,718,375
Manufactures.   ..@: 8,354,635	19,742,117	28,096,752Fisheries	$ 31,380	$ 494,706	$ 526,0S61902.	1902.	Forest	4,038,722	4,038,722Animals and pro-	ducts 	4,573,595	3,838,859	8,412,454Agricultural pro-	ducts	7,967,462	11,544,604	19,512,006


Manufactures.   ..@: 25,532,647	46,885,102	72,417,749
In this table I have dealt with total imports. I would ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance whether he thinks increases of that kind are necessarily indicative of increased prosperity in the country. But I have gone a little more into detail and have prepared a statement of dutiable imports from Great Britain and the United States -and I am dealing with total imports-so as to show a comparison between 1896 and 1902 :-
Statement of Principal Dutiable Imports from Great Britain and United States, 1896 and 1902. (Total Imports.)
	Great Britain.			United States.		
1896.	1902.	Inciease.	1896.	1902.	Increase.S	$	8	$	$	$Animals	6,069	22,323	16,254	206,999	1,124,874	917,875Breadstuff*	79,983	167,810	87,907	6,023,992	8,663,871	2,639,8791,114,180	1.947,974	833,794Hay	' 28'832	121 '624	92'792Hops	13,923	23,631	9,708	37,733	89; 196	51,463Provisions	25,711	30,147	4,436	1,177,848	2,462,865	1,285,017Vegetables	12,709	32,804	20,095	171,097	342,468	171,371138,395	276,795	138,400	8,760,681	14,752,872	5,992,191Carriages	1,246,633	1,356,891	110,258Cement	123,436	148,818	25,382	22^642	588,510	565; 868Cotton and manufactures ...	3,366,502	5,078,587	1,712,085	1,076,081	1,603,917	527,836Drugs, &c	250,689	643,531	392,842	510,667	780,531	269,864Earthen and ehinaware	381,495	684,912	303,417	55,892	241,135	185,243Electrical apparatus	8,581	15,745	7,164	309,911	1,350,505	1,040.594Fancy goods	916,033	1,058,683	141,750	230,988	389,990	159,002Flax, &c	1,414,404	1,780,837	366,433	64,125	82,681	18,556Glass and manufactures	215,344	388,504	173,160	419,179	523,820	104,641805 426	842 020	87 508	404 050	872,598	468,548Leather and manufactures ..	117)315	257)750	140)435	1,024,285	1,466,382	442,097Iron, steel, metals and manu-	facture of	2,733,860	5,135.622	2,401,762	6,395,765	17,681,776	11,286,011Brass, copper, gold, silver and	manufacture of	555,589	813,852	258,283Agricultural implements.. .	414,933	2,034,385	2,219,452Paints and oils	597,686	736,8-29	139,143	l,2to'534	2,262,437	1,046,903Paper and manufactures . .	249,139	360,094	110,955	673,875	1,042,663	368,788Wood and manufactures....	767,993	1,407,808	039,815Wool and manufactures	6,970,010	8,881,941	1,911,931	208,430	354; 621	146,191Rubber and manufactures...	118,657	217,812	99,155	211,669	525,218	313,549Silks	1,901,627	2,414,599	512,972	
20,309,499	28,923,988	8,614,489	24,568,922	50,732,592	26,163,670


Robert Laird Borden: Thus it will be seen that of the articles I have mentioned our imports from Great Britain increased between 1896 and 1902 by no less a sum thna $8,614,489 and during the same period the increase in our imports of the same articles from the United States amounted to $26,163,670, making a total increase during this period of six years of no less a sum than $34,778,159.
Now, Mr. Speaker, is there any reason why a very considerable portion of these articles might not be produced in Canada ? Is it wise to delay a revision of our tariff, even under present conditions, if, by a judicious and thorough revision of the tariff, we could produce or manufacture in Canada a very considerable portion of the articles to which I have called attention ? Now, I will give another tabulated statement which shows this increase in a more striking way.
The following is a statement of certain dutiable goods imported into Canada from Great Britain and the United States, which shows a large increase for the year 1902 over 1896 :-
Increase 1902 over 1896.
Animals	5	984,159
Breadstuffs	 8,727,786
Provisions	   1,289,453
Cotton and manufactures	 2,239,921
Drugs	   662,706
Earthen and chinaware	 488,660
Electric apparatus	 1,047,758
Flax	 384,989
Glass and manufactures	 277,801
Hats, caps, leather and manufactures 1,088,593 Iron, steel, metals and manufactures. 13,687,773 Brass, copper, gold, silver and manufactures of	 258,263
Agricultural implements	 2,219,452
Paints and oils	 1,186,046
Paper and manufactures of		479,743
Wood and manufactures of	  639,815
Wool and manufactures of	 2,058,122
Rubber and manufactures of	 412,704
Silks	 512,972
$32,596,686 CUSTOMS. What
The MINISTER OF was the heading of that last table ?


Robert Laird Borden: That was the increase of the total imports of certain dutiable goods imported into Canada from Great Britain and the United States in the year 1902 as compared with the year 1896. I will send it over to my hon. friend if he desires to see it. I have endeavoured to make these statements with the utmost possible accuracy, and they have been gone over more than once. Possibly my hon. friend may find some trifling inaccuracies in some of them ; if so, of course, they are altogether unintentional, and I will make any explanation about them. It is difficult, as the Minister of Customs knows very well, to pick out these items from the various portions of the trade and navigation returns. A great deal
of time has been spent upon them, and I think the table has been prepared with a fair degree of accuracy. In addition to these, in looking at the free list, I find the following striking increases in 1902 over 1896
Breadstuffs	 $2,387,318
Iron, steel, metals and manufactures of	 8,794,842
Cordage	 1,683,772

These figures deal altogether with increases, and do not take into consideration imports from countries other than Great Britain and the United States, the imports from which are comparatively small. Now, having regard to the enormous increase in our imports of many commodities and articles which should be produced or manufactured in this country, is it a matter of congratulation that we should have so largely increased the volume of our importations ? Would it not be more in the interest of Canada if these articles to the extent of $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 had been produced in Canada instead of being imported, and if the 50,000 Canadians who are said to have gone into the state of Massachusetts between 1895 and 1900 had remained in Canada ? Is it not apparent that, with regard to a great many of these articles, a very considerable portion of them might, and 'indeed ought to be, produced in Canada ? Why should Canada import :
Breadstuffs to the amount of	$11,731,268
Provisions and vegetables	
Iron, steel and manufactures of.. .. 33,681,625
Woollen and cotton goods*	 20,938,719
Electrical apparatus	 1,373,022
Hats, caps, leather and manufactures
of	 3,835,119
Agricultural implements	 2,654,000
Paints and oils	 [DOT][DOT] [DOT][DOT] [DOT][DOT] 2,181,426
* Raw cotton not included.	$79,376,288
The aggregate of these articles which I have enumerated is the enormous sum of $79,376,288 worth imported into Canada in 1902, a good deal of which I think we could have, and a good deal of which I think we ought to have, produced in Canada. My hon. friend says : We are not going to revise the tariff. We have not time to revise the tariff, we have something else on our minds which will prevent us from revising it this session ; and therefore we will invite our friends to call again, and we will content ourselves with making the trifling changes in the tariff which have already been referred to. Sir, it seems to me that our policy in Canada should be to accomplish the following objects
1.	To so arrange our tariff that all legitimate industries at present established in this country should be so protected as to insure as far as possible permanency under conditions of depression as well as in times of commercial expansion.

2.	To invite capital and attract labour to the establishment of other industries which the resources and raw material of our country amply justify.
3.	To preserve by means of an adequately protective tariff our own home market for our own people and to have the policy of the government so declared and understood.
4.	In framing our tariff to have regard solely to the interests of Canada which have been committed to our charge although recognizing that in consulting our own interests we must not be unmindful of the tariffs raised against us by other countries.
5.	To so frame our fiscal policy that labour in Canada shall be paid a fair living wrage remembering always that our labouring classes and therefore our producers and manufacturers cannot be expected to compete on even terms with countries in which the condition of life among the labouring classes is altogether different. We do not desire to reduce our labouring population to the low standard of living, to that hard fierce struggle for existence which prevails in many countries. We do not want our labouring classes to compete without protection against the pauper labour of any country.
6.	To utilize the labour of our own people in conversion of our own raw material into finished products required for use in our own country. It is surely bad policy to export our raw material, to send our labouring-classes abroad to another country to find work in its manufactories and to send after both our money to pay for the finished product which we require.
Canada is bound to become a great agricultural country and her farmers are entitled to every possible protection and assistance. But we have enormous and varied resources the reasonable development of which will build up, not only in the east but in the west as well, great industrial centres of population which will afford a home market better than any foreign market for very large portions of our agricultural products. We know now that one of the matters of regret among the Americans who are coming by thousands into our great North-west is that they do not have in the west of Canada the home market which they had in the United States by reason of the great industrial centres which have been built up in the Western States. I believe that by a policy of adequate protection, such as the Liberal-Conservative party has advocated, is advocating and will advocate in this country, we will build up, even in the west of Canada, great industries and great industrial centres. The value of our home market cannot be placed too high. We know the value which has been placed upon it in the United States of America. We know that the United States have always carefully guarded their home market and it is apparent from the utterances of her public
Mr. BORDEN CHalifax).
men and leading business men that they propose to preserve in the future. Those of them who have discussed measures of reciprocity with other countries have always declared that any system of reciprocity upon which they would enter must be of such a character as not to harm a single American industry and not to deprive a single American labouring man of one day's work. One of the latest pronouncements on the subject is that of Mr. Shaw, secretary of state for the United States. In dealing with the policy of the United States in the future he made the following very frank declaration :
We say that it matters very much who produces that which the American people consume. American people shall have the first opportunity to supply the American market. Therefore adjust your tariff so as to give the American labourer, artisan and farmer the first opportunity to supply that which we can consistently. Then we have a surplus. What will we do with it ? We will sell it abroad. Higher than we sell it at home ? Yes, if we can. Cheaper than we sell it at home ? If necessary. Sell it for what you can get and we will have a large balance of trade, which brought in will make us all comfortable.
The following extract from a letter recently written by a leading manufacturer in the United States to the public press of that country is interesting. I refer to a letter, written by Mr. G. H. Seabury, of New York, in January, 1903 :
The commodities that are undersold in foreign markets include steel, iron, machinery, locomotives, agricultural implements, sewing machines, cotton goods, pharmaceutical preparations, patented wares, furniture and minor manufactures that are produced in every section of our country. If these surplus exports were not sold at small margins of profit we would be unable to secure and hold our foreign trade.
As I have said before in this House, Canada, since entering upon her period of commercial development, finds herself peculiarly situated. She lies 4,000 miles alongside the greatest manufacturing and agricultural country in the world. She has a sparse population spread over an enormous area. She lies alongside of a country which protects by an almost prohibitive tariff its own home market. Canada, with 5.500,000 people lies alongside of the United States with a population of 80,000,000 and a home market absolutely protected. What is the result ? Look at the enormous manufactures of the United States; look at the enormous agricultural production of the United States. In times of great commercial expansion the home market of the United States takes nearly everything that is produced in that country ; at all events, the amount they export, although absolutely large, is relatively very small. They exported in 1900 only three and one-half per cent of the manufactures and eight, or nine, or ten per cent of the agricultural products. Well, things will go on all right during a time of commercial expansion when the home mar-

ket is capable of absorbing nearly the whole product, but when a time of depression comes, when the consuming power of the people of the United States is decreased, what will happen? A good deal will happen. Canada lies alongside of the United States, Canada is her best customer in manufactured goods, as the hon. member for North Norfolk truly says. Canada is her third best customer in all classes of goods. When the surplus of the United States comes to be dealt with, where will it be dealt with ? It will be dealt with in Canada and Canada may reasonably expect in the first instance to be the dumping ground of the American surplus. Canada, to some extent, is the dumping ground of that surplus at the present time. It is argued gravely by some people in this country that it is' a good thing for the people of Canada that Canada should be the slaughter market for the manufactures and agricultural products of the United States." The argument seems to be this : It is said that if these goods are sold in Canada at less than the cost of production we get them cheap and therefore, upon the old free trade argument of years ago, it must be a good thing for the Canadian people to buy these goods in the cheapest market. What if the advent of these goods into the Canadian market closes up Canadian factories ? What if Canadian farmers leave their farms and go to the United States and find the employment which they cannot find at home ? I believe that for another reason a policy of free trade such as was advocated years ago can never be an acceptable policy in Canada. Free traders in Great Britain, possibly men who might be described as doctrinaires so far as this country is concerned because they do not realize the conditions which prevail here, regret that Canada has not followed the example of the mother country and adopted free trade. It seems to me that these gentlemen really do not know that of which they speak. If Canada had adopted the policy of free trade and opened her markets to the United States, our trade relations, bad as they are with the mother country, would be far worse and further than that, I believe that the commercial supremacy of the United States which would undoubtedly then have prevailed in our markets would have been coupled eventually with political supremacy. Therefore, I do not think, looking at our situation, that we can ever have anything like a policy of free trade in Canada, and if we are going to adopt the policy of protection, let us have a declared and pronounced policy so that the people may know what to expect and let us adopt a policy which will adequately protect all the interests of the country.
During the past six years the government of the country has not declared its fiscal policy as it should have done. We have had no definite statement; no pronounced and declared policy. The Finance Minister, in 1897, told the people of this country that eternal vigilance was the price of protection. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) said that the ship's head was now turned towards the sea of free trade, and he was glad of it. The Prime Minister folded his arms in dramatic fashion since the commencement of this very session, and he told the people that he was glad that, having commenced his political life as a protectionist, he had now become a pronounced free trader. It is true that the Minister of Marine told the people of Maisonneuve two months ago that the Prime Minister was a protectionist, but still two months have intervened and the right hon. gentleman may have changed his opinions since. Cabinet ministers and their followers have given conflicting views from time to time on the question. Last session the Minister of Finance made an announcement which was regarded by some of his followers as a declaration that the tariff would be raised this session. The hon. gentleman from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) distinctly stated in this House that that was his construction of the remarks of the Finance Minister, and he was not corrected by any member of the government at that time. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) made last session one of the most pronounced free trade speeches he ever made in his life. It would be well perhaps that I should refer to some of the language which he used then, in order to show his words, by way of contrast with those of other ministers. The Prime Minister congratulates himself that he has assembled in his cabinet men of every variety of opinion with regard to fiscal matters. Well, he certainly has a very strong contrast in some of them. Listen to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said last session, and we will know when he gets on his feet now whether or not he is of the same opinion.
I do not mean to say that a government may not he corrupt and yet not protectionist. That may be. But I do say that human nature being as it is, it Is almost impossible for a government to be protectionist and escape being corrupt.
But the Minister of Trade and Commerce, according to ideas of gentlemen on his own side of the House, is in a protectionist government at present, and he says it is difficult to be in a protectionist government and not be corrupt. Of course, if he insists upon it, we are bound to take him at his word. The Minister of Trade and Commerce thus continued his remarks :
And I will add this further ; I will add that while I think protection and corruption are practically inseparable ; I will add that I likewise believe for my part, that protection and true freedom are all but absolutely incompatible. On that I will give you words of another more eloquent than any I can utter. Here are some remarks which are very much indeed to the purpose. The gentleman whom I quote says :

' I come to expose to you the policy of the Liberal party. Let me tell you that policy may be resumed in the good Saxon word ' freedom ' in every sense of the term ; freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom of religious life and civil life, and last, not least, freedom in commercial life	
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, they stand for restriction ; they stand for servitude ; we stand for freedom.
I denounce to you the policy of protection as bondage ; yea, bondage, and I refer to bondage in the same manner in which the American slavery was bondage ; not in the same degree perhaps, but in the same manner. ... In the same manner the people of this country, the inhabitants of the city of Winnipeg especially, are tolling for a master, who takes away, not every cent of profit, but a very large percentage, a very great portion of your earnings for which you toil and sweat	
I do not tell you that we must have no taxation, but I do say that the government has no right to take a cent from you or me except for the necessities of the revenue, and if the government takes from you any portion of your earnings, whether the portion be large or small, to give to somebody else that government is as much a robber as the highwayman who puts a pistol to your forehead and says : ' your purse or your life."
Admirable sentences, admirably expressed with that force and eloquence with which my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) usually puts the case before his audience.


Mr. BROOK.: See them smiling.


Robert Laird Borden: After the session the Finance Minister went to Yarmouth, and he spoke there ; the Finance Minister at Yarmouth, the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) in his organ and in personal interviews, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) and the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) in Argenteuil. the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) on the public platform and in his organ, the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) at St. Hyacinthe, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) in New Brunswick, the member for Guys-borough (Mr. Fraser), the member for Hants (Mr. Russell) in Yarmouth, and many other members on the government side of the House have proclaimed their adherence to free trade, and have denounced any attempt to increase the tariff. On the other hand, the Prime Minister, through the mouth of his Minister of Marine, announced in Maisonneuve that he was in favour of legitimate protection to Canadian industry, and the Minister of Marine appeared on the platform before his electors as a protectionist. The member for West York (Mr. Campbell), the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), the member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes), the Prime Minister of Ontario, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, the Hon. James McMullen, and a great many other very prominent gentlemen in the Liberal party have proclaimed themselves in favour Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
of increased protection to the industries of this country, and they have supported the position of my hon. friend from St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and have said that the government should have adopted the policy which had been advocated by that hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) before he left the present administration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what really are we to make of the attitude of the Liberal party in that regard ? I leave it to you, Sir, if, after carefully digesting, as I know you have done, the speech of the Minister of Finance yesterday, you are one whit the wiser as to what the policy of the Liberal party is with regard to protection and free trade. I know, Sir, that by the usages and custom of the House you are debarred from making any answer to my question, and, of course, I put the question only in a formal way, but I am quite satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that if you were at liberty to answer you would be just as dumb as you are at present.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear


Robert Laird Borden: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party believes in a policy of adequate protection ; a policy of such adequate protection as will maintain and strengthen Canadian industries ; such a policy as will give our own market to our own people That policy we have declared in all parts of the country. We believe that such a policy is in the interests of all parts of Canada and of all classes of the community. I think that word ' adequate ' attracted the attention of my hon. friend from Haldi-mand, and I will give him a very good authority for the use of that word by and by. In the western states the policy of protection has found favour with the farmers, because they see built up in all that western country great industrial centres ; because they feel the advantage of a protected home market, and because they know that without the protection of that home market they would get very much less for their products than they do at present As I said before, I believe that the farmers in the western part of Canada will have the same experience, and that they will learn, even more than they do at present-and they do very largely realize it at present-the advantages of our home market; the advantages to this country of the protection of the home market so far as all classes of the people are concerned.
It is sometimes said that the farmers cannot be protected. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce took that ground last year. He said the only way in which you could protect them would be by giving them a bounty. I want to point out to my hon. friend that there are people in this country whose claims have been denied by this government-I refer to the lead miners of British Columbia-who look on this matter in a somewhat different aspect. During my visit to the western part

of this country I found that they complained bitterly that the tariff fails to give them any protection whatever, while the farmer has a very considerable protection. After enumerating a number of implements upon which a duty must be paid by the miner, they proceed as follows :
Wheat protected by a duty of 12 cents per bushel ; oats protected by a duty of 10 cents per bushel ; hay protected by a duty of $2 per ton ; potatoes protected by a duty of 15 cents per bushel ; eggs protected by a duty of 3 cents per dozen ; poultry protected by a duty of 20 per cent ; cattle and sheep protected by a duty of 20 per cent ; hogs protected by a duty of 25 per cent ; fruits protected by a duty of 25 per cent ; condensed milk, canned at Truro, Nova Scotia, protected by a duty of 3i cents a pound ; pease, corn, beans, canned, protected by a duty of 21 cents per pound ; apples, pears, peaches, canned, protected by a duty that averages over 100 per cent ; preserved meats protected by a duty of 25 per cent ; ham and bacon protected by a duty of 2 cents per pound ; cheese protected by* a duty of 3 cents per pound ; butter protected by a duty of 4 cents per pound ; and so on.
It will be observed that the lead miner of the west entertains an, entirely different view from that expressed last year by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as to the possibility of protecting the farmer. I am not suggesting that the protection to the farmer is too high; I think it is not high enough.	I believe that upon many agricultural products the duty ought to be increased, so that a country like Canada, possessing agricultural capabilities second to none in the world, should not be handicapped in competition with the United States and should not be obliged to import from that country nearly $28,000,000 of agricultural and animal products. The farmer is protected in this country to a certain extent. 1-Ie should be protected to a greater extent, and the Conservative party will be prepared, upon attaining power, to give him a further measure of protection which in its opinion the interests of the country demands.
The tide of industrial expansion seems to be at its height on this continent. It has been expected that its ebb would come before this. It has not yet come, but it will come as surely as the ebb follows the flow of the ocean tide. All business men are agreed on that. When it does come, the protection afforded to Canadian industries by the present ad valorem tariff will decrease with the decrease in prices. In many respects it is insufficient at present. It will be utterly insufficient then, when the time comes that we shall have to face the slaughtering in the Canadian market of goods from the United States. Have we no suffering industries at the present time ? The hon. gentleman says that the time is inopportune for making any change in the tariff.	AVhat about our woollen industries
our cotton factories, our iron and steel industries ? Do these not feel too keenly the
stress of foreign competition ? We have the lead mining industry of British Columbia crushed by the united effects of an American combine, an American prohibitive tariff and a non-protecting Canadian tariff. The most magnificent mining country in the world is practically paralyzed for the want of protection, while my hon. friend says that we have not time to deal with this question at this session-we have more pressing and weighty matters in our hands, and these gentlemen had better come another year. Would it mean nothing to the immigrants who are pouring into the North-west to have 100,000 people added to the population of British Columbia, engaged in the lead mining and other legitimate industries which ought to be built up in that province ? An example of the value of a home market is found in tlie North-west at the present time. The people are pouring into that country, and we are finding there for the manufactures and agricultural products of eastern Canada a better market than they had before, while at the same time various industries in British Columbia have been stimulated by the fact of that immigration. These movements react on each other.
What is our position with respect to the United States ? We buy from them about $72,000,000 of manufactured goods, and we sell to them $6,024,000. We buy from them $28,000,000 of agricultural products and products of animals, and we sell to them of the same articles less than $8,000,000. All our producers and manufacturers are confronted in that country by a practically prohibitive tariff. I maintain that the Finance Minister does not take the proper view of the situation when he says that we had better postpone the revising of our tariff until after we have negotiated on trade matters with the United States. Their tariff is practically double ours, and we with a tariff half as high as theirs are going to negotiate with them. What is the objection to putting our tariff on a better and fairer basis first, and then going to negotiate with the United States ? Why do we have to wait until my hon. friend the Prime Minister gets further letters from Senator Fairbanks in reference to resuming those negotiations which I thought from the right hon. gentleman's remarks in Montreal about a year ago had come for ever to an end ? I say it is bad policy first to give to the United States such concessions as we gave in 1897, to continue these concessions to the present year, and then to say that we will avoid touching our tariff at all in order that when we come to negotiate with the United States we may go there handicapped. No, the stronger policy is the better one. Let us first deal with our tariff from the standpoint of our own interests, recognizing that in doing so we must have regard to certain conditions existing in other countries. Then, having dealt with our tariff in a strong and bold way, if the United States desire to

negotiate, we can inform them that we are at their service and ready to take up the matter at any time they may desire.
Sir we propose at this juncture to renew our declaration of policy of last year with regard to the tariff. As I have already said, the question of preferential trade will be dealt with later. The resolution which I wish to move is as follows :
That all the words after the word * that ' in the proposed motion be left out, and the following substituted therefor :-
This House, regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory, is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries, as will at all time secure the Canadian market for Canadians ;
And that the financial policy of the government should include a measure for the thorough and judicious readjustment of the tariff at the present session.
Some criticism has been made upon the wording of this resolution. Some gentlemen have found it difficult to attach any intelligent meaning to the word ' adequate.'
I have noticed on some occasions that the same lion, gentlemen made use of the word and found it good enough to serve their purpose. Let me say that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Pre-fontaine) favours ' legitimate protection.' I have his language declaring that policy, under my hand, used by him in a recent campaign in Maisonneuve. I suppose that * adequate ' is quite as definite as * legitimate,' particularly when coupled with the proviso that the protection we ask should be adequate to maintain the Canadian market for Canadians. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), this session, when introducing his Railway Commission Bill, expressed his opinion that it would ' adequately protect ' our shipping interests. Yet my hon. friend the Minister of Finance says that the phrase ' adequate protection ' is absolutely meaningless. I commend his criticism to his hon. colleague, the Minister of Railways and Canals, and I trust that the speech of the latter will be revised in accordance with that criticism. I find also that the provincial premiers introduced the phrase three times in their resolutions which the government is now considering. Would it not be well for my hon. friend the Minister of Finance if he adheres to the opinion he expressed in Halifax, to send these resolutions back to the provincial premiers for an explanation of this meaningless phrase which they have used. But I have a better authority than all these, one I am sure my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will not question. A certain editor of a newspaper published in Halifax some years ago, and published there still, used the following strong language with regard to the coal duty :
The coal duty is a confessed mockery-an organized hypocrisy. The coal owners of Nova Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Scotia have been fooled, as we predicted they would be ; they get no adequate protection.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance, who wrote that article, does not understand now the meaning of the term ' adequate protection ' which was then used by him in that article. That only shows how some of us travel backwards in our education.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: On both sides.


Robert Laird Borden: Most of us go a little forward, but my hon. friend, in this regard at least, has found himself travelling backward in his comprehension of the English language. With these excellent authorities, especially the last, perhaps the Minister of Finance may be inclined to reconsider his obiter dictum.
Sir, I concur in the eloquent words which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance uttered in his peroration. We all realize now the wealth of our resources, the splendour of our heritage. It is true that the Liberal leaders in days gone by did not entertain the same view of the great west which has been expressed so eloquently by the hon. gentleman. The great Conservative leaders of the past had opposed to them men who, in all sincerity, saw nothing in the province of British Columbia, save a sea of mountains, who saw nothing in our great west but a land incapable of paying for the oil required in operating a transcontinental railway. But let bygones be bygones. These gentlemen see now what the great Conservative leaders of bygone days saw years ago. We are glad that now we all think alike on this subject. We have a great country, a great heritage, and, therefore, great responsibilities. I fear not for the future of the west, nor do I believe that any narrow or sectional spirit now pervades or will pervade the people of that country. Like the people of tlie east, they will stand for a broad and strong Canadian policy, a policy which will give to our producers the advantage of our own markets, and to our labouring people a fair living wage; a policy which will keep our young men in our country and under which we can all unite in upbuilding a happy, prosperous and contented Canada.
I beg to move the following amendment to the motion of the hon. the Minister of Finance :
That all the words after ' that ' in the proposed motion be left out, and the following substituted therefor :-' This House regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians ;
' And that the financial policy of the government should include a measure for the thorough and judicious readjustment of the tariff at the present session.'


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE. (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: As the hon. gentleman lias appealed to me for my opinions as to the divers doctrines he has expressed, and the divers statements which may have been made in former times by myself and other members of the government, it would be, I think, rather discourteous on my part to decline to reply, and it is not my intention to do so. However, I will pay the hon. gentleman the compliment on this occasion of imitating his example of yesterday. And as to-day is Friday, and a number of our friends are disposed to return to their homes, I will take the liberty [DOT]of moving to adjourn the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
The PRIME MINISTER.: With the consent of the House I will now move :
That the debate he continued from day to day until completed, and that It be the first order of the day except on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, when it will be the next order after questions put by members.


Robert Laird Borden: I see no objection to this motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE BALL (Nicolet) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 30) respecting the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company. He said : Mr. Speaker, in presenting this motion, I would like to draw your attention and that of the House to the facts of the case. This Bill was on the Order paper a short time ago, and my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) thought he would render me a service by presenting it in my absence. My hon. friend from Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil), lacking knowledge of parliamentary procedure-being, like myself, a new member of this House-thought he would propose the six months' hoist. Fortunately or unfortunately, I do not know which, the Bill had not been printed in French, and my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) raised the point of order. In this way the Bill remains on the Order paper, and comes up for its second reading to-night. Since the last occasion, I have made some inquiries, and I find what I am about to read to you :
The consent given by the House to the second reading of a private Bill does not necessarily commit the House to the principle of the Bill. The expediency of a private Bill being mainly founded upon allegations of fact which
have not yet been proved. The House in agreeing to the second reading affirms the principle of the Bill conditionally and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.
Since 1868 no private Bills have been defeated on the second reading. It was done, however, before confederation but then Council could be heard at the Bar for or against the Bill.
In 1880 objection was made to the second reading of the Bill concerning the Credit Valley Railway Company. A long discussion took place on that objection and the Hon. Mr. Holton, who has always been considered as a high authority on parliamentary procedure, said that a private Bill should always receive its second reading, and Sir John Macdonald, in spite of the fact that objection was raised by one of his political friends, expressed the same idea as the Hon. Mr. Holton.
In 1879 Sir John A. Macdonald expressed the same principle on a Bill concerning the Saskatchewan Colonization Railway Company, and this Bill was also® read a second time and referred to the committee.
In 1889, Sir John A. Macdonald, on the Ottawa and Montreal Boom Company said, it is greatly to the advancement of public business that private Bills should be sent to the various committees to be dealt with and then on the reports of the committees the great question whether the Bill would become law or not conies up. Though the objection made to the Bill which was then under consideration was because it was a Bill of public nature.
Now, the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), represents the Prime Minister in that right hon. gentleman's absence and leads this House. I would ask him kindly not to allow such attempts to be made to kill a Bill at its second reading. And for various reasons. Supposing that this principle were adopted to-day, what difficulty might we not look for in the future. There are on the list here a good many private Bills. All private Bills are generally read the second time in about half an hour, no matter what the number may be. Supposing that on each of these Bills, an hon. member should raise objection and seek to prevent the second reading, you can see what difficulty there would be. I would ask the protection of the leader of this House. I would like him to treat me as he treats every one else. I want British fair play.
Mr. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure).: Before this motion is put, I beg permission to say a few words. The hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Ball) has certainly made out what appears to be a very strong case regarding the precedents in the second reading of private Bills. There is not the least doubt that it is in the interest of the House and of parties applying to the House that private Bills should be sent, as a matter of course, to committee to be discussed. But, in this case, we are dealing with a most extraordinary set of people; and I feel it to be in the interest of my county and the people I represent and only just to 1 myself to bring the matter before the House,



so that I may explain the peculiar position in which we stand. This application of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway-the name is not unfamiliar to the old members of the House-is connected with the old Baie des Clialeurs Railway, which, as most members are aware, has been before this House on several occasions during the last ten or fifteen years. The Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company was originally incorporated in 1893, for the bunding and operation of a line of railway from GaspO Basin in the county of Gaspfi, to Sault Ste. Marie. It was made up of eight different sections of road, including the Baie des Clialeurs, the Great Eastern, the Montreal and Sorel, the Montreal Bridge, the Ottawa Valley, the Pontiac and Pacific Junction, the Ontario Pacific and the Intercolonial section. The year following this incorporation, an Act was passed fti this parliament authorizing the transfer of the Baie des Chaleurs and the Great Eastern to this company and the system was operated under the name of the Atlantic and Lake Superior. For some years the promoter of this company, Mr. C. N. Armstrong, who is well known to the members of this House, attempted in various ways to bring about the successful completion of the undertaking. The charter of the Montreal Bridge Company was discussed last session in this House, and on that occasion, I believe, the House gained an insight into the methods that were employed. But for the moment I wish to limit myself more particularly to what happened in the county of Bona-ventnre. Tnis new company, the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway, took over the Baie des Chaleurs Railway, and constructed some eighteen miles from Caplan down to New Carlisle. In 1900, when I had the honour of being elected to this House, the powers of the company were lapsed, and the subsidies which had been voted were also lapsed. But fo-day we find this company coming again before parliament and asking for a renewal of its powers, and asking that we should extend for five years the time during which this undertaking may be completed, not only from Gasp 6 Basin to Sault Ste. Marie, but to enable this company to be incorporated and purchase the roads which are mentioned in the Bill, which would enable it to reach as far as the Pacific ocean over the unbuilt Grand Trunk Pacific.
I desire, Mr. Speaker, before they are given these powers that the House should be made acquainted with the manner in which they have dealt with the people of Bonaventure. The Minister of Railways, in December last, at my request, and to give effect to the law which had been adopted here in 1900 reviving the subsidy, issued a circular calling upon the people of Bonaventure county more especially, and the public at large, who had claims on the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway for the last section of thirty miles thereof, to send
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure),
in their claims to the Department of Railways to enable him to distribute pro rata the $10,000 which had been reserved from the subsidy for the payment of labour, board bills and material. What was the result ? The Minister of Railways received, during five or six weeks, claims amounting to $226,000, a tabulated list of which has been prepared. These claims were sworn to, and were produced for that amount on thirty miles of the road. The claims that remain on the other seventy miles of road, not coming within the purview of the subsidy bill, were not filed. We have therefore reasonable cause to believe that this company owes $300,000 in the county of Bonaventure, to Liberals and Conservatives, poor men for the most part, labourers, local merchants, widows keeping boarding houses, and so forth. In spite of the fact that this company owes to-day $300,000, they have the audacity to come before this parliament and to ask for what practically amounts to a transcontinental charter. This company, Mr. Speaker, is practically out of business. In 1900 it transferred its charter to the trustees for the bondholders who are now operating the road. These trustees are represented in Montreal by Senator J. P. B. Casgrain, and the chief of these trustees is Mr. Joaquin Galindez, of London. These people do not make the application themselves, but it is the old company which has gone out of business, which has transferred its road, and which owes $300,000 in my county alone, and who wish to comprise in this scheme the Montreal bridge, the charter of which has expired, and a portion of the Montreal and South Shore Railway, which has been transferred to other hands. All these are comprised under the general name of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway.
I therefore feel it my duty, in justice to my constituents to inform the House of this state of affairs. Last year I had no opportunity of doing so, because the Bill was killed in committee without being discussed, since the very mention of the name was sufficient to cause the Bill to be thrown out. The year before, the trustees of the road, rather than take advantage of the two years extension of time which we had given them in which to build the two miles of road, introduced a Bill in the Senate, and which was passed in the Senate, extending for five years the time during which they could complete two or three miles of road. To-day the Private Bills Committee of Quebec was called upon to consider another Bill introduced by these same people under the name of the Quebec and Oriental Railway Company. These people ask for power from the legislature of Quebec to build a railway from Riviere du Loup to Metapedia parallel to the Intercolonial Railway. They ask for power under a simple resolution of their board of directors to transfer the Atlantic and Lake

Superior and the Baie des Chaleurs Railway over to the new concern. If that should happen, Mr. Speaker, I wish to know in what position the unfortunate people of Bonaventure will he if this road is so transferred. Under all these circumstances 1 thought it my duty to call particular attention to this Bill. My county is not the only one interested, all the counties to the south of the St. Lawrence in the province of Quebec are interested, in fact almost every county up to Montreal, and thence across tiie river, and from Montreal up the Ottawa valley, on to Sault Ste. Marie, and by their connections out to the Pacific coast. 1 think that before these people are allowed to leave Bonaventure they should settle with their debtors there. At the request of the government I will willingly consent not to move the six months hoist, because I know it is somewhat contrary to precedent. Now that I have laid down the lines upon which I oppose this Bill, I am satisfied to leave it to the Railway Committee, confident that ample justice will be done in the matter. For these reasons I will consent to the second reading of the Bill.


