[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 68) respecting the Central Counties Railway Company.-Mr. Edwards.
Bill (No. 69) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 70) to incorporate the Ross Rifle Company.-Mr. Thompson.
Bill (No. 71) respecting the Dominion Cotton Company, Limited.-Mr. Legris.
Bill (No. 72) to incorporate the Pacific Northern and Omineca Railway Company.- Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 73) to incorporate the North Shore Power Railway and Navigation Company.- Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 74) respecting the Ottawa, Brock-ville, and St. Lawrence Railway Company.-Mr. Thompson.
Bill (No. 75) to incorporate the Knapp Tubular Steamship Company.-Mr. Calvert.

Mr. L. N. CHAMPAGNE (Wright) moved:: That the third report of the Select Committee appointed to supervise the debates of the House for the present session be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hou. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 76) further to amend the Pilotage Act.
Hon. Mr. HAG  GART@: Explain.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is a Bill introduced to amend the statute of 1900, and it has for its object to do away with compulsory pilotage on vessels drawing less than 16 feet of water sailing between the great lakes and ports on the St. Lawrence.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved for * leave to introduce Bill (No. 77) to provide for the appointment of assistant judges of the Supreme Court of Canada in certain cases.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Explain.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The object of this Bill is to provide that in case of a judge of the Supreme Court being disqualified by reason of illness, or because he is interested in a case pending in the
court, it may be in the power of the Governor General in Council to appoint a judge to take the place of the judge who is so disqualified. This is to prevent certain inconveniences to which the- Bar has been subjected in the past. It is provided in the Bill that the judge to be appointed shall be selected from the same province to which the judge who is disqualified belongs.


John Graham Haggart: Of what rank 7


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The High Court, of course. , The proposed law is similar to that which we have in the province of Quebec and also in the province of Ontario.


Mr. SPROULE.: What kind of disqualification does it apply to 7


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Illness or absence; the ordinary reasons which apply in the other provinces.


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

Mr.  A. A. C.@: LaRIVIERE (Provencher). Before the Orders of the Day are called, Mr. Speaker, I wish to avail of the very first opportunity to call attention to what I consider to be an improper description of a certain class of our community, which is to be found in the seventh bulletin of the census for the year 1901, which has just been placed in my hands.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir AVilfrid Laurier).: Had not my ihon. friend better wait until the motion is made to go into Committee of Ways and Means 7
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I have only a few words to say, and I do not wish to make a motion or to raise a debate. On the second page of this bulletin, the Metis of the Dominion of Canada, or, what are commonly called the half-breeds, are described as Indians. I do not say that this was intended to be an insult, because I believe it was unintentional, but nevertheless the description is incorrect. The Metis do not deny their Indian blood; in fact they are ifl'otid of it, but at the same time they object very properly to be called Indians. I see no reason why, because some of them happen to have perhaps one-hundred and twenty-eighth part of Indian blood in tijeir veins, they should be described as Indians, which to a certain extent would brand them in the public mind as belonging to an uncivilized portion of the community. I protest against the half-breeds of Manitoba-more properly called the Metis-whether French, Scotch, Irish, or any other nationality, being described in the census returns as Indians. Now that attention has been called to this mistake, I trust it will be

corrected at once, and that another bulletin will be issued properly describing the Metis. In the name of the Metis, X protest against that mistake in the census, and I believe my hon. friends from the west will join me in that protest.


Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: I understand there is no motion before the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but I propose to put myself in order by moving-


The PRIME MINISTER.: I would ask toy hon. friend (Mr. Davis) not to move the adjournment of the House now. The hon. gentleman can make his remarks when the House is moved into Committee of Ways and Means.



SPRAGUE'S FALLS MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 37) to incorporate the Sprague's Falls Manufacturing Company, Limited.-Mr. Emmerson.
On section 10,
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Is there any provincial legislation in New Brunswick upon this subject ? In the province of Nova Scotia there are provincial enactmeuts governing the rights of persons to secure their logs upon rivers and to drive their logs down the streams. In incorporating a company of this kind, I think we should be careful to have regard to provincial legislation of a general character which might control the operations of the company, and not insert any provision which would be inconsistent with such legislation.


Mr. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmoreland).: That subject was considered by the subcommittee which had charge of this Bill. These are international waters which are referred to in the Bill. In the province of New Brunswick we have of course enactments governing the rights of lumbermen who use Inland waters.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see that the Bill restricts the operations of the company to international waters. The powers given to the company may be exercised on waters under the direct control of the provincial legislature of New Brunswick. Section 10 purports to deal with the mode in which persons having property that comes within the booms of the company shall retain their property. We should be careful not to frame the Bill in such a way that the company would assume the position of being beyond the control of provincial enactments with regard to that particular subject. I would like to hear from my hon. friend the Minister of Justice on this matter. Does he not think that provincial legislation with regard to a matter of this kind should be left severely alone ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon Charles Fitzpatrick).: If my hon. friend will read
Mr. LaRIVIERE.
section 10, he will see that it does not interfere with provincial legislation at all. It says :
The company shall not take or hold within its booms any prize or unmarked logs. Any person interested may go upon the property of the company at any reasonable time and in any reasonable mannor, sear;h for such prize or unmarked logs, but the company shall have its proper proportion of the proceeds therefrom.
I apprehend that the draftsman must have had in view the idea that the provincial legislature would determine what the proper proportion is, because the words are so vague that they do not mean anything unless the provincial legislation is borne in mind.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be well to insert a clause to make the matter plain. For instance, the provincial legislature may have fixed limits of time or may prescribe what is a reasonable manner for going on the property of the company to search for logs. If so, I think the company should be confined to those regulations. Would my hon. friend who has charge of the Bill have any objection to insert words to make that clear ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We might go through the other provisions of the Bill, and then have the committee rise and report progress for the purpose of having that question looked into.


Robert Laird Borden: Very well.
On section 12,


Robert Laird Borden: I do not exactly understand why those words should be embodied in the Bill. If a line of poles is to be erected on the company's own property, these words are not required. If they are to be erected on the public highway, the consent of the municipality should be obtained. If on the property of others, the company should pay any damages caused.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The parties interested went before the committee, where the whole matter was fully discussed. Then it was referred to a special sub-committee and all agreed upon these provisions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is a question which is exciting a good deal of attention, namely, the right of telegraph and telephone companies to put up their poles and wires on streets and highways, regardless of the rights which municipalities were heretofore supposed to possess. The easiest way to secure to the municipalities those rights would be to include in the Bill a provision making the putting up of poles and lines subject to the approval of the municipal corporation interested and under its direction.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: A great deal of misapprehension exists with respect to the rights of municipalities over telephone and telegraph companies. Chapter 37 of 62-63 Victoria makes it absolutely impossible for these companies to enter streets or highways or public parks under control of municipalities without the consent of these municipalities.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the work must be done under their direction.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE, Certainly.	[DOT]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is it then that this Bell Telephone Company is asserting in the courts its right to erect its poles and lines *without the consent of the municipalities ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Bell Telephone Company was incorporated previous to this enactment, and they say it does not apply to them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then it does not matter whether w'e put the clause suggested or not, the municipalities still have control and can exercise it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Certainly. I am not prepared to say that the Bell Telephone Company does not come within the provisions of the statute I have just referred to, but I am not expressing any opinion on that point.


Mr. F. B. WADE (Annapolis).: This Bill was referred to a sub-committee and a clause was there incorporated in it which removes the objection of the leader of the opposition. That is section 9, which has not yet been read, and which is the model clause adopted in the Bill incorporating the St. Lawrence Power Company last year.


John Graham Haggart: Do I understand from the promoter of the Bill that this clause, which gave the company the power of expropriating mill sites at certain places, has been eliminated ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: Yes, it has. The company is given the power to expropriate land for its tramway and on which to erect its mills and dams, but these it has to expropriate under the provisions of the Railway Act. It is the same as the model clause adopted last session with regard to the St. Lawrence Power Company.


John Graham Haggart: Is there a general clause at the end giving us jurisdiction if we have it not ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: No, there was some doubt as to whether this parliament has jurisdiction to pass this legislation, and the promoters decided that they would go to the provincial legislature.