Mr. BALL.: I wish to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil).


Mr. SPEAKER.: It is against the rules of procedure.


Georges Ball: I want to explain the Bill.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: But the hon. gentleman has no right to speak at this stage.


Mr. SPROULE.: I only rise to say that my hon. friend (Mr. Ball) was under the impression that he had a right to speak and answer what was said by the member for Bonaventure. I was going to suggest to him that he will have every opportunity to speak when the Bill comes before the Railway Committee. I thought that it was scarcely likely the hon. member for Bonaventure would move the six months hoist for an ordinary private Bill, something that has rarely or never been done in this House, seeing that a discussion of the Bill can more advantageously take place in the committee.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: We should be careful not to limit ourselves by establishing a precedent. There can be no question whatever as to the right of the House to reject a Bill, even a private Bill, on the second reading, if special and urgent reasons of a general public character be urged against it. It is quite conceivable that even a private Bill might be of such a character that the House would desire to reject it, and we should do nothing that would seem to imply that we are under any restriction in that respect. As a rule, these private Bills involve no principle, and I think it is only just to the hon. gentleman that this Bill 48J
should go to the committee. But we should not limit in any way by a precedent the right of the House to reject even a private Bill on the second reading.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was because my hon. friend the other night waived the right of speaking on the Bill that he desired to speak to-night.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I think it is well for the House to reserve to itself the unrestricted right of disposing of ai Bill on the second reading, and more especially so if the House is in possession already of sufficient facts, or if it has sufficient knowledge with respect to the undertaking itself, to deal with it at this stage. I have no objection at all to the Bill going to the committee, but I may say to my hon. friend that I am sufficiently acquainted with the transactions of this company and with the condition to which their affairs have fallen to make it impossible for me to consent that this Bill should become law. I am of the opinion that not only the Bill in some portions is objectionable, but that the Bill as a whole should be rejected by this House. I think that would be the sense of the committee which will have to deal with the matter if it should go to the Committee on Railways and Canals, but if the House feels that it knows enough about the transaction to say that it is useless to send it to the committee because there can only be one result of the reference, then, I think, my hon. friend will at once yield to the reasonableness of the position which is taken in regard to it and allow us to dispose of the matter now. We have a great deal of business to go before the Railway Committee and sending it unnecessary work is a thing, which, I think, we ought to avoid doing. I am quite sure the committee cannot look with favour upon the passage of this Bill. The company is in an absolutely demoralized condition and it has left things in such a shape that great difficulty is experienced in unravelling its affairs for the purpose, not of trying to save something for the company, bub of trying to get some small percentage of the wages for the labouring people who have worked on the road. That is the condition in which this company stands. I do not think anything like it has been known in the history of railway construction in this country. Certainly there is no company that has ever approached parliament with less claim for consideration at the hands of parliament than the present company. It may seem to be a little ungracious to say that the hon. gentleman's Bill should not proceed further, but I think he must realize that it is useless to go further even if the House should be willing to accede to his request.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear the hon. Min-

ister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) speak as he has done in respect to this Bill. This is the first time since I have been a member of this House that I have ever heard anything of this kind in connection with the second reading of a Bill. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) is to be congratulated on the position he has taken. There are many hou. members of the House who would like to know something of this legislation and I think it is not too much to ask that the matter should be left to the Railway Committee. 1 am sure the Railway Committee will go thoroughly into the matter and if the statements made by the hou. minister are found to be correct, I am sure the Railway Committee is composed of men who will deal summarily with the Bill if it is of the character described. If the statements made by the hon. minister are correct it will take a very short time for the Railway Committee to deal with it. I think it would be unfair to many of us here to kill a private Bill when the motion for its second reading is made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And it would establish a bad precedent.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not wish to press any objection to the Bill going to the committee. I merely stated what will be the probable result in view of the knowledge I have in a case of this kind. I would not press my objection to the Bill being referred to the committee if it is the desire of hon.. members that it should be.


Andrew B. Ingram: We have not all the knowledge that the hon. gentleman has in connection with this Bill, and for that reason we desire to have it sent to the Railway Committee.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Very good.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPROULE moved the second reading of Bill (No. 59) respecting the Ottawa Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Monk.
Charles Marcil: Mr. Speaker, I may say that this Ottawa Valley Railway is a section of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway. It forms part of the same concern. Five or six miles of the road have been constructed from St-Andrews to Carillon in Argenteuil county. It forms part of the system of this defunct Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company. For the same reason that I allowed the other Bill to go through I consent to this Bill being read the second time reserving my right to take the same objection to this Bill as to that of the parent company.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELCOURT moved the second reading of Bill (No. 83) to incorporate the new Canadian Company, Limited.-Mr. Lemieux.
air. INGRAM. Would the mover of this state whether the road covered by this Bill runs parallel with the line dealt with by tlie two former Bills which have been read a second time ? Probably the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) could tell us.
Charles Marcil: Bill (No. 83), I may explain, lias no connection with the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway, but I understand, it is part of the undertaking of the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway.


Andrew B. Ingram: It runs parallel with the other two lines does it not ?


Charles Marcil: It runs from the Gaspe basin through the interior of Gaspe. This is more of an application for power to build docks, jetties, &c., at Gaspd basin than to build a railway. This is not a railway company at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Thisj is a miscellaneous private Bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. S8) respecting the Mutual Fire Insurance Company, of the city of Montreal, and to change its name to the Montreal Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. LaRiviere.
Bill (No. 96) respecting the Kettle River Valley Railway Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 97) respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company-Mr. Dy-ment.
Bill (No. 98) respecting the Bruce Mines and Algoma Railway Company.-Mr. Dy-ment.
Bill (No. 99) respecting the Canada Central Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 100) to) incorporate the Bank of Canada-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 103) respecting the Royal Trust Company.-Mr. Casgrain.
Bill (No. 101) to incorporate the Broclc-ville and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment.
Bill (No. 105) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of the Standard Car Truck Company.- Mr. Belcourt.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Isolated landing pier, Cross Point, $10,000.
['That may be, but I think the combination has its existence, if it has any existence at all, in the provinces, although its business happens to extend to the territories, and there may be a question as to how far yon can prosecute in the territories people who are', 'In tlie provinces and who do not come within the limits of territorial jurisdiction. However, that is getting into the law of it and I do not want to do that. In the provinces at all events the initiation of these proceedings lies in the attorney general of the province, and not in any of us here at Ottawa. Under the combine clause of the tariff, of course, the initiative would be with the government here, but that also is a judicial proceeding and you have to take every formal way of going about it.\nMotion (Mr. Davis) to adjourn negatived.']
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: This work is now



[Stage Direction]
under contract and the total cost will be
Andrew B. Ingram: What does an ' isolated ' landing pier mean ?


Mr. HUGHES (Victorai).: Is this a timber wharf ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, l'es.


Charles Marcil: Cross Point is in Bonaventure county, opposite the town of Campbellton, N.B.. the Restigouclie river dividing the two. Campbellton is an enterprising and progressing town, and is the market centre for a large section of the country. The Restigouche is a tidal river. At low tide the steam ferry is unable to go beyond the middle of the river and for many years Mr. McAlister, who represented Restigouche, together with the then member for Bonaventure, urged that a pier should be built here so as to enable teams to reach the middle of the river to connect with the ferry. I am glad to say that we.have succeeded in getting this done. The word ' isolated ' was put in a couple of years ago because it was thought the wharf would be erected in the centre of the river, but it was found that this would not be practicable, and a wharf Is to be built from the shore to extend to the middle of the river. This expenditure of public money has been of great public utility and lias given great satisfaction to the people in that district.
Heavy repairs to wharf at Crane Island, $3,000.


Mr. MORIN.: What kind of a place is this and is the wharf used for sailing vessels or for steamers ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The officials have reported to me that this is being repaired principally to protect the lighthouse, which is situated at the end of the wharf.


Mr. AVERY.: Is it on private property ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, government property.
Landing pier, Father Point, $61,000.


Mr. HACKETT.: Will the minister explain what has been done for this large expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a new pier at Father Point 800 feet long and the total cost is $86,000. The work is under contract and this vote is to complete.


Andrew B. Ingram: When was this work started ?
The MINISTER Ol< PUBLIC WORKS. The contract was let on the 8th of November, 1901.


Mr. CLARE.: You appear to have voted $8,000 for this in 1901; $25,000 last year, and now you want $61,0<)0. That is more than the contract price.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not more than this contract. It is $25,000 and $61,000.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: What kind of timber ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hemlock and spruce.


Samuel Hughes: There is quite a difference between hemlock and spruce as regards the price. Is there any special part of hemlock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The specifications permit both to be used.
I am not prepared to take the responsibility of saying so, but I understand that hemlock lasts as well under water as spruce.


Samuel Hughes: So long as the specifications call for hemlock, that is all right; but if they called for spruce and hemlock were used, that would be different.


Mr. LENNOX.: Will the minister tell us what was done with the $15,000 that was voted in 1901-2 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The only explanation is that the money was not spent, and the vote lapsed. The total amount of the contract, as I have stated, is $S6,000.
Grande Va 1 loo-pier, $36,000.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Is the pier anywhere near a wharf that has been built at that place ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not aware that there is any other pier or wharf at this place.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: There was money voted last year and two years ago for this very place. There was $25,000 voted last year for that very same pier, and this year you are asking for $36,000 more.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may explain to my hon. friend that the amount of the contract for this work was originally $53,900, and while there was a small vote in 1901-2, none of that money was spent. There has been spent up to the 30tli of June, 1902, $14,857, and since then nearly $9,000.	$36,000 it is estimated will be required to be spent during the next year. That will pay the contractor to complete this work with the exception of $3,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the whole work will cost $54,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Will the hon. minister tell the House the population of that town ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no information of the population. I do not think there is any town there of any size.


Mr. THOMSON (North Grey).: What kind of timber is used in this wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that there are considerable timber limits in that district. Large mills have been erected, and this pier is built for the purpose of allowing the shipping to be carried on. Large business has been developed in the district. The timber used is no doubt spruce and hemlock, and perhaps pine; I am not sure about that.


Melzar Avery: Is this the property of which a deed has been given ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A deed of it has been given to the Crown free of charge.


Haughton Lennox: Will the minister tell us about what population there is in the neighbourhood of this place ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do rot know.


Mr. INGR  AM@: I understand the hon. minister to say the department have a deed of this property. Who is the property deeded from ?


Charles Marcil: I may say that Grande Vallee is situated in the county of Gaspd adjoining my county. This wharf was not built for the population that is there, because according to the last census the population was very small. It was then somewhat over 300. This wharf is on the St. Lawrence side of the county of Gaspe. It was built for the purpose of enabling a large tract of timber limits in the interior of the county to find an outlet to the St. Lawrence. When this wharf is completed and schooners are able to reach this point, it will afford an outlet for the whole south shore of the county of Gasp6, which is now practically a terra incognita, and will greatly benefit the whole district. I am sure the money is well invested.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Who owns the timber limits ?


Charles Marcil: That I cannot say.


Edward Hackett: What stream is this on ?


Charles Marcil: It is on the St. Lawrence, but there is a river running into the St. Lawrence at this point, on which there is a large water power. It is a section of country which up to the present has been entirely neglected, and a work of this kind will change the whole complexion of the place.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Will the hon. minister tell us why, .when a few years ago there was no wharf at this place, there should be such great necessity for the spending of from $20,000 to .$50,000 there ? Is that expenditure for the benefit of commerce generally, or for the benefit of somebody who sits in this House not very far from here ?


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WOitKS. I am very pleased to inform my hon. friend that the reason for building this wharf is to develop a large section of that portion of the province of Quebec in which there are timber limits and great opportunities for business.


Samuel Hughes: Who owns the timber lands ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know the company, but this wharf will give facilities to bring goods there and take away the lumber.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: It certainly appears to me passing strange that while a few years ago there was nothing there, all at once some one who sits not very far from here went down there and bought a large tract of timber land, and then -we find the government stepping right in and making this large expenditure, the main object of which is evidently to help somebody out of a hole. That certainly appears ridiculous to me, and I do not see why it should not appear equally ridiculous to the hon. Minister of Public Works. I am not opposed to the expenditure of public money where it is necessary, but such expenditure where and when it is unnecessary, is a ridiculous waste of the people's money. Just look at the census. Before 1901, there was not a soul in that section of the country, and last year we find that there were only 314 people there, all of whom are labouring men working in the sawmills and the woods. It is all very well for the hon. minister to tell us that this expenditure is in the public interest, but it is a different thing for us to put any credence in such a statement. I have seen lately in one of the Quebec newspapers that the party who bought these timber limits, has refused a sum of money which would clear him a profit of $100,000 out of the operation.


Samuel Hughes: Who is the gentleman ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not like to give his name, but I can look across there and see him.


An hon. MEMBER.: You cannot see him now.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: No, he is not there. I would like to put the hon. minister another question. The other night he told us that when the government built a wharf, he would see that the government owned it. Will this particular wharf belong to the government or will it not ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This property belongs to the government- the land on which it is situated and the work itself. Perhaps the best justification for building this wharf is the statement which my hon. friend has made, that since it has been begun, the value of property has been so much increased there, that property bwners can make a large profit on their holdings. True it is that this is an

undeveloped section of tlie province of Quebec, but tbe giving of this facility for the carrying on of tbe lumbering trade will enhance the value of the limits and give employment to a large number of people. This expenditure was authorized by parliament some three years ago.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Yes, at the time of the elections.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: We committed ourselves to the work, a contract entered into, and I am now asking for tlie money to meet the obligations undertaken by the Crown. I am pleased to hear the hon. gentleman state that the development of the country is so good that those interested in that section of country will reap great benefit from this work.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Who authorized the government to give that money for that wharf ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Parliament.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Who recommended the grant ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The Minister of Public Works at that time.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: There must have been somebody else behind him. I have carried on considerable lumber business myself, and I have never had the government build a wharf for me or anything else. When I wanted to build any work, I bad to build it myself and pay for it. How is it that iust at election time, some men from the Eastern Townships should go to that country and buy a large tract of timber, and then have tlie government step right in and find the money to build a wharf for them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My own experience is that of the hou. gentleman. I never got anything or asked anything from the government. But he was mistaken about the election. There was no election on when the vote was authorized by parliament.


Mr. BENNETT.: The hon. gentleman was incorrect in stating that when the vote was passed that there was no opposition on this side.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say that. What I said was that parliament did authorize the work and that a contract was entered into by virtue of that authority, and I am only asking a vote to carry it out.


William Humphrey Bennett: In view of the strenuous opposition offered last year, when the vote for this work was originally submitted, we are justified in making comments on it today. Tlie facts were these, as shown by * Hansard.' The hon. member for Stan-stead (Mr. Lovell), who is always out of the House when the question comes up for discussion, invested in some timber limbs in that locality. It is not an arable section,
its chief value being the standing timber. Here then we have the hon. member for Stanstead wanting the Crown to aid him in his enterprise and taking the government and the Minister of Public Works by the throat, with the result that the government pledge themselves to an expenditure of $70,000 for the sole advantage of his lumber company. We should have the assurance that this will be treated as a business enterprise. It is true that the hon. gentleman was not in charge of the Department of Public Works when the vote for this work was first taken, and is consequently not personally responsible for its inception, but he should pledge the House and country that the government is going to tax the hon. gentleman from Stanstead and his company a rental which will give a fair return on the outlay. Let me read, for the benefit of the House, a list of these docks built at the expense of the public exchequer. Here is a list of decks in the province of Quebec, built at the expense of hundreds of thousands to the people of Canada, showing receipts from those docks for the last year :
Carleton, $28.07 ; Cedars, $17.10 ; Coteau du Lac, $27.84 ; Greece's Point, $10.24 ; Isle aux Grues, $0.12 ; Lacolle, $9.76 ; Perce, $24.71 ; St. IrenSe, $55.69 ; St. Thomas de Montmagny, $2.62.
In view of the fact that these docks are used by public corporations and private parties and that they have cost the country hundreds of thousands, I think the hon. minister, before this item passes, should promise the House that there shall be a fair return of at least $500 from the docks now under discussion. This should be done especially because the company, when they have completed their lumbering operations will leave it in the hands of the people, a work from which no revenue can be obtained.


Mr. SCHELL.: The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) is evidently not familiar with the timber trade of the eastern provinces, or he would not make the statement he has made. When he speaks of the spruce timber being cut off in a few years, he is completely outside the facts. Price Bros., for instance, have been cutting on their limit for over sixty years. Spruce reproduces itself in from sixteen to twenty-five years, and operators claim that they can cut indefinitely from the spruce forests of the province of Quebec. If the limit that has been referred to is of such large extent as has been alleged-and it would need to be pretty large to make it worth the money spoken of-no question arises as to that timber ever being cut out. There seems to be a disposition on the part of certain speakers on the opposition side to reflect upon an hon. member of this House because he had an interest in this property. So far as that hon. member is concerned, he is not now interested in this property. It is well known that he sold out to a large company of which he is not a member.


William Humphrey Bennett: Sold out at an enhanced value, I suppose.


Jacob Thomas Schell: The value may he enhanced or it may not. But the plain fact remains that there is no danger, if this is a large spruce limit, of the timber being cut out; this dock will be as useful twenty, or forty or fifty years from now as it is to-day.


William Humphrey Bennett: We on this side must thank the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell) for the information he has given. His statement is-and I accept it as true, I know he would not make the statement unless it were true-that the hon. member for Stanstead was either sole or part owner of this property and was desirous of unloading on some company, and, to increase the value, he gets his party friends to spend $70,000 of public money there, of which he gets the benefit. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Schell) did not say so directly, but I am sure he is blaming the government for this action and I say he is quite right in doing so. The hon. minister is taken to account by the member for Glengarry. What does the hon. gentleman complain of ? He is complaining that after this great amount of $60,000 or $70,000 for this dock was appropriated, the owner unloads it on an incorporated company and gets the benefit. I agree with the hon. member for Glengarry that the minister and the party should be censured for having made such a grant. Another point brought out by the hon. member for Glengarry-and I must thank him for it also-is that if it were true that the timber could be cut out in fifteen years or so it might be a hardship on the hon. member for Stanstead to ask him to build a dock; but it would not be a hardship to ask him to build the dock instead of having it built by the public, because the timber constantly reproduces itself in from sixteen to twenty-five years. It will be seen, therefore, that the hon. member for Stanstead had a more decided advantage that I thought he had. In view of the complaint made by the hon. member for Glengarry I am sure the hon. Minister of Public Works will agree not to allow the dock to be used by the company that has purchased the rights of the hon. member for Stanstead-at least the hon. member for Glengarry says they have done so-without giving the country a rental of at least eight per cent on the expenditure, and also keeping the dock in repair.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not see how I am to make an agreement contrary to the law. These people will have to pay dues according to the rates fixed. There is a large business done, and the dock ought to yield a good revenue.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What are the dues ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the rates here; they are under another department.


Jacob Thomas Schell: 


Matthew Henry Cochrane: It is evident from the list read by the hon. member for East Sim-coe (Mr. Bennett) either that the dues are very small or, in the case of many of these docks, no business is done. I cannot but feel that there has been a great deal of public money spent in these public works without ministering to any real public need. No man can convince me that a revenue of from twenty-five cents to twelve dollars from works that have cost thousands can indicate anything but that the money spent on these works has been almost wholly wasted. When I think that along the shores of Lake Ontario, in such ridings as that I have the honour to represent, where millions of bushels of grain are shipped and large quantities of goods imported, there are towns whose post offices give a large revenue to the country, yet where not a dollar of public money has been spent, I am convinced more than ever that there must be something radically wrong in such a vote as this. The proposition now before us seems to be one of the most absurd ever submitted to the House since I have had the honour of being a member-that we are to spend something like $60,000 at a point where the minister tells us there is not a town. I venture the assertion that if we were to look at the Postmaster General's Report we should find there is not even a post office there.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: There is not-I have looked it up.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I have no objection to hon. members of this House buying timber limits, but the objection that I raise is to the expenditure of public money for the benefit of corporations or private individuals. And against this the minister should set his face determinedly. I believe that the minister feels deep down in his own heart that there has been a wrong which it will be his duty to make right at the earliest opportunity.


Sir. CLARKE.: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Sir. Slonk) was obliged to go to Slontreal this evening. He left in my hands a copy of the estimates with some items marked to be reserved, and amongst them I find the item now under discussion. If there was an agreement that this and other items should be allowed to stand until the House goes into Supply again, I do not think we should discuss the matter at greater length. I presume the hon. Slinister of Public Works will allow these items that are marked to stand.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am most anxious to meet the wishes of the members of this committee, but the proposition I have to make is better for the hon. member for Jacques Cartier than that presented by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) and it is in accordance with the arrangement I entered into with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier before

Lie left. We all lmve rights in these matters. This is the third or fourth time the items have been allowed to stand on account of the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Monk's) absence. To-day, when he was going away I agreed- and I am anxious to carry out that agreement, and I submit it is more generous than what the hon. member for West Toronto is asking-that the general vote for the province of Quebec should stand with the understanding that when it comes ul>, any item in the Quebec list can be taken up and discussed. This will give greater latitude than would be given by merely picking out four or five items and passing the others. This carries out the understanding we had with the hon. member before six o'clock.


Samuel Hughes: I hope the minister does not mean that he will pass all these items, because I think it is possible that a motion will be made to strike out this item. I think the time has arrived when jobs of this kind should be stopped. I am satisfied that the minister, if he wishes to make a reputation for himself in his new office, will see that this sort of thing is ended. Here we have a member of this House engaged in the lumber business, going down there where there is not even a post office, where there is not even a resident, and gets thousands of dollars nominally expended on a wharf. Has anybody inspected that wharf ? Is there a report of the inspector of the work ? Is there a wharf in existence ? rossibly this is the stuff which sailed down the Bay of Fundy, and formed a portion of some of the money spoken of by Senator Ellis which was sent from the Dominion government to assist the Liberal party in New Brunswick elections. We may as well look these things squarely in the face. So far as I am concerned. I have no hesitation in saying that I would like to see this item stricken out, unless we get some more satisfactory data in connection with it.


The MINISTER OF FUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend had paid careful attention to the discussion


Samuel Hughes: I listened to every word that was said. I object to the hon. gentleman's insinuation that I did not pay attention to what was said. I can tell him everything that transpired in the conversation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not intend to offend the hon. gentleman. What I meant to say was that he could not have understood the situation, or given it that thought that it requires. I said that parliament some three years ago had committed itself to this contract. I be lieve the matter was discussed at considerable length on a previous occasion, I am not sure but that there was a vote on this question on a previous occasion. If the item was struck out of the estimates now,
it would not save the country from paying the amount already expended, with the added cost of a suit brought against the Crown. The government are legally bound to the contractors to carry out the work. Perhaps about one-half the money has already been spent; therefore no member of this committee under these conditions would feel disposed to vote to strike the item out of the estimates. The contract has been entered into and the amount will have to he paid; if the vote is cancelled, then the country will have to pay such damages as the court may find in favour of the contractors, in addition to what they have already earned.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister tell us from whom this dock was purchased, who are the contractors, who owned the timber limit ? Let us have the names of the people in connection with this matter. Don't be afraid to bring out the names of the men.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think it is within the province of the department to have all the information the hon. gentleman asks for; but all that we have and all that is reasonable, I am ready to produce. It has been stated here, though I have no personal knowledge of it, that the member for Stanstead (Mr. Lovell) was largely interested in timber limits in this district. I would like to know how many business men there are in this House who have not business interests in various parts of the country where public works are constructed, and whose property will be more or less affected by our legislation. It is quite true that there may be extreme cases where the money expended will benefit an individual or a corporation rather than the public at large. In this particular case, all I know is that statements have been made that an hon. member of this House was interested largely in timber limits in that district. There are many men sitting in this House at present, and have sat in it in the past, who have greatly benefited by the expenditure of public money in different parts of the country where they happen to be owners of timber limits, or who may be engaged in other business. The development of the country would not go on unless men of their energy and ability engaged in business. The argument that no money should be spent in a locality because certain individuals will benefit from it more than others, I do not think any one giving it serious thought would endorse. We have spent something over $80,000,000 on our canal system, which has directly benefited certain parties along the rivers, and certain large centres more than other parties and other centres. We have lately gone so far as to free the canals of the dues that were charged to people using them, believing that it was in | the general interest of the country to do

so. In this case, I know that in 1901 or 1902 a vote was taken committing parliament to this expenditure, and a contract was entered into. The hon. gentleman wanted to know the names of the contractors. They are Heney & Smith, of Ottawa. This contract was entered into on the 29th of June, 1901; and, as I have already stated, about half the money has already been paid to the contractors.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When was the first vote taken ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In 1901 or 1902.


Samuel Hughes: I have not heard the name of the party from whom this property was purchased. The minister told us the government had purchased this dock and had a deed of it. From whom was that deed obtained ?
The MINISTER' OF PUBLIC WORKS. I have not the deed here, nor could it be expected that a minister should have these documents.


Samuel Hughes: The minister should have all this information at his fingers end.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All reasonable information, but not unreasonable information. I have stated on the authority of the deputy minister that a grant of the land required here has been made over to the Crown.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was there any deed of it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I am informed there was a deed. Of course, it could not be a legal grant without a deed. Supposing that this property belonged to an individual member, the deed would come from him. That seems to be the insinuation. I do not know, the deputy minister does not remember. But the point in which this committee and the public are interested is to know whether the Crown has been granted the property and at what price. In this particular case the grant was made free.


Mr. FOWLER.: Was the contract entered into before any vote was passed by this House ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have given the date of the contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister says that what the committee is interested in is to know that we are committed to the contract. Is it to be said that if we have allowed, without knowledge, an item to pass whereby we become committed to a contract that is unwise and injudicious, in which the country's money is spent to no good purpose, and because a portion of the money has already been expended, that we are bound to spend the rest, or, in other words, to throw Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
it away ? On the very face of it, this seems to be a job, and not a very creditable one at that. If the information we have got out peaeemeal be correct, an hon. member of this House goes down and buys a large timber limit in a comparatively unknown forest, and by some kind of understanding with the government, I presume come to beforehand, he is promised that he will get a dock there, and the country is going to spend $70,000 or $80,000 to benefit his property. There is no business to be done, no boats running there, no trade; but the government commences an expenditure. For whose benefit ? Simply for the purpose of benefiting a member of this House. That seems to be the whole story so far as the Information goes at present. Now, the country had better know that. Then the minister went on and told us that the very fact that this man sold his interest in that timber limit at such an enhanced value is no evidence that it was a vote of this House which made the place valuable. It was nothing else which made the place valuable. There was no trade to be done, it was a forest, it was on the river, I presume. And when the government agreed to make an expenditure of $80,000 to build a wharf, it is no wonder that the property has become valuable. The result is that an hon. member supporting the government helps to vote the money and then sells out at a greatly advanced price, and we are told that because we are committed to it we must go on and make this expenditure. The country had better know this, because, so far as we know, or so far as any information is vouchsafed to this House, this is a most discreditable transaction throughout, unjustifiable, and I was going to say corrupt. I think I would be quite justified if I did so. I want the people of my part of the country to know this. They have tried very hard to get a few thousand dollars spent to improve harbours and to build wharfs where there are large and enterprising manufacturing towns surrounded by a prosperous farming country and where an extensive trade is being done. Yet, they cannot get this government to provide proper facilities to carry on their trade. But, the government will go to the province of Quebec and start to build a wharf where there is no trade, where there is nothing but a timber limit, the property of a member of this House, where there is not even a post office, or a settlement, not even a trade to be done, not even a boat calling there, and yet we are committed to an expenditure of $80,000, and because we inadvertently became committed to it, not having this knowledge when we committed ourselves, which, if we had had it we never would have submitted to vote the item-because we have been committed to it without proper knowledge, then, it is said, we must go on and carry it out.


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Why does the hon. gentleman say that the cost will be $80,000 ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That which has been already done the hon. member tells us, must cost $59,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work is under contract, and there should uot be any mistake. The cost is $59,500.


George William Fowler: I would like to get an answer from the hon. minister to my question. Which came first-the vote or the contract for the erection of this wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The vote came first.


George William Fowler: When was the contract let ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 29th June, 1901.


George William Fowler: And the first vote was last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the first vote was in 1901.


George William Fowler: How much was that vote ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Five thousand.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the amount of the contract ?
The MINISTER OF'PUBLIC WORKS. Fifty-three thousand nine hundred.


George William Fowler: Was it intended with that vote of $5,000 to build this wharf ? Had the engineers gone down there and estimated that $5,000 would be sufficient to build the wharf that was afterwards to cost $59,500 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the hon. gentleman now leading the opposition (Mr. Sproule) will see that it is hardly fair to say this matter was done without the knowledge of the House. There was a very full discussion last year, and if I am not mistaken a vote was taken on this very item.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well then I have been misinformed. I could not vouch for that statement, but I was under the impression a vote had been taken. However, ' Hansard ' will show.


Andrew B. Ingram: There was no discussion when the item was brought up in the first instance, and that is what the opposition complained of last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think it Is wrong for this House to grant a vote of money without having knowledge of the total amount of the cost.


George William Fowler: That is our contention.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite agree with hon. gentlemen. I have no fault to find with that proposition. I think it is right. It should be the duty of the minister of the department to furnish that information to the House. I think it is due to the House and the country that when a vote is taken of a small amount for the reason that it would not be spent within the current fiscal year the estimated cost of the undertaking should be submitted so that parliament would know what it was committing the country to.


George William Fowler: I am glad to see that the hon. minister takes that view. It seems to me that as the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said, this smells very strongly of jobbery. It seems that in order to get a candidate in a certain county in the province of Quebec, it was necessary for a deal of this sort to be made. The deal was, as appears from the statements that have been made, that in order to get this gentleman to run in a certain county in the province of Quebec it was necessary to make him a promise that this property which he had bought and which was not valuable from the fact that there were not then the necessary facilities for carrying on the lumbering business, would be made the object of a large expenditure of money. Then an arrangement was made for the vote that was passed in this House. The thin edge of the wedge was put in at first. The small amount of $5,000 was put in the estimates for the purpose of committing the House to the greater expenditure which was to follow and without any estimate whatever from the engineer and without any information being vouchsafed to the House as to the expenditure.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) say what authority he has for making the statement that there was an agreement in regard to this matter ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. minister dispute that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly, as far as I am concerned and on behalf of the government, I am prepared to take the responsibility of saying that there is no knowledge on the part of any member of the government of any such thing. I have admitted the statement of hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to the interest of an hon. member in the landed property and in the timber limits, as I could not dispute it, but I do desire to say on behalf of myself and on behalf of the government that there was no arrangement previous to the election, cr any discussion in regard to the matter whatever. Unless the hon. gentleman has some authority for a serious statement of this kind, he is not justified in mak-

ing it. He as a lawyer, and as a member of this House will see tlie necessity for giving some authority for such a statement.


George William Fowler: There is a very strong rumour in the county of Stanstead that such an arrangement was made, and I may say further to the hon. minister that the facts of the case, as disclosed to-night and in the debate of last year when this matter was up, show clearly that there is a very strong ground for the rumour that prevails in Stanstead. What do we find ? We find that one hon. member who knew that this matter was coming up, and who should have been here to stand up and explain it is conspicuous by his absence. I speak of the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Lovell). The first vote was a small vote of $5,000, when, if there had been any examination at all, it must have been known to the department that it would require a very much larger amount of money to build that wharf there. Now, the hon. minister comes down aud asks for $60,000.
that some one has given a deed to the department. In view of the fact that last year there was considerable discussion with regard to this, it is very surprising that the deputy minister should say that some one gave a deed of the property, but who he does not know. The hon. gentleman from Glengarry (Mr. Schell) says that the property belongs to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Lovell), and we are much obliged to him for that information.


Jacob Thomas Schell: I beg to correct the hon. gentleman. Personally, I do not know anything about the circumstances, and I did not say that I did. The member for Simcoe said that the timber would be cut off in a few years, and I rose to correct that statement". I went on further to say, as the name of the hon. member for Stanstead was mentioned in connection with this, that I had seen in the ' Canada Lumberman ' where this property had been sold for a certain sum.	[DOT]


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: They asked for $25,000 last year.


George William Fowler: And how much this year?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Thirty-six thousand.


George William Fowler: Making upwards of $70,000 for this purpose. We find that they are making this expenditure of public money in a place where there are no people to serve except the one individual who owned tlie property, not even a post office in this place, while there are important towns and harbours all over the country requiring an expenditure of public money. Take the great city of Toronto, where it was impossible to get a grant of any-size from the government to provide the necessary facilities for the great metropolis of this country ; yet $70,000 of an expenditure is to be made in an obscure place where there is no post office, simply to enable this gentleman who had made a bad bargain in his purchase of this property to unload it. The facts of the matter have been clearly shown by the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell). The committee must be grateful to the hon. member for Glengarry for the exceeding amount of light he has thrown upon the question.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: During the discussion last year I think the amount of the contract was given to the House.


George William Fowler: I do not remember whether it was or not, but I know that a great part of the discussion last year was with respect to the deed to the property on which the wharf was going to be built, aud we found the Minister of Public Works first declaring that no one owned it, and then that he thought it was Crown land. Now we find that it was private property, and Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.


Jacob Thomas Schell: I cannot tell you now, but you can get the paper in the reading room. I mentioned these two points, and if hon. gentlemen attribute any further statements to me, they are mistaken.


George William Fowler: The hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell) has just confirmed what I said. He stated that the property belonged to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Lovell), who hjtd since sold it to a corporation. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Schell) tells us that he read that statement in the ' Canada Lumberman.'


Edward Frederick Clarke: It has not appeared in tlie 'Canada Gazette' yet.


George William Fowler: Perhaps it will appear there next. I must congratulate the minister that he has come around to our way of thinking, and has promised that there will be no more jobs of this kind while he is minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want more than that promise from the minister. We must have the papers showing who first applied for the building of the wharf and upon whose advice the expenditure was undertaken. It would be better that the minister should leave the vote over, and get the information in the meantime.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it not be the part of wisdom to allow this item to stand until the hon. member for Jacques Cartier is present ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Everything that was said to-night was said last year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Of course, I could get the [DOT] Hansard ' and read what was said last year, but if the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) understood that this

item was to be reserved, that understanding should be carried out.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would be very particular indeed to carry out any arrangement I made with any member of the opposition.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I believe that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The arrangement which I propose is much broader, and I might be found fault witli if I narrowed it down to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke).


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the narrower arrangement suits us and suits the hon. member (Mr. Monk), no fault can be found with the minister if he agrees to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My proposal is that the general vote for the province of Quebec should stand, with the privilege to any hon. member to discuss any and every item as fully as he wishes. If hon. gentlemen look at the * Hansard ' of last year they will find that the amount of the contract, the names of the contractors, and all other information was given, and that parliament has committed itself to this work. We cannot set up against the contractor that parliament did not possess full knowledge, and we are under obligations in the highest sense to pay the contractors for the work that has been undertaken.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is due to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Lovell) that this item should stand until he is present. Last year the statement was made in the House that the only condition under which he would be a candidate was that the government would expend a large sum of money at this place, and that, when the government promised that, he consented to be a candidate. That charge was made last year in the House, and it is made again this year. I remember distinctly that when the matter was up last year the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lovell) was in his place that day, but when this discussion came on he was not in his seat. It is due to that hon. gentleman (Mr. Lovell) that he should be in his place in this House to say whether or not the rumour is well founded. So far as I am concerned, putting one piece of information I have received with another, I have no doubt in my mind that this was an inducement held out to the hon. gentleman to be a candidate. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lovell) had not been a member of tiiis House before ; he had large interests at this place, and we find that here, where there are something like 314 souls, men, women and children, the government is going to expend a sum of nearly $60,000. Last year we objected that the government had no title to this property, and to-night the minister is not in a position to give us any information on that point. Last year we were told that Rocky Point,, where the pier is being built, was Crown land, and now
we are told that some private person has given a title, but who that private person is the government does not seem to know. Last year we complained that the government came down with a vote for $5,000 for a work that would ultimately cost $60,000, and to-day we say that parliament had not the information before it necessary to consent to the work in the first place. We are told that we should ask this information in the first instance, but every one knows that from time to time certain items may slip through because the opposition feel that they do not want to carp over every item. We want to find fault only with the items which we think we are justified in finding fault with, and this is one of the items. Let this item stand until the member for Stanstead can tell us whether or not there is any truth in the rumour that he would not be a candidate until it was promised that this money would be expended.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are two points which the hon. gentleman makes. The first is that the Item ought to stand. The agreement with the hon. member was that one item should stand and that all the items in this vote might be discussed under that item at a future time. I do not think the hon. gentleman could say that any broader or fairer proposition could be made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I confess that I am very much against that principle, because when we have passed items in that way, we have been stopped from discussing them on the ground that they have passed the House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not if we made an agreement that they might be discussed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But we are practically committing ourselves to the vote when we have not the information properly before us.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The other point the hon. gentleman makes is that the information was not properly given. If he looks in ' Hansard,' he will find that the information was given.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. member for Stanstead, it is stated, refused to be a candidate until it was agreed that this money should be spent for his benefit.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is not the point I am referring to. If any hon. gentleman has a charge to make against the ex-Minister of Public Works, who proposed this vote and explained it, there is a proper way to make that charge. We are now passing an appropriation to pay the balance of this contract. That is what is "under consideration.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman's predecessor did not take the same view of this question that the hon. gentleman is now taking. He said that the hon. gentleman

with the rest of his colleagues were as responsible for this matter as he was.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is perfectly correct. Every gentleman acquainted, with our constitutional system knows that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman's predecessor in office stated the position; and, as the Minister of Justice has passed over * Hansard,' I will read what his colleagues said last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman need not read it, because I admit that the government is responsible for this contract. The majority in parliament are also responsible. As Minister of Public Works, I am committed, the ministry is committed and parliament is committed to this contract. There is no doubt about that.


George William Fowler: I would like to ask the minister why it was necessary to get a deed of this property, because on page 1034 of ' Hansard ' of last year, the Minister of Public Works is reported as having stated that no site was purchased, because it was not necessary to purchase a site, the work being built on a rocky point that did not belong to any one. If the minister says there is a deed of the property, I would like to know wiiy this deed was obtained, and from whom it was obtained.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman must see that that is an unreasonable proposition, because parliament voted the money last session to carry out this contract. In view of the statement then made by the late minister that the government did not own the property, we are now in a much stronger position, because I have made the statement that the deed has been procured. As to whom it was purchased from, I have promised to bring down the document so that every man can see it.


George William Fowler: That is the strongest reason why the vote should not go through now, because we have not that information. I cannot understand why the hon. gentleman wants to press it, in view of the rumours that are floating about in regard to the connection of the hon. member for Stan-stead with this transaction, and in view of the fact that a deed has been obtained when it was said last session that there was no need of obtaining a deed. I think we should have this information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The passing of this item does not prevent any hon. member from bringing that up.


George William Fowler: Then the minister coflld use the same argument that he has used already. He has stated that we committed ourselves so far last year and the year before that we cannot back out of this transaction now ; and yet he wants to take the vote Mr. CLARKE.
and still further commit the House. Then he will say, you passed this vote without the information, and now, what do you want the information for, when you have committed the House to the whole expenditure ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the minister ought to let this item stand for the present and furnish the information we require. We should have the deed of the property, we should be informed who applied for this dock to be built and who recommended it, and should have all the papers connected with it. We should be informed what the engineer's estimate of the cost was before the work was undertaken. We require all this information to enable us to judge of the matter before we commit ourselves any further to it. Then, the hon. member for Stanstead is not present, neither is the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, who wished to be here when this matter was discussed. These are strong reasons why this item should be held over.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will answer the hon. gentleman's questions seriatim. He says the item should stand until we are informed who recommended this vote. I have already stated that it was recommended by the Minister of Public Works.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There must have been some one who applied for it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have stated that there was no further information about it in the department. How can I bring down information that is not in the possession of the department ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it possible that there was no application made for the expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have answered one question. The next is as to the report of the engineer. Parliament authorized the expenditure after the minister had stated that there was no report of the engineer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could the minister submit it without a report of the engineer 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am only giving the facts as they are. 1 have nothing to keep back. There is no reason for letting the item stand in order to bring down what does not exist. The minister admitted that there was no report, and still parliament voted the amount.


Andrew B. Ingram: Against the wishes of the opposition.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The opposition did not oppose it.


Andrew B. Ingram: They protested against it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They did not vote against it, and parliament passed the item. I cannot agree to the suggestion that this should stand because either

the ex-Minister of Public Works or the hon. member for Stanstend is not present. If there was not the fullest opportunity given to bring the matter up when they were present, I would say there was some reason for the request; but under the circumstances I can see no reason why this item should bo delayed further.


Mr. PLAIN.: It seems to me that the very fact that there is no request from any person in the records of the department, as the hon. minister has just told us, for the erection of this wharf, is a confirmation of this very rumour, so prevalent through the county of Stanstead, that the hon. member for Stanstead became a member of this House on the understanding that he was to have the value of his property enhanced by the building of this wharf at the public expense. If such were not the case, there would be some recommendation or some petition to the department showing the desire of the people of that section for the construction of this work.


Samuel Hughes: In the absence of the hon. member for Stanstead, who should be here to defend himself, 1 notice that there are two members present from the adjoining locality of Bonaventure and Restigouche. These hon. gentlemen could throw some light on the question.


Edward Hackett: We are now called upon to vote $36,000 in connection with a certain pier at Grande Valve. While I have no desire to embarrass the hon. minister and wish to expedite as far as possible, the work of the session, I feel bound to call attention to the fact that while at this place there are only three hundred people.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Three hundred and fourteen.


Edward Hackett: While at this place, with a population of only three hundred and fourteen, we are called on to spend $36,000, in the province of Prince Edward Island, where we have a population of 100,000, the government are only spending $34,000 on public works. That is not right and I protest against it in the name of the people I represent. If you cannot spend more than $34,000 in Prince Edward Island, you can surely have no justification for spending $61,000 in Grand Valve. In the interest of fair play and justice, this item should be allowed to stand until the hon. member from Stanstead is here to explain the facts. If he thinks that by absenting himself, he is going to escape being called to account we should prove to him that he is mistaken. Any hon. member who gets a timber limit from the government should be prepared to stand up in this House and defend himself against the criticisms made on such a transaction as the present, but the hon. gentleman does not want to go
into the facts. He has made his escape by the back door and left this item t:* be dis-t cussed by his friends. I think we should insist on this item standing over.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I wish to show exactly the position of this thing. There is no doubt something wrong in it. The hon. minister lias admitted that the government had no engineer there. The hon. member from Stanstead (Mr. Lovell) is a lumber man. Lumber men do not engage engineers to locate their work but select the places themselves where they require wharfs, and evidently in this case the hon. member interested said to the government :	I want
the wharf at a certain place and you will build it there. According to the admission of the lion. Minister of Public Works, the government did not know anything about the best locality where to build that wharf. Well, who did ? It must be clear to everybody that they were completely in the hands of the parties interested and are eating and drinking their own condemnation.


Samuel Hughes: We have uo evidence whatever that there is any such wharf in existence. No engineer, no officer of the department, has ever seen the wharf.


The MINISTER OF TUBLIO WORKS.: I did not say that.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Let us have the wharf in the House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Bring in the wharf.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Since that contract was let, there has been an engineer in charge of the work.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The hon. minister tells us that this wharf is for the benefit of the public. How is it that for the last two hundred years, dowu the gulf of the St. Lawrence, the shores of which are inhabited by fishermen who require wharfs, there never has been a wharf built except at this locality, and that is down in the interests of the hon. member from Stanstead and promised at the time of the election in 1901. That in itself shows that there must be something wrong.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: We are making only a reasonable request when we ask the hon. minister to allow this matter to stand over. The discussion to-night shows this to be one of the rankest jobs that ever disgraced this or any other government, and to call on the followers of the government to vote this thing through without the fullest information is putting a very severe test on their party allegiance.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman wants information he will get it. What information does lie require ?


Melzar Avery: East year the ex-Minister pf Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said that the deed of that property was all right and that it did not belong to any body but the government. But when the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Lovell) was asked who owned the property where the dock was built, he said that it was owned by the firm of Lovell and Company. The ex-Minister of Public WTorks then said that if he had known that he would not have undertaken the work and that he would not continue it until the government had a proper deed of the land. He must have been misled or he would not have put a dollar into that dock until the deed of the property was given. We would like to know who misled the Minister of Public Works last year when he spent several thousand dollars of public money in building a dock for a private individual who owned lumber] lands in that locality ! If public money is to be spent, it should be expended where the people generally get the benefit and not for the special advantage of one individual. I am in the lumber business myself, and if at any time I require a wharf for my business, I have to build it myself, and that is the case with other lumber men. If the hon. Minister of Public Works will let this item stand over and thoroughly investigate the matter, he will conclude to spend * no more money there. We have spent more money on that dock than the country can afford, taking into consideration any benefit the country will get from it. The hon. minister would do well if he would stop all proceedings on that work, because I do not think it will ever be of any public advantage at all corresponding with the amount invested. It will be a detriment to the country to keep it up, and the benefit will go to one individual.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman has misquoted the exMinister of Public Works last year. According to 1 Hansard ' he said :
I quite agree that we should have titles in every ease, and my officers have received positive instructions on that point. They are within hearing of my voice and they know that I have given them the most positive and severe instructions.


Samuel Hughes: Instructions as to what ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As to the deed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What page is the hon. minister quoting from ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Page 1042.


George William Fowler: That refers to the Cara-quet wharf.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps so. But, so far as the point under discussion is concerned, to clear that up, Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
I have informed the Committee that the deed to this property has been procured.


Samuel Hughes: From whom ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not that information.


William Humphrey Bennett: It might be given as some defence of this scheme if it could be shown that other persons would be served besides this company. But the map shows that this part of Gasp 6 is so rough that the local government have not even surveyed it into townships, or parishes. The place where this work is situated has the suggestive name of * Grand Valley of the Mountains.' It was stated here last year, and the hon. member for Stanstead has had an opportunity to deny it, that he, being the owner of this property in Gaspfi, was desirous of having a dock established there. He was not a member of the House before this parliament, and the facts seem to bear out the rumour current among his friends in his own riding, that he became a candidate upon condition that this large public expenditure should be made for his benefit. It is due to the hon. member for Stanstead to give him an opportunity to contradict that rumour, and I am prepared for my part, to carry on the discussion until the hon. member for Stanstead is summoned to give his explanation of the matter. Why should not the minister allow this item to stand. A reference to the census shows that at the place where this work is to be there are only about thirty heads of families. This saw-mill must be a very small one. I do not know the capacity of the mill or the extent of the timber limit. But I will be bound to say that, when the facts of the case come out, it will be found that the amount paid for the mill and the limit is about equal to the government's expenditure on this work. In fact, as stated by the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell), the government is spending $00,000 to enhance the value of the property of the hon. member for Stanstead. About half the amount has already been expended. Let the hon. minister put down his foot and stop the work on this dock.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: You' would not save any money by that.


William Humphrey Bennett: Why, certainly. The hon. minister will have to settle with the contractor; and he knows that the contractor cannot go into court without getting a fiat from his department through the Minister of Justice. Let the contractor be paid for what he has done, and we may be quite sure the lumber company will finish the dock, ns they are to get the benefit or it. It is plain beyond the shadow of a doubt that the whole thing, from its inception, was a political job. And, now that the country has spent $30,000 to enrich the hon. mem-for Stanstead, I am prepared for one, to vote against any further expenditure.


Tlie MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) suggests that the discussion should be kept up merely for the sake of the discussion. Now, it seems to me that an arrangement made between the parties in this House should be carried out


Samuel Hughes: What arrangement has been made between the parties ? None whatever. There may have been an arrangement between private individuals on
either side


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: If there is no other reason for further discussion than has already been given, I cannot see what objection there can be to the proposal I submitted. I have offered to allow the general vote to stand with the understanding that when it comes up any special item in the Quebec list can b'e discussed by any hon. member whether he is present now or not.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is due to the hon. minister to say that I do not dispute the accuracy of his statement respecting the arrangement entered into between himself and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), but I do say that that hon'. gentleman, who is absent, must have misunderstood what the agreement was, because, as I have explained, he left with me a copy of the estimates with several items, including the one under discussion, marked to be reserved. Evidently he did not understand that this item was to pass.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister says that an arrangement was made between the two parties. I want to tell him there was nothing of the kind. It has been a fashion in this House-it may have come in before hon. gentlemen opposite took office, but it has been very carefully followed by them-for the government to reserve an item in a given list with the understanding that any item on the list may be discussed when it comes up; then they bring it up at a time when the people interested are not here, and it goes through without discussion. I want to tell the hon. minister that this item is not going to get by in any such way; I give him fair warning of that. We are going to get at the facts in this case, or we will know the reason why.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I was not present in the earlier part of the discussion. May I ask what amount has been spent on this work ?


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: About $20,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I happen to be responsible for this work. I was in office when representations were made to us that there was a very large trade to be developed if a wharf was built at Grande Vallee. We had the survey made, and, after a good 49
deal of discussion and, perhaps, of hesitation, the government decided to go on with the work. The expenditure now under discussion is not a new one, and it seems to me rather late to treat it as it is being treated now. The whole thing came up before the House last year. There was some discussion but the item went through. Now a contract has been entered into, and the government of the country is pledged to that work. Whether the House made a mistake or not, the government is pledged. This is the case in two words. But there is not so much mistake as hon. gentlemen opposite seem to believe. It is to my knowledge that, in the past, both long ago and in recent times, the country has built wharfs in places where there was not a large population. It is not necessary that there should be a large population at the place before a work of this kind is gone on with.
The hopes of the future are an element in every public work of importance. But whether we have made a mistake or not, the House authorized the Minister of Public Works last year to go on with the work. There is no answer to that. If we have made a. mistake, well, so much the worse for us. But the country is bound to pay for that work now. It has been said, and I believe truly said, that certain parties, among whom is a member of parliament, will benefit by that work. I do not know of many public works in which some people are not benefited. AVe do not build wharfs for heaven's sake all the time. AVe build wharfs for the people living on this planet, not for those who are in heaven, but for those who are on this very planet that we are so happy to live on. Now this work comes within that category. It is built for people who are living under God's sun, and the hon. member for Stanstead is among them. He has bought limits there. There are many members of parliament who have property in places where wharfs are built. Are they guilty of any job ? Are they guilty of any crime ? It is not a crime against civilization or' against God to build public works for the benefit of people, whoever they may be. Members of parliament, to my knowledge, have often benefited by works which have been constructed in the past, and which are going on now. AA^ell, this work is of some magnitude for Grande Vallee. It may be a little exaggeration of the blessings that we have freely distributed in this country. But this country is prosperous. The Minister of Finance has just told us that we have a surplus of $13,500,000, and out of that surplus we are bound to pay to the contractors of Grand Valffie the balance of the work.


Mr. POPE.: I quite agree with the request of some gentlemen on this side of the House that Mr. Lovell should have an opportunity of explaining his connection with this matter. He comes from a county



adjoining my own in the Eastern Townships. There is in the public mind a scandal connected with this affair that ought to be cleared up in the Interest of the firm of Lovell & Sons, of which the hon. member for Staustead is the head. At the time of the convention when candidates were chosen for Staustead county, Mr. Lovell came to the convention called by the Conservatives, and there it was generally understood that he was desirous of being the candidate, not solely on account of his love of the Liberal party, but for the purpose of furthering some object that he was understood to have in view. That was the general understanding at this meeting. He made a proposition which was accepted by the Conservative party of Stanstead county, that so far as that election was concerned it should be run free from any corruption or expenditure. Whether that agreement was kept or not, it is not necessary for me to inquire. But we were surprised in the first place that Mr. Lovell should be desirous of being a candidate; we were surprised in the next place that he attended our convention; we were surprised in the third place that lie made this proposition, because it has not been the habit of the Liberal party in Stan-stead county to run elections upon that pure and angelic basis. Well, Sir, that was our feeling, and as we prosecuted our iuquiries, we were confidentially told that Mr. Lovell had some axe to grind, and that was the reason he was| a candidate. Now lie bought a limit from the government, a very small piece of land on the lower St. Lawrence. There was nothing else there but a forest, he built a mill and acquired these limits, and then it seems that he wanted a wharf. In Mr. Lovell's county and in the district in which he lives, it is firmly believed, I am sorry to say to his discredit, that this wharf is the price of his candidature for the Liberal party. Now, Sir, I think it is a grave situation, a disgraceful situation, and one that Mr. Lovell should be prepared to stand up in this House and either refute or acknowledge, as the case may be. Therefore I think that when we ask the government to allow this item to stand, it is done as much in the interest of Mr. Lovell and of his character as of anybody else. Since that time the property has been sold. Sir. Lovell and his sons, so I understand by the public press, are no longer owners of that property, it has passed over to other hands, and Mr. Lovell is reputed to have received something like $100,000 out of his property.


Samuel Hughes: How much did he pay for it ?


Rufus Henry Pope: He paid very little. They are making the price of this wharf out of it. Now', Mr. Chairman, don't you think that this is a most extraordinary situation, that this country should go to work and


Rufus Henry Pope: spend $50,000 or $60,000 in building a wharf for a property the total value of which is only $100,000 or $125,000 ? It is a most extraordinary position. The expenditure is unwarranted on that basis alone. On a property that is only valued at $125,000 we have no right to expend $00,000 of the public money for its development. I think we have a right to protest against it on that ground alone as a business proposition, to say nothing about the other question that has been raised.
Now, before I sit down I wish to say that, taking all these matters into consideration, the statements that have been made at the very outset of Mr. Lorvell's candidature for Stanstead county that he was to receive some consideration, that he had some object in view in running for that county besides being the candidate of the Liberal party, and when we find this item put in here and this charge made throughout the country, throughout the Eastern Townships, all around Mr. Lovell's home, in the very village where he lives-I say in view of all these circumstances it is a duty the government owes to itself, irrespective of party, that that lion, gentleman should be given an opportunity to stand up in this House and defend himself from these imputations. I say this, Sir, because the name of Lovell & Sons as an honoured business concern has been above-board in our section of the country. Moreover, this gentleman is sitting in his seat here in parliament for * the last time. He is an old man, and whatever the results of the next battle may be in Stanstead county for membership in this parliament, Mr. Lovell will not be the member for Sanstead county. There is not much quesion about that. Now, having had such a business career in that section of the country, I think this is not the way that he should retire from political life, leaving this stain upon his character. Therefore, I say that the minister in justice to Mr. Lovell and his family, in view of his business record, should allow this item to stand until the whole matter is properly explained so far as Mr. Lovell's connection with it is concerned.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that this contract was let in November, 1901. Now if that statement is correct, I would like to know what is the use of the government going through the farce of entering into a contract pledging us to pay $53,000 for a work when the contract was made in November, 1901 ? Is it not a bit of a farce to enter into an arrangement without first coming to parliament and laying before us what the work is supposed to be, what the cost of the work is to be ? But after the government entered into a contract it comes down and, as a matter of form, asks us to pass a vote. They first expend the money aud (lieu come and ask parliament to vote it.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already stated

the ex-Minister of Public Works will be able to speak for himself-that he took the responsibility of recommending this work, and the government assumes responsibility for it now. Last session parliament, after full discussion, endorsed the contract after it was made.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister be good enough to tell us the size of the wharf, how much work has been done on it ? Is there such a wharf in existence ? I have asked that two or three times.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no doubt that there is such a wharf in existence. The work has been taken charge of by a special engineer of the department named Mr. Dubuc. The works placed under contract comprise the construction of a breakwater-pier composed of a substructure of seven cribs of ballasted crib-work having a total length of 900 feet and a breadth increasing from twenty-five feet on top at the shore end to twenty-nine feet at the outer end and which are to be sunk flush with the low water level, spring tide, and topped by a continuous superstructure standing eighteen feet above the said low water level, spring tides.


Samuel Hughes: How much of it has been done ? Is there any report of the progress made 1


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Did you say eighteen feet above low water ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Eighteen feet above low water.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the hon. gentleman the first estimate made ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I have the total amount that has been paid out.


George William Fowler: How much is that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $20,000. The material must be on the ground by this time and under the contract the work must be finished within a month or two.


George William Fowler: Has the work been continued during the winter months ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand form the reports of the department that the material was got out during the winter, that it is now on the ground and that the work will soon be completed.


Samuel Hughes: Who are the contractors ?
The MINISTER OB1 PUBLIC WORKS. Messrs. Heney & Smith, Ottawa.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think it is only fair that under the special circumstances in this case the hon. minister should not press the 49J
vote. It is a fact that there is no public interest to be served by this dock save the interest of this lumber company which own the laud adjoining and if the hon. minister stops the work at present and does not do anything more upon it, he knows very well that the lumber company will complete the work. It will not be the first contract that this government have broken after contracts have been let. The hon. minister knows that hundreds and hundreds of contracts equally as binding in point of honour and from a business point of view were broken by this government. When the hon. gentlemen came into power they found from one end of this country to the other a contract solemnly entered into by the Postmaster General with mail carriers. What did the hon. gentlemen do ? Without even giving a cent of compensation they cut these contracts in two, refused to carry them and ' refused to give these men permission to go into court to seek damages to which they were entitled. This is only going to be a case of hardship on this lumber company who own the property if called upon to complete this dock which, if completed, will be serving them and them alone. I think it is fair to ask the hon. minister that no further money shall be spent on this work and let this company complete the work. There are no surveyed lands in the neighbourhood, the dock is not going to serve any public interest after this company get through with their saw-mill operations which appear to be on a very limited scale and thereafter the work will stand ns a monument to this government's waste of public money.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I should be very sorry to shut off any discussion. I have made that proposition over and over again. I think the hon. gentleman leading the opposition will see the fairness of my suggestion because I do not think he can point out any reason why the item should not be proceeded with now. In my opinion time would be gained by disposing of it for the present with the understanding that if any question is asked or any discussion is desired at any future time the subject will again be brought up without any objection from myself or from the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Over and over again when we requested that any particular item should be allowed to stand it has been agreed to by the hon. minister at once. Why is this one forced through ? When it is a fact that we have no information in reference to the grave suspicion of the worst kind of jobbery connected with it, I submit that in the absence of that information we are justified in asking it to stand over. The hon. minister asks us to give the vote the approval of this committee by allowing it to go through and reserving the discussion until later, but, we say the time to discuss it is when we get the information we want

from the department and when the hon. members are present who are interested in it. The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Lovell) and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) are the parties who should be present. Surely the hon. minister will allow the item to stand.


Joseph Israël Tarte: X must protest as energetically as I can against that word ' jobbery.' I did not commit any jobbery when I was in office or elsewhere. I am not guilty of any jobbery. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) has been on the Public Accounts Committee for six years. He has investigated the accounts to the best of his ability, which is large, and yet he has not found any jobbery that I have committed. I protest against that word; it is unfair. That work has been carried out in good faith. Whether I made a mistake or not is another question. X was not a party to any jobbery. We have built works elsewhere. In the Yukon we built roads where there was no population. We have been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in building roads where there were no settlers. We have spent nearly $1,000,000 in building a telegraph line in view of future prospects. In Grande Vallee we have acted on the same principle. I thought in perfect good faith that it would develop that part of the country. The work was recommended to me by several members of xrarliament, especially by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) who, I am sorry not to see in his seat. The work was undertaken in good faith. There was no jobbery. I protest against that word. I hope it has not been applied to the department or to myself. If it has been I must protest against that with all the energy I possess.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the statement of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is a little premature. I think it is a little bit uncalled for. If the hon. gentleman had been in this House for the last hour and a half or two hours, during which, as by degrees, we got out the little information we could, and listened to the discussion, he would have known why it was characterized from this side of the House. We were told the circumstances which took place, of the rumours that were prevalent in regard to the transaction, the name of the original owner of the property and the purpose for which the wharf was to be built. In answer to the request I made twice or three times in succession as to who recommended this work,
I was told that there was no record in the department that anybody recommended it. When we asked for the engineer's estimate for the cost of the undertaking, we were told that there was none. I do not say that the ex-Minister of Public Works was in it. He may have been innocently led to do this work but I have not a single word to take back. I say it is surrounded by suspicion, Mr. SPROTJLE.
by more than a strong suspicion of jobbery, and it is the very strongest justification for demanding that this item shall be held over until we get the information from the department, or until we know something more about it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) may take back or not take back what he has said, but there is no jobbery in it, and before a member of parliament has the right to use the word ' jobbery ' he must be in a position to prove what he is saying.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not at all.


Hon.   S@: I challenge my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) to prove that there has been any jobbery. The word ' jobbery ' is not parliamentary, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) who is an old hand, knows very well that before he is in a position to use such strong and uncalled for language, he should have some evidence to sustain him. Where is his evidence ? It is not forthcoming and it cannot be forthcoming. The only suspicion is that there is.a member of parliament who has timber limits in the neighbourhood, but perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) himself has some property near some wharfs that have been built by the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not a cent nor never had.


Mr. McISAAC.: Nor never will.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Nor never will in that kind of business.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There is no jobbery, and my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) has no right to use that word. He may not take it back, but if he does not that will not strengthen his position. The work has been given in good faith ; the contract has been awarded and the matter was discussed last year. Let me add that one of the men interested in that work is dead and in his grave.


Samuel Hughes: We cannot get at him.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, but in view of that sad circumstance it would be a little fairer to let bygones be bygones. The work has been done and the country is bound to pay for it. The hon. gentlemen opposite have made their case last year and this year again. Last year they had some ground for opposition because it was the first time a vote was asked, but parliament has approved of it, and parliament is responsible and the government is responsible for the price of the work. Hon. gentlemen know right well that the contract cannot be cancelled. This whole thing is a tempest without any cause whatever at the present time.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) argues that last year there might

be some reason for a protest. He says that the contract having been let we can do nothing but pay the shot, but last year when the discussion came up the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) told us himself that the contract was let and that we should not discuss it then. He argued in that way last year because in the year previous they slipped in a small vote of $5,000 for a work which they must have known would cost twelve times that amount. The Hon. Mr. Tarte tells us now that we cannot repudiate this contract. Fancy this government talking about not repudiating contracts when they repudiated not only the contracts in the Post Office Department, but contracts in the Militia Department, entered into with the Messrs. Sanford for the supply of clothing, and they did that so hastily that they had to recall their action when they found that no one else could do the work in so satisfactory a manner. Twenty thousand dollars have been spent on this work up to the present time. It would be far better for the country that you should stop the contract ; pay the contractor for the work he has done and pay his estimated profit on the work that is to be done.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Does the hon. gentleman mean that after having spent $20,000 on a useful public work you should let the whole thing go.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And the material for the balance is on the ground.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It would be a waste of money to do that.
* Mr. FOWLER. It would be far less a waste of money to stop the whole thing than to go on spending more of the money of the people for the benefit of a single individual, or the benefit of a corporation who bought out that individual's rights. To hear these gentlemen opposite talk you would think this is a work for the general benefit of the country. Why, the argument which the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) uses to defend this could be equally as well used to defend the worst kind of a job that could be perpetrated. There are 314 souls living at this place according to last census, and every adult of them is in the service of the hon. member for Stanstead or his company. It is not for their benefit you are building this ; it is for the benefit of the hon. member for .Stanstead and no other. In view of what has been said by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope), in view of the very strong rumour which I first stated to the House that prevails in Stanstead, and in the Eastern Townships ; in view of the serious reflection there is upon the character, upon the honour, upon the integrity of one member of this House that he has used his position-if it be true, and I do not say it is true, for I do.not know whether it is true or not-in view of all this it seems to
me that if the government had the interests of the hon. member (Mr. Lovell) at heart, they would want to have that hon. gentleman here to stand up upon the floor of parliament and explain to this House anjj to the country his whole connection into the matter. If they were true friends of the hon. member for Stanstead that is the course they would take. I say, Sir, even though the expression may be objectionable to the ex-minister ; I say that while it may not bo jobbery, yet it smells most strongly of jobbery. We find the government spending $00,000 in the interests of a supporter, and spending that money for no other purpose than the private purpose of that hon. member. We find first a vote of $5,000 ; next year a vote of $25,000, and this year a vote for $36,000. We find all this, and we have reason to protest against it. Last year we were told that a contract was let and certain work performed. Last year we were told that nobody owned this property and that the title of it was in the clouds, but this year there is a deed of the porperty although the department is entirely innocent as to whom that deed came from. Why are they so innocent about it ? Surely they knew that we would require information on that point this year, and yet they come here without information and attempt to rush this vote through by means of the brute force of their majority. That is all they have to rely upon. If this is an honest transaction ; if there is no jobbery in it ; if the skirts of the hon. member for Stanstead are absolutely clean, and the skirts of the government clean as well, because one involves the other ; then it would be far more seemly on the part of the Minister of Public Works to let this item stand until the member for Stanstead is here to defend himself from this serious charge. I trust that in the interests of parliament : I trust in the interests of public life in this country, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lovell) can properly defend himself and can clear himself from the very' strong suspicion which at the present time attaches to his name.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If the item were suspended, there would be twice as much noise about it as we hear to-night. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat would point to that fact as the best evidence that there was jobbery. The Minister of Public Works may do as he likes, but if I were in his place I would go on with the item, because there is nothing wrong with it. It is a fair expenditure of money. It may be a little large, I grant. On various occasions different governments have spent large sums of money on works which at their inception did not seem to Be very meritorious. In this case, if the name of a member of parliament had not been connected with the work, there would not have been ten words said about it in the House. But there is a member of parliament who has properties in that neighbourhood. Members of the

opposition are in their right in criticising the item. This is a political game. Criticism is a good thing ; I do not object to it at all ; but criticism does not make black what is white. In this case, I say it again, if ft member of the ministerial party had not properties in that neighbourhood, the item would have passed like a shot. But there is a member of parliament in that position. This is political warfare


William Humphrey Bennett: This is a political wharf, too.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, I grant that politics has a lot to do in the world ; but politics has made at times a good deal worse work than this wharf will be. This work will be a useful one. It will develop a large lumber industry.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Hear, hear ; that is the whole thing.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Where is the objection to developing the lumber industry of this country, even by means of a wharf T We are developing all kinds of industries by means of improvements. If I were the Minister of Public Works, I wonld ask that the item go through.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman knows as well as anybody that the development of the lumber industry belongs to the province of Quebec, and it gets the benefit.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The province of Quebec has not the right to build wharfs. That is a sacred right of this parliament.