Robert Laird Borden: I think clause 33 might remove the objection, but would
suggest that clause 12 stand until clause 13 is discussed.
Clause 12 allowed to stand.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The original clause 13 is struck out and the following substituted :
The company, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining its works, may, with the consent of the municipal council or other authority having jurisdiction over the same, enter on any highway, square or any other public place, and as often as the company thinks proper, may, with the like consent, break up and open any highway or public place, subject however to the following provisions :
(a.) The company shall not interfere with the public right of travel, or in any way obstruct the entrance to any door or gateway, or free access to any building ;
(b.) The company shall not permit any wire to be less than twenty-two feet above such highway or public place ;
(c.) All poles shall be as nearly as possible straight and perpendicular, and shall, in cities, be painted, if so required by any by-law of the council ;
(d.) The company shall not be entitled to damages on aceount of its poles or wires being cut by direction of the officer in charge of the fire brigade at any lire if, in the opinion of such officer, it is advisable that such poles or wires be cut ;
(e.) The company shall not cut down or mutilate any shade, fruit or ornamental tree without the approval of the corporation of the municipality in which it is situate, and then only so far a3 it may be necessary ;
(f.) The opening up of streets for the erection of poles, or for carrying wires under ground, shall be subject to the direction and approval of such person as the municipal council directs ; the council may also designate the places where such poles shall be erected ; and such street, square or other public place shall, without any unnecessary delay, be restored, as far as possible, to its former condition by and at the expense of the company ;
(g.) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to authorize the company to enter upon any private property for the purpose of erecting, maintaining or repairing any of its works, without the previous assent of the owner or occupant of the property for the time being ;
(h.) If, for the purpose of removing buildings, or in the exercise of the public right of travel, it is necessary that the said wires or poles be temporarily removed, by cutting or otherwise, the company shall, at its own expense, upon reasonable notice in writing from any person requiring it, remove such wires and poles, and in default of the company so doing, such person may remove such "wires and poles at the expense of the company. The said notice may be given either at any office of the company, or to any agent or officer of the company in the municipality wherein are the wires or poles required to be removed, or, in the case of a municipality wherein there is no such agent or officer, then, either at the head office, or to any agent or officer of the company in the nearest or any adjoining municipality to that in which such wires or poles are ;
(i.) The company shall be responsible for all damage which it causes to ornamental, shade.

or fruit trees, and otherwise for all unnecessary damages it causes in carrying out or maintaining any of its said works.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to know if the Minister of Justice has considered whether this should or should not be a provincial Bill. There is nothing in the Bill, as I understand it, that would lead one to suppose that it was other than a provincial corporation. Its operations seem to be confined to one province, and It does not seem to propose to branch out into agencies. On what ground does the company seek to establish incorporation here ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The justification for the introduction of the Bill here is found in the fact that the St. Croix river on which the company's operations are to be carried on, and in connection with which alterations are to be made, is an international river, dividing Canada from the United States.


Robert Laird Borden: Still, I would suggest to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that the company is being granted power extending far beyond the St. Croix river. Its business might be carried on elsewhere than on this river. It seems to me, without having given the subject very much consideration, that the proper way to deal with a scheme of this kind would be for the company to secure a provincial charter giving it the powers that are covered by this Bill, and then, if it should become necessary, on account of the enterprise of the company extending to the St. Croix river, to secure a very brief Act from this parliament giving any necessary powers which only this parliament could give. But, so far as nine-tenths of the matters covered by this Bill are concerned, the provincial legislature is the body that should regulate the future business of this company, I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that he should take this matter into consideration and have some general practice established as to matters of that kind. It occurs to me at the moment that the plan I propose is the more logical plan of the two. Pursuing the course that is asked for here, you have this parliament invading the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature simply for the reason that some portion of the company's works may touch a subject which is peculiarly within the jurisdiction of this parliament.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I may say that the whole question arose two or three years ago in connection with the Tobique Manufacturing Company. The government of New Brunswick, protested officially against the granting of such powers by this parliament. The Bill is in this position, that the promoters, when the suggestion was made, said that It was their intention to apply at once to the provincial legislature, and that they would have two charters.


Peter Macdonald: 


Fletcher Bath Wade: They are anxious to get to work early in the spring, and they felt that if they waited till they got a charter from the New Brunswick legislature they might be delayed. It does not make much difference whether they get here first or there.
Progress reported.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 57) respectidg the Ontario Power Company of Niagara Falls.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 59) respecting [DOT] the James Bay Railway Company.-Mr. McCormick.
Bill (No. 62) respecting the Klondike Mines Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 64) to incorporate the Cosmos Cotton Company.-Mr. Flint.
Bill (No. 67) to incorporate the Coast Yukon Railway Company.-Mr. Maxwell.


Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	How many trips wers made by the steamship 'Ajneiia' to the Magdalen Islands in the season of 1901 ?
2.	What is the tonnage and carrying capacity of said steamship with regard to freight and passenger accommodation ?
3.	Have any improvements been made to her in the winter of 1900 ?
4.	If so, what is the nature of such ameliorations or improvements ?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to give the people of the Magdalen Islands a more fre-guent service ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) :: ,1. The steamer 'Amelia' made thirty-five trips to Magdalen islands and return during the season of 1901.
2.	The tonnage is 356 gross and 103 net; cargo capacity, 15,000 cubic feet or equal to about 2,000 barrels ; holds certificate for 250 passengers ; sleeping berth for 20 passengers in saloon and same number in forecabin.
3.	and 4. The further additions made to the steamer last year for passenger accommodation were three private cabins in the saloon amidship, fitted with two berths each, also there was rearranged a large cabin aft which was used for officers' quarters with sleeping berths for 10-both saloons steam heated, electric lighted and connected with electric bells. It is claimed that the accommodations have been more than adequate for the number of passengers carried. The berths were not all occupied on any trip last season.
5. It is not at present in contemplation to do so.

16S2



MAIL, CARRIAGE-ANTEN MILLS AND HENDRIE,

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT,-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Who is contractor for carrying of mails between Anten Mills and Hendrie, County of Sim-coe ?
2.	What is paid to contractor per annum for such service ?
3.	(a.) When' was contract let ? (h.) Hot, many tenders were received ? (c.) Was the lowest tender accepted ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock).: Tenders for this service were invited. Two were received, one tender being for $24.96 and another, that of Mr. James McLaughlin at $29. The inspector reported the tenderer at $24.96 to be incompetent to perform the service, and accordingly the contract has been awarded to Mr. James McLaughlin, who is also postmaster at Anten Mills, at $29. The inspector has been instructed to complete the contract with Mr. McLaughlin, and the necessary contract for this purpose has been sent for execution, but the department has not been advised whether it has been executed.	.



INDIAN TREATY NUMBER THREE.

Mr. CLANCY asked :: 1.	What is the approximate amount of the claim of the Dominion against the province of Ontario, under the Indian Treaty number three (referred to in the report of the Deputy Minister of Finance for 1900, up to the 31st December, 1901 ?
2.	At what dates were the claim of the Dominion and the answer of the province filed with the arbitrators 2
3- Are any steps being taken to have the matter determined ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) :
1.	No claim has been filed by the Dominion made up to the date named in the honourable gentleman's question. The approximate amount of the claim of the Dominion against the province is $322,000, which, with interest up to the time of the filing of the claim by the Dominion, made then an approximate claim of $475,000.
2.	Claim of the Dominion filed 18th October, 1893 ; answer of the province of Ontario filed 6th November, 1895.
3.	The claim was brought before the arbitrators by the Dominion and postponed at the request of the Ontario government. Subsequently a date for hearing was fixed, but owing to the illness of one of the arbitrators the case was not proceeded with. An application will shortly be made for a further hearing.



MANITOBA LIQUOR ACT.

Mr. McCREARY asked :: Has the Manitoba branch of the Dominion Alliance, or any one acting for them or on their behalf, in the city of Winnipeg or the Province of Manitoba, remitted to the government ally brief, letter or statement deal'ng with the unconstitutionality of the Referendum about to be taken on the Manitoba Liquor Act ? If so, what reply has been sent, or what action does the government intend taking in the matter ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Yes, copy of the petition for disallowance has, following the usual practice, been transferred to the government of Manitoba for their observations. The statute itself has not yet been transmitted to this government. When it is received, and the reply of the Manitoba government, the matter will be considered in the usual way.



THE CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT.

Mr. FLINT asked :: What counties, districts or municipalities in Canada are at present under the operation of the Canada Temperance Act.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The Canada Temperance Act is in force in the following electoral districts :-
Nova Scotia.	N. Brunswick	P.E. Island.	. Manitoba.Annapolis.	Albert.	King's.	Lisgar.Cape Breton.	Carleton.	Queen's.	Marquette.CumberFnd.	Charlotte.	Prince.	Digby.	Fredericton.	Guysboro'.	King's.	Hants.	North'berl d.	Inverness.	Queen's.	King's.	Sunbury.	Pictou.	Westmorel'd.	Queen's.	York.	Shelburne.	Y armouth.



IMPORTATION OF FLAX SEED.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McGOWAN-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	What is the amount of flax seed, in bushels, imported into Canada from the United States since the 30th June last ?
2.	What are the ports in Canada, and the quantities at each port at which it was entered?
3.	What is the value of such flax seed at each port, respectively ?
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: The quantity and value of

flax seed imported into each port in Canada, from the United States, from July 1, to March 1, 1902, were as follows
Port. 1	Quantity.	Value.
	Bush.	$
Amherstburg, Ont	9	12Calgary	4	6Goderich	43,000	62,794Guelph	48,094	64,566Halifax	62	123London	549	888Montreal	558,332	1.227,575St. John, N.B	33	68Stratford	125,700	196,196Vancouver	2	5Victoria	571	1,080W'indsor, Ont	63	103Total	776,419 '	1,553,416



WELLAND CANAL.