Samuel Hughes: I am delighted to see that the ex-Minister of Public Works does not hang his head in shame. I notice that the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) has gone out; the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Reid) has escaped ; and the hon. member for Sitanstead (Mr. Lovell) is not in his place.


Mr. TALBOT.: Restigouche is 500 miles from this place.


Samuel Hughes: I beg pardon ; it is right opposite Gaspe. I know where the county is just as well as any member on the other side, and I want to tell them that the hon. member for Restigouche cannot be gotten to stand up in the House and defend this job. Bring him in and he will condemn it as well as every man in that part of the country. My hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) charged the Minister of Public Works last year with building wharfs along the shores of the St. Lawrence river so thickly that there was not room for them on the shore, and they had to hang them on the trees. This is one of those docks, I suppose. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that the great North-west, where settlers from the United States and from the old lands are now going in such large numbers, Hon. Mr. TARTE.
is entitled to legitimate and necessary expenditures, and the territorial legislature should be strengthened by grants of money for the development of that country, instead of throwing it away on the rocks around Gaspe. Perhaps the ex-Minister of Public Works can tell us from whom the deed of this property was obtained. We have been asking that all night.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I think the deed was given by Mr. Lovell himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Where is the crime in that ?


Samuel Hughes: We have been trying all night to get that information.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not see why it was not given immediately. I would have given it immediately.


Mr.   CLARICE@: I wish you had come in sooner, then.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I was better engaged.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think ' Hansard ' will show that I did say that if the property belonged to Mr. Lovell, the deed must have been got from him. I may say that previous to six o'clock the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) stated that he wished to be absent this evening. I said that, so far as I was concerned, I was willing that the general vote for the province should stand, so that all the Items might be discussed, and the hon. gentleman who leads the opposition was willing that this item should pass, as I had given all the information I had with regard to it. The hon. ex-Minister of Public Works is now here, and has confirmed everything I said. That being the case, if any hon. gentleman on the other side will ask for any information that has not been furnished, it will be given if it is in the department, and there will be an opportunity for further discussion under the arrangement that has been made. Then I ask that the item be allowed to pass.


Samuel Hughes: Not by a long chalk. It might as well be understood that if this item passes to-night and is discussed generally, we cannot afterwards vote on it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is it not a most interesting feature of this debate to see a member of parliament like my hon. friend getting up and saying that Restigouche is just opposite Grande Vallee ? It is not even in the same province.


Samuel Hughes: I did not say anything of the kind. Restigouche is in the province of New Brunswick, across the river.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am very glad that my hon. friend has at last found that Restigouche is in New Brunswick. He should

have known it before. It is not on the same river at ail. There are about 500 miles between the two places. Here is a member of parliament, one of the leaders on the other side of the House, who criticises an estimate on the ground that Restigouche and Grande Vallee are a few steps apart, when there are about 500 miles between the two. We cannot take him seriously. He is good to make war in South Africa, but he is no good to criticise items of this kind ; he is not in it. When my hon. friend speaks of rocks, he again speaks of things lie does not know. Gasp6 is one of the most fertile districts of this country. There is not only lumber there, but fertile lands. We are glad in the province of Quebec to give as much money as is necessary to develop the west, but we insist on having our share of honest public expenditure. My hon. friend reminded the House last year that a member of parliament unwisely said that we had built so many wharfs in the province of Quebec that there is no room for navigation there. Well, a good deal less money has been spent building Wharfs in the province of Quebec than in Ontario. We have not said anything against this ; we do not kick, to use a vulgar expression. We are pleased with our lot, but it seems to me that when we are only asking ordinary favours, amongst which is this Grande Vallee wharf, we should not be treated as if we were a lot of thieves. We ai-e not going to get out of the country with that wharf. It will stay there and will be very useful for the development of an important industry-the lumber industry. Moreover, I repeat, the district of Gaspe is one of the most fertile districts of this country, and that wharf will not only be useful for lumber operations, but also for settlers. Everybody who knows anything of colonization in the province of Quebec knows that the settlers there must go into the forests. We build roads for them. On this occasion we are building a wharf, not only for lumbering operations, but for the settlers those lumbering operations will bring in there. The settlement of Lake St. John's district, in which there are to-day over 40,000 people, is due to colonization and lumber operations. The province of Quebec is not like our North-west. In the North-west a man has only to take a pair of oxen and go on with his work, but in the province of Quebec ve have first to cut down the timber, and the best friend of the settler is the lumber merchant, when he is carrying on his work in an honourable manner. Everybody who knows anything of the way in which the province of Quebec has been settled knows that. I do not see why we Should take up more time discussing this wharf, if the name of a member of parliament were not tnixed up with it, it would not be discussed. This w7ork will be useful from the standpoint of the settlers. My hon. friend should
not forget that there is not a railway there. He has railways in his county, but this section of country has none, and if we do not give the people there a wharf, wbat are they going to have ?


Samuel Hughes: For the last twenty-five years, I have almost sworn by the hon. gentleman, but can have faith in him no longer. When an hon. gentleman stands up in this House and says it is 500 miles from Restigouche to Gaspe, he shows a lamentable ignorance of the geography of his own country.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I make the same statement too.


Samuel Hughes: Nobody pays any attention to what the hon. gentleman says. Nobody would ever charge him with knowing anything even about his own province, but from the hon. gentleman who has just spoken we expected something better.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I move that a go d surveyor be appointed immediately to measure the distance.


Samuel Hughes: In our county we have railways, but we have paid for them ourselves to the tune of $250,000, and we want the province of Quebec to tax themselves in the same way. The ex-Minister of Public Works, who has just skipped out of the Chamber, says that the government have built wagon roads there for the farmers. But that is supposed to be done by the province in the new districts, and we find that that is one of the large corruption funds which the Ontario government uses to corrupt electors. A11 the roads outside colonization roads have to be built by the municipalities themselves, and I object to our spending the hard cash of the people of Ontario in building roads through the bush in the province of Quebec, or in constructing docks for the benefit of private companies. I am surprised that the hon Minister of Finance would allow an item of this kind to go into the estimates and that the hon. Minister of Public Works would permit this kind of thing to go on.


Andrew B. Ingram: I cannot see that there is anything to get very warm over in this item. Last year the government were asked what amount of trade was to be done at that port and what was the real object of building the wharf, and there was no one present to give the information. I would like to point out to the government that while we cannot expect the present Minister of Public Works, who has but lately assumed the position, to know all the details, but surely it is due to the House that when a public work is being built, especially in a constituency which returns a supporter of the government, the least we should expect is that the member for that constituency should be in his place to give that explanation to the House which the minister is not

prepared to give. The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Lovell) absented himself from the House last year when this vote was up. He was in this House yesterday and must have known that the estimates of the province of Quebec were to be discussed this evening, and yet we find him still absent. In view of this fact., and in view of the rumours which went the rounds during the general elections, and which have been current since in connection with that lion, gentleman, surely lie ought to have deemed it his duty to remain here for the purpose of explaining what amount of trade is to be done in this place, and what is the object of building this work there. I see no reason why we should not be entitled to this information before passing this item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What information ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The information as to what trade the government expect will be done at this point. No explanation has been given us of that. There is no lion, gentleman in a position to give it except the hon. member for Stanstead, and he remains away. I can see no reason why this item should not stand until we get that information. Certain rumours have been circulated against that lion, gentleman, and in justice to himself and to his constituents, he ought to be here prepared to deny them. In view of the very vague information we have in connection with this item and the suspicions circumstances surrounding it, I think that it should be allowed to stand over. Why are we refused this information ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What information ? I have stated over and over again that all the information which is in the department has been given. But lion, gentlemen are putting questions that cannot be answered. Information was given before the ex-Minister of Public Works entered the Chamber, and he has confirmed what was said. It is alleged that a corrupt bargain had been made between the ex-Minister of Public Works and the hon. member for Stanstead


Andrew B. Ingram: Nobody said that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If I am mistaken I shall be glad to withdraw what I said. But I certainly understood hon. members to say that there was a corrupt bargain on behalf of the ex-Minister of Public Works.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


An hon. MEMBER.: It was said fifty times.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I deny it emphatically It was not said fifty times; it was not said once.


Haughton Lennox: * Hansard ' will show that it was not said.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am in the judgment of lion, members when I say that the statement was made that there was jobbery or corruption, that there was an arrangement made for the hon. member for Stanstead to become a candidate on the understanding that this work would be gone on with.


Haughton Lennox: That was said.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I denied that on behalf of the government.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: You don't know anything about it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far as my knowledge went. And the ex-Minister of Public Works is here, and lie denied it emphatically. It is only fair that I should say to the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingrain) that I have offered, particularly in this instance, to give all the information asked for that is in the possession of the department.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand the hon. minister to say that, if this item is passed, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, who is unavoidably absent, or any other member will be free to discuss this matter on an item to be reserved.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I stated so distinctly, and I think it is only fair that it should be carried out.


Andrew B. Ingram: I was interrupted in my remarks by the Minister of Public Works, who desired to say that any information desired should be furnished to the committee, if it was in the department. But what we complained of last year, and what we complain of this year, is that the information is not in the department. The only one who can furnish it is the hon. member for Stanstead. No doubt he recommended the work; he was directly interested. There must have been some reason given in support of the application, but he has never communicated it to the House, nor has the government. The minister talks about the amount of trade to be done. Has he ever furnished us any information which would enable us to judge what that trade was likely to be ? Nobody charged the ex-Minister of Public Works with jobbery in this matter. What we said and what we say, is that it was commonly reported in that constituency that he had become a candidate on the understanding that this work was to be carried out.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Would not that be a corrupt job ?


Andrew B. Ingram: We have stated that that rumour was in circulation. Let the hon. member come here and deny it; if lie does not. lie rests under the stigma of it. If such a charge were made against me I should I feel it my duty to myself and my constitu-

ents to remain in the House when the vote in relation to the matter was under discussion, so as to clear myself. The fact that the hon. gentleman is not here is prima facie evidence that there is something in the rumour. I do not desire to lecture hon. gentlemen opposite, but, when there are works going on in the constituencies, it is only fair to the House that they should give us the benefit of the information they have, which must be more detailed and intimate than the minister can give. We are entitled to all reasonable information; but it seems like pulling teeth, to use the common comparison, to get information we desire. And. if we criticise we are accused of mere carping. Of course, our criticism is regarded by hon. gentlemen opposite as much less lofty than that indulged in by them when they were on this side, when the McMullen's and others carried on the discussion. I am glad to say that the criticism of the opposition has been much fairer since 1890 than it was when hon. gentlemen opposite were on this side. Even with the much greater provocation that we have had, you never hear language used in this House such as they used. If the hon. minister wishes this item to pass, he should have a statement of the trade expected to be done, so that we may understand what is the object of spending this money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say a word with reference to the ex-Minister of Public Works, because he worked himself into a good deal of excitement, and it almost seemed to me he was trying to draw a red herring across the trail. Is not Quebec, he asked, entitled to have public money spent within her borders ? No person objected to money being spent in Quebec wherever it was proper to do so. We are quite willing to see expenditures in Quebec, where sufficient information is given us to lead us to believe that the expenditure is in the public interest. But it is because the minister cannot or will not give us the information necessary that we ask the item to be held over. When the item was first read, the request was made, in a good-natured way that it should be allowed to stand in the absence of the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). On the other hand, the Minister of Public Works proposed that some other items should be allowed to stand. To-night, the minister seeks to stop us from discussion on the ground that we are committed to this expenditure. But we were told the same thing last year; and, if we allow the item to go without discussion, no doubt that fact will be quoted to prevent discussion at any time in the future. We asked who recommended this work, and the Minister of Public Works said that he did not know that anybody recommended it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, no, I did not say that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The ex-minister stated that it was recommended by members of the House.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I stated that it was recommended by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), who is not now in his seat. If the Minister of Public Works will look in his department, he will find also that there was a pretty large petition from the settlers there. The work was strongly recommended.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does that not fully justify the position we take ? The hon. minister told us there was nothing in the department. I asked specifically if there was any application from the people in the locality, and I was told that there was not. Surely, if there was urgent need for this work somebody must have applied for it. We asked that the item should be allowed to stand that the minister might look up the informati n. I asked if there was an engineer's estimate, and was told that there was not. Surely there must be such information in the department, but that information is not given to us. Are we doing an improper thing when we ask that the item stand till the information be given us ? I hold that we should be doing much less than our duty as an opposition if we allowed the item to pass until all reasonable information was given us. We urged that other items should be gone on with, so that those items might be passed to which there was little or no objection. But nothing will suit the hon. minister but that this very item which we do not want passed, shall be passed. We only ask reasonable information, that we may know whether we are justified in voting' this money or whether we should move that the item be struck out. We do not want to do that, because we believe the information is available, and if the Minister of Public Works was as agreeable as he usually is, he would allow that Item to stand.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Members of parliament have a right to ask for Information, and I would be the last to decline to recognize such a right. But what I objected to was the strong expression used by my hon. friend. He is a man of long experience and knows the value of words ; and when, on entering the House I heard the word ' jobbery well, I did not like it, it is not a pleasant word to hear concerning a work witii which one was connected. I am sure so far as I am concerned there was no jobbery and nothing improper.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it is any satisfaction to the hon. gentleman, I may say that I had no reference to him when I spoke of jobbery.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not object to hon. members asking for information, but no information in the department would justify the use of that word by my hon. friend.

Now, if our lion, friends opposite insist that this item should not go through, it is for the minister to say what lie will do. So far as the department is concerned, there was the ordinary information. There was a petition, there was a survey made, there was an estimate made. My hon. friend who is now Minister of Public Works is still a little fresh. It is easy to understand that he cannot possibly know all the details of the office over which he presides. But I remember well the facts in the present case. There was a petition, there were the ordinary representations made in such cases. The information is available just as the wharf is available.


Samuel Hughes: The information has at last been vouchsafed to us by the exMinister of Public Works. I do not mean to say that the present minister was withholding it deliberately, although he had his deputy at his elbow, and should have known something about the business.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If the eliief engineer bad been here the whole thing would have been explained.


Samuel Hughes: So it transpires that a member of parliament sitting in this House is the gentleman who has handed over the deed of this property to the government of Canada. What was the consideration given for that ? If there was none, the deed is valueless. If there has been a money transaction, then that lion, member has violated the Independence of Parliament Act. We find that all the circumstances point to the fact that it was through the influence of this member of parliament and to benefit his own property so that he could sell it, that this expenditure has been made. And we have heard to-night from another Liberal who says that there was an enormous rake-off, and this wharf has been constructed and the people are taxed to pay for an expenditure that is not justified. So far as I am personally concerned, I do not intend that this thing should continue. These gentlemen may just as well be given to understand that the people of this country have rights, and members of parliament have rights, and we intend to exercise them, and that this jobbery should cease of building docks along the shores of the county represented by the Finance Minister or along the shores of the St. Lawrence where they are not needed. These things have got to be justified, or else they will not be allowed to pass.


Mr. RICH  A.@: R I) SON.	If there were any
doubt as to whether we were asking for useless information, that doubt has been dispelled by the information given by the ex-Minister of Public Works. We have been told over and over again by the Minister of Public Works that there was no information, or that the information asked for was not available in his department. We are now informed by the ex-minister that Hon. Mr. TARTE.
the information asked for is available and that it is in the department.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It was there when I left.


Robert Lorne Richardson: So we have not been asking for that which does not exist. I myself made use of that very objectionable word, and I think I used it advisedly ; I said that if this debate went to the public without the information which we asked for, it would have the appearance of the rankest jobbery. I did not say it was that, but it would certainly leave that impression. I hope the Minister of Public Works will not call upon the supporters of the government. to vote this tiling through without giving us the fullest explanation that is possible to be had.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman has spoken for some time, and he lias not submitted one question saying what kind of information he would like to have. I have stated time and again that all the information with regard to this matter has been furnished to the fullest possible extent. I have also stated that last session when this matter was before the House the ex-Minister of Public Works gave all the information in his possession with regard to it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have the questions all written down here, and the answers that were given. The first was :	Who applied
for this wharf ? and the answer was : No person, so far as I know. The next question : Who recommended it ? The answer was :
I do not know. The next question was : What was the engineer's estimate for the cost of this work ? The answer was : We have not any. The next was who gave the deed of it ? We could not get that either.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must take exception to this statement. In the first place the question was asked : Who is responsible ? I said the Minister of Public Works last session took the responsibility and the government took it with him. The ex-minister last session gave this information, and he was more familiar with it than I could be :
The improvement of the St. Lawrence is one thing and the erection of the wharf at Grande Vallfie is another thing. We are attending to the improvement of the St. Lawrence better than it has ever been done in the past. It is of no use to make so much fuss-for it is fuss that is being made now and nothing else. The hon. member for GaspS (Mr. Lemieux) is not in his seat at the moment. He is one of those who came to the government and represented to us that, if there was a wharf built there large lumbering interests would be fostered and developed.
That answers both questions. Large lumbering interests would be established at that place and for that reason parliament authorized that work.

Mr. SrROULE. Why does the hon. minister say it is not in the sessional papers ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Every one is liable to be mistaken. I spoke from the information of the official of the department. It is the usual custom to have petitions in these cases, but he was speaking then with the information fresh in his mind.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If I remember right I received a deputation or two.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no record kept of deputations as a rule.
1-Ion. Air. TARTE. No.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If there was any information asked for that was held back or was not brought down I would be only too glad that the item should stand. I perhaps would have granted the request of my hon. friend even then had it not been for the arrangement which has been made with gentlemen who wish to discuss the subject. That was the only reason why I desired that we should pass the item. If there was any information in the possession of the department that I could bring down, I would be only too glad to do so. The lion. ex-Minister of Public Works continued :
We considered the case and came to the conclusion that it was a meritorious work. Now it is not fair and it is not good policy to say that improvements must always be made at places where there is a large population. If by the erection of this work you help population to settle there that will be a good thing.
And so on. This information was all given when the hon. gentleman was in office and that large amount was given committing parliament to this contract. I think after this full discussion and in view of the arrangement that the subject may be brought up again this item might be passed for the present. I am placed in a position in which I could not adopt the suggestion of hon. gentlemen opposite unless some lion, gentlemen can say that there is some information wanted which has not been brought down.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. Minister of Public Works has put his argument fairly, if he will abide by it. I have refrained, and that is very hard work for me, during the last two or three hours while this has been going on from taking part in it but it has occurred to me several times that we might arrive at an understanding of this animated discussion. The hon. minister says if there is any information that any hon. member of the committee desires it will be brought down and that for that pnrpose the item will be allowed to stand. I submit it is quite evident that there is in the department certain information most valuable to this committee, information that
will probably help the elucidation of the matters in dispute and which should be brought down. For instance, we have the assertion definitely that there was an estimate by the engineer. It was thought at one time that there were two. There was at least one estimate made by the engineer. We have a right to have that document brought down.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not understand what the hon. gentleman said.


Haughton Lennox: I understand that the engineer made an estimate of this work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That has been given.


Haughton Lennox: That estimate has not been brought down to the House.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS It has; that information! has been given to the committee.


Haughton Lennox: I do not argue with the hon. mininster as to what has been given in the past. I understand that when I stand on the floor of this House I am entitled to all the information which is given to the House. As the hon. gentleman has suggested that hon. members should ask for the information they require, I respectfully ask, without reference to whether it has been or has not been given in time past, that it shall be given now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope the hon. gentleman will not think I am interrupting him when I say that I have given that information on several occasions.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. minister misunderstands me. The estimate of the engineer, I understand, to be in writing. It is a document in the department. The examination of that document is important and that document should be brought down to the committee so as to enable the committee to inspect it and form an opinion upon it. Then, we have heard from the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that there was a recommendation. That recommendation may or may not be in writing. If that recommendation is in writing it should be brought down to this committee. It is a subject of information to which we are entitled.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What recommendation does the hon. gentleman refer to ?


Haughton Lennox: The recommendation for the prosection of the work-the recommendation by some important supporters of the government. These things all have to have their inception.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 have said that there is no such writing in the department.


Haughton Lennox: Tlie lion. ex-Minister of Public Works seems to think there is.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What ?


Haughton Lennox: The recommendation of the hon. member for Gasp6 and several others.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They called upon him, he says.


Haughton Lennox: I am not going to debate that because I may not be right on that point. There is an estimate; that point is clear. That is one source of information that t as a member, do ask for. 1 want the recommendation done in writing if a recommendation exists. If it does not exist that point goes by. The next point I come to and about which I ask the hon. minister to furnish us information is the petition. It is acknowledged, I suppose, that there was a petition sent by a number of persons as stated by the lion. ex-Minister of Public Works.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There was a deputation or a written petition-I do not remember exactly which. I remember very well that the bon. member for Gaspe came on several occasions and with several people to ask for that work. That I remember very distinctly indeed because it was in his own division, but members of parliament do not always write. They come up often and' see the ministers.


Samuel Hughes: The lion. exMinister of Public Works said that there was a petition signed by the people.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There may have been. I know I received a petition or two. As to the engineer's report the policy of the department is that before any work is offered for tender there is an estimate made. There is a survey of course because we cannot prepare plans without having a survey made and it was made in this case as in all other cases. In the ordinary way plans and specifications were prepared.


Haughton Lennox: I was speaking of the petition. The bon. ex-Minister of Public Works seemed to be perfectly clear when be first spoke upon this subject that there was a petition. He repeated that more than once. I noticed also that just a little while ago the hon. Minister of Public Works intimated to the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works that he might be wrong about that and I know that the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works intimated that he still thought he! was right. I am not going to argue that he is right, but to put our position in the weakest possible way we may-say that it is a subject of doubt.' It leaves the probability that there is a petition on file in the department. While the bare possibility remains that there is a document on file in the department it is unfair to this Committee to ask us to pass this item until Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
the hon. minister has ascertained definitely' and conclusively that no such document exists in the department.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Suppose there is none ?


Haughton Lennox: Then it is for the minister
to candidly- say to the committee that there is none.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If there is one he will bring it down.


Haughton Lennox: I do not understand that the minister has stated that he has actually made a search to see if there was a petition.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that I did not inquire if there was a petition ?


Haughton Lennox: I do not know as to that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did inquire and there are no papers further than I have explained.


Haughton Lennox: Do I understand the minister to say that since this question has come up a search has been made ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, you can understand that.


Haughton Lennox: I understand that since this has come up a search has been made in the department. Is that right ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is right.


Haughton Lennox: Then I put the responsibility on the minister that it will turn out that he is mistaken in this matter. There is no question, however, that there is a deed, and it is said that deed was given to the government for nothing. It is very important for us to know whether that was a voluntary deed or a deed for a consideration. I submit that the facts show that whether there is an expressed consideration in that deed or not, there was actually a consideration for that deed and a valuable consideration necessarily passing from the government to this Mr. Lovell. It was allimportant to this Mr. Lovell the member for Stanstead, that that work should be executed in consideration of the execution of that deed, and not otherwise. For no other cause moving him to it he gave this deed to the government. It is a consideration passing from the government to a member of this House, and therefore this deed should be submitted to this committee for consideration. We shoidd have such documents as now remain into the custody of the department, we should have a clear expdanation of the absence of this petition in case it is absent, and we should have the plans prepared by the engineer and then we will be in a position to intelligently consider this estimate. Summing it up, I ask the Minister of Public Works does he

not now see-I don't tliinlc he will because he has been pretty candid and courteous to us so far-does he now not see that there are requests for information which ought to be supplied before this item goes through? What difference can it make whether it goes through now and is discussed hereafter, or is allowed to stand over until we get the information ?
The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS. I have explained to the hon. gentleman frankly, and I think the ex-minister endorsed it, that no estimate of the work had been made previous to the vote of 1901-2; that afterwards an estimate was made. The hon. gentleman has asked me several questions, and I ask him now, whether the written estimate would be of any value after the contract was made ? The contract was entered into in 1901; that shows the cost of the work, and any estimate made previous to that would be of no value whatever.


Andrew B. Ingram: It would show a change in opinion as to how this work should be done.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no change. The contract was entered into and that was the cost of the work.


Haughton Lennox: It is important that we should have the engineer's estimate because by it we could form an opinion as to whether or not it would be better to continue this work ; whether it would be better to abandon this work, let the money we have expended go, and pay fair damages in equity; rather to further waste public money in this matter.


Richard Blain: As I understand, this contract was entered into in 1901 for $53,900, and up to date $20,000 has been expended by the government. How is it that before the $53,000 is expended and paid by the government, the minister comes forward and asks for another vote that will make a total of $61,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a revote of $5,000. The total cost is $59,500. The work is under contract. I am informed that the material is on the ground, that the work is being proceeded with and as soon as the money is voted the progress estimates will be ready. There would still be a balance to be provided of $3,500. The engineer has estimated the cost of superintendence at $5,600, and, as I have explained, it would require $3,500 more to pay for the full cost of this work.


Samuel Hughes: I do not object to the cost of the dock; I never object to the cost of any government work which may be necessary. The point in this case is that a member of this parliament is engaged in a deal with this government. He disposed
to the government of a site for a dock. He has a timber limit adjoining. The government then turns round and builds a wharf to increase the value of his property at a place where there are no settlers except a few meii who are working in his one-horse mill. That to my mind is the serious part of the whole business, and I think the minister should meet the wishes of the committee and let this item stand over until the whole matter is explained., Nothing will be injured by doing so. We want the hon. member from Stanstead to be here and give us a statement of the facts of the case. Is the country going to pay for a private dock for every friend of the government who happens to have a timber limit ? Is that the line on which hon. gentlemen opposite are going to carry on the affairs of the country ? I think the ex-Minister of Public Works is responsible for this, and it is hardly consistent with his usual high standard of morality.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am responsible for worse things than that. It is a first-class thing.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister tell us what consideration was paid for that deed ? Is it in the department ? Was it submitted to the Minister of Justice ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say, first, that I would be only too glad if I had any reasonable excuse to grant the hon. gentleman's request; but, after the explanations that have been made, I cannot see that there is any ground why this contract should not be carried out. With regard to the deed, the ex-minister says it was got from Mr. Lovell, or rather from his company, or his son, without consideration. How much interest the present member may have in the company I do not know. I am not in a position to deny all the statements and rumours that have been made here; they have to go for what they are worth; but every possible information that it is in my power to give has been given.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask the hon. Minister of Justice, would this deed be of any value without a consideration ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not know anything about the deed. I have no present recollection of it; but I know the facts, and as we have been talking of this thing for a couple of hours, it might be interesting to get the facts. If my information is correct, the wharf is built on the shore on a site which is vested in the Crown. That which it was important to get from the lumber company was the right of access to the wharf, and I understand the intention was to convey that right of access to the Crown. Whether that was given or not I cannot say, but it was never contended that the site upon which the wharf is situated was ever vested in any one but the Crown.


George William Fowler: Do 1 understand the Minister of Justice to mean that the site belonged to the province of Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am not quite prepared to say that. That is a very big question, which has been discussed many times in the courts-whether riparian rights of this kind are vested in the province or in the Dominion. There is a great deal of difference between the right of property vested in the province and the right of user vested in the Dominion.


George William Fowler: Is this at the mouth of a river or estuary ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is not at the mouth of any river, but is on the shore of the St. Lawrence. I understand that it is on a point jutting out into the St. Lawrence river. I have never seen the wharf itself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the face of all that information, which we have got now after two hours' trying, is it unreasonable that we should ask that if there was a deed it should be produced, as well as the plan and the engineer's estimate on which the item passed the council The ex-minister says there was such an estimate.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There is an estimate of that kind before every work is offered for tender. There is no objection, of course, to bringing down the plans, but it has never been done on such an occasion since I have been in the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have had plans of public works laid on the Table over and over again.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Not after the contract lias been given. Had my hon. friend asked for the plan before the work was awarded his request would have been reasonable. Of course there is no objection of bringing down the plan, but the plans are usually produced when the money is first asked and not after the contracts are given out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I could state cases of my own knowledge to the contrary, where the plans were brought down after the contracts were let.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There is no objection to that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it unreasonable that we should ask that to-night ? Not one of the requests we have made has been granted, and we ask that the item should stand until a search is made into the department and the information brought down which we require.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is it fair, after three hours' discussion, to ask for the plans ? I have given a description of the work. In my twenty-three years' experience, after a contract has been let, I


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: have never heard of a request to bring down the plan. I have answered every question ; I have given all the information in the possession of the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is another thing.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are not superhuman, and cannot give information we do not possess.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: You did not tell us who gave you the deed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Just as soon as the question was put I sent to find out. In the meantime, my hon. friend the ex-Minister of rublic Works told the committee, and I verified his'statement. Tlie property was vested in the Crown, and nobody else could give the deed.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Why did you get a deed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already explained that while the property belonged to the Crown, there was a doubtful question of right of way, and a deed was got from the owner of the property over which the right of way ran.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: When the hon. gentleman was asked for the information, lie refused to give it, and we did not get it until the Minister of Justice came in. What I object to is that we should make this enormous expenditure for the benefit of a private corporation and not of the community generally. To my mind, it has all the indications of a job. The ex-Minister of Public Works objects to my calling it a job, but that certainly is to my mind the most apt description I can give to it. Just fancy spending $60,000 where there is not a post office, where nobody resides except the men working in a saw-mill, and all for the benefit of a member of parliament who was the owner of the timber limits, and who sold them to a corporation at a big profit, which he could not have done unless the government had come to his rescue and built that wharf. I would ask the hon. Minister of Public Works' whether he does not think that we have good reason for our belief that there is a nigger in the fence ? If this deed is not for the property on which the wharf was built, why were we not told that last session ? Now we are told that the deed is only for the right of way to the wharf, and that it was given by a member of this House, but I am satisfied that he would not have given a deed for the right of way if the government had not undertaken to spend $60,000 for his benefit in the erection of this wharf. The building of this wharf made his property more valuable and enabled him to sell it for a much larger amount than he could otherwise have got.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no other information that I know of, directly or indirectly, in the possession

of tlie department that can be given with regard to this matter, and it seems to me very unreasonable, after we have discussed it here during three hours, to ask that the item should again stand over.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I would like to make a proposition to the Minister of Public Works. We are old enough and civilized enough, surely, to understand what we are doing. Here we have been three hours and a half talking about the same thing over and over and nothing done. We should be more reasonable. If one party says :	We will
not give up, and the other party says the same, the result will be we must all stay here till I don't know when. Somebody has got to give up. Now, is it unreasonable to ask the Minister of Public Works simply to jump over this item, and then vote as many others as he pleases. We can vote all the other items for Quebec to-night, and we can take this one up some time next week.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already granted that request a dozen times-that the item should be discussed at some future time.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Well, let it stand then. Will the hon. minister agree to that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will carry out the understanding I reached.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Well, now, we are all as contrary as we can be.


The MINISTER OK PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sorry if my hon. friend (Mr. Morin) is in that humour. I am trying to meet hon. gentlemen opposite and I think they should try to meet me in the same spirit.


Andrew B. Ingram: In the list left by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) are several items marked to be reserved, and this is the very first one. It seems manifest that that hon. gentleman understood that the items would not go through. But if the hon. Minister of Public Works is determined that it shall go through I am afraid that we shall see the early hours of the morning before it does.


Some hon. MEMBER.: All right.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Go on with your threats.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: What would be the use of that to anybody ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Last year, the Minister of Public Works of that time (Hon. Mr. Tarte) vouchsafed this information in the House, speaking of the hon. member for Gaspfi (Mr. Lemieux) :
He is one of those who came to the government and represented to us that, if there was a wharf built there, large lumbering interests would be fostered and developed. We considered the case and came to the conclusion that it was a meritorious work.
The hon. Minister of Public Works says that he has not this information in his department. I would ask any business man in this House if it is reasonable to suppose that the government entered upon this work without first getting any information about it. Last year we asked for the facts, and we could not get them, nor are we getting them now. We are told in a general way that this expenditure will have the effect of encouraging the lumber industry. Is it anything but reasonable that we should ask that this item be allowed to stand until the hon. member for Stanstead is in his place, he having been associated witli the lumber interest to be developed ? He could give us information which would enable us to judge whether the government is justified in making this expenditure to encourage the lumber industry at that point. If, when the information is given us we conclude that this is not a justifiable expenditure of public money,, we can vote against the item. But why, in the name of decency, should we be pressed to swallow this vote without having the means of judging whether it is a good one or not ? If that is the stand that the hon. Minister of Public Works takes with regard to such items, I, for one, lose my respect for him, though I have hitherto entertained the highest regard for the hon gentleman's fairness. I have discussed this question seriously, and, I think, in a proper way. I have said nothing that I feel like taking back, nothing that an opposition member is not quite entitled to say in view of the circumstances surrounding the item. I have not charged any jobbery or bribery, but I ha*Ve contended, and I think justifiably, that this expenditure was entered upon in an unbusiness like way, seeing that due information was not furnished when it was first proposed. I have protested a hundred times in this House against this way of deciding upon the expenditures of public money. If hon. gentlemen wish public works carried on in their constituencies, the least they can do is to furnish the minister with information which he can lay before the committee and make every vote a business proposition, giving the reasons why, in his opinion, the money should be voted. We point out the serious nature of this expenditure, and it is a serious matter. No man would pretend to say that, at a place where there are only 314 souls, and where there is not even a post office, we are justified in spending .$00,000 without any sufficient reason given. This is business, pure and simple ; and the opposition's part of that business is to investigate ; and, if any rumour justifies us in being suspicious of the matter, it is our duty to ask for an explanation why it is placed in the estimates. Because we ask for that information, is that any reason we should be compelled to stay until daylight? I think we are perfectly justified in asking that this item be allowed to stand until the

lion, member for Stanstead is here to give us the facts we desire to know.