Mr. LANCASTER asked :: 1.	What is the minimum depth of water on the mitre sills of the entrance locks of the Welland Canal at Port Colborne and Port Dalhousie that will be available for navigation this season ?
2.	What is the number of cubic feet of water per second (or minute) granted up to the present date from the Welland Canal by lease, Order in Council, or otherwise, to the Hamilton Cataract Power Company ?
3.	What is the quantity of water allowed to pass per second (or minute) from the Welland Canal into the hydraulic race of the said company ?
4.	What is the quantity of water passing at present per second (or minute) northward through the guard lock of the old Welland Canal at Thorold ?
5.	Why has not the Order in Council been passed granting to the corporation of St. Catharines for power purposes six thousand cubic feet of water per minute from the old Welland Canal, as petitioned for by the said corporation and Board of Trade of the said city of St. Catharines, and referred to by the Prime Minister on 18th February, 1901, as reported in ' Hansard ' on page 109 of that year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	At Port Colborne, fourteen feet on the mitre sill ; at Port Dalhousie, fourteen feet *on the mitre sill.
2.	One hundred cubic feet per second.
3.	One hundred cubic feet per second.
4.	Five hundred and seventy-five cubic feet per second.
5.	I have observed that the fifth answer has not been put in my hand and I will furnish it on Wednesday.
INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-FERRY	BE-



TWEEN MULGRAVE AND POINT TUPPER.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) asked :: 1.	What has been the cost of the improved ferry service of the Intercolonial Railway be-Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
tween Mulgrave and Point Tupper to date, including the cost of the new ferry boat, and of the improvements at these in connection with the ferry service ?
2.	When was the ferry boat for this service delivered by the contractors at Mulgrave ?
3.	Has this boat been tested, and is she of sufficient strength to confront the ice conditions in winter, referred to by the Minister of Railways in his speech in this House ?
4.	How many trains or how many cars have been transferred by this boat to date ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	$419,382.48.
2.	28th September, 1901.
3.	This boat has been tested and is of sufficient strength to confront the ice conditions in winter at the Strait of Canso.
4.	No traihs have been transferred because the bridges connecting the boat with the land are not yet ready.



COMMISSION ON WEIGHING OF BUTTER AND CHEESE.

Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin) asked :: When will the report of the commission on the weighing of butter and cheese be laid on the Table ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: The investigation is not yet completed. The commissioner's time has been occupied with other matters since the meeting of parliament. He has not had the opportunity of finishing up, but hopes to do so within a few days. The report will be forthcoming as soon as possible.



WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY-AGREEMENT WITH SIGNOR MARCONI.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKINNON-by Mr. Johnston (Cape Breton)-asked :
In the agreement between the government and Signor Marconi re wireless telegraphy, is there any provision respecting the extension of that system to Prince Edward Island ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). There is no special provision in the agreement with respect to Prince Edward Island, but the main purpose of the agreement was to secure, in the event of the enterprise proving successful, cheap telegraph rates from shore to shore across the Atlantic. There is a provision, however, for the use of the Marconi system for the lighthouse service of Canada and other government works, and that will apply to Prince Edward Island as well as to other parts of the Dominion. The agreement as it has been signed, will be laid before the House.

Mr. KEMP asked :: 1. Did the government arm, equip and transport by land and sea, at its own expense, the

various contingents of troops which were despatched to the seat of war in South Africa, to assist in subduing the enemies of the King ?
2.	If not, what are the different conditions respecting arming, equipping and transporting the several contingents ?
3.	If the government did not, at its own expense, arm, equip and transport any one or more of the contingents, what was the reason for such action ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lanrier) :: 1.	The government did arm, equip and transport, by land and sea at its own expense, the two contingents of troops which were despatched to the seat of war in South Africa, from Canada, in 1899 and 1900.
2.	The arming, equipping and transporting of all corps were carried out at the expense of the Imperial authorities, as proposed by them.
3.	The reason is that the government deemed it in the public interest to act as they did, and if the hon. member is not satisfied with that course, it is open to him to affirm by motion, the policy which, in his opinion, ought to have been adopted.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to he granted to His Majesty ; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
["It would be obviously inconvenient for us to be held answerable for everything that appears in the newspapers, even in so excellent a paper as ' La Patrie.' I would not like to discuss the matter on the basis of a newspaper report, and I think my hon. friend will see that that is a wise and proper course."]
Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is not necessary to go very fully into the discussion of the budget after we have had a week of very full and careful discussion of that subject in which views have been presented of the most divergent character, so that, I presume, almost every opinion that can be readily advanced on the subject has already been laid before the House. There are, however, reasons why we should pay a great deal of attention to the matter of treating with proper interest the important occasion recurring annually in our affairs when we have our national balance sheet laid before us, and to a certain extent, having the confidence of the government, have some opportunity of learning in what directions, if any, the government propose to make a change of policy during the coming year. I am delighted to be in a position on this occasion to congratulate the government and the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on the fact that he has again an opportunity of bringing into the House and placing before the country a statement in which is evidenced the fact that Canada is prosperous in a very high degree indeed. The surpluses with which the hon. gentleman has been favoured since he had the
honour of occupying the position of Finance Minister of Canada, have been almost annually recurring and I dare say, that, to him, they are becoming an old story. However, it is not well that either the government, or the House, or the country, should acquire the idea, or hold the opinion, that such a state of affairs as has existed in Canada since 1898 is going to continue for ever. We have unquestionably had a series of most fortunate and prosperous years, and in the year which has passed we have had the magnificent surplus of $5,648,000, which places the government of the day in such a position that they should not be short of money., Their revenue exceeds $50,000,000, reaching $52,514,000, but, I find that although they have this enormous sum of money placed in their hands by the contributions of the people of Canada, they have still found it necessary to incur a very large expenditure on capital account and in respect to this matter, I think the government are fairly open to criticism, because, I think that many items have, in the course of the past year, been charged to capital, which should, properly speaking, have been charged to consolidated revenue account, and if that course had been pursued, if all the items which could be fairly proven to be chargeable to consolidated fund account had been charged to that account, the hon. Minister of Finance would not have had nearly so large a surplus as he has. The expenditure has been very large, on consolidated fund account nearly $49,000,000, and on capital account, about $11,000,000, showing either that the demands upon the government from their supporters are enormously large, or that the government are in an exceedingly pliant humour and are endeavouring to make all their friends share in the good times which are at present prevailing throughout Canada. It is rather an extraordiary thing in the face of such a showing as we have had this year-a rather unexpected showing I believe, because I do not think the hon. Minister of Finance anticipated quite so great a success in the matter of money-to see after all the debt of Canada has increased to $268,000,000 and that during the past year it has ueen increased to the amount of nearly $3,000,000. It is very evident that the system under which the hon. gentleman has conducted the affairs of Canada during the past year is one in which he is going to continue for at least a year to come, for he tells us and the country that while he estimates the revenue in the year now very nearly coming to a close at $56,800,000, or, $4,300,000 more than his very great good fortune gave him this year, he expects to have an expenditure of not $49,000,000 but of $51,000,000. On capital account, the expenditure which certainly stood at an enormously high point last year when it was about $11,000,000, is to be increased to $14,250,000. Therefore, the total expenditure of Canada in

tiie coming year will be $62,250,000, and the debt of Canada,, in such marvellously good times as we are enjoying, will be increased by $6,000,000. That is a very extraordinary showing, because at the present time we are not having any very remarkably large expenditures. There is uo Intercolonial Railway to be built; there is no Canadian Pacific Railway being paid for; there is no great work in connection with the canal development of Canada; there is nothing that will occur to the ordinary citizen of the country, to account for the fact that in the face of such enormous revenues as Canada has enjoyed for the last two years, it should be necessary to increase the debt in Canada in th'ese two years by $8,986,196. Of course, the Minister of Finance has very much better opportunities to know what is likely coming, than has an ordinary member of parliament and more particularly one who sits in the cold shades of opposition and does not receive his information so readily or perhaps so correctly as do the members supporting the government; but it does strike me that the government has shown an alacrity, a readiness, a cheerfulness in going forward with its policy of tremendous expenditure which *nail require more careful consideration.
There are indications that Cailada has reached the highest point in this period of prosperity in which we have been living for some years past. The total trade of Canada is a very good indication of the state of affairs in the country. The total trade of Canada has for the last three or four years increased by enormous sums annually, but in the last year a different showing occurred and the total trade of this country increased by only about $5-
000.	000-a very significant fact which would seem to show that the great swelling tide of business which has been sending our figures up in such an extraordinary fashion has to a certain extent reached its full, and that we may expect-in view of the expeiiences of the p&st which hcive dgygi' failed to be uniform-we may expect that in a very short time the tide will be ebbing, and the shrinkage in our figures may perhaps be quite as rapid as was the increase.
1,	of course, Mr. Speaker, do not anticipate that we are going back to the lowest figures of former days; that has not been the history of the business of Canada. Although it has had periods of inflation and periods of depression, still, during the periods of depression there has been a steady upward progress-Canada was pros-penng, was adding to its population, was adding to its wealth, was developing its industries and was constantly increasing its volume of business. That increase we may expect to continue to some extent; but that we shall have such revenues and such trade as we have had for the past two vears is too much to hope.


Adam Carr Bell: on the North American continent and the islands adjacent thereto shall come under one government. Then, the question of bringing Newfoundland into the confederation is one than which I am sure nothing could be more important. But we have no mention of either of these very important matters in the budget speech. It may be that some effort is being made to develop the trade of this country with Newfoundland, and to bring that portion of the British empire, which must remain under the control of a friendly power, within our political limits. If so, there is no mention of it in the budget speed). For those who are aware of the uncomfortable and deplorable situation in which Canada finds itself with regard to the Alaskan frontier, it is easy to realize what the awful consequences would be if the control of Newfoundland, lying at the mouth of the St. Lawrence and holding the keys to Canada, should pass into the hands of a power not friendly to ourselves. It may possibly be a very difficult matter to secure the admission of Newfoundland into the confederation ; but it is a matter of such great importance that to my mind all succeeding administrations in Canada should devote to that object a large part of their attention, and should never rest without using every available means to bring it about. Then, how- complete would the inclusion of the West Indies make us as a people. We have everything which a northern people might desire-enormous resources of the mine, extensive forests, great wheat fields; we can produce every product of the temperate zone in abundance ; but there are products which we cannot produce, but which the West India islands could supply us with in abundance. We would be as completely selfsupporting as the United States, with all the advantages it has in possessing the southern states. The only reference in the budget speech that might indirectly be supposed to affect the question of policy regarding the West India islands is the reference to the question of a bounty on beet root sugar. The Finance Minister did not commit himself at all to any such scheme and I think in this he did well. To my mind it is far more important to devote our energies to affording the West India islands relief by accepting from them, free of duty if necessary, their sugar or by such reciprocal arrangements as would leave to them the profit of producing the sugar required in the Dominion and encourage them to look towards this country for a political alliance.
However, the great question of interest in the budget speech was the trade question. There was no doubt a great deal of anxiety in the country to know whether the government would make any changes in the tariff: And until the lion. Finance Minister finally informed the House that there would be no tariff changes this year, considerable uncertainty as to whether the government was going to change its attitude on the tariff Mr. BELL.
question or not A review of our history will satisfy any reasonable man that the tariff question has been, and is likely to continue for some time, the great question at issue in this country. If I have not rpad history amiss, the various changes of government which have occurred in Canada since confederation have largely turned on the tariff policy of the government. The first defeat of a Canadian administration, since confederation, occurred in 1872, over the policy of the government of Sir John Macdonald in building the Canadian Pacific Railway. But it must be borne in mind that at that time political parties in Canada had not settled' down into the well-defined position in which we find them to-day. The first government after confederation was a coalition one, and many of the men who supported Sir John Macdonald and his Conservative administration were not Conserva-. tives by tradition, history and party feeling, but men who had been dislodged from their fixed places by the coalition necessary to bring about confederation. With such supporters, the administration of Sir John Macdonald was not so strong as it would have been, if he had been supported by a phalanx of men who had been associated with him on party lines, and the cause of his defeat undoubtedly was the very large defections which took place from the ranks of his supporters-a defection for which no parallel can be found in the history of Canada, either in the central parliament or any of the provincial legislatures. This defeat of the Conservative chieftain restored the two parties to their old positions and arrayed them fairly against each other. What was the issue which then divided the two parties and on which the fate of each was decided ? The information given us the other night by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) goes to show that at the time there was a certain openness to conviction in the minds of both Liberals and Conservatives on the question of the tariff. Generally speaking, in the ranks of Mr. Mackenzie's supporters were men who would have welcomed a change in the direction of protection, and among whom considerable dissatisfaction was created when the Finance Minister announced that no tariff changes would be made. The Mackenzie government was made up almost exclusively, as far as its leading members are concerned, of men who had been actively engaged in the political contests in the upper provinces of Canada, such as the hon. member for South Oxford (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), the Hon. Edward Blake, Mr. Mackenzie, aided by that great power outside the House, Mr. Brown, who largely directed the Liberal party of that day. These gentlemen had been accustomed in the upper provinces to a certain degree of protection. They had been accustomed to a 20 per cent tariff, whereas from the lower provinces there was a band

of free traders, to whom the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) attributed that change of purpose which led Mr. Mackenzie to nail his free trade flag to the mast. In the lower provinces practically free trade prevailed. My native province of Nova Scotia knew only a 10 per cent tariff, and never, until the construction of railways was deemed necessary in that province, was such a thing as the raising of the tariff looked upon except with the greatest disfavour. We were an agricultural, fishing and mining people. We had no manufactures and were not aware that we needed any, and certainly the idea of protection might well have been expected to find a place much more readily in the minds of that array of men of ability who formed the Mackenzie cabinet, and who came from the upper provinces, than among the men who came from the lower provinces, and who composed, to a large extent, the opposition led by Sir John Macdonald at that time. The government of Mr. Mackenzie decided, in view of this free trade sentiment in the lower provinces, to stand by its so-called free trade policy. It had advanced the duties from 15 per cent to 16| per cent and then to 174 per cent, finding that the lower rate was not sufficient to furnish the revenues required for carrying on the business of the country. But that was not at all a position acceptable to the men who held that the time had come when protection was required. The tariff then in existence was held out to the country as a revenue tariff, which probably it was. It gave no encouragement to the manufacturers. and the result was that the Mackenzie government, instead of being sustained by a majority of sixty, found itself in opposition with a majority of sixty against it. The Canadian people evidently decided most positively that, in their opinion, a certain measure of protection was necessary.
Now. from 1878, when the government of Mr. Mackenzie was defeated, until 1896, when the government of Sir Charles Tupper was defeated, there was a constant keeping of that trade question to the front. Those who spoke on behalf of the Liberal party may have varied their statements, but throughout that time they constantly maintained that they were in favour of free trade. In consequence of the fact that they seemed to think they could gain advantage for their party, and, perhaps press their opponents somewhat closely by exaggerating the importance of the trade which might be done between Canada and the United States, in consequence of the extraordinary stress which they laid upon the feature of the matter, in consequence of the fact that they pressed home the view that the trade of the United States was worth a great deal more to Canada than the trade of the mother country or any other part of the world, it came about that they were led on step by step, until finally their programme
was not free trade alone, but it was a policy which would give to us trade with the other part of this continent, trade that, while giving us access to the markets of the United States, would practically make us one people with the people of the United States. And that was so far pressed by these gentlemen that, in 1891, Edward Blake, who had been their leader, withdrew from them, on the ground that such a policy as was advocated and pressed upon the people of Canada by these gentlemen, if adopted, could not fail to be the precursor of political union. Now, why did these hon. gentlemen attach sucn enormous importance to the trade that this country might do with the United States as compared with that it might do with Great Britain or any other country under the sun? It seems to me, in the light of events as we now know them, that they were endeavouring to gain a certain advantage in the struggle they were carrying on against Sir John Macdonald. But, knowing, as they probably did then, and as they certainly do now, that any kind of fair trade arrangement with the United States was impossible of accomplishment, that no trade arrangement could be affected with that country without our surrendering our commercial and even our political liberties, they felt that Sir John Macdonald never could make an arrangement with the United States that would be acceptable to the-people of Canada. Therefore, they insisted and charged home upon the government of that day that it was their fault that they did not succeed in effecting a reciprocity treaty. They attributed this failure not to the unwillingness of the American people and government but to the maladroitness of the Conservative administration because it asserted Canadian commercial independence and spoke in no submissive terms through representatives it sent to Washington. It was stated by these gentlemen that, when they came into power and sent men to Washington who would show the legislators and statesmen of the United States that there were men in Canada who were friends of that country, the United States would be ready to effect a trade arrangement that would be desirable for Canada. That is my surmise as to why the gentlemen who are now in power, and who were then in opposition laid enormous stress upon the importance and the absolute necessity of securing some reciprocal arrangement with the people of the United States. That is why they were willing-so far as man could judge-to place the fiscal affairs of Canada absolutely in the hands of the people of the United States. Because, as was well observed by Mr. Blake, there could be no question what the result would be when the representatives of Canada and the representatives of the United States sat down to frame a tariff for the two countries-it would be an American tariff and a tariff

favourable to the United States, a tariff which would give the United States the trade of Canada, while excluding the trade of the mother country. Now the tijne has come-and passed, I may say-'when this administration has had an opportunity of showing whether or not it was right in its estimate of American public men, and whether or not those gentlemen would be ready,, if approached in what the government held to be a proper spirit, to accept the overtures of Canada and give us a fair measure of trade. We know that the government sent its ablest men, including the leader of the government himself, to Washington. And these hon. gentlemen have come here and confessed absolute, complete and unqualified failure in respect of that matter, and have said, that so far as they were concerned there was no occasion to resume the sittings of that joint commission, that they expected nothing further from it and, in fact, did not desire to Resume negotiations at all. Thus we have come to the point where the leader of the government, having failed to do that which he insisted the government of Sir John Macdonald could do, and being shut out from the market which he and his lieutenants for eighteen years proclaimed was the one thing necessary for Canada, now the hour has arrived when we have a right to ask of that right hon. gentleman if, being unable to secure that arrangement of the United States which he maintained he could effect, what is he going to do about the situation of affairs in this country and between this country and the United States ? That state of affairs has been described on two occasions in the course of this session, as carefully and truly, and, possibly with as much completeness as could be expected of a gentleman who sat on that high commission, a gentleman who is an American by birth and whose business interests have led him to become familiar not only with the business situation in Canada, but with the business situation in the United States. And that hon. gentleman tells us that the situation to-day is intolerable for Canada. Therefore, we ask, what is the government going to do about it ? We have reached the point when some decision must be come to by those who are in a position to give a decision-the government of Canada. Now, what do we see occurring not only in this House but in the country as well ? We see this question which, as I have said, has been one of the great questions from the time Canada became a nation, which has been the maker and unmaker of governments in the past, we see that question pressing to the front. Now, the government of the day has not made any great or fundamental changes in the tariff and-to their great credit be it said-has continued, in the main, the tariff as it was before. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) sain of himself the Mr. BELL.
other day, they have not treated the manufacturers unfairly, and are prepared, when the matter comes up for consideration, to take into account their interests and wants in a friendly way. But, that is not enough. The hour has come when the representatives of Canada in this House are of opinion that a step forward should be taken. The government that rules Canada to-day, it appears, is not a free trade government, and is not prepared to adopt that revenue tariff on which it appealed to the people in 1896. Of the quality and nature of that revenue tariff these gentlemen cannot be in doubt, because they were most explicit in defining it, declaring that they appealed to the people to support a revenue tariff such as they have in England. These gentlemen, It appears, are not prepared to give this country a revenue tariff such as they have in England, a tariff which would admit the manufactures of every country, which would lighten the burdens of the working people as much as possible, will make food cheap, will admit the wheat of every country free, and manufactures and all products of every country free, that will rely for a revenue to carry on the affairs of the country upon a tariff, imposing such duties upon such articles of general consumption as will furnish the government the money to carry on the affairs of the country while as little as possible disturbing any industry and the balance between industries.
I say if the government of Canada to-day is not prepared to live up to the programme with which they went to the people of Canada in 1896, and upon which presumably they secured a verdict, and returned to power, then I say the time has come when it is necessary that we should have such a resolution as that moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and when we should have a declare4 policy. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we are free to say that we desire a policy that shall declare and shall establish such a system of protection as will sustain and protect every industry in Canada to-day, and will, as rapidly as possible, develop within our country such industries as are likely to succeed in it; and that as soon as possible Canada shall, in the matter of manufacturing, supply all her own wants, and shall buy as little as possible from the outside world.
Now a great many speeches have been made in the course of this debate which have touched upon the question of protection, and they have done so in such a fashion as to show that almost without exception members on both sides of this House are protectionists. They are not, some of them, prepared to protect everything, but there is not one man among them who has not declared himself ready to protect every interest in which his constituents are more particularly concerned. Every one of them