Samuel Hughes: The ex-Minister of Public Works, I think, is about the only-gentleman on that side of the House who knows anything about the locality of this public work. He has passed there on his pleasure yacht on the down trip. Would he tell us what is the nature of the shore there ? It struck me when I saw it, as rather bold and rocky


William Humphrey Bennett: It is a bluff.


Samuel Hughes: The ex-minister spoke of good soil. My information is that it is a place absolutely unsuited for farming ; that you could not get grain in with a peg awl, and if you did, it would not grow. What settlement is there in rear of this place, or what settlement can be expected ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: The appearance of the place is very picturesque. The leaves, the green trees are charming. The province of Quebec has some rocks, and it has some beautiful plains also. In that locality there are rocks, trees, rivers and scenery which, no doubt, would captivate the poetic mind of my hon. friend. If I were allowed to offer any advice to-night, as the hour is pretty far advanced, I would say that we had better go to bed and discuss this item later on, after we get further information, if there is any. I do not say that there is no more information to be obtained. The site has been given free. My hon. friend complains that it was given free.
Mr. BENNE'JpT. Was there any consideration in the deed ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, the consideration was the public service.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Before we go home, I -would like to recall the attention of the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) to an observation he made a few moments ago. I have no knowledge of this particular matter, but I have knowledge of another matter to which the hon. gentleman alluded, and to which I want to call his attention, so that, if he was serious, he may have an opportunity of explaining himself. He said he proposed to stop the jobbery in connection with public works along the shores of the county represented by the Minister of E'inance. I want to know if my hon. friend has any reason to suppose that there is any jobbery in connection with public works along the shores of my county, and if so, I should be exceedingly pleased to have him put his statement in a somewhat more definite form. If he was serious I would be glad to have him enlarge upon it; if he was not serious I will give him an opportunity to withdraw.


Samuel Hughes: I did not use the word ' jobbery ' in relation to the Mr. INGRAM.
Minister in connection with public works along the shores of his county; but I have no hesitation in telling the Minister of Finance here that I consider it is a very extraordinary thing indeed that the Finance Minister of this country should come down and ask for the expenditures that he does annually along the little coves and bays of the shores of his county, where there is no revenue derived from them whatever. I tell the Minister of Finance further that if there is no jobbery in connection with it-I am not here to prove it or to make a charge-but if there is no jobbery in connection with it, it is about the only part of the Dominion of Canada where I have ever seen any public work carried out since he has been on the treasury benches where there has not been more or less of jobbery. In connection with the Public Works Department and other departments of this country, rumour is very current of transactions such as the one I asked the minister about to-night specifically, concerning hemlock and spruce. When the specifications called for spruce, hemlock is put in, in works not a thousand miles from the city of Montreal and from Sorel. I have nothing to retract of what I said.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The question is whether or uot the hon. gentleman said there was jobbery in the public works of the county I represent. That is the question. If the ' Hansard ' does not say that the hon. member used the word ' jobbery, ' then I am wrong and will apologise to him. If the ' Hansard ' does say that the hon. gentleman said there was jobbery, then I ask him to come forward with some evidence, or to acknowledge that he has made a mistake.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 1 would ask the hon. member for Victoria to make the same explanation of his charges of jobbery in the neighbourhood of Montreal. He has insinuated that when I was in office I had made changes that were tantamount to jobbery. Well, I invite an investigation on those points. The hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about.


Samuel Hughes: I did not state that the minister was a party to it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If there was anything wrong, I am responsible for it. If there was jobbery, I am certainly guilty of it, and am responsible. But there was no jobbery, and my hon. friend is just as far wrong as his neighbour was who used the word ' jobbery.' When a member of parliament gets up and charges jobbery, he must be prepared to prove it, otherwise he has no right to use the word. It is no use to take military airs and speak of jobbery. If my hon. friend wants to have an investigation before the Public Accounts Committee of the changes that have been made at Montreal, I will be ready to meet

him. He may call all the officials that are available, and let us have an investigation.


Samuel Hughes: I think it has been clearly established before the country to-night that a member of parliament supporting the Finance Minister in this House, has given a deed of a property to the government after the government had expended $00,000 on a dock in order that he might enhance the value of some other of his property. I think no further proof is required that there has been jobbery in connection with this transaction. I have nothing to retract, and the people of this country, lam satisfied, will open their eyes to the situation. It is, all very well for these gentlemen to get up with their bluffs, they are talking to the wrong individual. We have it admitted that a member of parliament has given a deed. What consideration did he give for the deed ? It was given, I presume, in the form of a wharf. Another lion, member, a Liberal member that I see over yonder, stated that he had sold the property for over $100,000 which cost very little.


Jacob Thomas Schell: Did I state any sum at all ?


Samuel Hughes: The sum of $100,000 was mentioned.


Jacob Thomas Schell: No.


Samuel Hughes: The sum of upwards of $100,000 was mentioned tonight by some hon. member. Will the hon. gentleman tell us what the sum was ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: I do not know what the sum was.


Andrew B. Ingram: In view of the stand taken by the Minister of Public Works, I am obliged to move that this item be struck out. I regret that I have to take this step, but I am compelled to do so in view of the fact that all the information is absolutely refused, and we have no other alternative. If the hon. gentleman says we are not entitled to know what amount of business is done at this point, or what, amount of business was estimated to be done, if he declines to furnish us with that information or to let the item stand until we can get that information, then there is no other alternative but to move that the item be struck out.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I acknowledge that the committee are entitled to all the information available. I am responsible as the minister of the department, and on my responsibility I have stated over and over again that I have given all the information available. The hon. member will acknowledge on reflection that he has made an unreasonable request, and one outside of my power to grant. By passing this vote we do not deprive him of another opportunity of getting any information that 50
may be had in that direction. If I had understood that there was a desire that the item should stand we would not have objected. But, after the understanding I had with that hon. member and the liberal proposition I made, I thought it was dealing very unfairly with the committee, not to say anything of myself, to press this. I have no objection at all to the vote being taken.


Andrew B. Ingram: We have the estimates marked by one of the members of the opposition who takes a special interest in matters relating to the province of Quebec. He requests certain items to be allowed to stand. Amongst these is the Grande VallSe item which he requested to stand. Last year when this item was up the hon. gentleman who was interested in getting this item in the estimates was absent. That hon. gentleman was present yesterday and he knew these estimates were to be taken up.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Nobody expected these estimates would be up to-night. I did not expect it at all this afternoon.


Andrew B. Ingram: In view of the arrangement entered into at three o'clock that after the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) addressed the House, the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) was to move the adjournment of the debate, an arrangement which I know was entered into, what then had the House to do for the balance of the evening if it could not take up the Public Works estimates ? The hon. gentleman knew that and yet he absents himself from this House. The hon. minister says that he has no power to force the hon. gentleman to make a speech or to give an explanation. If that is the character of that hon. gentleman, the sooner the House knows it the better, and if the hon. gentleman refuses to get up and state the information which he has in his possession, or repudiate the rumours which have been circulated against him, the House will not have a very high regard for his standing. Let the item stand over until he is in (iis place and if he then refuses to give tlie information, we will not hold the hon. minister responsible for the information we are asking for. I do not see any justification for the hon. minister's course at all, and I believe that he is simply trying to bluff this item through the House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think the hon. member has any ground for that statement.


Andrew B. Ingram: I cannot see any other reason. I am obliged to be frank with the hon. minister. If the hon. gentleman could say that we were asking anything unreasonable in respect to this item, I might be willing to change my mind on that point. The hon. gentleman says that ho has no information in the department. I am not ftnd-



ing fault with the hon. gentleman as to that, hut I am finding fault with his attempt to bulldose the item through the committee and not give us an opportunity of hearing the explanation of the hon. gentleman who got this vote put into the estimates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 am leaving an opportunity.


Andrew B. Ingram: You are not leaving ail opportunity.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: We on this side are willing to stay.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not require any suggestions from the hon. gentleman (Sir. Talbot). I have had as much parliamentary experience as he has.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: With a good deal more talk.


Andrew B. Ingram: And with better effect. I think, than the talk of the hon. gentleman. I wish to say in respect to this item that there is no opportunity of discussing the matter again except on concurrence, and every one knows that during concurrence is no time to debate an item.


The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite agree that if there is any desire to vote, now is the time.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman knows that on the last day when concurrence is run through there is no opportunity to deviate an item. Then, why not let the item stand over ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Why not vote now ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I will take advantage at a later period of doing something in this matter that will take up more time of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister made a statement that I do not think he was justified in making. He said that if objection had been taken to this item before the discussion took place, he would not have pressed it. The very moment it was read from the Chair objection was taken and the request was made that in the absence of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Sir. Slonk) it should be allowed to stand. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier gave us a copy of the estimates with a number of the items marked for the specific purpose of allowing these items to stand during his absence. The hon. minister repeats that he has given all the information until the lion. ex-Minister of Public Works comes in and gives us information that wo had not received before and which he believes is in tiie department. The bon. minister tells us that this information is not in the department. We remember that last year when this House remained in session for four hours discussing an item the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) declared again and again that there was no information in regard to Mr. INGRAM.
it, and yet, next day, he brought down all the papers and laid them on the Table. Are we not justified in believing from the information we have about the deed, about the estimates and about the plans and specifications that there are papers in the department which we should see. We are denied the right to see these papers. My hon. friend makes the request that the item should be allowed to stand. The hon. minister says that be was prepared to grant that long ago. But, that is not what he is prepared to grant. He is prepared to force the item through and then he says: I will reserve one item upon which you can have the discussion. That is not what we want. There are many of these items to which we do not object, but to this one item we do object and we want more information before we allow it to pass. Our position is not unreasonable. We have dealt very reasonably with the lion. Minister of Public Works, and I regret to see the obstinacy that he displays now because be has usually been very fair and agreeable. We have been disposed to allow many items to pass that otherwise we would not have allowed to pass so easily but for the fact that we thought he was ready to give us all the information he could. I do not think this should be forced through. I think it is very improper and very unfair and it is not paving the way towards that good feeling that has existed heretofore between the opposition and members of the government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have explained so often that I need scarcely repeat that if I had any further information on the matter I would be glad to bring it down and that if lion, gentlemen allow this item to pass we will reserve the right to discuss it at any future time.


Samuel Hughes: There is no doubt in the world that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) deliberately marked certain items that he wished to be held over. If he had only wished the privilege that the hon. Minister of Public Works refers to of reserving one item he would have indicated that but the hon. gentleman deliberately marked a number of items and the distinct understanding was that these items were to be held over, not that they were to be passed and the discussion had upon one item, but that the whole of those items were to be held over and we charge the hon. Minister of Public Works with breaking faith here to-night. This is the first time we have had to do it. He has always kept good faith with this House, but for some unaccountable reason, whether it is the absence of the hon. member who is so seriously involved in this matter I do not know-but undoubtedly for some unaccountable reason he insists on pushing through this item and violating the agreement entered into with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.


Edward Hackett: I suggested one or two Lours ago that this item should stand. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier was very desirous that he should be present on the occasion of the discussion of this matter, and I think it is a highhanded act on the part of the government that they should carry this item through without having the hon. gentleman here. We are told that the government business must be carried on. We have been here a month without doing any business of Importance. We are now settling down to business and at a very important time when we think that matters affecting the people should be discussed we are simply bluffed and sat upon and told that we are of no importance, and that we, representing the opposition, have no rights in tliis House. Some remarks have been made about jobbery. The hon. ex-Minister of Public Works repudiated the idea that there was any jobbery. The greatest jobbery that was ever perpetrated in Canada was perpetrated in Prince Edward Island in 1900, when the government, without having any appropriation, or having a dollar of money voted by this parliament, expended money at Skinner's Pond for the purpose of gaining votes for their candidate against your humble servant. I charge him now, and I charge the government of Canada witii that. There was not one dollar voted for this expenditure, and yet one month before the election they took money that should go for another purpose, in order to try and corrupt the electors of West Prince. The ex-minister cannot deny it. I have the proof. They talk about cancelling contracts, but they cancelled the contract for a most useful public work at Summerside and there is not one dollar in the estimates to-day to show that they intend to continue that work. A very unkind remark was made imputing ignorance to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes). The hon. gentleman was told that he was quite ignorant about the geography of this locality, whereas the fact is that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) was right and the man who corrected him was wrong.


Samuel Hughes: I have measured (lie distance sxioken of to Restigouche, and it is a little over fifty miles across country. I have been over the whole region, and 1 knew what 1 was talking about.


Edward Hackett: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) was quite right, and the hon. member who contradicted him was wrong. Now, with regard to this work. The government proposes to spend $60,000 on a pier in land where there is no water at all, and while they expend this large amount of money on building a pier where there is no water we have plenty of water around the shores of Prince Edward Island where there is need of a number of piers, and the whole province only gets a vote of $34,000. This place has a population of 314 people and 504
Prince Edward Island has a population of 105,000, and it is contrary to justice and equity that you should spend $61,000 at this little place and only $34,000 for all Prince Edward Island. We are prepared to keep up this discussion until the sun rises tomorrow morning and the best thing the minister eonld do is to hold over this item until the hon. member for Jacques Cartier is present.
Ttem voted: Yeas, 36; nays, 19.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is time that we should adjourn now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are a few items here which perhaps we might pass to-night, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) would consent.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister will not get his items through by pursuing these tactics. I have seen staying exhibitions here which were good for one day, and the next day, too.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope that my hon. friend will not get angry. I suggested that some unimportant items should be taken up, but I said that if the gentleman who leads the opposition did not wish to do so, then I would not proceed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I expressed the desire, as plain as the English language could express it, that the committee should now rise.


Andrew B. Ingram: I should like to add that, judging from the treatment we have received to-night, the Minister of Public Works cannot expect to get many more items through. I wish to say further that the hon. minister and his department have been treated with the greatest courtesy by the members of this House, and I am sorry that he has treated us in the manner he has done to-night.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Andrew B. Ingram: We have always got along very nicely, and I think I am speaking within my rights. I say we have treated the hon. gentleman with courtesy ; but if that is to be the spirit with which we are to discuss these matters, then I wish it to be understood that on every item on which I have doubts, I will speak as fully and freely as I choose ; and if the hon. gentleman cannot get his items passed as easily as he would like, he has only himself to blame.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In moving that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, I have only to say that the hon. gentleman has a perfect right to exercise all his privileges as a member of this House.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 12.50 a.m. Saturday.



Monday, April 20, 1903.
Tlie SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.


FIRST READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 115) to incorporate the Richmond and Drummond Fire Insurance Company.- Mr. Tobin-by Mr. Bureau.
Bill (No. 116) respecting the Restigouche Boom Company and to change its name to the Restigouche Boom and Log Driving Company.-Mr. Logan.

[Stage Direction]
List of Shareholders of the -Chartered Banks to the 31st of December, 1902.-Hon. Mr. Fielding.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: 
Robert Laird Borden: I consider, Mr. Speaker, the motion which my right lion, friend the Prime Minister has proposed to be an eminently proper one, under the circumstances, and I give it m.v most heartfelt support. In the death of the Hon. Sir Oliver Mowat, a great figure has passed off the stage, a man who linked the present generation with the generation of great men of the past, to whom my right lion, friend has referred. Sir Oliver Mowat truly had a great public career. Great not only in the sense of the unusual success which attended his efforts as a public man, but in this sense also that he has left behind him an honourable name, absolutely unstained. He leaves behind him a name which commands the respect, the esteem and the affection of all his fellow countrymen, regardless of political opinions.

I therefore second the motion which the right hon. gentleman has proposed, and do not think it necessary to speak at greater length, as he has said all, and more than all, that I could say on this occasion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If I might he permitted, Sir. Speaker, to add my humble testimony to the eloquent tributes which have just been pronounced upon the passing of Ontario's Grand Old Man, I would say that in Sir Oliver Blowat's death Toronto has lost its foremost citizen, Ontario has lost its most highly honoured and cherished son, and the Dominion a patriot whose fidelity to the interests of Canada and of the empire has never faltered. As one of the representatives in this House of the city of which, for more than threescore years, Sir Oliver Mowat had been a resident, I am happy to know and to feel that on this occasion I speak for all parties and creeds and classes in Toronto, when I say that from the moment Sir Oliver Mowat first entered the arena of public life, as a member of the city council, until at the close of a long and useful and honourable career, full of years and of honours, he was called to enter into his eternal rest, he enjoyed the respect and esteem of his fellow citizens. The record of Sir Oliver Blowat's life work will be an incentive and an inspiration to the rising generation, and to future generations of Canadians as well, to strive to emulate his example and to devote themselves to the promotion of their country's interests and welfare. It only remains for me to join most sincerely in the eulogies which have been passed upon the deceased statesman; and on my own behalf as well as for my colleagues, to respectfully tender an expression of our deep sympathy to the bereaved family, whose grief is shared by Canadians from end to end of the Dominion.


[Stage Direction]
Blotion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
BIr. W. SCOTT (West Assiniboia). Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to be permitted by the House to remind the government that several days ago I laid before the Blinister of Justice certain representations concerning an alleged combine between the dealers and the manufacturers of lumber, in consequence of which the price of lumber in the country west of Lake Superior has undergone a very marked increase. The general impression is that the increase is at least partly due to some improper agreement or combine between the dealers and the manufacturers and I would ask the government whether attention has been given to the statements which I myself and certain other members from the west have laid before it ?
Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. BV. S. Fielding).: any of those parties who cut lumber entered a combine, it would have the effect of cancelling their licenses and they would lose what interest they had in the limits. However, if anything can be done in the way of bringing the matter to the attention of the government and if taking the duty off dressed lumber will remedy the grievance, I am satisfied. I move the adjournment of the House.
association in your town, we regret we are unable to make you quotations.
Thanking you for the inquiry, we are.
Yours very truly,


THE HASTINGS SHINGLE
[Stage Direction]
MANUFACTURING CO., Limited,
J. D. McNair.
The British Columbia Mills, Lumber and Trading Company.
Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: I did not expect this question would be brought up at the present time, but as it is now before us, I think it desirable that certain documents and information which I have in my hands should be placed in the possession of the House. On several past occasions when we have made allegations that a certain condition of affairs existed, wc have been met with a demand for proof. For my part I do not think it is any portion of the business of a member of parliament to act the part of a private detective ; it is our business to state that certain conditions exist, and it is the business of those who are charged with the duty of carrying on the affairs of the country to accept that statement or disprove it. However, on this occasion, if there is any question as to the existence of a hard and fast lumber combine, a lumber combine which not only dictates the price at which lumber shall be sold to retail dealers, but dictates who shall sell that lumber and who shall not, and whose jurisdiction extends throughout the North-west Territories-if there is any question, I say, of tlie existence of that combine, I will take the liberty of reading these papers for the information of the House and of the country. This correspondence passed between a reputable building contractor in Alberta, and the managers of certain sawmill businesses in British Columbia. The paper I am going to read are originals. The letters from the saw-mill men bear their own printed headings, and they are signed by their own signatures ; so there can be no question as to the facts of the case. The correspondence opens in September, 1902. This gentleman writes me to say that he was in business as a building contractor, and had been in the habit of purchasing such lumber as he required to carry on his business, but at a certain stage of the game, when the combine was sufficiently entrenched, he applied to purchase lumber and was unable to do so. I will read the letters in the order of dates :
The Hastings Shingle Manufacturing Co., Limited.
Head Office,
Vancouver, B.C., September 8, 1902.
Dear Sir,-Your letter of the 23rd ult., addressed to Mr. Austin McNair, was handed to us for reply, as he is out of the shingle business and is now in our employ.
We regret we are unable to make you quotations on shingles as we find that you are not a member of the Western Retail Lumbermen's Association, and as there is a member of the
Vancouver, B.C., September 24, 1902.
Dear Sir,-We have your favour of the 20tli, and note contents. In reply we beg to say we would have much pleasure in continuing to ship you lumber to Cochrane as we did in the past to Banff, but you are now in a district under the control of the Western Retail Lumbermen's Association, and we are unable to supply lumber to any who are not enrolled a3 members of that body. If you can secure admission we will be pleased to quote you. The proper mode of procedure to secure this end would be to write to the secretary, Mr. Isaac Cockburn, of Winnipeg.
Yours very truly,


BRITISH COLUMBIA MILLS, TIMBER AND TRADING CO.,
[Stage Direction]
Hastings Saw-mill. branch.
per H. S. Galbraith.
Harrison River Mills, Timber and Trading Company, Limited.
Harrison River, B.C., September 24, 1902.
Dear Sir,-We thank you for your inquiry re lumber, which is just to hand. Please let us know if you are a member of the ' Western Retail Lumbermen's Association.' We cannot sell you down in that country unless you are. If you are not, you might apply to I. Cockburn, Winnipeg, secretary of the association and become a member, then -we should be pleased to supply you. Let us hear from you again.
Yours very truly,

[Stage Direction]
MILLS, TIMBER AND TRADING COMPANY, Limited.
J. F. Boyd, Secretary. The Western Retail Lumbermen's Association.
September 30, 1902.
Dear Sir,-Replying to your letter of the 26th instant, I would like you to inform me of the business that is to be done at Cochrane. How many .cars are there sold there in a year ? What stock of lumber is carried by the dealers already there.
Yours very truly,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary Treasurer.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that the secretary-treasurer of this association, resident in Winnipeg, was assuming to dictate who shall sell lumber at Cochrane, in the district of Alberta. On October 7th, there is another letter from Mr. Cockburn :
From what you state there is no business for two lumber yards. Perhaps Messrs Murphy Bros., would sell out to you. I will write to them the necessity of keeping sufficient lumber in stock for the requirements of the district.
(Sgd.) ISAAC COCKBURN.
That is to say, this man was unable to get lumber at Cochrane from those who
[Stage Direction]
were In the business there. He desired to buy it from those who had it, and he was not allowed permission to buy it. He applied to Cockburn in Winnipeg for permission, and was refused it.
On October 14th there is a letter from the Harrison River Mills Timber and Trading Co., Limited, who write as follows :
* We are just in receipt of your favour of 10th instant, and regret to hear that you have been unable to obtain membership in the Western Retail Lumbermen's Association. We are sorry that we cannot sell to you even at Morley unless you are a member of the above association. If there is not a member at Morley, why not make application for that point. We will be glad to sell you the lumber if you can just arrange your membership in the association. Awaiting to hear from you we remain,
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
J. F. Boyd. Secretary.
The British Columbia Mills and Trading Co.
Vancouver, B.C., October 15, 1902.
Dear Sir,

We have your favour of 10th instant and note the contents. It certainly seems to be too bad that the Western Retail Lumbermen's Association should not use more judgment in admitting members if the situation at Cochrane is as bad as outlined by you, and we see no reason to doubt it. We do not think there will be any objection to our selling you at Morley, and we would advise you to write at once to the secretary inclosing your application and fee for membership at that point. We are writing by this mail to our agent at Winnipeg to urge your claims for recognition and authorizing him to state to the secretary that we have always found you reliable and straightforward and so eligible for recognition. We are having a price list for delivery at Morley mailed to you and would be glad to receive orders.
Yours very truly,

[Stage Direction]
LUMBER AND TRADING CO.._
C. W. Beecher,
Assistant General Manager.
On October 21st, there is a letter from Murphy Bros., Cochrane, Alberta :
Gentlemen,-Yours to hand re lumber, if you let us know the duality you want of each. If we haven't got it we will get it for you. The price will be right. We let you have it as cheap as possible.
On October 23rd, there is a letter from the British Columbia Mills Timber and Trading Company, head office at Vancouver, B.C. :
We have your favour of the 18th, and thank you for contents. We regret very much that we cannot ship you lumber to Morley to be rebilled to Cochrane and at the same time act in accordance with either the letter or the spirit of our agreement with the Western Retail Lumbermen's Association. If you contemplate starting a yard at Morley we will do all in our power to have you enrolled as a member, and will also see what can be done in the matter of you being a resident member at Cochrane. In the meantime with much good
Frank Oliver: wishes for your future prosperity we beg to remain,


THE BRITISH COLUMBIA MILLS, TIMBER AND TRADING CO.
[Stage Direction]
per H. A. Galbraith.
On October 29th, there is a letter from the British Columbia Mills Timber and Trading Company :
Since our last favour to you we have been advised by our Winnipeg agent, who has been endeavouring to get you put on the list for Cochrane, that he thinks there is no reason why you would not be put on the list for Morley, but that you could not get on for Cochrane. Such being the case we trust you will forward your application and fee for membership at Morley to Mr. Cockburn, and as our agent, Mr. Ovas, has placed the matter before him, we have no doubt you will be admitted for that point.
Trusting that you will then furnish us with your requirements, which it has always been our pleasure in the past and will be in the future to execute to the best of our ability, we remain.
Yours very truly,

[Stage Direction]
C. W. Beecher,
General Manager.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that the evidence proves conclusively that there is a combine in restraint of trade and for the purpose of increasing prices, bringing it within the limits of the Tariff Act. And, as a representative of the country affected, I ask for action under that Tariff Act; and I ask for action immediately. The ease is that the price of finished lumber-dressed lumber, for flooring, ceiling and siding-has been increased by $9 per thousand feet in the part of "the country I represent with'a the past fourteen months. There may have been some reason for a moderate increase in price, but there is no change in conditions in British Columbia within the last fourteen months that would warrant an increase to the amount of $9 per thousand on this class of lumber. I think it is desirable to call the attention of the House to the facts at this time, when there are thousands and tens of thousands of people entering the territories and settling on the plains. As these people cannot secure the slightest shelter for themselves their families or their stock without buying the necessary lumber, an increase of the cost of lumber to the amount of $9 a thousand feet is such a serious matter as to constitute one of the most effective checks to the tide of immigration that could be given. This is a question in dealing with which we cannot afford to lose time. The people are there. They need the lumber. They need it now. And this precious Western Retail Lumbermen's Association Is holding them up to the extent I have mentioned for this class of lumber. I may point out, for the benefit of the House, that while these gentlemen have a very strong grasp of their business
affairs,' they are not altogether destitute of a sense of humour. They have published, not for general circulation, but for private perusal, a list of members of their association. Now, this lumbermen's association is, in fact, an organization of the mill men, who hold the retail dealers under their thumb, as you have seen by this correspondence. But In this peculiar list that they have published, the mill men figure as ' honorary members ' and the retail men as ' active members.' .So, it would appear as though the dealer, who is at the mercy of the mill man is the active force in carrying out this iniquitous combine. The retailer, of course, comes in direct contact with the unfortunate eousumer, but he is the victim of circumstances as the consumer is ; and it is the mill man, the honourary member, who is really in command, as this correspondence shows.
I have placed this evidence before the House and before the country. It does not admit of contradiction, and it should not be necessary to place it before the House, because the facts are so patent that there is no gainsaying them in any way, shape or manner. An organization which not only increases the price of such a necessity as iumber at such a critical time as the present, but actually; dictates to the people of this country whether they shall do business or shall not do business, is something worthy the immediate attention of this House, and the strongest attention that this Housei can give if. For my part, I take the liberty of saying that, as a preliminary canter in dealing with the question, the best thing to do would be to take the duty absolutely off dressed lumber, as it was taken off rough lumber some years ago for the same reason.
Mr.  A. A. C.@: LaRIVIERE (Provencher). I would like to ask my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) a question. If there is a combine, as he says, and perhaps there is, would the removal of the duty, as he suggests, bring about the removal of the combine ?


Frank Oliver: I am not a prophet or a mind reader. But I believe the removal of the duty would have a most salutary effect. And as the condition of affairs is exactly that! contemplated by" the clause in the Tariff Act when it was placed before the House and accepted by the House, I ask, as a. preliminary canter-as I have said-that that Act be given effect at once. Afterwards, if this does not result in breaking up the combine, other measures may be taken.


Mr. W. F. McCREARY (Selkirk).: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. La-Rivi&re) and dealing with the question very briefly, I may say that while in Winnipeg a few days ago, I met several of the independent dealers in lumber who reside in
that city, where the headquarters of the combine exist. The members of the combine had promised that, if the matter were investigated before the city council, they would appear and state their case. Subsequently I accompanied the independent dealers to the meeting, but the members of the combine refused to put in a defence to the charge that there was a combine unless their evidence was taken in private- they would not allow reporters or independent dealers to be present, but their evidence had to be kept absolutely secret. Of course, the independent dealers and the city council refused to hear their defence. There is no doubt whatever that there is a combine, a combine of the worst kind, injuriously affecting the west and hampering its development. I produced before the Minister of Justice some twenty-one pages of type writtem matter showing that a combine exists and that it has existed for the last year or two. I also produced-if not,
I have it among my papers-a copy of the constitution and by-laws of the combine. There should not be much difficulty in liis arriving at the conclusion that this combine is operating there now and that the situation needs relieving at once. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion one of the steps that should be taken, and taken at once, is to remove the duty from dressed lumber. Now, it is true that may not give all the relief that is desired. I do not think it will, but I am told by men in the business, including Mayor Arbuthnot, of, Winnipeg, and other independent dealers, that if the duty is taken off it will largely go to break up the combine. Afterwards the commission can go to work and break up the combine by what ever means are found necessary. I would ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) to facilitate the movement of this commission as much as possible, and I shall be very glad to place before him all the documents in the original that he may desire.


Mr R.: L- BORDEN (Halifax). Mr. Speaker, there will be one difficulty about the course that has been suggested, namely, taking oil the duty on all kinds of lumber.
The provision seems only to apply to articles upon which there is a duty. I have now before me the section which the hon. minister invokes. That section is as follows :
That whenever the Governor in Council has reason to believe that as regard to any artiele of commerce there exists any trust, combination, association or agreement of any kind among the manufacturers of such article, or dealers therein, to unduly enhance the price of such article or in any other way to unduly promote the advantage of the manufacturers or dealers at the expense of the consumers, the Governor in Council may commission or empower any judge of the Supreme Court or Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any Superior Court in any province of Canada, to inquire in a summary way into and report to the Gover-

nor in Council, whether such trust, combination, association or agreement exists.
Then follows the provision in regard to the attendance of witnesses, &c. It proceeds :
If the judge reports that such trust, combination, association or agreement exists, and if it appears to the Governor in Council that such disadvantage to the consumers is facilitated by the duties of customs imposed on a like article when imported, then the Governor in Council shall place such article on the free list, or so reduce the duty upon it, as to give to the public the benefit of reasonable competition in such article.
I do not know whether my hon. friends have looked carefully at the schedules of the Tariff Act, and they are so long that I hardly like to trouble the House with them, but the schedule which provides for free lumber is very comprehensive indeed. It seems to me to include almost every kind of lumber that would be required. That particular kind of lumber upon which there is a duty of twenty-five per cent is described as follows :
Boards, sawed boards, planks and deals, planed or dressed on one or both sides, when the edges thereof are jointed or tongued and grooved, 25 per cent.
Then
Lumber and timber manufactured, n.e.s., 20 per cent.	.
That, of course, is coupled with a provision for free lumber covering a whole page of this book with which I will not trouble the House at the present time. It seems to me that the complaint which comes from the west is a striking illustration of one fact which I have had occasion to mention before in this House, namely, that these combines do not always depend on a protective tariff. We have combines in the United States, we have them in free trade England at the present time, we have them in Canada in regard to commodities the greater portion of which come into Canada duty free. I agree entirely with the hon. gentlemen who have said that it might prove a serious handicap to the development of the west, particularly at this juncture, if the price of lumber were to be unduly raised, and I agree with hon. gentlemen who have said that this matter should demand the immediate attention of the government. But, whether or not a remedy is to be found in the suggestions which have been made by these gentlemen is to my mind quite a different question. I would be inclined to think that the remedy so far as it is to be found under the law as it at present exists, is to be found in the direction mentioned by the hon. Minister of 1 inance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) under the provisions of the cede to which he referred this afternoon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr Speaker, it seems to me that the only direct remedy we have to-day is to be found in the I Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Criminal Code. Some years ago, when the Criminal Code was amended at the instance of the late hon. member for West York (Hon. Mr. Wallace) and when the clause which I am now about to read was introduced, it was designed for the very purpose and that alone of attacking combinations :
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars and not less than two hundred dollars, or to two years' imprisonment, and if a corporation, is liable to a penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars and not less than one thousand dollars, who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with any other person, or with any railway, steamship, steamboat or transportation company, unlawfully

(a) To unduly limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any article or commodity, which may be a subject of trade or commerce.
Then,
(c)	To unduly prevent, limit, or lessen the manufacture or production of any article or commodity, or to unreasonably enhance the price thereof ; or
(d)	To unduly prevent or lessen competition in the production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation or supply of any such article or commodity, or in the price of insurance upon person or property.
In 1890, as a result of the contention of (hose who had looked into the question, it was found that it was almost impossible to establish to the satisfaction of the court tiiat the price had been unduly increased or that trade had been unduly restricted and I had the honour of introducing a Bill into tliis House, chap. 65, to further amend the Criminal Code so as to take out the word ' unduly,' which Bill passed this House and the Senate and is now the law, so that the Criminal Code is now much more effective and practical. I noticed the other day that a prosecution which was started against the coal combine of Brantford succeeded. They were indicted for a conspiracy to unduly enhance the price of coal, and they were convicted a few days ago at the assize court. I have no doubt whatever if the present combination amongst the lumbermen is such as has been stated they could be indicted and convicted. Certainly, if the letters read by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) are correct, and I have no doubt they are, these people are clearly amenable to the Criminal Code, section 520 and could be indicted under it. It seems to me that that would be the only direct way of attacking them, because, while the duty may be taken off, so much lumber comes in free of duty that you cannot successfully affect them there. I am very much inclined to believe, from the time at which this is brought to the attention of the House and from the way in which it has been brought, that this is rather an effort to strengthen Mr. Greenway's hands in the coming provincial election than for any other

purpose. Tliis has been going on for quite a while. Why did not Mr. Greenway and these dealers and builders in the west invoke the Criminal Code ? Why did they not avail themselves of this direct means of putting a stop to this combination and severely punishing the parties implicated ? I think it is the Criminal Code that they should have resort to in a case of this kind instead of taking the duty off lumber, and if these parties were as desirous of affording relief to the people of the west as they profess to be they would have adopted the course which I have suggested rather than come here to endeavour to assist Mr. Greenway in the way in which they are doing.