is prepared to adopt the principle of protection, if I may except my hon. friend from liussell (Mr. Edwards). I do not know that I could except him; if I had an opportunity to know his business interests as well as he knows them, possibly I might find that there was even in his case a nigger in the fence. But be that as it may, there can be no question that the speeches made in this House in the course of this debate have been those that might have been made by men who believed in protection. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) said the other night, and he reiterated his statement, ' I am a protectionist.' It is true he was one of a somewhat peculiar kind, he was of that brand which, 1 may say, is largely to be found on the other side of the House. He was prepared to protect everything that his constituents wanted protected, but nothing more. He would stand up for protection to labour, for'the exclusion of cheap labour from the country. Now that is a very high form, in one sense, of protection. But every man who has spoken on this subject except the hon. member for Russell, is in favour of some kind of protection. Possibly the hon. member for Guysborougli (Mr. Fraser), if he had spoken, might have opposed it, I do not know what declaration he would have made. But throughout the whole of this discussion it is perfectly clear that we are all protectionists, as it was many times in a former parliament, when this question came up, and when man after man who was arrayed against the Conservative government and who was nominally a free trader, was himself ready at once to stand up for protection to those interests in which his constituents were particularly interested, as did the late member for Lambton (Mr. Lister), for a most extravagant protection to coal oil, and as did the hon. member for Queens, Sir Louis Davies, who now graces the bench of this country, and who could not for a moment think of withdrawing that protection which was necessary to the pork industry of his native province. Throughout the whole of this discussion it has become clear that we are practically all in favour of protection.
Now then why should not this government take us more fully into their confidence and inform us as to what they are going to do. They did certainly furnish us with one or two good reasons why we should delay a little to press the question at this time. They suggested that in a short time a conference would take place in London where this, and perhaps some other questions, would be discussed at great length, and it would be better that the representative of Canada should go to a certain extent with a free hand. They furthermore suggest that the results of the census might to a certain extent affect the conclusions to which they might come. But on the whole I am pleased Indeed to ob-54
serve that not only the supporters of the government but the members of the government themselves, so far as they have spoken, have not altogether discouraged the idea that they are going to move onward1 in this matter, and give to Canada a more perfect and more comprehensive system of protection than that we have to-day; although I am prepared to say this as a protectionist, that I am not altogether disposed to find much fault in the gross with the present system, which is very fair in its effects, and it has done a great deal to maintain the interests of this country.
Now the question as to what the government will do upon this matter is one of the very highest importance to us, and it is dealt with by the resolution moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. That resolution voices the fact that to a certain extent the people of Canada, as represented by the opposition in this House at least, are not altogether satisfied with the condition of affairs that we find in Canada to-day. We cannot make the assertion that Canada has no protection. Many industries have adequate protection probably; but there are some industries which have no adequate protection, there are some industries in Canada to-day which languish, there are factories which are closed, and there is no reason why such a state of things should exist. If we are going to have protection at all, then let it be such as is called for in the resolution moved by the leader of the apposition, one which, in the first place, declares protection to be the declared policy of the government, and secondly, that it shall be adequate and sufficient protection. Now in respect to free trade with the United States, it is perfectly clear from the figures given us in the course of this debate by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) that we have not sufficient protection. That hon. gentleman makes the statement that no less than $22,000,000 of manufactures are coming into Canada from the United States every year, that pay no duties. If that be the case, then it seems to me that there is a large field in which the government might very well move, within which it might carry out such a system as it has in force in reference to other industries, and might secure and retain for the people of this country the privilege of manufacturing that large amount of goods which are inlported.
However, so far as we have gone, I, as a protectionist, I have no great reason to be discouraged by the attitude of the government. The hon. Minister of Finance was of course non-committal, as I presume he should be; but at the same time he rather held out the hope that after certain preliminaries had been completed we should then have a revision of the tariff in which all industries, particularly all industries requiring care or assistance, should receive



that assistance at his hands. Even the Minister of Trade and Commerce who used to fulminate so loudly and so fiercely against protection, was certainly much more moderate and much milder on this occasion than he used to be. His language was not at all threatening, in fact he was apparently so au fait with the system of protection that in a most cavalier fashion he tendered his services to the leader of the opposition, and proffered his assistance, assuring him he would give him two or three lessons on the subject of protection which would enable him to produce, any kind of tariff whatever that Canada might want. This is not a cause of surprise, because we have reason to know from the revelations made at one time or another, that unless we are very much mistaken and misinformed, that hon. gentleman did, upon one occasion at least, prepare and complete a protective tariff for the use of the Dominion of Canada. Now, however, while he will not go further than to tender his services to the leader of the opposition in a somewhat jocose fashion, he has not said anything at all that would give the members of the manufacturing fraternity in Canada very great concern. He has spoken to them in a very kindly fashion indeed. He says to them of course you have been very well off, and you cannot deny that. As he has said himself he has, at sometimes, been looked upon as an enemy to the manufacturers of Canada, but,' he has not proved to be such a bad enemy after all. He has treated them with a fair amount of kindness, and, reading between the lines, I have every reason to hope and to believe that the government of the day is prepared, in so far as this question is concerned, to adopt a policy which will be in keeping with its conduct since it came into power, and give us a system of adequate protection w'hich it will avow openly to be its policy.
There are one or two points to which 1 wish to make reference in connection with this question of protection which came up repeatedly in the course of the discussion before the House. It has been repeated that you cannot protect certain interests, that j'ou cannot protect the farmer, the miner, or the fisherman. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) reduced that matter to an absurdity by proposing what he called a very moderate scheme of protection to the farmers which might involve an expenditure of $50,000,000. Those who have taken that line have thought that some power in Canada might have to be given to us to impose a system of protection upon the farmers, the fishermen, the miners and producing bodies. What power can be conceived of in this country that would be in a position to impose its will upon the classes I have just enumerated ? There can be no question at all of the fact that power in Canada is in


Adam Carr Bell: the hands of those very classes. If that power is not entirely in the hands of the farmers, the miners and the fishermen, if they should think, or if they should conceive that their interests, or their welfare, were in danger there can be no question whatever that without the consent of these great classes we could never have any policy of any kind. And you could certainly never have a protective policy in Canada. To make such a statement as that seems to be begging the whole question. If these great producing classes are not to be benefited by protection in the limited form in which we speak of it in this discussion, which means particularly protection to the manufacturers for the purpose of developing the manufacturing industries of the country, if you cannot secure the assent of these great producing classes to the proposition which benefits them by developing the manufacturing interests of the country, thereby adding to the welfare of these great producing classes, if you cannot succeed in doing that, then it would be hopeless and absurd to suggest any policy of protection in any country whatever. But, the view held by every one who is in favour of protection in a proper and limited sense is that while its particular advantages are directed towards the establishment of manufacturers, by the establishment of such manufacturers you add directly to the welfare and revenue of these great producing classes In the country. The system has other advantages as well. You diversify your interests you introduce a great variety of interests, a great variety of employments into the country and you develop a very much more highly organized, progressive and advanced community in that way. That, perhaps, is not a sufficiently practical argument with wrhich to appeal to people who work for their bread, who till the farms, who net our seas, and who mine our minerals. The great argument that has always succeeded in persuading the people to accept protection in the past and it will induce them to accept it in future, if I am not mistaken, is that by developing a manufacturing population in the country they add value to every dollar's worth of the products which they gather from the bountiful hands of nature. How much would be gained by the farmers of the North-west Territories, if, instead of having to send their wheat to the British market, where it competes with wheat grown by the coolie labour of India, they could have that wheat sold in Canada in the form of bread to the men whose wages have risen, as they have in almost every country where manufacturing industries are developed, to the highest possible point V We find that in every country in which manufactures are highly developed that instead of the working classes being depressed or injured, the wage earner is the man who, in the end, has the advantage and that no matter how prices of commodities may

fluctuate in all these countries wages go upwards and upwards steadily and in the end It is the workingman who has the advantage, to whom in all cases is the residuary advantage given. If you can give us a market in Canada as the United States have now furnished, to a great extent, a market in the New England states for a large portion of the wheat produced in the western districts, if you can provide a market in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, in which the wheat of the Northwest Territories would be consumed instead of being exported, can there be any question that you would add many cents a bushel to every bushel of grain that the North-west farmer garners ? There can be no question about it. If you cannot propound such a system of protection in a democratic country like this in which every man has control of his own interests I say it would be futile to suggest such a policy of protection. Instead of the mass of the people being injured by the protective tariff retained in force until 1896, I say that they were benefited by their own act because they maintained it in power. It must be remembered that since 1878, however those other questions and subordinate interests that were presented to the electors might change from time to time, the great and important and over-ruling question in all cases, so far as the government of Sir John Macdonald and his successors was then concerned, was the question of the maintenance of the national policy intact and on that policy upon which he in successive years appealed to the people, in every successive election, until his death, he was sustained by the voice of the people, not by the votes of the cities, at all, but by the support of the agricultural counties, the fishing counties and the mining counties. He did not rely when he was returned to power, as far as the returns go to show, on the votes of the manufacturing classes, but he was returned to power by the unanimous voice of the people of Canada.
In the resolution of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), as presented to the House, it is held that there is a certain amount of contradictions. The argument has been put forward by the other side of the House that, whereas, in its first portion it appeals for a system of adequate protection of the industries of Canada and for the maintenance of the Canadian market for Canadian products, that in so far as it later on suggests a preference within the empire there is involved a contradiction. I cannot see that this is a legitimate argument. It might as well be held that during all the years in which the United States has been a highly protective country there has been an inconsistency in that policy in going to South American governments and to a certain extent of listening to the overtures of Canada in the direction of reciprocity. There is no inconsistency to my mind, 54J
in the matter at all. In fact, it would rather appear as if reciprocity were the necessary and natural incident of a protective tariff. Without a protective tariff you could practically get no reciprocity. Lord Salisbury, himself, in speaking of the position of England in dealing with this matter, said that England has nothing to offer, that England has nothing to exchange. England, which is a free trade country has given everything to the countries with which it might enter negotiations and has nothing to offer, whereas, the country which has adopted a protective tariff has something to offer. It has concessions to make. It is entirely within its power to make such a treaty of reciprocity with any other country as would involve a letting down, to a certain extent, of the barriers put up in the way of trade and as would confer a certain amount of advantage on the country with which it was negotiating. I am prepared to recognize that there are very great difficulties in the way of working out a satisfactory preference within the British empire. At the same time it wrould be a very foolish thing on the part of the government of Canada, or the people of Canada, or the parliament of Canada, to, for a moment admit, that such a thing cannot be accomplished. There were in operation a few years ago the Belgian and German treaties; treaties which Canada had for years asked should be denounced; treaties which were discussed at the Inter-colonial conference here; treaties whose denunciation had been pressed upon the Imperial government, and which the Imperial government in the most formal fashion on the report of one of its leading statesmen refused to denounce. Yet, although it seemed, up to the last moment, that the denunciation of these treaties was a concession that would not be made, the time came when by pressure of circumstances it was made. These treaties are now denounced and business is readjusting itself very rapidly and it is very difficult to say that any interest in Canada has suffered in consequence thereof-except that we may perhaps suffer somewhat from the unfriendly attitude of the German government I maintain that in the same way, it is going to be possible for our colonial governments of Australia and Canada, and that government which we may hope to see soon established at the Cape, working in concert with the British government, to devise some method by which there may be a system of preferential trade within the empire. The simplest way in which that could be done is the way which I suppose we would not accept at all; that is, to adopt the suggestion made by one of the British statesmen and enact free trade within the empire. I do not know that his suggestion was exactly that, but it was, I think, that all the colonies should adopt free trade. Of course, in order to do that it would be necessary for

Canada to repudiate that policy which has been maintained by successive governments in this country, not only by the Conservative government but by the Liberal government which succeeded. I should think, that would be entirely out of the question. The great difficulty that lies in the way of accomplishing a preference within the empire, unquestionably must lie in the fact that Great Britain is so confirmed in her belief apparently, that free trade such as she has to-day, is that which best suits her interests; that we can scarcely expect the mother country, with her experience, with the enormous measure of prosperity she has enjoyed under free trade, to abandon that system even if it could be shown that it would very largely be in the interest of her colonies for her to do so. The men who have charge of these matters in England have always treated this question on a business principle. They have balanced the trade which they might hope to develop with the colonies, against that enormous trade which they do with the rest of the world, and so far they always seem to have made up their mind that whatever they might hope to gain from the colonies they would more than lose in some other direction. That is perhaps the proper view for a British statesman to take. I have always been disposed to think, that when we were in this country discussing protection, as we did in 1878; and when the argument was advanced that protection was not a good thing because we should follow the example of the mother country and adopt free trade under which Great Britain has achieved such enormous success; had risen to such a position among the nations of the world, outranking beyond all comparison the others, and being facile princeps in the world from a manufacturing and commercial point of view-it always seemed to me that such an argument as that was absolutely out of the question so far as we were concerned. There was little reason to doubt that a country which had commenced her manufacturing career as a protective country and had with skill, courage, boldness among her seafaring population obtained control of all the seas, had shown that capacity for commerce which was evidenced by the enormous development of her trading companies-for instance the East India Company- I say that it always seemed to me that that country had laid sure and fast the foundation of her industries during a period of protection, and that now was ready to come into the arena armed at all points with success, braced, strengthened and fortified, with capital abundant; It always seemed to me that it was naturally the most obvious thing in the world for Great Britain to invite other countries to come into the free trade arena with her, because there she was a Triton amongst the minnows, without any opponents. There was neither indus-


Adam Carr Bell: try, nor experience, nor capital elsewhere in the world that could compete with her. The consequence was that the countries which did engage in this free trade dance with Great Britain did very soon find that they were paying the piper. But, the case of Great Britain is not ours ; was not ours in 1878 when we adopted the protective system ; is not ours to-day. Those other countries which did listen to the blandishments of Great Britain and did endeavour to compete with her under free trade conditions; where are they to-day ? Have they continued the merry dance ? Each one of them has had good reasons to change its opinion. Each one is now as rapidly as possible withdrawing from that position into which it was led, and as rapidly as possible placing itself in the position in which Great Britain was when she commenced her career. They are pressing Great Britain as hard as they can in the markets of the world, and are taking advantage of her adherence to her old system In her own markets, and are closing their markets absolutely against her. Under those circumstances it cannot be expected that for some time to come- although the date may not be so far distant as at this moment it seems-it cannot be expected that Great Britain should reverse or much modify her free trade system. She believes it is the best for her and very possibly it is the best for her, situated as she is. And so long as it is so, it is better in the interest of the empire; it is better in our interest (to the great extent to which we rely upon the support and protection of that great country); it is better for us all that she should maintain that course which would keep her at the zenith of her power and wealth and prestige. But, if we are to concede to the mother country that right; if we are going to justify in her the course by which she shapes her policy, by the rule that she shall do that which is best for her own people living within her own borders; then I say unquestionably, following her example, it is our duty as component parts of the empire-even looking at it as an Imperial matter-to develop our country and to follow that- course of policy in this country which will give us the greatest possible gain, advantage, and development in the Canada in which we are living.
It seems perfectly clear that every component part of the empire, even regarding it from an Imperial standpoint, can best serve the interests of all, can best strengthen that great and world-wide empire which we recognize to-day, by each within its own sphere, under that policy which is best adapted to it, developing its powers, its wealth, its resources, and its population. So far we must stand firmly upon the principle that Canada must be for the Canadians, and that we cannot in respect of such a matter as the convenience of the mother country give such a preference as will imperil, or injure, or weaken,