Mr. J. CLANCY (Bothwell).: 1 have locked very carefully through the Trade and Navigation Returns and I am unable to find that a single dollar's worth of dutiable lumber lias come into the country during the past year. Therefore, I would say to hon. gentlemen who are seeking relief by taking off the duty that so far as I see no lumber of that class has come into the country during the past year.


Mr. SCOTT.: Mr. Speaker, I may be permitted to read over the representations which I made to the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) to assure the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that the suggestions which he has made and which other gentlemen have made towards seeking a remedy for the conditions which exist up there, were suggested on my representations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What date is that.


Thomas Walter Scott: My letter to the Minister of Justice is dated the 25tli of March.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of last March.


Thomas Walter Scott: Of last March. After reciting the conditions I say.
In view of the above statements which can be amplified, I beg to suggest that the government should at once investigate the conditions of the trade, with the view to applying, if found advisable, the provisions of section 18 of the customs tariff, 1897, or of section 520 of the Criminal Code, 1892, as amended by the Act of 1900.
I further suggest that the government should consider the possibility of a remedy for the grievances complained of by amendments to the timber regulations so as to provide for the forfeiture of licenses in case the holders become parties to any such unlawful combination, association, or agreement as aforesaid or otherwise, so as to retain a measure of control over the operations of the manufacturers and dealers.
With regard to the point which has been made, that scarcely any lumber is imported into Canada as a dutiable article, I may say that the consumers and independent dealers who are making these complaints allege, that the classes of lumber which are dutiable are used by the combination practically to put a duty upon the whole of the rough lumber which ostensibly is free from duty. The members of the combination refuse to sell lumber to any person who buys any lumber outside of Canada. The whole of the lumber that the dealer buys must be bought from a member of the combination, or otherwise the dealer or the consumer is refused lumber by the members of the combination. They, therefore, claim that the removal of duty upon dressed lumber is likely to afford a considerable measure of relief. But, as has been said by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) and others, if this relief is not sufficient, certainly the matter will be pressed further, and other remedies will be demanded.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I did not understand what answer the Minister of Justice gave to your letter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I regret that the Minister of Justice is not here just now, because he would deal with that point. I think, however, that I can safely go this far, although a layman :	That if this matter is to be
dealt with under the Criminal Code, the proper party to deal with it is the Attorney General of Manitoba, because it is the duty of the attorneys general in the respective provinces to initiate proceedings under the Criminal Code.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not at all. Any private individual can do it.
* The MINISTER OF FINANCE. Certain-y ; but through the attorney general. What I mean to say is, that it is not the business of this parliament or of the Minister of Justice to initiate proceedings under the Criminal Code.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not say it was.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I merely call attention to that point. With regard to the North-west Territories, that perhaps will have to be qualified because the territories are in an exceptional position ; but I believe the point has been raised that this combination has its foundation in the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia.


Thomas Walter Scott: It covers the whole country from Lake Superior, west.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The combinations, if combinations exist, are to be found, I believe, in the province of Manitoba and in the province of British Columbia, although their operations may extend into the territories.


Thomas Walter Scott: From Lake Superior to the Pacific.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That may be, but I think the combination has its existence, if it has any existence at all, in the provinces, although its business happens to extend to the territories, and there may be a question as to how far yon can prosecute in the territories people who are

In tlie provinces and who do not come within the limits of territorial jurisdiction. However, that is getting into the law of it and I do not want to do that. In the provinces at all events the initiation of these proceedings lies in the attorney general of the province, and not in any of us here at Ottawa. Under the combine clause of the tariff, of course, the initiative would be with the government here, but that also is a judicial proceeding and you have to take every formal way of going about it.
Motion (Mr. Davis) to adjourn negatived.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELL-by Mr. Borden, Halifax- asked :
1.	Is any part of the post office building at Amherst, N.S., occupied by a tenant or tenants?
2.	What rental is received from the several tenants ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. (Hon. James Sutherland) :: Two rooms in this building were occupied for many years, free of rent by the late W. M. Fullerton, barrister, &c. At his death, about eight or nine years ago, his brother took possession and continued in such possession of the larger of the rooms up to the time of his death, a few months ago. By his permission, A. D. Ross, J.P., has for the past two years had the use of the smaller room.


CHIEF VETERINARY INSPECTORS.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What is the salary of the chief veterinary inspector for the Dominion ?
2.	What was the object of the chief inspector's trip to England, from April to November, 1901, for which an expense of $1,062.70 is detailed in the Auditor General's Report ?
3.	How much has been paid to the chief inspector for travelling expenses since the 30th of June last ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) :: 1.	Two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars per annum. Two thousand five hundred dollars to 1st February, 1903.
2.	The visit of the chief inspector, then Dr. McEachran, to England in 1901 was for the purpose of attending the British congress on tuberculosis ; said visit extended from July 3rd to September 1st, his expenses being $602.
The present chief inspector, whose appointment dates from 1st February, 1902, was sent to Great Britain in March, 190], as veterinary quarantine oflicer, remaining there until November of that year. His duties consisted in the inspection and testing with tuberculin of cattle purchased for export to Canada.
3.	Four hundred and eighty-five dollars and nineteen cents.


Mr. CHARLES A. L. FISHER.: 


Sir. MONK asked :: 1.	What is the salary of Charles A. L. Fisher, employed in the Department of Agriculture as inspector of public works ?
2.	What public works has he inspected since the 30th of June last ?
3.	Has he furnished a written report of such inspection ?
4.	What is the amount of his travelling expenses since the 30th of June, 1902 ?
5.	Has he passed an examination under the Civil Service Act ?
6.	Is he a qualified physician ?
7.	By whom was he recommended to the Minister of Agriculture ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) :: 1.	One thousand five hundred dollars per annum.
2.	Canadian Pacific Railway construction work from West Selkirk, Man., northward. Mackenzie & Mann (Canadian Northern Railway), from west of Carman, Man. Mackenzie & Mann, (Canadian Northern Railway), from Grandview, Man. Mackenzie & Mann, (Canadian Northern Railway), from Erwood, N.W.T. Mackenzie & Mann, (Canadian Northern Railway), from Neepawa, Man. Mackenzie & Mann, (Canadian Northern Railway), from north of Beaver, Man. Canadian Pacific Railway, from Yorkton, N.W.T., north-westerly. Canadian Pacific Railway, from Forrest, Alan., westward. Canadian Pacific Railway, from Waskada, Man., west. Canadian Pacific Railway, from Wellwood, Alan., west. Canadian Pacific Railway, from Snowflake, Alan., southeasterly. Canadian Pacific Railway, from Kirkella, Alan., north-westerly. Canadian Pacific Railway, from Lardo to Gerrard, B.C. Canadian Pacific Railway, from Field to Ottertail, B.C. Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway, from Cascade to Carson, B.C. Payne Alines, tramway and other construction work at Sandon, B.C. Alberta Railway and Coal Company, from Lethbridge, N.W.T. Crow's Nest Coal Works, Fernie, B.C. Crow's Nest Southern Railway, work from International Line, B.C. Consolidated Lake Superior, work at Sault Ste. Alarie, Ont. Welland Canal works, near Port Colborne, Ont. James Bay Railway works, from Parry Sound, Ont. Breakwater works, Depot Harbour, Ont. St. Anthony Lumber Company's works, Whitney, Ont. Galop Rapids canal works, at Cardinal, Ont. Galop Rapids canal works, west of Cardinal, Ont. Harbour works, at Alontreal, Que. Quebec bridge works, at Quebec, Que. Intercolonial Coal Alining Company's works, Westville, N.S. Nova Scotia Steel Company's works, New Glasgow, N.S. Cumberland Railway and Coal Company's works, Spring Hill Alines, N.S. Dominion Coal Company's works. Glace Bay, N.S. Sydney and Louis-bnrg Railway Company's works, Glace Bay, N.S. Dominion Iron and Steel Company's works, Sydney, N.S. Cape Breton Railway work, from Port Hawkesbury, C.B. Inver-


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: ness Railway and Coal Company's work, from Point Tripper, C.B. Halifax and Soutli-western Railway work, from New Germany, N.S. Hillsborough bridge works, from Charlottetown, P.E.I. Prince Edward Island Railway work, from Charlottetown to Murray Harbour, P.E.I.
3.	Yes, as published in the Minister's annual report for 1902, pages 54 to 09 inclusive, up to October 31st, 1902.
4.	Four hundred and fifty dollars and forty-two cents.
5.	No ; such examination is not required.
0.	No ; the Act does not require him to be.
7. It is not usual to answer questions of this character.


CENSUS OF 1901-COST TO DATE.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What is the total amount which has been expended upon the census of 1901 to date ?
2.	What is the total amount expended upon the census of 1901 during the month of March, 1903 ?
3.	When will the work of taking the census of 1801, and completing the reports, be terminated ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) :: 1.	The total amount expended upon the census of 1901 to April 7, 1903, is $1,321,513.01.
2.	The total amount expended upon the census of 1901 during the month of March is $8,585.31.
3.	The work of taking the census of 1901 was completed in that year, and the reports will probably be completed before the close of the current calendar year.


IMMIGRANTS FOR ONTARIO.
Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin) asked :: Has the government made any efforts to induce any of the immigrants coming to Canada
to settle in Ontario ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: The government in promoting immigration into Canada leaves it to the immigrants themselves to select the places in the Dominion where they desire to settle.


EXPERIMENTAL FARMS-PRODUCTION OF BUTTER.
[Stage Direction]
ill-. MONK asked :
1.	What is the total amount of butter produced by the Dominion experimental farms for the year ending 30th June, 1902 ?
2.	What quantity of said butter was exported ?
3.	Who was the agent employed for the sale of said butter ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) :: 1.	The quantity of butter made at the Central Experimental Farm was 3,640
pounds. Not butter is made at any of the branch experimental farms.
2.	None was exported. The hutter referred to was sold in Ottawa.
3.	No agent was at any time employed for the sale of the said butter.


EXPENDITURE ON CANALS.
Mr. DAVIS asked :: What is the total amount spent on canals in Ontario since confederation, including repairs ; and the amount spent in Quebec since confederation, on the canals, including repairs ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The total amount spent oil canals in Ontario, including repairs, since confederation to April 1, 1903, is, $50,298,183.93. And the amount spent in Quebec on canals, including repairs, since confederation to April 1, 1903, is, $34,753,175.03.


NAPANEE POST OFFICE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Sproule asked :
1.	Is any part of the post office building at Napanee, Ontario, occupied by a tenant, or tenants ?
2.	If so, what rent is the tenant, or occupant, paying ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. Jas. Sutherland) :: 1.	Yes, hy Mr. Gilbert Bogart, the late postmaster.
2.	No rental is collected. Mr. Bogart who was for tliirty-eight years postmaster at Napanee always occupied two private rooms in the public building; and after his resignation, a year ago, according to his own statement, he continued to occupy the said rooms by permission from the collector of customs.


PARKHILL MAIL CONTRACT.
Mr. SHERRITT asked :: Who has the contract now for conveyance of His Majesty's mails between Parkhill p03t office and the railway station ? What remuneration is he receiving per year for the same ? Has a new contract been let lately for this work in the future ? If so, to whom has ths contract been given, and at what figure ? Was the contract let by public tender ; and if not, why not ? Who recommended the change, and why was the contract taken from the rarty at present doing the work ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	The Grand Trunk Railway Company- twelve trips per week, and air. George Simpson twelve trips per week.
2.	The payment to the Grand Trunk Railway Company is included in the annual subsidy for this and other services. Mr. George Simpson is paid 13| cents per double tiip or $85.13 per annum.
3.	The contract of air. George Simpson expires on the 30th of .Tune next. It has not been renewed. A four years contract has been entered into with air. Sandford

Tudor from the 1st of July, 1903, for the service now performed by Mr. Simpson on the same terms and conditions. The statute does not require tenders to be invited for contracts involving expenditure of $85.13 a year. This contract was not therefore advertised. On the termination of the contract with Mr. Simpson, the department is quite free to find a new contractor for the service. Mr. Simpson having no right over others to be selected for thej new contract. The department being satisfied that Mr. Tudor would prove a desirable contractor, arranged with him. It is not usual to state on what advice the department acts under such circumstances.


ASHCROFT-BARKERVILLE MAIL CONTRACT.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Is there a contract for the carrying of the mails from Ashcroft to Barkerville, British Columbia, and branch lines ?
2.	When was the contract made ; for how long ; and at what price ?
3.	Has the contract been renewed without new tenders being asked for in the usual manner, by newspaper advertisement and posters ?
4.	If tenders were asked for, in what newspapers were the advertisements inserted ; or how was publicity given to competitors ?
5.	If the contract is still continued, what is the rate of payment per annum ?
6.	Does the Postmaster General intend to ask for tenders in future ; and when . or is it his intention to permit the present contractors to carry the mails without any competition being asked for ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Win. Mulock) :: I. Yes.
-. First of October, 1899, for a period of four years. Contract price $23,250.
3.	No.
4.	Tenders have not been invited.
5.	The contract is still in force, the rate of paymenti being $23,250 per annum.
0.	The subject is now under consideration.


PRICES OF BINDER TWINE
William Forsythe McCreary: Have the prices of penitentiary binder twine been fixed yet ? If so, what is the price of each grade of binder twine 7


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. H. G. Carroll) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Pure manilla 650 feet, 111 cents per pound; pure manilla GOO feet, 10| cents per pound. Kingston special, 500 feet, 9i cents per pound. Ton lots for clubs of farmers i cent per pound less.


BRITISH COLUMBIA LABOUR TROUBLES.
Mr. PUTTEE asked :: 1. Has the commission been appointed to inquire into the labour troubles of Britisu Colombia ?


Sir. WILLIAM MULOCK.: 2.	What are the names of the commissioners ?
3.	What are the instructions to the commissioners ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Will. Mulock) ;
1.	Yes.
2.	The Hon. Gordon Hunter, Chief Justice of British Columbia and the Rev. Elliott S. Rowe.
3.	To conduct an inquiry into, and concerning the nature and causes of labour disputes, strikes or lockouts in British Columbia, for that purpose having all the powers conferred on commissioners by cap. 114, R.S.C., and to hold sittings at different places throughout the province.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance:
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee to consiler of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty ; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
['At the request of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and on his behalf, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.']
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: Mr. Speaker, I think that I may fairly congratulate my hon. friend the leader of the opposition on having delivered last Friday the very mildest criticism upon a budget speech to which it has ever been my good fortune to listen. I do not at all mean to say that in certain other directions the hon. gentleman was not aggressive enough; lint I refer to the budget qua budget simply; and on that I may congratulate him ou having delivered himself of an address which could by no possibility have excited in the slightest degree the susceptibilities of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fielding). I am aware that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition had his difficulties. It is. I have no doubt, in the recollection of this House how almost six years ago to a day, the predecessor of that lion, gentleman, in his usual fervent fashion, made the very rafters of tills building ring with his denuuciations of the desolation, the wme, the misery and the mis-' chief which my hon. friend beside me was about to inflict on the industries of Canada. That lion, gentleman forelieard the walls of the manufacturers of Canada and foresaw the rain of our industries, and I can understand that the him gentleman who now so worthily fills the place formerly occupied by Sir Charles Tapper, hearing these denunciations in his mind, had his difficulties. He must have contrasted the predictions of 1897 with the realities of 1903, and come to the conclusion proha lily, that tlie less said about the rain and destruction which was then predicted as the result of our policy, tlie better for himself and for hi- party.

1 observe that the hon. gentleman has either developed or inherited a taste for that description of scrap-book literature with which we were so familiar in the time of his predecessor. It is a great honour to me that the hon. gentleman should have devoted so much attention to divers speeches and articles of mine. I hope he reads them constantly; I hope they will do him good, though 1 fear the good seed is falling on stony ground, where it is apt to be choked by the brambles of protection. However, as Cromwell was wont to say, in spite of his malignancy, I trust the day of grace will yet come; but I would advise him as he has a taste for perusing these curiosities of bygone literature, to read, and read carefully, the speeches addressed to this House by his honourable predecessor in the years from 1873 to 1878 and thereafter. If the hon. gentleman will do that, he will And two things : he will find, first of all, that his predecessor, Sir Charles Tupper, was most emphatic in pointing out to the House during the first period to which I have referred, that a government's first duty was to create and ensure prosperity. In the succeeding period, he will find that hon. gentleman invariably gave credit to himself and (he government of which he was a member, for all the prosperity which he alleged, obtained in the country. Were my hon. friend Sir Charles Tupper present, I do not doubt that he would, with equal fervour and energy, with as much loudness and possibly as much consistency and logic explain to the House how it is that, in the eternal fitness ofl things, credit is only due to a government for the prosperity of a country when that government happens to be Conservative.
As I have said, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition had his difficulties. He was confronted with the very largest surplus our country has ever enjoyed and he was not able to put his finger on one single tax which he considered oppressive or unjust. He was not able to suggest the reduction of the duty on one single commodity, rather the contrary. It is true he did suggest that my hon. friend beside me, on one or two occasions, had commented adversely on some of the taxes which are still maintained, but was most careful to say that he himself had no objection to these taxes and had not the slightest desire to advocate the reducing or removing of any one of them. And in like manner, although he had to deal with the very largest expenditure Canada has ever seen, he was particularly carefxil to, say that, so far as regards our expenditure, the only criticism, the only attack, he would level against us was that in certain directions, which he was good enough to specify, we did not spend sufficient money.
When my hon. friend dealt with the fact that while our expenditure was very large, our surplus was very large, we were likewise able to show a volume of trade and commerce larger than ever before, all the criticism which my hon. friend saw fit to indulge in, on that subject, was that in his opinion he thought the people were getting too much for their money. And he was disposed to cut down the purchasing power of the people and make them pay more for the goods they were purchasing than they were called on to pay under the existing tariff.
We can well understand that the hon. gentleman, in dealing with a tariff such as the hon. Finance Minister has presented to the House, finds himself woefully handicapped by his own previous utterances and those of his party. He might try to disguise his feelings, but I fear it was not pleasant to him to find that my hon. friend beside me was able to point to all the indices of prosperity, on which my hon. friend and his party were accustomed to rely in former times as indicating the prosperity of a country and a great many more important ones which they were never able to produce, but which have attended the administration of Canada under a Liberal government. Sir, it was perhaps small wonder that under such circumstances the hon. gentleman should appeal to me. It was small wonder that he should say to me, as he did almost in so many words : ' Owing to my peculiar position I really cannot undertake to criticise the budget of the Minister of Finance, but you might do it.' And he was good enough to intimate that he thought that I might do it well. I am deeply grateful to my hon. friend for his good opinion. I am half disposed to meet my hon. friend half way and I will go this far to gratify him. I will define for his benefit and that of his friends beside him, the conditions under which I might, to quote his words, siug one of my old songs and indulge in some of the criticisms I was aj)t to bestow some years ago on the occupants of these benches when I was in opposition. For instance, if we had to-day an exceedingly unfair and oppressive system of taxation, under which we were practically putting two dollars into private pockets for every one that went in to.the public treasury, I might see my way to deliver myself of some severe criticism. If to-day, I found out trade was utterly stagnant and had been so during a quarter of a century, if it were just at the point where it had started out in 1873, I might concede that there was some ground for criticism. If I found our population growing as slowly as it did in the period of Conservative administration, when, if the truth had been told, it would have been shown that in ten years of Conservative rule the'total growth of Canada was less than what I believe it to be in any one year of Libera! administration, I might have had occasion for fault finding. Were we confronted with three or four years of successive deficits I would be disposed to criticise, and


Robert Laird Borden: There was a question of that kind before us about a year and a half ago, when everything was defined as manufactured which was produced by motive power. And I think I stated in my remarks that the term included everything so produced.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes, I find that he does define the term ' manufactured goods ' as those produced by motive power. Now I would like to know what he means us to infer. Does he mean us to infer that the $750,000,000 or $800,000,000 worth of goods of which he speaks are what are ordinarily known as manufactured goods; because I strongly suspect that in the list to which he referred he will find a great many things that are not usually included in the term ' manufactured goods.' I find, for instance, in the list which 1 think he must have consulted, that sawmills are put down for $52,000,000 of the $750,000,000 or $800,000,000 of manufactured goods. I think that grist mills which produce flour are put down for something like $42,000,000. I find that sugar, whereof the value of the raw material is $15,000,000, is put down for $17,000,000 of manufactured goods. I think my hon. friend will find that to take these crude statements which are commonly furnished of the gross amount of manufactured goods, and apply them to a discussion of a policy which we may pursue, will lead him into serious error. The actual truth of the matter is, I believe, that these are taken largely from the census of 1891, and that census certainly includes a vast number of articles



which are hardly known as manufactured goods in the ordinary acceptation of the term. If my memory serves me, there are nine or ten millions of cheese included in that list; there are some nine or ten millions of blacksmiths' work included; there are a great many millions included of millinery and dressmaking and a great variety of other things, which no doubt are useful products, but which, under ordinary circumstances, do not fairly fall under the head of manufactured goods.
Then the hon. gentleman goes on to institute an elaborate comparison of the receipts from taxes under the late regime and under the present regime. Here, Sir, I take issue with my hon. friend in toto. I say to my hon. friend that the statements which lie makes are wholly misleading, because he is disregarding a cardinal fact. He has paid no attention whatever to the difference between the real taxation inflicted on the people under a protective tariff, and the actual taxation inflicted on the people under a revenue tariff, even if it be a high one. The difference is this, that substantially the great bulk of the taxes go into the treasury under the present tariff, whereas under the administration which preceded ours an enormous percentage of the taxes which the people of Canada had to pay did not go into the treasury but went to swell the profits of private individuals. The people under our tariff have the satisfaction at any rate of knowing that what is taken out of their pockets goes into the treasury, and can be used for the benefit of the whole people. The hon. gentleman appears to be entirelv unable to u iderstand-although I fancy certain of h's friends, the manufacturers, do understand- that after all is said and done ours is a revenue tariff and theirs a protective tariff. The tariff which ours superseded was a protective tariff, and the best proof of that is the fact that under our regime the exports and imports into this country have grown very largely, especially the imports. The very essence of a protective tariff, as he has shown in other parts of his speech, is to exclude goods and diminish revenue ; the essence of a revenue tariff is to receive goods and to see that such taxes as may be levied upon them go into the treasury and are applied for the benefit of the whole people.
Now, a little later on, I noticed the hon. gentleman made certain statements to the effect that the Minister of Finance at one time or another objected to several of the duties that now exist in our tariff. But the hon. gentleman does not propose to reduce them, he does not propose to abate them, he does not propose to remove one single tax that now presses upon the people. In fact, he tells us that he does not complain of it, he does not propose to reduce it, he considers that the tariff in that respect does not require in the slightest degree anv amendment.
Then he proceeds to dilate at some length


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: on what he calls the percentage of expenditure. Now, I have pointed out that if my contention be correct, if as I say, the taxes which we levy differ from the taxes which were levied by the hon. gentleman's predecessors in this respect, that our taxes go into the treasury and their taxes were divided between the treasury and private individuals, then there is no foundation whatever for any comparison to be made between the taxes levied under the two systems. But, Sir, I entirely deny the accuracy of the hon. gentleman's computation so far as it is based on population. About a year ago I had the honour of laying before this House a variety of statements, all tending to show, in my opinion, that the census of 1891 was an impudent fraud. It will be within the recollection of hon. gentlemen here that yonder table was littered knee-deep with evidence proving most conclusively, I repeat, that the grossest and most palpable frauds had been committed in the census of 1891. I have no doubt, from the examination I then made and have since made, that the census of 1891 exaggerated the then population by several hundreds of thousands- how many it is impossible absolutely to ascertain. I have no doubt whatever that during the four or five years of the serious depression which succeeded 1891, the increase of Canada was very slow, if indeed there was any increase at all. If that be true- and I recommend hon. gentlemen who doubt the facts to examine again the evidence-then I submit that the statements made by the hon. gentleman as regards the per capita expenditure are entirely without foundation. I believe the actual facts of the case are these:	That in 1895 or 1896
the actual population of Canada had barely reached the nominal figures which were stated in 1891; that since that time, owing to the stoppage of the exodus, owing to the enormous development of the Northwest, owing to the tide of immigration that has been flowing into Canada under our administration, the population of Canada has been increasing from 125,000 to 150,000 or perhaps 200,000 a year; and that within these last six or seven years there has been added to the population of Canada not less than 800,000, perhaps 900,000 people. Sir, if the hon. gentleman wishes to go into a computation, I recommend him to revise his statements on that basis, and if he does, he will have very little reason indeed to plume himself on the results of a per capita comparison between the expenditure of 1896-97 and that of 1903.
I note again that the hon. gentleman, in criticising our expenditure, is exceedingly careful to point out that he does not object to a liberal expenditure; he rather desires, in point of fact, that a heavy additional expenditure should be incurred. Well, Sir, he may be right as to some of those matters. It is not my purpose at the present moment to enter into an examination of the

question under that head. But I note that the hon. gentleman, when he comes to deal with one phase of the situation, when he deals with the fact that we imported from the United States a very much larger amount of goods than we exported, I note one remarkable thing, and that is that my hon. friend entirely omits all the coin and bullion, all the gold products of Canada that were exported to the United States. Now, 1 would like to know what my hon. friend's private opinion of that point is. According to our trade and navigation returns we exported roughly $70,000,000 worth of goods to the United States and we imported from them $114,000,000. He arbitrarily deducts $24,000,000 and makes our exports $47,000,000 instead of $70,000,000. Is it the opinion of my hon. friend that Canada is any poorer because Canada parted with a few tons of yellow "dust in return for $24,000,000 of valuable commodities of other kinds. I would like to know what my hon. friend's opinion on that head is.


Robert Laird Borden: I was following the example, in making that computation, of a great financier on the other side of the House, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton).


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I am afraid that my hon. friend misunderstood the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). However, the hon. member for North Norfolk can answer for that matter himself, but I would like to know if he accepts that. I think an hon. gentleman who is posing as a financial critic ought to explain to us :	Does he consider
that Canada is any the poorer for parting with a few tons of gold dust and getting very many millions of dollars worth of valuable commodities in exchange ? I would like to know. Is that his own opinion?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from North Norfolk is going to speak in this debate and he will answer the hon. gentleman most fully on that point.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I have no doubt, but, my hon. friend, with very lawyer-like caution and subtlety will not commit himself to an opinion on that point. It bears very materially on the question. To my mind a country is none the poorer because it exchanges a certain amount of gold dust for a large amount of valuable commodities of other kinds. That is my opinion of the subject. I give it without reservation, without fear or favour, without even the fear of the hon. member for North Norfolk. My hon. friend dwelt at considerable length on the fact, which is perfectly true, that there has been a great increase in our trade with the United States, very largely due to the great increase in the growth of our manufactures and in the numerous demands for raw products that our manufacturers have 51i
made upon the United States. But, the hon. gentleman ought to remember this, and all hon. gentlemen might well remember it, that when we are dealing with the question of trade with the United States, when we compare the trade which we carry on with the United States with the trade which we carry on with the mother country, it is a question of geography quite as much as a question of tariff. It is plain to anybody, plain to a demonstration, that that in itself if it were not for our reciprocally barbarous tariffs, our geographical position would naturally induce us to carry on a very great trade with the United States, to our mutual advantage. At this present moment, everybody knows, that in a great many matters it is infinitely easier for our manufacturers and merchants to trade with the manufacturers and merchants of the United States than it will ever be to trade with any country on the other side of the Atlantic. In the greater part of the United States, measured by population it only takes twenty-four hours for a letter from any part of older Canada to reach its destination, and a telegraph or telephone message will reach it in an hour. Moreover, the conditions of manufacture, the conditions of the life of the people in the United States and particularly in the northern states are so closely analagous to those prevailing in Canada that it is exceedingly easy for them to understand the needs of our market; whereas, in the mother country it is not by any manner of means so easy to communicate with us or to supply our wants, and consequently it is no wonder at all that our trade with the United States should increase more largely than our trade with Great Britain.
But, the hon. gentleman went on to deal with the preferential tariff. He went on to analyse the effect of the preferential duty on English goods. He says that the tariff on dutiable goods coming from Great Britain is about 24 per cent, while the tariff on dutiable goods coming from the United States is about 25 per cent, and he draws the deduction, perhaps not unnaturally, that our preference to Great Britain is a matter of very little moment, that our tariff is really, substantially, quite as favourable to the United States as our tariff is to Great Britain. This is a question which will bear a little looking into. I have been at some pains to have the actual effect of this preferential tariff of ours with Great Britain properly analysed. No doubt the hon. gentleman was perfectly correct in one sense. The hon. gentleman has taken our trade and navigation returns, he has looked at the dutiable column, and he has deduced from that that the average duty under the preferential tariff is 24 per cent, whereas had the hon. gentleman condescended to look a little more closely into the matter he would have found that there is only a certain proportion of our imports

from Great Britain which come in under the preferential tariff. The hon. gentleman would have found that such articles as wines and spirits, and I think, tobaccos, are excluded absolutely from the operation of the preferential tariff. If he had desired to know how that tariff operated he ought to have deducted the value of these articles and the amount of taxation which is levied upon them. He ought, in the second place, to have deducted the amount of goods imported from Great Britain, which, for one reason or another, were not permitted the benefit of the preferential tariff, in all, something like $5,000,000 worth, more or less. Had he done so, he would have found that the dutiable imports from Great Britain which enjoyed the benefit of the preferential tariff amounted to $28,730,000 roughly, that the total taxation on these amounted to $5,395,000, and he would have found this further fact, which I commend to his notice, which I commend to the notice of the House, and which I commend to the notice of our English friends, that under the preferential tariff on these $28,730,000 worth, the average duty levied was not 24 per cent, hut 18 8-10 per cent. While I am on the subject, I may just as well say that 1 think, perhaps, it was an unfortunate thing that at the recent colonial conference that that very able man, Mr. Chamberlain, acting on very imperfect information, in my opinion, rather belittled the effect of preferential tariff. Now, I want to call the attention of the House to this fact: The hon. gentleman has recourse to the trade and navigation returns. He takes the average for a number of years and contrasts that with the average for another number of years, and he says: After all is said and done, there has been very little improvement in importations from Great Britain, because, during five years of your administration the average importation has shown very little increase over that of your predecessors. What are the actual facts ? If my hon. friend will turn to the Trade and Commerce Report, he will find that in the year 1890 the dutiable goods- which need only enter into our computation at present-the dutiable goods imported from Great Britain were $33,000,000. That by the year 1897, under the operation of the tariff of these gentlemen opposite, had fallen to $20,000,000. That, since 1S97 has risen from $20,000,000 to $35,000,000.
Now, Sir, the man who tells me-whether he be an Englishman or whether he be a Canadian-the man who tells me, in the face of those figures, that the preferential tariff had no effect whatever in increasing the importation of English goods into Canada, in my humble opinion, knows very little about what he is talking of. I say that the effect has been very marked and very important, and I say that if you choose to look a little below the surface you will find two very im-porant things well worthy of being brought Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
to the attention both of this House and of our English friends and customers. You will find that our trade wjth England in dutiable goods, although relatively smaller than our trade with the United States, is in all human probability much more profitable than the trade which the United States carry on with us. That was a subject which I had occasion to examine into pretty fully during the period that the Joint High Commission was sitting in Washington, and I make the assertion without much fear of contradiction by those who are acquainted with the details, that it will be found that the profit the English merchant derives from the $35,000,000 of goods which he sells to Canada is vastly iu excess of the profit which the American manufacturer derives from the $60,000,000 of dutiable goods which he sells to Canada. More than that, and it is reasonable it should be so, the trade with Great Britain is a natural one, it is not a forced one. The trade with the United States under the peculiar conditions that prevail there is largely artificial and a forced trade, and one thing is very clear about it, that whatever else effect our tariff may have had ; whatever effect our tariff against the United States may have had in some respects, it most assuredly did largely diminish the profits which heretofore have been made by American manufacturers out of their Canadian trade.
Then, Sir, there is another matter also worthy of consideration. In looking at the trade returns of the various countries I find this fact which again I commend to the attention of our English friends. We are at present importing of all kinds of goods from England about $50,000,000 worth. The United States, with a population of 75,000,000, were importing in the years 1899 and 1900 a matter of $90,000,000 and a matter of $100,000,000 worth, respectively. I believe they have done a little more during the past two years, largely in consequence of the disturbed conditions of American trade consequent on the steel and coal strikes. But this result remains, and this result is one worthy of notice : that while the average Canadian family will consume about $50 worth of English goods in the course of the year, the average American family will consume-taking the two years I have spoken of as fair samples-about $6 worth of English goods. Per head, Canada consumes something like seven times as much English goods as do the people of the United States.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) made a reproach against my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and against the government of which he is a member, that in all our trade negotiations we have done nothing. That we had attempted to trade with the United States and we had gained nothing ; that we had attempted to trade with Germany and we had gained nothing ; that we had attempted to trade with France and we
16(19

had gained nothing. Well, Sir, I will tell the hon. gentleman what this government and what the people of Canada have done within the past few years. They have shown the people of the United States, by the best of all object lessons, that we can live without them ; they have shown them that we can increase our trade and commerce in a much faster ratio than theirs ; they have shown them that we can successfully compete with them in the markets of the world if they do not choose to allow us to compete with them in the markets of their own country. And let me tell the House that that knowledge and, what is more, the demonstration of that fact, was an essential underlying factor before we could hope to to secure any favourable conditions of reciprocity with the United States.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OE TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Show the Americans that we can do without them ; show the Americans that we are formidable competitors to them ; show the Americans that Canada is growing in trade and commerce at any rate, and probably in population, quite as fast as they themselves are, and you will find that they will be very much more disposed to trade with us, and very much more amenable to reason than we have found them in the past. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has asked what we will do if Canadian farmers leave their farms and go to the United States to find employment in the factories there ; and he gives us to understand, 1 suppose, that those things never happened under the regime of our predecessors, the Conservatives. Well, Sir, I think that I remember when every train from Canada, under the blessed dispensation of the National Policy, was crowded, crammed brimming over with men who were moving from Canada to the United States, and our census returns show that in the seventeen or eighteen years that tire Conservatives held power, the loss of population to Canada- rot counting the immigrants whom they alleged they had brought into the country to the tune of about 886,000-our returns shows that numbered within the ten years from 1881 to 1891, the loss to Canada of Canadians and the direct descendants of Canadians might be counted, not by the ten thousands, but by the millions.
But there are two points on which the hon. gaitleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) dwelt, and on which I desire to say a word or two. The hon. gentleman was good enough to tell us that it was the policy of his party to protect the farmers. That is a laudable, desirable and most important object in which I heartily concur, and I would like to see how the hon. gentleman proposes to do it. We stand here to be instructed ; we desire to know. We are not above, if the hon. gentleman an show us how, taking a useful hint from that hon. gentleman. Bast year the people
of Canada produced about 100,000,000 bushels of wheat, and possibly next year they will produce 200,000,000 bushels of wheat- the chance is that in a very short time they may produce 300,000,000 bushels of wheat. We consume in Canada, all told, something like from 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 bushels a year. Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) be good enough to show me how he proposes by protection to add one ceiit to the value of wheat grown in Canada ? I should like to know. I should like to understand under what conditions, if we grow 200,000,000 bushels of wheat and if we require 20,000,000 bushels for our own use, the hon. gentleman is going to protect the growers of the remaining 180,000,000 bushels. I am open to conviction ; I carry an open mind.