in any respect our own industrial life. The highest and truest loyalty to the mother country and to the empire of which she is the head, requires that. And, if in the concessions we have made in this trade matter, we have made the mistake of having gone so far as to have weakened Canada's resources in any respect whatever, then it is our duty, in so far as it is possible, to correct that mistake.
I am not going to argue for a moment that it is not rather a difficult matter, that the administration having made the concessions it has made to the mother country, having made a straight cut in the duty of 33J per cent, and having received a great deal of credit, and to a certain extent the warm thanks of the mother country for that act-I am not going to say that it is not difficult, while giving this 334 per cent, to raise the tariff so high that the 33J per cent will not be sufficient to serve the purpose of developing the trade of the mother country with us. I will not say that it is not going to be difficult to take away with one hand what you have given with the other. I am always free to believe that in this matter our government has made the mistake of being too generous, and did not in the full realize, as it now does, the consequence of it.
X presume that we must stand where we are as far as that is concerned, but not with respect to any other country in the world. If this preference, having been given is not to be withdrawn-although I would fain see it withdrawn if it has done injury to any Canadian interest-I maintain that with respect to the United States, which has profited so much by our trade, it is the duty of the Canadian administration to raise the tariff to such a point that our own people will be protected in their own markets and will not be beaten in those markets by their American competitors. I do not of course know what the intention of the government was in giving the preference to Great Britain. I presume that it was to acquire a certain amount of the gratitude of the mother country. I presume that the premier of Canada had no objection to become a persona grata to the people of the mother country ; and I dare say it has been worth all it may have cost us, to have placed ourselves in a position to ascertain-that is where I see the great value of the preference-the fact that a preferential can be given within the empire. The right hon. gentleman has established that; and the preferential having been given, can it not be extended ? I admit that it is a matter of extreme difficulty. I admit that the adjustment of the relations between all the colonies and the mother country will involve considerations which cannot be dealt with in a hurry. But I maintain that they can be dealt with, and I maintain that it is the duty of the government of Canada to see that our tariff is so changed and modified that it will secure the Canadian markets for ourselves while at the same time giving a preference within our markets to every other part of the empire. It is too late in the day to enter upon a discussion that would be at all exhaustive as to the manner in which that object would be effected, but it seems to me that it can never be effected by giving a straight cut of one-fourth or one-third off the customs duties of the country. The industries of the country are so involved with one another, our commercial relations are so intimate, you shake so many portions of the edifice of our tariff when you touch one of them, that such a tariff as 1 am suggesting could only be arrived at by having an exhaustive examination of all imports, all the industries, and all those innumerable circumstances which affect the flow of commerce. Then, we should have in this country a maximum and a minimum tariff. Every item of the tariff should be dealt with separately, and should be so adjusted that we would maintain to the greatest possible extent the trade of Canada for the Canadian people, and at the same time develop in every possible way the commerce between the other colonies of the empire and ourselves, and between the mother country and ourselves. That, it seems to me, is not an impossible thing, although it involves great difficulty. But let us liope that after the premier has had the conference which he is to have with representatives of the other colonies and with the leading public men of the empire at the approaching coronation, he will be able to report to the people of Canada that if no elaborate scheme has been developed, sufficient progress has been made to justify him in announcing that the day is not far distant when such a result may be attained.
In the discussion on this budget a great deal of interest has been attached to the criticism of the census figures in which the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce indulged. I was sorry that my hon. friend dealt so harshly with one of the standard publications of the government. After my hon. friend the leader of the opposition had informed the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce that he placed some reliance on the official Year-book of the 'government, in which respect I thought the leader of the opposition was only paying a compliment which was due to hon. gentlemen opposite, he was, I presume rather discomfited by the manner in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce threw a great deal of doubt on the accuracy of the figures contained in that book, and rather discredited the publication. Having been in the habit of relying on the figures of this publication, I was somewhat astonished at finding that the government continued to publish a work which contained so many errors, and were willing to lead the members of this House and the citizens of Canada generally so far astray. I was not less sur-

prised when I came to look at the figures of the Year-book to find that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce had done scant justice, if justice at all, to the compiler of that volume. The Minister' of Trade and Commerce said
The Year-book may be a very valuable document. I will give a few illustrations of what the Year-book was worth a little while ago. I remember that this same document-I thought that that was what my hon. friend referred to-estimated, in 1887, that the population of Canada was 4,856,226. In 1888 the Year-hook's estimation of the population of Canada was 4,946,497. In 1899, it had risen to 5,075,855. They suppressed 1890 and 1891, but I will carry out the calculation. On the same line of calculation, the Year-book would have given us a population of 5,210,000 for 1890, and 5,345,000 for 1891-just ten years ahead of time. These are the ' official, statistics ' that the hon. gentleman relied upon for the purpose of contradicting what, as I shall show presently, was a very well-reasoned hypothesis on the part of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding).
Mr. Fielding's hypothesis being that Canada had increased in population as much in the last five years, from 1890 to 1901, as it had done in the preceding fifteen years. Now, I always like to do justice as far as possible ; and, where an accusation is made, especially against an unpretending volume, which has no tongue except those silent ones which are found in its pages, I like to see whether there is any reason to doubt the accuracy of the statements made. Comparing the figures given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce with those of the Year-book, I have discovered some surprising discrepancies. The hon. minister says that the Year-book gives the population of Canada in 1887 as 4,856,226. But I find, on referring to the Year-book, that it gives the population of that year as 4,638,109. Then, in 1881, the hon. minister said that the year book gives the population as 4,946,497," but I find that it gives it as 4,688,147. In 1889, the hon. minister says that, according to the Year-book, the population of Canada was 5,075,855, but I find, on referring to that same book, that it gives the population as only 4,739,617.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: What copy is my hon. friend quoting from ?


Adam Carr Bell: The edition of 1900.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: My hon. friend had better quote the volume that I quoted from.


Adam Carr Bell: Perhaps the hon. Minister will be kind enough to lay his volume on the table so that we may all see it. Then the minister went on to say that in 1890 the year-book, for some reason or other, suppressed the figures, and he supplied the figures himself. He said that the population of Canada during that year, according to the process of figuring" adopted Mr. BELL.
by the year-book, was 5,210,000. But I find that the year-book gives the population as 4,792,605. In 1891, the hon. gentleman represents the Year-book as giving our population at 5,345,000-ten years too soon, as he said-but I find that it gives the population as 4,846,377. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is therefore out in his count as follows :-
1887		 218,000
1888		 258,000
1889		 336,000
And in 1900, when he supplied the figures off his own bat, he is out 417,000, and in 1891, 498,623.
I think it but right to call the attention of the minister to these facts, and the only reason I can suggest for the discrepancies, is that possibly he may have discovered some edition of the year-book not issued for general use.
But my hon. friend was not satisfied with simply discrediting the year-book. He proceeded to discredit every one who had anything whatever to do with the taking of the census in 1891. He attributed motives, in the most reckless and unlimited fashion, to every one who had anything to do with it. He told us that when the census of 1891 was taken the Conservative party was in a discreditable position, and that the enumerators were presumably men in close contact with the powers at Ottawa who knew that Sir John Macdonald's government was in a desperate position and that it was necessary to place before the people census returns which would show that the national policy had been a success. Now, what possible connection could the census of 1891 have had with the election which was run by the Conservative party under Sir John Macdonald in that year. The general election took place on the 5th March, 1891, and the census enumerators were not appointed until April, 1891. And so far from Sir John Macdonald having been in a desperate position then, we find that the very first division in the House of Commons, after that general election, gave him a majority of 29, which was increased at every subsequent by election, until at the end of the term beginning 1891, the Conservative party had a majority in this House of 46.
I think my hon. friend will find it rather difficult to atone for his strictures with respect to the census of 1891. According to him Canada is not at all a desirable place for immigrants and he should not be surprised if they do not come in greater numbers. If it be correct that some 2,500 enumerators in 1891,-there were 5,000 last year, violated their solemn oath, we must conclude that perjurers are as common in this country as black flies in May. Not only have the enumerators, according to the hon. gentleman, violated their oath, but so have the commissioners and the other census officials, every one of whom was sworn to do his

duty faithfully and make no return which was not absolutely correct.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce deliberately asks the people of Canada to believe that you can find in this country, in every province, enumerators who are willing and ready to perjure themselves simply to serve the purposes of the administration of the day. I think that is the most monstrous charge that was ever made by any public man in Canada. Judging by the lengths to which the hon. gentleman had gone when in opposition in extravagant denunciation of his opponents, almost anything might have been expected of him, but this last outrage against the people is by far the worst of all, and the matter will not be allowed to rest there.
The hon. gentleman caused an investigation to be made in the province of Quebec into the taking of the census of 1891. Judging from the return which has been laid upon the Table, the government put it in the hon. gentleman's power, or the power of the commissioner who acted for him, to violate public confidence by disclosing private information given to the census enumerators in the belief that the confidential nature of this information would be respected. The evidence of this is to be seen in the documents placed upon the Table the other day. These schedules have been taken from the custody of the census officer and have been exposed to the public. I will read a paragraph from the one for the county of Bagot :-
The stuffing in the town of Acton Vale and in the parish of St. Andre of Acton, is still larger. and the evidence of it is absolutely undeniable.	.


Mr.  J. E.@: Marcil, M.P., for Bagot, is residing in Acton Vale for the last forty years, and for thirty years he has been engaged in business, either as a clerk or as a merchant. He has consequently, opportunity of knowing every one in the locality. Mr. Marcil examined in our office the schedules of 1891, and has pointed out to us the names of those who had left the town of Acton Vale for the parish of St. Andre of Acton many years previous to the census of ten years ago.
These schedules, collected by the census officers in 1891, contained information entrusted to them by the people of Canada under the seal of confidence. But, for party purposes, they have been hawked about and exposed to the gaze of all and sundry, in order to discredit the census of 1891. It will not do for the government to leave this matter where it is. If there is to be an investigation, it will not do to have that investigation held by an officer of the government; it must be held by a commission of men whose reputation shall be beyond reproach or question. And not only the census of 1891 must be inquired into, but the census of 1901 also. And, indeed, in order to a thorough investigation, perhaps
the census of 1881 and the census of 1871, if investigated, might yield valuable information. But, after the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the facts revealed by him in that speech and in the papers laid upon the Table, nothing will satisfy the people but a searching inquiry into the census of 1891 and 1901 as well. It was not necessary for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to go as far as he did.
1 suppose these Star Chamber inquiries might have been made, perhaps are made frequently-and if the matter had been kept quiet, if it had not been so trumpeted abroad, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce had not been given this opportunity of showing his eloquence, his bitterness, and his capacity for going beyond all reasonable length in attacking his opponents, the present position need not have been reached. But the hon. minister has brought these matters forward deliberately; and I maintain that it is incumbent upon this administration to set at rest, as far as they can, this question as to the honesty of the enumerators, as to the motives that influenced the different administrations that held these censuses as to the instructions they gave their officers, as to the good faith in which the information, given in good faith by the people of Canada in these decennial censuses, has been received and treated. Now, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, apparently to serve his own purpose for the moment, discredits the census of 1891. He maintains that the number of the people returned by that census was altogether too high. The hon. gentleman knows-no man better-that the census of 1891 was taken under precisely the same conditions, precisely the same instructions to enumerators, as was the census of 1901, which has just been taken by the government of which the hon. gentleman is a member. More than that, the hon. member must know that, if there were any error at all, It was not likely to be found by searching through the census of 1891. If he remembers the debates in which he took part in the House of Commons from 1882 to 1885, he will remember that it was admitted at the time that the census of 1881 was, probably, largely inaccurate and represented the people of Canada as having a larger population than was actually living in Canada at the time. There can be no question about that. Not the census of 1891, but the census of 1881, was the census that was exaggerated-and, probably also the census of 1871. In the discussions engaged in by Mr. Blake and the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Kichard Cartwright), Mr.. Blake stated in most explicit language that the census of 1881 was stuffed largely with the names of people who had not been resident in Canada for ten, fifteen or twenty years. He states that most clearly in a discussion which took place in the House, in which he shows