John Graham Haggart: Why do you keep 12i cents a bushel on wheat now ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That is for the hon. gentleman's predecessors to explain; hon. gentlemen opposite do not complain of it. If the hon. gentleman wants my opinion of the matter,
I tell him that it is not of the smallest value to the farmers of Canada. I should like to know in what way the hon. gentleman proposes to protect the Canadian wheat growers. We sell; about $20,000,000 worth of cheese chiefly in the English market. I suppose we consume about $2,000,000 worth in Canada. I would like to know how the hon. gentleman would protect us in that. We sell nearly as much bacon and hams. I would like to know how he proposes to protect us in these articles. The actual truth of the matter is this ; He cannot protect the Canadian farmer, and he knows it well. He cannot add, by any device or means of his in the way of protection, one cent to the value of the wheat grown m Canada. But he can do something else : He can-and he is ready to do it-enormously diminish the value of the purchasing power of the wheat which the farmer raises. That, I grant, lie can do. There his powers for mischief have an almost unlimited field.
Now, Sir, here is an audacious statement- I will give it} in the hon. gentleman's own words :
What is our position with respect to the United States ? We buy from them about $72,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, and we sell to them $6,000,000. We buy from them $28,000,000 of agricultural products and products of animals, and we sell to them of the same articles less than $3,000,000.
Whoever, as I say, undertook to dry-nurse my hon. friend has led him astray. That, while I acquit him of intentionally designing to mislead, is an ill-advised statement. It is quite true, and I make him a present of the fact, that the nominal amount of goods coming under those heads which we imported from the United States in the year 1902 was something like $28,000,-

000; but of what did they consist ? I will give the House one item, perhaps the largest. AVe imported from the United States in 1902 something like $8,663,000 worth of wheat, and we exported some $7,443,000 worth, to the great detriment of the farmers of1 Canada. AVe imported from the United States in the same fashion a variety of other dutiable articles, amounting in all to $14,752,000. Of these we re-exported, almost entirely to England, $7,812,000 worth, leaving of dutiable articles which may be said to have entered to some extent into competition with the products of our farmers, a matter of $6,940,000 worth. Now, I want to go over these importations a little in detail. I want to show how terribly the farmers of Canada have been handicapped by this importation of $23,000,000 which my hon. friend speaks of. The first important item, after breadstuffs, is fruits, of which we imported $1,947,000 worth. I observe that of these an exceedingly largej percentage consists of oranges, which it was no doubt very much to the detriment of the farmers of Canada that we should import. The next largest item, nearly three quarters of a million, consists of raisins, currants, almonds and prunes, which were also imported very much to the detriment of the farmers of Canada, who, I presume, have of late gone largely into the manufacture* of raisins, prunes and almonds. 1 notice, in like manner, when we come to the free list, that the articles which enter into competition with the products of the farmers of Canada, are of a very formidable character. Of dutiable goods, we imported about $14,000,000 worth, the greater part of which was sent across the ocean. AVe likewise imported about $12,000,000 worth of free goods. Of these, the first item is broom corn. I candidly admit that I do not know whether it enters seriously into competition with the products of our farmers or not, and I am open to correction. The next item on the list, a very important one, is bananas, of which we imported $714,800 worth; and the next is pineapples, of which we imported about $90,000 worth, doubtless greatly to the detriment of the1 farmers of Canada. Tiie fact of the matter is, these fruits are not the products of the United States at all. For convenience, we import them through the ports of New York or Boston, as the shortest route to the western markets of the western provinces. Of hemp undressed we imported $G69,000 worth. Of Indian corn we imported $2,480,000 worth, of which we straightway exported to England $1,200,000 worth in the shape of Indian corn, and the other $1,200,000 worth a little later in the shape of fat cattle. Does the hon. gentleman pretend to say that the farmers of Canada were seriously damnified by the importation of this Indian corn which they exported in the two ways I have mentioned ? Are the farmers to be worse treated than our manufacturing friends, to whom we Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
allow the full rebate on everything they export on which they show they have paid the full duty ? AVe imported of flaxseed $1,714,000 worth. I do not think that enters seriously into competition with the products of our farmers, though tobacco may, of which we imported $1,900,000 worth. The next item is furs and skins undressed. Do. my agricultural friends think they were seriously injured by the importation of $1,000,000 worth of undressed furs? Of hides and skins we imported, chiefly from the South American republics,1 through United States ports, $2,174,000 worth, and we exported nearly an equal amount. AVe imported $330,000 worth of raw silk, greatly to the detriment of the farmers of Canada, and $221,000 worth of raw wool and sent out about as much. The actual result is that of the $28,000,000 worth of agricultural and animal products which, according to my hon. friend, we imported from the United States, to enter into competition with the products of the farmers of Canada, if you make a fair analysis, you will find that very nearly one-half were promptly re-exported, giving employment to Canadian ships and Canadian railways, and that the remainder are largely articles, such as bananas, raw silk and the other things I have mentioned, which can by no possibility injure the farmers of the Dominion of Canada.
Briefly, I find that on the $28,000,000 of imports of agricultural products and animals and their products, about five and a half millions, on a fair computation, may go into competition with farm products of Canada while, as the hon. gentleman says himself, we in turn sell the United States about $8,000,000 of similar products. The truth is that along our border of some 4,000 miles, there will always be found a number of places where it is convenient and mutually profitable to interchange products; and were it not for our tariffs we would carry on those exchanges to our mutual profit on a much larger scale, and I fail to see that, on a fair analysis of the case, the farmers of Canada are placed at any such disadvantage, as my hon. friend was, I think, very unfortunately led to suppose. My hon. friend repeats his statement a little later on, and evidently he and his friends intend to use it in their discussions in the country as a proof of the extreme injury done, under this tariff, to the farmers of Canada. But I am convinced that, if a fair examination be made, we will find that we make a reasonable and fair exchange in those products. AVe do not sell our neighbours anything like the quantity of goods, and it would be to our mutual advantage to interchange with tliem to a greater extent. But it is manifestly contrary to the facts to say that at this moment the exchange against us is so unfair that we buy $28,000,000 from the Americans while we sell them but $8,000,000 worth. The bulk of those imports are re-exported, nnd of those that are not, the greater bulk

do not enter Into competition with our farm
products at all, while a large part of the remainder are merely bought from the United States for convenience sake as in the case of hides from South America and bananas and other articles that I have mentioned.
I do not know that it is necessary for me to spend any further time on the speech of my hon. friend. I am afraid that time will hardly permit me to do what I should have liked to do-to analize minutely our expenditure. But I will lay before the House certain facts which, X think, will go far to convince them that we are not after all liable to the charge of gross and undue expenditure and extravagance in the administration of public affairs. Let me take the statement which Mr. Foster laid on the Table of the House in 1896, when he was Minister of Finance. He then computed the requirements of the public service for 1S97 at something like $38,300,000 for his main estimates. My hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) the other day brought down an estimate something like $50,750,000. There is a difference there and a large difference-a difference of about $12,000,000. If the hon. gentlemen were able to show that we have idly and needlessly added $12,000,000 to the public expenditure, then we would justly be liable to severe censure. But when you come to analyse this expenditure, what do you find ? You find, in the first place, that out of this augmentation of $12,000,000 at least $6,000,000 are directly transferred from one pocket into the other. That $6,000,000 is made up of such items as increase in the sinking fund, extra expenditure on railways and canals, which are recouped by the receipts therefrom, and extra expenditure on the Yukon Territory, which Mr. Foster was not called on to provide, and for which we have received from the start to the present hour, full compensation in the shape of the increased revenue derived from that particular territory. That being the case, the gross expenditure, for which we should he called on to account, is reduced to something like $6,000,000. But to what is this increase of $6,000,000 due ? It has been caused, for the most part, by the necessity of largely extending and increasing such services, our light-house and coast service,' which everybody who knows anything of the condition of Canadian trade admits to be an expenditure that ought to be encouraged as much as possible, and which, as my hon. friends opposite have urged, ought to be enlarged '! That is one large item.
The second is our increased expenditure on immigration, and I venture to say that for every penny we have expended on that head the country stands to receive-and that too, speedily-a dollar in return. Then there is the expenditure for agricultural purposes in various ways. For that also the country has received and is receiving a large return in the continuous increase in our exports of agricultural products. There is also a heavy
increase from North-west administration
rendered necessary by the vast influx of settlers into that country. Is that a wasteful expenditure ? And so it goes all through. I shall not dwell so much on this at present, partly because I have scarcely the time at my disposal and partly because the hon. gentleman himself does not assail our expenditure as extravagant and unnecessary. On the contrary, he admits that large and liberal expenditure is needful and declares that he would be prepared, in many cases, to spend more than we are doing.
But, let me call attention to these three tliiugs. First of all, when comparing the expenditure of 1896-7 with the expenditure of 1903, you would do well to bear in mind that the population of the country has increased very considerably. There has been, by my estimate, an increase of 800,000, or of 900,000 people. In any case, even admitting, which I never will admit-the correctness of the census of 1901, our population has certainly increased 500,000 or 600,000. Consequently a larger expenditure is justifiable and necessary. In the second place, it is well to remember that the income of the Canadian people to-day is fully double what it was seven years ago, and an expenditure is now justified, when you have a volume of trade and commerce of $400,000,000, which might have been unreasonable and extravagant when it was only $200,000,000, with a revenue in proportion. And in the third place, you should bear in mind that coincident with the extraordinary prosperity of Canada, there has been a great increase in the cost of materials and wages all over the country, so that the works executed to-day by the Minister of Public Works and other members of the government must of necessity require a very much increased expenditure. The increase of wages alone must involve a very large additional expenditure compared to what was requisite in 1896. Therefore, taking these three causes into account, you will see that there is little ground for condemning the government on the score of enormous and unjustifiable expenditure. Population has increased, there has been an increase in the volume of trade, our revenue has increased, wages have increased, there has been a great rise in the cost of materials as compared with 1896, to all of which is due the increased expenditure of $6,000,000.
My hon. friend wants to know what I think about surpluses. I have no objection to tell him. There are three excellent uses to which a surplus may be applied. It may in the first place, be applied to the reduction of taxation. In the second place, we may apply it to paying off the public debt, and in the third place we may apply it to the construction of useful and productive public works. AH are good. The question of how a surplus is to be applied is one to be always settled with a due regard to the circum-

stances of the moment and a due consideration as to which of these particular modes is the best to take. It depends upon a great variety of considerations. You may have a young or an old state. It depends upon the position of the people, whether they are prosperous or whether they are in pinched circumstances. It depends lastly, and very largely, on the possibility of rapid development. I have no hesitation in saying, so far as the government of Canada is concerned, we believe, having regard to the present condition of Canada, that the best way we can use our surplus is to open up our new territory, provide means of communication, cheapen transportation, and so avail ourselves of the great advantages of our position. When the question is put : Which is the best for Canada, whether to attempt to increase population and production by the active aid of the government, or to pay off our debt and diminish our taxes, it is a fair question for debate. But, in this case, I think the House and the country will sustain the government in declaring :	Now is the time to
use the advantages which are ours and to develop the great resources we possess. Sir, there is a tide in the affairs of nations as well as of men, and Canada is at the crest of the wave at this moment, and Canada will do well to take advantage of the circumstances of her position.
I desire to say a few words witli regard to the late conference in London, and the demands which were made on Canada. I have already dealt with the question of the preference and have ventured to express my regret that the British ministers who took part in that conference were not sufficiently well advised of the advantage of the preference to British trade. And I am very glad to be assured, as we were by my hon. friend, that the facts were fully brought to their notice before the conference broke up. And I am glad to know, from recent editorial utterances in England, that they are waking up to the fact that the preference is of very real and substantial value to them. There is another question, incidentally connected with the administration of this country and its finances, on which I would like to say a word or two. The request has been made that Canada should co-operate for the defence of the empire. It has been placed before us in several different ways. We have been asked to say what we will contribute to the navy; and we shall be asked what we will contribute to the army that is necessary to defend the empire. There are two policies before us, and it may not be amiss to say a word or two as to which of these policies is, on the whole, the best, not only for Canada but for the empire at large. One body of our advisers seems to think that the best way for Canada to give aid to the empire is to place a large sum of money at its disposal, and ourselves maintain a standing Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
army of larger or smaller proportions. Now, it is possible for Canada, no doubt, to maintain a small standing army-not a very large one. That is possible. The cost will be great. The advantage to Canada will be small. The advantage to the empire will be smaller still. It will be of very little account to the British empire if we are able to put at their disposal one, two, three or four battalions of a little standing army. But there is, in my opinion, a more excellent way, a way far more suitable to the genius of our people, far more likely to promote the real interest of Great Britain, and far more likely to enable us to afford real assistance to the empire should assistance be needed. That way is for us to lay to heart the lessons taught us by the recent Boer war ; to make it, as I would like to see it made, a part of the education of every able-bodied man in Canada, that he should learn some of the elements of drill, and learn how to handle his rifle and become an experienced and trained rifle shot. I believe that for a sum perfectly insignificant, barely half of the cost of the smallest standing army that any one could well propose to maintain, you could have, in a few years in Canada, a body of five hundred thousand riflemen able to give a good account of their enemy at a thousand yards and upwards. And I say that if you but train your people in that fashion you could provide a neucleus of a force through which a most substantial aid could be given to the empire should it ever be imperilled. It is to that I should like to see the energy of the people of Canada and of the Department of Militia devoted. It is an old saying among people of English blood that their first idea, when they have a holiday is to say :	It is a fine day, let
us go out and kill something. That may be rather barbaric, but it is instinctive. There is scarcely a lad of spirit from one end of Canada to the other, but, if he had the opportunity and the bodily strength, would like to become-would even make considerable sacrifices to become-a good rifle shot. I would avail myself of that instinct and that genius of our people, and would endeavour so to train our people that they might be able, in case of need, to put in the field a force which, if they are to judge from the experiences of South Africa, would render the greatest service to the empire, or to ourselves were we, unhappily, called upon to defend our hearths and homes from an invading foe. There is a mode in which we can, I think, without doing violence to our condition, or without interfering in any way with the habits of our people, prepare to render substantial assistance to the mother country. And I am glad to say that the Minister of Militia (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) is already commencing the work and moving in that direction. Were this done, other advantages, advantages of no slight character, would be

likely to flow from it. Every man who knows anything of the training necessary to make a good rifle shot, knows that efficiency is impossible unless one practices the virtues of sobriety and temperance. Moreover, it is one of the things that will go far to instill in our people a spirit of self-reliance, making us respected by other nations as well as by ourselves.
And now, Sir, what is the policy of the opposition, and what is the policy of the government ? My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has told you in his speech and in his motion that his policy is taxes, and more taxes, and yet more taxes. I have pointed out, that it is possible for us to protect some, but it is impossible to protect the whole masses of the people. You may give advantages in this way to the few, but you cannot give advantages to the whole population. I doubt very much if the policy which he proposes, and which some of the manufacturers propose-as the hon. gentleman has stated, not because there is any serious difficulty at the present time, but because they dread that at some future day they may be exposed to undue competition from the United States-would really result in producing any of the consequences they hope for. As I read the signs of the times, there is at this moment, beyond all doubt, some danger of over-expansion and overproduction both here and in the United States. There is some danger of a glutted market. And the best advice that I can give, the best advice that any can give in the House or in the country is, that, under the circumstances, it would be well for all concerned, manufacturers and others, to take stock of the situation, to make use of these fat years to make provision for the lean years which must assuredly come sooner or later-not to over-expand, not to overproduce-to pay off debts, if they have incurred them ; to place ourselves in a position of having good reserves ; to confer (for X am far from objecting to that) with their brother manufacturers and with the chiefs of finance and with the leaders of our banking institutions. They say very truly : Our market is limited, and there is danger of a glut. But the way to avoid a glut is not to go recklessly and without precaution, increasing their productive power, but to make provision in the good times for the possibility they dread that some time or other the slaughter market from the other side may overtake them.
Sir, the policy of the government has been announced by my hon. friend, and it is briefly this :	To deal fairly with all, making ourselves the tool of none ; to insist upon it that those who come to us for aid should explain openly and in the light of day what they desire at our hands, and why they desire it. My hon. friend did well, my hon. friend deserves commendation in that, when the manufacturers approached him, he refused to have any hole or corner
meeting with them, in that he told them : State your case, gentlemen, and it shall have every consideration; but state it openly so that the public may know what you want and why you want it, and that all classes whose interests may be affected may have a chance of being heard before us. Sir, we desire wherever it is possible, to make new territories available ; we desire, wherever it is possible, to help forward all efforts by constructing railroads and other means of communication, in making those territories available. We desire to cheapen transport to the utmost extent that it is possible to do so ; we desire above all to encourage, as far as lies in our power, agricultural and kindred industries, and all other industries. We desire to encourage a well selected immigration ; and I hope and trust-and in that regard I believe that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, has that likewise much at heart-I hope and trust that the immigration which is now pouring into Canada may be as good in quality as it is great in quantity. I have more than once stated on the floor of this House, and I see no reason to conceal my opinion, that immigrants from old Canada, immigrants from the United States, possessed of capital or even without capital, are far more valuable to us, man for man, than any immigrants that can come here from across the sea. I desire to see above all, the exodus from our own country stopped, and to see the people who in former times went to the United States, remain at home and use their energy, use their ability, use their resources to develop the unbounded territory which is now stretching open to us in the North-west.
For the rest, Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. friends beside me, I say to my hon. friends opposite me :	Be content to go on
as we have gone ; be content to do as we have done ; and in the next decade it is no idle flight of fancy to say that the man who holds the postition of Finance Minister in 1913, may reasonably expect to come down to this House and tell them that in place of a volume of trade and commerce of $400,000,000, he has a volume of trade of $1,400,000,000 ; that in place of a revenue of $60,000,000, he has a revenue of $160,000,000 ; and it would not surprise me to know that in place of a surplus of $13,000,000, the Finance Minister of the future, if he treads in our footsteps and goes on as we have done, will have an actual surplus of $30,000,000. It is well within the possibilities, it is a thing which has been done again and again in the country to the south of us, in many of the states of the union results equal to these have been actually achieved. Are we Canadians worse, are we Canadians less vigorous, are we less able to make use of our territory than the Americans have proved themselves able, in times past, to make use of theirs ?
Now I put it to you, Sir, and to this House, I put it to the people of Canada, which

policy do you prefer ? Sir, in 1878 the national policy, so-called, was started by these hon. gentlemen, with every conceivable circumstance in its favour. It was coincident with a return of prosperous times, which it had done nothing in the world to produce. Hon. gentlemen had a perfectly free hand. They bad able leaders. They had an absolute majority, a huge majority, an unlimited supply of funds, a perfectly submissive Senate at its back, and a largely gerrymandered constituency to deal with. I have shown you where they had arrived in 1896, I have shown you their four years' deficit, I have shown you their twenty-five years of stagnation, I have shown you our depopulation and disgrace. Sir, compare those seventeen yeai's with our seven years ; compare our surplus of 813,000,000 with their four years' deficits ; compare the million of people we have put into Canada within the last seven years with the miserable showing they had to make in their seventeen years. I say that never since the creation of the world was such an object lesson presented for the consideration of intelligent men as the object lesson which the Trade and Navigation Returns, and the financial returns of the country, show to-day as between the Liberal and Conservative administration. Let us go on in the way we have been going, and I for one, Sir, have no fear whatever of the result.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Mr. Speaker-I owe to the courtesy of the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) the privilege of addressing the House to-day. He had been charged by his leader to reply to the speech delivered this afternoon by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). I asked him whether he would be good enough to give way to me on account of the fact that I have some engagements which will keep me away from the House] during the last days of the week and he kindly consented to do so.
The government have resolved to decline to make any changes in the tariff. The hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce have given us the reasons for that decision. There is no doubt whatever that the government feel confident that they are following the proper course. Their motives cannot be impugned. The hon. Minister of Finance, with his usual adroitness and ability, has endeavoured to convince the House that, in point of fact, there was nothing else to be done than what the government are doing. He has told us that the country is prosperous. This is the first reason that he has given Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
us to justify the government in declining to make any general revision of the tariff. He has also informed us that the government have applied for a preference from the British government. The British authorities have not yet replied to that application. The government are desirous of getting a reply before making a general revision of the tariff, so the hon. Minister of Finance has told us. The third reason that has been offered to us is the negotiations that have begun between the United States government and this government with the view of coming, if possible, to a commercial arrangement. These reasons are strong enough in the opinion of the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches to engage them to stay their hands.
Nobody will attempt to deny that this country is prosperous. It would be, indeed, inexplicable that a new country, that a wealthy country like Canada should not be prosperous at the present time. We have had a succession of good crops. There is a wave of prosperity and progress all over the world. We are not the only nation that is prosperous. All the civilized nations of the world are enjoying a great wave of prosperity and progress. The hon. Minister of Finance has proudly told us that by the first of July next, the revenue of this country will have reached the splendid figure of $65,000,000. He also rejoices in the fact that he is in the position to announce a surplus of $13,500,000 on the first of July. There are three main agents of revenue in this country-the customs, the excise and the revenue coming from public works, railways and canals and other works. There are also, to a limited extent, revenues from the sale of lands and other sources. The excise is undoubtedly and exclusively, so to speak, a means of taxation. The customs are a means of taxation when they are applied in a certain way. When they are applied in another way they are both the means of raising revenue and developing the industries of the nation. In 1897, Canada imported for home consumption, $66,220,725 of dutiable goods, $40,397,002 of free goods, a total of $106,617,676. The duties collected on that amount reached a total of $19,891,996. On that amount the average duty paid was 18:613 per cent. In 1902, we imported for home consumption a total of $196,480,190, $118,657,496 of dutiable goods and $77,822,694 of free goods. On that total the average duty collected was 16:466 per cent, while on dutiable goods the average duty paid was 27-265.
There was a total of over $32,000,000 of revenue raised by customs in 1902. This is a very large amount of money. We paid that amount of money because we bought $196,480,190 worth of foreign goods. The total trade of this country in 1902 was $423,910,044. The imports reached the amount of $212,270,158 and the exports amounted to $211,640,286. We imported from the United

States $129,794,147 and we exported to the United States $71,197,684-this of course Includes bullion, foreign goods and everything else. Therefore the balance of trade against us so far as the general Imports and exports are concerned amounts to nearly $50,000,000. As I have said, we imported a total of $196,480,190 for home consumption, and out of that amount we imported from the United States for home consumption $114,774,696, leaving $82,435,494, which we imported for home consumption from other countries. Our total imports from Great Britain for home consumption were $49,022,726, and our total exports of home produce were $196,019,763. The total exports to the United States out of that amount In home produce was $66,607,784; the total exports to Great Britain being $109,347,345. Now, Sir, permit me to call the attention of the House to the composition of the exports of Canadian domestic products to the United States. Out of the $66,607,784 worth that we exported to the United States, there were $33,145,856 of minerals; $4,184,403 of products of the fisheries; $4,139,262 of animals and their produce; $15,517,528 of forest products; $2,555,216 of agricultural products; and $6,024,373 of manufactured products.
Then, we have exported to Great Britain $6,374,877 of products of the fisheries ; $14,154,407 of forest products; $52,687,998 of animals and their products; $27,973,503 of agricultural products, or a total of farm products amounting to $80,661,501. We have exported to Great Britain $7,322,602 of manufactured products. My right lion, friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (lit. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) insisted very strongly this afternoon on the fact that in his opinion the imports of agricultural products to Canada from the United States do not interfere very greatly as yet with the interests of our farming community. That may be so, but we all remember that during the last session of parliament we had a very important and interesting debate in the course of which every one of our friends from the North-west complained bitterly, that the importation of American horses was destroying a large and important industry in the North-west Territories. What is true of that industry is true of others. We are importing large quantities of produce and we are importing large quantities of horses and sheep. We have imported also large quantities of corn. We are all agreed or nearly all agreed that corn is one of those products which should be imported free into a country like this. But, Sir, I ask : whether it would not be a proper policy for this country to adopt to raise the tariff as an average on the farm products of the United States just ns high as our American friends have raised their tariff on Canadian products.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is it not probable that if the Canadian tariff was on the same lines as the American tariff as far as farm products are concerned, that we would develop our farming industry in a direction where capital is afraid to invest now ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: In 1902 our exports of manufactured products to the United States amounted to $6,024,373, and we imported of manufactured goods from the United States to Canada to the amount of $69,536,000. It) is an interesting search to look carefully into the American statistics. The last statistics of the United States show that the main bulk of the imports from the United States into this country go to Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and the Northwest Territories. There are $90,935,713 of imports from the United States dumired into these four provinces. Though the same provinces export to the United States products to the amount of only $27,599,746, leaving a balance of trade of not less than $62,333,967 against these four provinces. The maritime provinces import from the United States $7,841,571, while they export to that country $5,496,697. British Columbia is the only province which has a balance of trade in its favour in its intercourse with the United States, its exports to that country being $9,385,720, as against imports from the United States to the amount of $7,011,930.
These figures, Sir, are not new; but I thought that it was necessary for the argument that I am going to offer to the House, that they should be placed before you. They show that in our commercial intercourse with the United States, our American neighbours have the best of us. It cannot be disputed that they are exporting to this country very large quantities and volumes of their goods of all kinds, while we are exporting to them very little. They do not do us any favour in taking our lumber; they need it. Neither do they do us any favour in taking our minerals; they need them. If they did not require these things, they would not take them. We export to the United States a very limited quantity of agricultural products and a very small volume of manufactured goods. I ask whether that is a state of affairs that is pleasing and advantageous to us. I ask whether it would not be to the interest of this Canadian nation to put an immediate end to such a condition of things. Am I very far from the truth in saying that even those who have been brought up in the ideas of free trade or of a low tariff, would agree with us if they had not some pretext for avoiding the issue ? I want to know if there is a Canadian business man, whatever his political persuasion may be, who will stand up and say that it is a sound condition for a country to have always the balance of

trade against it. Nobody can say that it is a sound state of affairs, and the lion. Minister of Finance has so well felt the strength of that unanswerable argument that he has offered us reasons why the issue should be avoided at the present time. He tells us that the government hope to come to some arrangement with our neighbours. What arrangement, I ask ? Surely the government do not contemplate lowering the tariff on manufactured articles, so far as the United States are concerned. The government have not intimated such an intention, and I do not believe that any government in Canada would venture, in the face of the high tariff of the United States, to regard it possible for this country to lower our tariff in favour of that country. How could we compete with our neighbours in the manufactures ? The' last American census has established that there are ten billions of American and foreign capital invested in American manufactures, that that large capital has produced thirteen billions of manufactured goods in the year 1900, and that the population of wage-earners engaged in those industries is over five millions, or about equal to the whole population of Canada. I ask again how we could compete with such a powerful nation as the United States are to-day ?
But it is represented to us that it will be an advantageous thing for Canada to have reciprocity with the United States in natural products. Let me say first to those who are of that mind, that I do not think they could get it. The protectionist principles and policy are solidly implanted in the minds of the American people-not in the minds of the manufacturers or the workingmen alone, but perhaps more especially in the minds of the farming community. It seems to me that, instead of trying to get reciprocity, our bounden duty to-day should be to adopt a policy of protection for our home products. The United States exported in 1901 $943,811,020 of farm products. How can we compete with a nation equipped, as the American nation is, insofar as its farming industries are concerned. My right hon. friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, (Sir Richard Cartwright) has told us that we are exporting a good deal of agricultural products. The right hon. gentleman seems not to have taken in account, in comparing our position with that of the United States, the fact that a large part of the agricultural products of the United States are consumed in that country. In point of fact, only about thirty per cent of the wheat grown in the United States is exported. Over seventy per cent of that crop is consumed at home. Not more than twenty-five per cent of American corn is exported. The balance is consumed by the Americans themselves, and what is true of corn and wheat is equally true of other agricultural products. Reciprocity with the United States could not, in my humble opinion, benefit us Hon. Mr. TARTE.
in any way. We could not sell the Americans anything that they do not produce, and if we were to open our gates, they would simply flood our country with the products which they export now to England and elsewhere. In other words, they would destroy many of our farming interests and put us out of business in the export trade. The United States are not a market for our farming community, neither are they a market for our manufacturing community. How much have we exported in manufactured goods during the past year ? In 1901 we exported $16,012,208 worth of manufactured goods. In 1902, we exported $18,000,000 worth. Compare that with the United States. In 1901, the United States exported $412,155,066 worth. In 1901, we exported $24,781,486 worth of agricultural products. In 1902 we exported $37,152,688 worth. I am indeed very sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. Finance Minister and the government when they give us, as a reason for not revising the tariff, that it is inexpedient to do so while we are awaiting the result of negotiations with the United States. We have done a good deal of waiting. Over and over again, during the last twenty-five years, we have endeavoured to come to some understanding with our friends on the other side of the line. The right hon. gentleman at the head of the government, in a very able address to the Manufacturers' Association last year, solemnly promised that wTe would send no more deputations to the United States. We are told that this time it is the United States who are coming to us. Well, I have had a good deal of experience in matters of this kind, and I have a notion that, before such letters as have been read to the House were exchanged, some little understanding took place. However, these letters were very convenient this session, and it was undoubtedly the right of the government to give us that excuse-that pretext, let me call it, in all deference.
The other excuse which has been given us is that the government have applied to the British government for a preference and are awaiting an answer. I thought that they had given us a very clear-cut reply. The right hon. gentleman, the Prime Minister, and some of his colleagues took part in the colonial conference. At that conference they tried to come to some arrangement with the British authorities, and the only result we have is the refusal to-day of the British authorities to admit our cattle. And since the colonial conference took place, we have met also with another refusal-the refusal to permit us to compete for the supply of meat for the British army. If we wait for the British government to give us a preference in their markets, I am very much afraid that the revision of our tariff will not take place until we are much older. Let me say that it has beeu somewhat of a surprise to many of us to find that the

right lion, gentleman and his colleagues pledged themselves at the colonial conference to give to the British islands a further preference on manufactured goods in return for some preference to be given us in another direction.


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, the language is very clear. There is a clearly expressed intention in the memo, of the ministers that they are prepared to give a further preference on conditions that are not clearly defined. I feel free to speak-more free than I was formerly-my mind on that point. I do not hesitate one moment to say that we have gone very far, we have gone too far, in the British preference. Perhaps, the first preference was justifiable. I shall explain, later on, under what conditions the British preference was enacted. I do not think the Canadian people would be ready to-day to stand any further preference in favour of British manufactured goods than that which has already been accorded. I hope I am not offensive-I do not mean to be-when I say that the reasons I have discussed for not revising the tariffs this year are diplomatic reasons. The members of the government, nearly every one of them, are unfriendly to a protectionist policy. I do not divulge any secrets in saying this ; they have made their views public and known. I am only commenting on a fact of public notoriety. The large majority of the government are favourable to a low tariff policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, and it is their right to be so. I grant that they are in perfect good faith. They are in favour of a low tariff, and some of them, if they could, would favour a very low tariff, if not free trade. The real reasons why the tariff was not revised last year, and especially why it was not revised this year, are to be found in the speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Finance. He has told us we should make this country a cheap country to live in. And his sentiments have been echoed by the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) this afternoon. The Minister of Finance told us that we must take good care not to antagonize the masses of the people, especially the great Northwest. He has invited us to the realization of the fact that the control of the affairs of this country is passing from the east to the west. He has told us that if we wish to invite immigration, if we wish to fill up our splendid North-west lands, we must have a tariff as low as it is possible to make it. He believes that a high tariff is inimical to immigration, is inimical to the masses of the people. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance is a student of political economy. And I give him credit for entire
loyalty in the expression of his sentiments. Let me say-and it is a pleasure for me to say it-there is no more honourable man than the Minister of Finance. Whatever my differences with him may be on some points, I have always felt, when I was discussing questions of importance with him that I was talking with a man who was always in perfect good faith and loyalty. He thinks, Sir, that a high tariff is inimical to immigration. Will he permit me to offer a comparison to which I would call his attention and the attention of the country. We are supposed to be under a regime of fairly low tariff, under the regime of a revenue tariff, while the United States of America are under the highest protective tariff in the world. The following figures show the number of immigrants entering Canada and the United States respectively for the years given :



[Stage Direction]
Canada.
1897	to	1900	 141,261
1901		 49,149
1902		 67,379
United States.
1897		 230,832
1898		 229,290
1899		 311,715
1900		 448,572
1901		 487,908
1902		 648,743
1903	(to	1st June)	 355,492
And the last week has been a record one so far as immigration into the United States is concerned. And what about the homestead entries into Canada and the United States ? In 1900, in Canada there were 7,426 homestead entries ; in 1901, there were 8,167 ; in 1902, there were 14,633. And in the single year 1901 in the United States there were 111,319 homestead entries, covering an area of 15,455,000 acres. In other words, in one year the homestead entries in the United States have been as many as the entire entries in Canada since 1872, and that under the regime of the highest protective tariff in the world.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance is convinced that a high tariff is inimical to the agricultural interests. Let him compare the result of a high tariff in the United States, with the result of a low tariff-I call it a low tariff in this country. Our tariffs have always been low ; the United States tariffs have always been high. The tariffs of the United States, from the birth of the nation up to to-day, have been, as a rule, twice as high as the Canadian tariffs have been. By the census of 1900 the population of the United States was estimated at 75,997,687. The rural population was, in 1900, 40,364,613, being an increase during the decade of 4,549,605, or an increase of 12-7 per cent ; while the total population increased 21 per cent. The exports of agricultural products are also an interesting statistic.
[Stage Direction]
In 1870	$ 361,188,483
1880	 675,961,091
1890	 629,820,080
1895	 553,210.026
1900		 885,858,123
1901		 943,811,020
In other words an Increase of 132 per cent in exports of agricultural products under the regime of the highest protective tariff in the world. The progress in farms and farm
values is also worthy of interest.

[Stage Direction]
Farms Nos.
1870	 2.659.985
1880	 4,008,907
1890	 4,664,641
1900	 5,781,988
Or an increase since 1890 (in round numbers)	 1,200,000
Farms Value.
1870	$ 9,262,803,861
1880	 10,197,096,776
1890	 13,279,252,649
Live Stock.
1870	$ 1,525,276,457
1880	 1,500,464,609
1890	 2,208,767,573
In 1890 the total farm values of the American
nation	was	$15,982,267,689In 1870 it	was	
8,899,966,998
The figures of the census of 1900 for the whole country are not available. However, the Agriculture Department reports an increase of more than $350,000,000, in the farm values of the cereals alone in 1900 as compared with 3896. The value of the live stock on the farms of the country which was in 1896 $1,727,926,084 was in 1900 $1,981,054,115.
The exports of agricultural products have been increasing all the time In the United States in spite of the large consumption of their home market:
1897		$
1898		
1899		
1900		
1901		
Every year there has been
a large surplus of exports over imports, the last year being	
569,879,297
853,683,570
784,766,142
835,858,123
944,059,568
415,718,885
Now, Sir, so much for agricultural products and immigration. What about population, under the highest protective tariff in the world ? In 1S70 the population of the United States was 38,588,371; on the 1st of June, 1901, it was 77,647,000. In other words, the United States of America have doubled their population during the last thirty years, always under the regime of the highest protective tariff in the world. What have we been doing in this Canada of ours ? We have a great country, as rich in minerals, in farming land, and in every other respect as the United States. In 1870 our population was 3,689,255; in 1891, the census gave us a population of 5,371,315. If our population had increased in the same ratio as the population of the United States we
Joseph Israël Tarte: should have now 7,378,514. In other words, we are short 2,007,199. In 1891 the population of Canada was 4,833,239. From 1891 to 1901 our population increased by only 538,076. In 1891 the population of the United States was 63,884,000. In 1901 the population of the United States was 77,647,000, or an increase of 13,803,036. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and the hon. Minister of Finance have spoken in glowing terms of the trade of this country. They have told us that we are forging ahead by leaps and bounds. I am glad to say that this is true. This country is going ahead, but would it not be possible to go ahead quicker than we are going now ? Because a man is prosperous in his business, is that a reason, if he is a man of ability and of courage why he should not endeavour to do better than even in the past ? To judge of the trade of the country it is not out. of place to see how the balance of trade lies ? The balance of trade is to a very large extent the book-keeping of the nation. The hon. minister of Trade and Commerce reminded us to-day that we have had a balance of trade for some years. He has forgotten to tell us that during the last year the balance of trade has been slightly against us. We imported in 1902 $212,270,158 worth. Our exports were $211,640,286. The balance of trade against us was $629,872. We are losing ground. The hon. Minister of Finance knows it, all students of the blue-books and trade of this country know it. We are losing ground year by year. In 1901 our balance of trade was not as high as during the year previous. It was only $6,072,107. In former years it was more. We are losing ground because we are importing too much, because our tariff is not high enough. Why are we losing ground when we have such vast resources at our disposal ? The United States are not losing ground. Look at their balance of trade. I call the attention of the lion. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) to these figures. He is in sympathy with the protectionist policy. He is, I say it again, and he knows it. I know his mind as well as he knows his mind. He is a protectionist as pronounced as I am, not quite as open as I am, but as pronounced as I am. He has done his best to keep the tariff where it is, and I compliment him on his efforts on that account. But it is my special pleasure to call his attention to the splendid results that are achieved elsewhere under a tariff that he would like to see adopted in this country. What are the balances of trade in the United States ? In 1897 the excess of exports over imports was $286,263,144; in 1898, $615,432,676; in 1899, $529,874,813; in 1900, $544,541,898; in 1901, $664,592,826; in 1902, less, but still large, $478,398,453. In the last six years the excess of exports over imports in the United States has been over $2,500,000,000. Why is it so ? Simply for the reason that the United States are keeping up a tariff which on dutiable goods is

49 83 per cent and on free and dutiable goods 28-91 per cent. While the tariff of Canada in 1901 on dutiable goods was 24-835 per cent, and on goods dutiable and free 12-424 per cent. In 1902, on dutiable goods our tariff was 25-182 per cent, and on our total imports 13-207 per cent. The progress of manufactures in the United States has simply been marvellous. When those who, like me, are believers in strong national tariffs speak of manufactures, we seem to annoy some of our lion, friends who do not share our views. The word ' manufacturer ' is obnoxious to them; they are called sharks, they are called thieves, they are called by all sorts of bad names. Let me say immediately that in this discussion the manufacturers of this country enter in a very limited way. There are only a few hundred manufacturers. My bon. friends on the treasury benches have received during the last years the support of as many manufacturers as have my hon. friends on the other side of the House. During the last election in Maisonneuve the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prdfontaine) and his friends made it a point to get the signatures and the names of the manufacturers of the city of Montreal on his nomination paper. This is not a question between the manufacturers and the masses of the people ; we are, I hope, but one people in this country. In 1870 the exports of the domestic manufacturers of the United States amounted to $68,279,704 and in 1901 they amounted to $412,155,066, or 28-22 per cent of the total exports of the United States, the agricultural exports being 64-62 per cent of the total. During the last ten years the number of manufacturers in the United States has increased 44-2 per cent. The value of the products of American manufactures in 1900 was $13,019,251,604. The number of people engaged as wage-earners being 5,310,598, and the capital invested $9,853,630,789. The United States has become the leading exporting nation of the world. Last year the total exports of the United States reached the wonderful amount of $1,487,764,991. England comes next with exports amounting to $1,365,048,400 ; Germany next with $1,338,733,000 and France next with $804,069,SOO. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance is proud of his surplus, and he tells us that by July the first he will have a surplus of $13,500,000 ; he has had several surpluses since he has been in office. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would like to know what surpluses they have had in the United States.
In 1900 the total receipts of the United States were $669,595,431 and the total expenditure $590,068,371, leaving a surplus of $79,527,060.
The total receipts of the United States in 1901 were $609,316,530 and the total expenditure $621,598,546, leaving a surplus of $77,717,944 ; or in two years the surplus of the United States amounted to $157,245,040.
Having given those figures, having compared the result of the relatively low tariff of Canada with the high tariff policy of the United States, I want to ask : What the present fiscal policy of this country is and means ? The United States have maintained a tariff, not only for revenue, but for protection. We claim to-day to have a tariff for revenue, and the balance of trade during the last year has been against us. What is our tariff ? Is it not a tax-gathering tariff ? Is it not a stand-by tariff ? Is it not a marking time tariff ? Are we not marking time now ? The tariff of this country is practically the same that was adopted in 1879.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It has been weakened a little instead of being strengthened.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It has been weakened, let me say immediately, to a certain extent by the late Minister of Finance, Mr. Foster. I was then in the Conservative party, and I know that in the province of Quebec we did not share his views at all when he reduced the duty on certain articles. We thought he was going in the wrong direction then. The Liberal party came into office in 1896, and in 1897 there was a revision of the tariff. A large element of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec especially, had joined the Liberal party. The province of Quebec had been for many, many years a Conservative province ; a Liberal-Conservative province. This is not the occasion to discuss the reason why some of us, many of us, thousands of us, after the death of Sir John A. Macdonald, thought fit to part with our former allies in Ontario and to join hands with the Liberal party as then constituted and led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That's where you made a mistake.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, I don't think we made a mistake then. I do not regret anything we have done. Speaking for myself, I have nothing to regret. I think it was a very useful thing for this country that the Conservative party was defeated when it was defeated. If it had been defeated before, it would have been better for itself and better for the country, perhaps. It is not good that a party should remain too long in office, no matter what party it be.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Time for a change.


Mr. HOLMES.: There is not much consolation for you in that.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There was a revision of the tariff in 1897. An inquiry had taken place. The Minister of Finance and some of his colleagues, I was one of them, went into several towns and cities in this couu-

try to consult public opinion and to take consultation with the large interests at stake. Some of us were protectionists. X was then a protectionist, as I am now. My former colleagues will not reproach me with not having done everything I could to keep the tariff as high as possible. I carried on the light to the best of my ability. There was a compromise. The tariff was revised. On the whole, the tariff has not worked badly; it would be going a great deal too far to say that it has; it would not be fair to say so. But I say that the tariff has not worked as well as a stronger and higher tariff would have worked. Of course, if the past utterances of some of my hon. friends of the Liberal party had been carried out, the tariff which is in existencei to-day would not be where it is. We would have simply wrecked and destroyed this country. It was out of the question for any government in 1897 to try to carry out the utterances which some public men had delivered in the past. They were the first to recognize this. It was perhaps a little painful to them; but it seems to me that they were wrong in feeling sorrow, because I have yet to find a man who has been in public life for any great length of time who has not been obliged to change his orientation many times. The revision of the tariff of 1897 has placed it about 2 per cent less high than it was before. We did not do more than that. And) when my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce was this afternoon denouncing the former tariff, the tariff that I supported myself, when he was telling us that the tariff enacted in 1S79 and kept on the statute-book up to 1897 had simply allowed the manufacturers to pocket the money of the people, I was saying to myself, if it was so, 1 do not know what it is now. Because there is not [DOT] much difference in the two tariffs; the present tariff is about the same thing. We even raised the tariff in 1897 as against the United States on many articles. Open the tariff book and you will find that on many articles we raised the tariff in order to give the English preference. In keeping our tariff as we have kept it, we have been looking on, while many nations of the world with which we are trading have increased their tariffs. The United States have kept their tariff as high as they could. In 3897 they raised it, not for revenue only, but to encourage their home industries. Last year my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in his budget speech said that he would not revise the tariff that session, because there were reasons why he should not do so. The census returns of manufactures were not available, and the London conference was on. But the words of the hon. Minister of Finance, which I read in the House on another occasion, conveyed to the country the impression that the tariff would be revised this year. The business men of the country took those words as a pledge for a Hon. Mr. TARTE.
revision of the tariff at this present session. The words of the Finance Minister of last year were a great deal more definite on that point than his words of this year. Last year my hon. friend did not argue on principle against a revision of the tariff. He did not argue that the masses would chafe under a higher tariff. He did not point to the people of the west as an obstacle against a revision of the tariff. He simply said, we nnfenot ready now, because of the reasons I have stated; but we realize that conditions have arisen in the world that will make it necessary for us to revise the tariff at some future day. These words, I say, were understood to mean a revision this year. I can appeal to the business men of tin; country-they took the words of the hon. gentleman as a promise. This year my hon. friend does not make any promise of a revision in a short time, but he tells us that he is afraid a revision of the tariff in the direction of protection would bring high prices; he is afraid the people of the North-west would organize against it. Why should the people of the North-west rise and organize against a national tariff more than the people of any other part of the country 7 I want to know that. We are prepared to do anything in reason for the people of the North-west. We would be glad to do it in the future as we have been glad to do it in the past; but they must remain Canadians commercially, as Canadian as we are in the older provinces. My lion-friend the Minister of Finance told us that the manufacturers do not need a revision of the tariff in the direction of further protection-that it is not a higher tariff they require, but more labour and more space. Mr. Speaker, give the manufacturers of this country, the industries of this country, a proper policy, and the labour will be on, and the space will be on. Would my hon. friend the Minister of Finance permit me to tell him that this is the weakest argument he has ever propounded in this Chamber. Why, why, why ! the industries, the manufacturers of this country could not find labour, they could not find space, in a country like this ! They could not find space room in a country like this ! The argument is not worthy of the hon. gentleman's great ability. He tells us that the manufacturers are holding the market. How are they holding it. ? W'e exported to the United States last year $([DOT],000,000 of manufactured goods, and the United States sent to this country $69,000,000 worth. How then are we holding our own ? Where are we ? My hon. friend surely has not weighed the figures which he has before him. Because if he had, it would be impossible for him to use such an argument. My hon. friend has given utterance to expressions which will not be easily understood. He said in his speech :
Later on there might be some changes, that there may be a necessity, at some early day, to make further tariff changes than these which

I now propose, but if so, the extent to which these changes will go and the character of the changes, may, to a considerable degree, depend upon the attitude of certain other countries toward Canada. [DOT]
What is to be the character of the changes . When some people go to ridings where low tariff ideas prevail, the words or my non. friend will be read to the electorate as indicating that the changes will not be towards protection, and when such candidates as the hon. Minister of Marine and isheries (Hon. Mr. Pr5fontaine) will go before the people, they will say :	Now we
have a promise of a change towards protection. I say, without any hesitation, that this is not a policy, it is simply politics. This country wants a definite and clear policy on such an important question.
My hon. friend believes that our manufactures are holding their own. He has in his own province a very important industry- an industry, which, if it were fostered and encouraged and developed as it should be, and as a similar industry is fostered and protected in the United States, would become one of the sources of wealth of Canada.
I refer to the iron industry. Would my hon friend permit me to inform him that during the last six months there have been $25,000,000 lost in that industry. There has been a loss of $25,000,000, direct aud indirect, in connection with the iron industry during the last six months.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) That is because it is protected. That is the reason it has gone down.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If that be so, how is it that the hon. Minister of Pi nance is just adding in his budget an item of protection on steel rails. It Is largely because the iron industry is not protected as it should be, that the depreciation in the stock has been what I have just stated.
That cannot be denied by any one who knows the state of affairs. There are other industries, which are losing money and which went on with their operations, relying upon the words spoken by the hon. Minister of Finance last year. I would not be a prophet of evil, but I have good reasons for knowing that within a short period, unless my hon. friend the Minister of Finance makes further changes in the tariff on other lines, there will be financial difficulties, there will be losses on some industries which my hon. friend well knows. I know that there are in Ontario and the province of Quebec several industries which cannot live under the present tariff. There is one thing that surprises me. This Liberal side of the House is rather empty to-night.
I would like to see it full. But what surprises me is that there arel so many members of parliament on this side who have told me that they share my views, who have written me and told me repeatedly that they share my. views, and who have not been able to impress their views on the govern-52
1 ,say openly, 1 sa3' it from the bottom of my heart, that I fully expected that the Liberal party, with which I have been connected during the last ten years, would ^ carry out the policy it was understood m 1896 they would carry out. I am weighing my words. I know what arrangement, what understanding took place between, some public men. I know what took place. I do not divulge any secrets. I know what we did in the election of 1896 in Montreal. I see within the radius of my eye public men who, at our request, came to the city of Montreal, went to the manufacturers, with the knowledge of the leaders of the party, and told them not only would the tariff not be disturbed, but it would be changed in the right direction when the proper time came. There was no secret about that, i shall not give names. There are men who heal me I am sorry there are not more on those benches-who know that I am perfectly right. I am out of office because I could not stay in office under the present circumstances^ I have had only but pleasant relations with most of my colleagues and have tor the most of them the greatest respect. But I could not possibly stay in office when I knew that the policy we are following now is not the right policy-when I knew what understanding took place formerly. The tariff has worked as well as it could because we _ have been passing through years of prosperity. But after all we have not developed so marvellously. My hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, and my hon. friends from the maritime provinces, should take a lesson from the past. Before confederation they were most of them free traders.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) We are still.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I know that some of them, very respectable and venerable, are still free traders. We respect their views, but may I ask them to consider the position as it is to-day ? They are losing representation in this parliament. Why ? Because they have lost population. And why have they lost population ? Because they have not sufficient industries. They are very proud of their Sydney works, and we are proud with them, and ready to encourage them. But, if we are to carry out those free trade views to which some of them are still devoutly attached, we would remove the duty on coal and we would not consent to have a duty on steel rails. They would object, and yet when we ask our hon. friends from those provinces to he logical, to give protection to some of our industries, as we are obliged to give protection to their special industry, they reply that they are free traders. They are protectionist where their special industry is concerned, hut they decline to join us in the preparation of the tariff that would cover the whole country.
I am asked what kind of a tariff I would like to have. In point of fact, before I arose



to speak, some of my friends said to me : ^re you going to tell ns what kind of a tariff you would offer to the country if you were in a position to make the tariff ? I have no objection to say what I would do if I were once more ' the master of the administration.' I would have a policy that would favour and protect and foster and develop the manufacturing industries and the farming interest of our country just as effectively as the American tariff protects and fosters and develops the manufacturing industries and the farming interests of the United States. I do not say that that tariff should necessarily be as high as the United States tariff is, but it would be built on the same lines. Let us take a leaf out of their book. It seems to me that it is a very poor consolation for us to hear, in reply to our request for a higher tariff, that the control is passing from east to west. In my humble opinion there should be no east and no west. We should have Canada, and Canada only, in view. The control of the policy of the country must be national, not sectional.
The best markets of this country at present, in my opinion-and it will be so more and more-are the home market and the British market. Let me quote Mr. Carnegie on the value of home markets. This is from his St. Andrew's address :
In economic circles * the law of the surplus as I have ventured to call it, attracts Increasing attention. The manufacturing establishments are Increased year by year until they become gigantic, simply because the more made, the cheaper the product. By giving men constant employment, and having a reputation of never stopping, the best men are attracted and held- an important point. The manufacturer on a large scale can afford to make many contracts in distant parts of the world, and even some at home, at a direct loss in times of depression, knowing that, upon the whole, the result will be less unprofitable by running full than running short time or stopping. Hence, those possessing the most profitable home market can afford to supply foreign markets without direct profits, or even at a loss, whenever necessary. .	. . Politicians give far too much
attention to distant foreign markets, which can never amount to much ; and far too little to measures for improving conditions at home, which would increase the infinitely more important home market.
Our friends in the United States have progressed marvellously, as a whole, under a high tariff, but the farmers have, perhaps, benefited more than any other class of the community. Let me read a few words from the final report of the industrial commission, page 196 :
Tariffs in the United States have been agriculturally justified on the ground of their indirect influence in furnishing home markets for the products of the farm. Alexander Hamilton while secretary of the treasury, in his well-lcno'wn report on the encouragement of manufactures, regarded this relation as a vital feature in his memorable policy. By the creation of manufactures, he pointed out that such a


Joseph Israël Tarte: home market was created. By the diffusion of these manufactures throughout the country the consumer was brought nearer the place of surplus production, and the necessity for distant transportation was thereby eliminated and a near-by market secured more permanently than any foreign market could be.
That is common sense.
Another fact bearing directly on the question of the promotion of agriculture by tariffs is the fact that the level of prices for farm products is determined very largely by the price which the surplus portion of the country s product brings in the world market, where competition with all other countries is active. The retention of an increasing proportion of the farmers surplus for domestic consumption, and the exportation of a decreasing proportion of the crop would tend to the maintenance of a higher level of prices to the farmer under the conditions of a practically exclusive home market. It is this consideration that encourages rural enterprise to produce less of those articles, a part of which have to be sent abroad in competition with all other countries such as grain, and more of those articles which are in increasing demand for domestic use, namely, small fruits, dairy products, poultry, eggs, &c. This implies that diversified and intensive agriculture is necessary for the improvement of farm prices, without coming into competition with foreign producers for so large a part of the surplus crop as has been the case in the past.
Now I wish to ask who is the hon. member within hearing of my voice who will deny-I appeal to the most pronounced free trader-that great centres of population such as Montreal, Quebec, St. John, Hamilton and others are the best markets for the farming community ? Our farmers do not produce for export alone. What pays them better is what they take every day or every week to the market. Who can deny that . If you increase the population of the country, if you develop the industries of the country, you increase at the same time, the home market for the benefit of the farming community. That point cannot be disputed, and still it does not seem to appeal to our low tariff friends. They would rather stand by their theories than grapple with the facts face to face. I have just said a word ot the English market. England is the greatest food importing country in the world. We are not alone in the field. The United States Germany, France, Denmark, in fact all the nations of the world export to England.
Free
lion. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S..) trade England.


Joseph Israël Tarte: After having been high protection England. She is now free trade England, it is true, but is it not equally true that free trade England is to-day protecting her farming community against Canada ' Is it not a fact that free trade England declines to admit Canadian beef for protection's sake ? Mr. Hanbury has told us that openly. I am reminded that England is free trade. Is there a man in this parliament who would venture to say that

we could practice free trade as England practices it to-day ? If there is a man ready to do that, let him rise in the House and ask parliament to pronounce in its favour. We can export to England nearly everything of which we have a surplus. Let us build up our agricultural interests by a strong tariff ; in other words, let us strengthen the position of our farming community as the Americans have strengthened the position of their farmers. Let us build up a strong basis for our farming interests, and then let us compete in the markets of the world with all other nations. Two things must go together, transportation and the tariff, and those two things should be organized scientifically. We should not delay, we have in the past only been marking time.
The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce reminded us this afternoon that we have lost several millions of our population. The United States have attracted them. They have crossed over the line and most of them have become American citizens. The maritime provinces have lost more, perhaps, than any other part of the country; my province has lost a great deal. Why have we lost so many of our children ? Because there was on the other side of the line a nation with a strong national policy that had built up its industries. In 1894 the United States, under Mr. Cleveland's administration, lowered their tariff a little, although it still remained very high. Immediately a depression followed and a crisis was at hand for the American people. The Democratic party was defeated, and in 1897 the United States congress reined the tariff. Let me read the heading of it:	' An act to provide for
revenue for the government and to encourage the industries of the United States.' These are plain words, there was no ambiguity as to the object of the tariff of 1897. It was enacted to counteract the evil effects of the tariff adopted under the Cleveland regime. In a very interesting book entitled ' The Elements of National Economy,' Prof. Robert Ellis Thompson speaks in this way of the tariff question of the United States :
Nine times in one hundred years the American people have changed their financial policy, sometimes carried from protection toward free trade by the influence Of *specious theories, but as often driven hack to the policy of protection by hard experience. The two periods of longest continuance in any policy is the protectionist period which followed the establishment of the government (1789-1801) and the protectionist period in which we are now living. Pour times the scaffolding of the tariff has been torn down from the uncompleted edifice of our industrial development, and as often the work has been begun again,-if not from the foundation, yet from a point much less advanced than had been reached under the previous protective tariff. This time it seems to be the nation's purpose that the scaffold shall be kept up till the roof is on.
It is such a policy as that I would like to help build in this country. I would like in-52}
deed that the work be started immediately. This session will not close, I am confident, without that vital question being sifted to the bottom. I for one will do my best to achieve that end. The government has made a change or two in the tariff, but that is not a policy. The government is telling us that they do not know when it will be, in their opinion, advantageous for the country to revise the tariff. They tell us that the character of the tariff has not yet been outlined in their minds.
The hon. leader of the opposition has made a motion which is practically a repetition of the motion he made last year. Let me compliment him on the speech he has delivered. On both sides of the House it is admitted to be one of the ablest utterances that have been made on the question of a tariff in this parliament. It is delightful to hear questions of that importance discussed in such an able manner as the tariff is being discussed at the present time. The Minister of Finance has made an able speech. The right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce has also delivered one of those bright efforts for which we always cheer him, even though we do not share all his views. I do not say that the motion of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition meets all my opinions and sentiments, though it goes far my way. His speech is clearer than his motion. His motion has the right ring; but if I am allowed to do so, I would like to supplement it and to make my own position clear before the country by proposing at a later period the following motion :	In
reading it I am giving notice of a motion that will be studied by my hon. friends on both sides of the House. It reads as follows :
This House desires to express the opinion that in order to assure the permanency and the further progress of the existing industries, as well as the creation of many new ones that only wait the proper policy to spring up ; to inspire greater confidence to Canadian, British and foreign capital ; to secure for the farmers now tilling our soil and those that we invite to share the blessing of our institutions and the wealth that Providence has placed at our disposal, the full advantages of a prosperous home market ; to comply with the legitimate desire of the working classes to see their labour rewarded by fair and uninterrupted wages and by comfort in their families ; to render impossible the slaughtering of our markets by the produce of foreign industries, of foreign combines, of foreign agriculture and of cheap labour countries ; to bring about a quicker development and a more rapid expansion of our vast resources ; to promote closer commercial relations between the different provinces of the Dominion and between this Dominion and the mother country ;
It is the bounden and imperative duty of the government to revise and readjust, without delay, the present tariff in such a manner as to leave no doubt as to the determination of the Canadian people to adopt and maintain a fiscal policy adequately and firmly protective of the large national interest at stake. And also to

carry out an energetic transportation policy which will give to our merchandise and products of all kinds commodious, quick and cheap access to the markets of our country and to those of foreign nations trading with us.
This is the motion that I will offer to the House at a future date. I will not discuss to-day the tariff in its details. In other words, I will not discuss the different industries, which, in my opinion, deserve immediate consideration at the hands of this parliament. I hope that this question will be thoroughly discussed at this session of parliament that we may make our views known and when we have placed them before the country, the country will decide. I hope that the government will come to a better understanding of the position. I still hope that they will do so. I have gone over the province of Ontario. I have addressed Liberal audiences at their request. I have found everywhere a strong sentiment in favour of a higher tariff. The members of the government from the other provinces perhaps do not know the strong feeling of the province of Ontario as well as I profess to know it. I know I will be told that the government has carried byelections. We all know what by-elections mean in this country. We all know that they are carried on side issues. We know what a large influence the government has. Perhaps I may be told that the policy lam advocating engenders trusts and combines. My hon. friends who are friendly to the policy of free trade England will be good enough to remember that combines in free trade England have more influence than they have in the United States. There are perhaps more combines in England than in the United States. In the United States combines do not control one-tenth of the manufacturing interests. Therefore, that is no ai'gument. Now, all the nations of the world are equipping themselves. I hold in my hand the tariff recently adopted by Germany. It is practically a prohibitive tariff especially from the farming standpoint. I am glad that the hon. Minister of Finance and the government have at last retaliated against Germany. Why did they not adopt the same policy against the United States ? The tariff of the United States is just as unfair to this country as the tariff of Germany is. If the principle that they are advocating and that they are asking their friends to sanction is sound, is good as far as Germany is concerned, the same principle should be applied as against the United States.
Now, let me say one last word about the North-west Territories and Manitoba. One of the influences-perhaps the main influence-which has prevented the revision of the tariff comes from the North-west Territories. That I happen to know. Our Northwest friends are wrong in their views. We are prepared to give them cheap, easy, commodious transportation. They have never applied in vain to the older provinces. We Hon. Mr. TARTE.
have voted cheerfully all the money they wanted, and we are prepared to do so again -I am speaking for myself. Knowing the sentiment of the province of Quebec I speak as I do. We are prepared to do everything to develop the North-west Territories. Why should they be anxious to buy from the United States more than they buy from us? The older provinces are manufacturing provinces to a very large extent. If we establish cheap transportation between the west and the east why should we not supply the west with our goods ? We are| prepared to increase our transportation facilities by rail and by water. Let us bind this Dominion solidly together. National unity follows commercial intercourse. We are settling the west with foreign elements. Let us have as much intercourse as we can with those foreign elements. Let us trade together, let us unite the country solidly together by a strong Canadian tariff and by a scientific system of transportation. There is no reason why the west should antagonize the east, any more than the maritime provinces should! not join hands with us. If they had more industries in the maritime provinces they would have more population. There are already industries in the west. I will have an opportunity of asking my hon. friends from the west to vote perhaps on certain industries that have applied to me for some protection from the farming standpoint, and from the industrial standpoint. Sir, there should be no west and no east. There must be a united Canada and a Canada united with the British empire. The British isles are our best market. I echo the sentiments that have been expressed in this regard by the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce. This young Canadian nation cannot be an independent nation for many years to come. We would be gobbled up by the United States; they would simply swallow us at the first difficulty we would have with them. Small nations on the continent of Europe are not in the same position as we are. Because there is a balance of power to be maintained in Europe by the bigger nations between themselves. France or Russia will not allow Germany to swallow up a small nation. But on this continent we would be swallowed up by the United States without any body caring very much for us, if we were an independent nation now. Within ten or fifteen years we may be, we will be I hope, a nation of ten millions or twelve millions people. And unless we have closer relations with England we may have difficulties. Let us begin now the work of making solid the union of this Dominion with the British empire on a commercial basis. Let us bind this Dominion together and let us bind the Dominion with the British empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: We have great destinies before us. Why do we not have a

policy worthy of our future ? Why wait, wait, wait this year and next year ? Waiting is not a policy worthy of a nation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friends on the treasury benches recognize the necessity of revising the tariff and of having a stronger policy, since they tell us to wait for that policy. Why should we wait such a length of time when our neighbours to the south are invading the markets of the world. We are losing power in the commercial world, the balance of the trade was against us last year.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have wearied the House with such a long speech.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am in a peculiar position. As I have said, my relations with most of my colleagues have been of a most agreeable character. I have confidence in the integrity, in the honour of most of them. I have worked harmoniously with the great bulk of the Liberal party. I have done what I could for them in days when they were not as strong as they are to-day. I remember very well the days when the Liberal party was scattered to the winds after the Mercier episode in Quebec. My friends, the Liberals from that province were not as strong then as they are now. They found allies in the Conservative party, and let me say to some of them that they have never been loyal to those allies. Let me reproach them on the floor of this parliament for their lack of loyalty and sincerity towards some of us. They know that I am speaking by the book. I for one have been stabbed in the back on more than one occasion, but I forgot all that. A public man must forget and forgive, when he has the true interest of his country at heart. I remained in the government knowing that behind me there were men who were stabbing me in the back. My former colleagues know it just as well as I know it myself. I remained in office for loyalty sake to my leader and to those of my colleagues with whom I was working for the best interest of the country. On the question of the tariff, I could not compromise any longer. It may be said that I am not a good party man, and I stand ready to accept that reproach. If I am asked to give up opinions in which I firmly believe in order to remain in office, I cannot do it. There are things on which a public man cannot compromise ; on which he cannot give up his views. The question of the tariff ; the question of transportation, on which I have spoken in the House so often, are two questions on which I hold strong views that I could not possibly give up. I felt that I was no longer in sympathy with several of my colleagues and I went out of office. I have no ill-will towards them. I do not know if I will remain in Canadian politics. I like my country ; I like Canadian politics ; but life is short and I do not know whether
I will not trust to my luck on another scene. It would not be a disgrace to the French Canadians ; it would not be a disgrace or a bad thing for the French Canadians to have one of their number sitting in the imperial House of Commons.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I have been offered a seat in the English House of Commons, which I have not accepted as yet. I do not know what I will do. If I had money I would go, and I think it would not be going back on my native Canada, I would be able to serve her in the imperial parliament as I have served her here. Well, we shall see later on. I give this explanation because I want to close these remarks by saying that in the position which I take I have no personal ends to serve. My ambition is satisfied. I started very humbly in life ; I had the great privilege of being a member of this parliament and of being a minister of the Crown. I cannot go higher in this country or elsewhere. My ambition is altogether satisfied. The position which I take to-day has no other object and no other motive than to serve my country to the best of my ability. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for having spoken so long.


Mr. LOGAN.: At the request of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and on his behalf, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 21, 1903.