tlie practice of the enumerators was to go to a house and say :	' Have you a son or
daughter V '	' Are they in the States ? '
' Yes.' ' How long have they been there 1 ' ' Ten ' or ' fifteen ' or ' twenty years.' ' Do you expect them to return ? '	' Oh, yes, I
hope to see them again.' And so that name went down. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce knows that, in taking the census of 1891 that system was changed. Though the de jure system continued in force, yet in addition to the questions formerly asked by the enumerators, which might lead to a dialogue such as was suggested by Mr. Blake and the enumeration of people who had not been resident in Canada for ten, fifteen or twenty years, a new question was added to those to be put by the census enumerators. It was made the business of the enumerators to ask whether the absent members of the family had been away for over a year, and if they had they were not to be counted. Whereas, in the census of 1881, it was possible to have persons counted who has been ten, fifteen or twenty years away from the country. Under the rules of the census of 1891, no person was likely to be counted who had been away for more than twelve mouths. Now, as it happens, this instruction to the enumerators -was adopted with the consent of the government of Sir John Macdonald. The census officer of that day suggested this, and said to Sir John Macdonald : This will make a more accurate census, but it will have the effect of reducing the population of Canada as compared with the census of 1881. And Sir John Macdonald said : What we want is an accurate census. And the government of Sir John Macdonald consented to this change in the i instructions. That government contained two future premiers, representatives of the Conservative party, Sir John Abbott and Sir John Thompson, and these gentlemen consented to this method, which had for its object the learning of the truth regarding the population that the men at the head of affairs might intelligently legislate for the country they were to lead. Now, as it happens, I think it would not be difficult to bring to the recollection of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the fact that he himself was consulted upon that subject, and he agreed that it would be a rational and advisable improvement, though it would have the effect of diminishing the population of Canada as revealed by the census of 1891. In respect to another matter, in respect to the instructions issued to the enumerators as to taking persons who were not living at home, such as domestic servants and clerks in the employ of other persons, in respect to that matter as well, a change was made in the census instructions so as to secure greater accuracy by providing against duplications and counting the same individual in two different census divisions.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


Adam Carr Bell: After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Adam Carr Bell: The chief interest in the discussion of the census arises of course from the statements made in reference thereto by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Trade and Commerce accused the government and their subordinate officials who took the census of 1891, with having perpetrated a fraud upon the people of Canada, and he took the trouble to explain his reasons for thinking so, and the reasons which, in his opinion, induced the government and their subordinates to perpetrate this fraud. That statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the House, I see, is echoed by the press supporting the government outside the House. The Montreal ' Herald ' has a leading article on census stuffing in 1891, in which, referring to the statements of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, it says that he has made out such a case as would justify and require that the government of the day should proceed to investigate the matter fully. In that opinion I agree, as I think it is in the interests of the people of Canada that that investigation should be made complete. However, I think I will be able to show the House, before I conclude my remarks, that there is no warrant, at least no sufficient warrant, for the mischevious and improper statement made in this House by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The census of 1891, as I was pointing out when the House rose at six o'clock, was taken more carefully and on a system calculated to give more accurate results than the census of 1881, although the principle on which the two censuses were taken was identical. The de jure system was adopted in both cases. But special pains were taken by the commissioner who took the census of 1S91 to avoid, as far as possible, errors arising from duplication and from counting individuals who had gone off for a long time beyond the confines of Canada. I propose to quote now from the manual which was issued as a body of instructions for the use of the enumerators. The matter of duplication is dealt with in this manual under the head of domestic servants :
Domestic servants come under three classes : 1st. Those who have homes within Canada from which they u,re temporarily absent ; 2. Those who have no homes at all in Canada ; 3rd. Those in settled employment and resident with families other than their own.
The instructions go on to describe how these are to be taken. The first class are to be taken with the families from which they are temporarily absent ; then the second and third class, those who have no homes at all in Canada except where they are living and finding employment, and those who are in settled employment and resident with

families other than their own, are to be taken with those families. In order to make the matter perfectly plain and eliminate error as much as possible, the census commissioner proceeds to give instructions to the enumerators :
Family, as understood for the purposes of the census, may consist of one person living alone, or of any number of persons living together under one roof, and having their food1 provided together. For example: One man, say a shopkeeper, or a woman, say a seamstress, living alone in a separate house, or in a distinctly separate part of a house, would constitute a census family; but any number of persons living together in a hoarding house, several of them being parents, having children and servants, would only constitute one census family, provide they have no home elsewhere.
So that by a careful description of the different classes under which the population would likely be found, and particularly of those that are liable to duplication, and by furnishing examples and instructions to the enumerators, every possible pains was taken to avoid duplication. Now what would be the results of such a course as that laid down here by the different census officials? It would be to introduce a system of taking the census which would eliminate errors which may have been committed in 1881, by which the census of 1881 may have been enlarged ; and in consequence, the system adopted by the government in 1891 was one that would reduce the number of people apparently residing in Canada, and instead of having the effect of showing a population larger than was actually here, it would come nearer to showing what the actual population of Canada was. Now, it must be borne in mind that the Inn. Minister of Trade and Commerce has made the charge, and has most deliberately made it, that a fraudulent census was taken, and in order to confirm what I said, I will quote his own words taken from his speech :
If they were capable, in a case where detection was almost certain, of perpetrating the gress and impudent frauds I have iust narrated, think you, they would hesitate to add here and there a man to the members of a family where detection was almost impossible. ,
There can be no question about the gravamen of the charge made by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. He has fortified his case with proof, or so-called proof. He said that in one case in the discussion which arose in the House of Commons in regard to the census of 1891 it had been charged that there was reason to believe that gross frauds were perpetrated in the county of King's, N.S., and that this matter was brought to the notice of the House by the member representing that county. He said : What did the government do ? They set every difficulty in the way of investigation. The fact of the case is that there was a fraud committed in the county of King's. There was sufficient evidence brought to show that one enumerator in King's had
probably falsified the census and had probably done it by neglecting, or ignoring, the instructions he had received not to enumerate any individuals who had been away from the province for twelve months. The Department of Agriculture which had charge of the taking of the census, investigated that charge and was sufficiently satisfied that it was thoroughly proved that the census enumerator would have been punished if he had not gone out of the country and thereby escaped the consequences of his act of wrong-doing. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce makes the charge deliberately that the government of the day opposed an inquiry. That is not sustained by any proof advanced by the hon. minister, but, it is, to my knowledge and belief, entirely opposed to the fact. A thorough investigation was made, and it is a matter of knowledge that the only fact upon which the hon. gentleman can rest his charge is that the census officer refused to allow these returns, which had come into his hands from the enumerators and which were regarded as confidential, to be submitted to the House, a course in which I think he was absolutely justified and one I would have very much preferred to see adopted by the government of the day rather than to take these confidential communications and submit them to the inspection of unauthorized and improper persons. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce went on to have a very pleasant quarter of an hour prefacing his remarks by this statement :
As it happens we are in possession of very perfect evidence as to the means they adopted for the purpose of glorifying the national policy.
I find that in 1891 the census of that day enumerated in Antigonish county seventy carpet factories with sixty-nine operatives, and the hon. gentleman indulged in a great deal of jocosity in connection with the fact that one individual was apparently running two factories. Now, in respect to this mat- * ter the hon. gentleman practically accuses the enumerators of having, for the purpose of glorifying the national policy and of vindicating the course which had been adopted by the Conservative administration in giving to Canada a protective policy, fraudulently filled up the census return with a list of industries which were not in existence. I regret very much that a minister and a gentleman in his position should make such a charge, because it is entirely at variance with the facts. The enumerators were instructed to take all the industries they found in the country within the limit fixed for them by their instructions, and they were to be guided by the Act and by the manual from which I have read which was made an Order in Council in order to make it binding upon them. They were to take every industry which they found in the country and which had an output of 830!) per annum. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, throughout his remarks,

seemd to contrast the United States census very favourably to that of Canada, and sought to give the impression to the House that the taking of such industries set down by the enumerators of Canada, carpet factories in Antigonish, knitting factories in Shelburne and basket factories in some other counties, is a practice not followed by the United States enumerators. The instructions given to the United States enumerators are precisely the same as in this country. They are instructed to take every industry they find but when they come to the matter of tabulation there is a difference. In the United States they do not tabulate any industry which has an output of less than $500, while in Canada with its comparatively less advanced development it is thought well to tabulate industries that have an annual output of $200. There is no harm in that. There is no deception in any way. It was not professed by each of these industries taken down by the enumerator represented a factory with a tall chimney, with a large number of employees and a large pay-list. The enumerators were careful to put down nothing but what was absolutely true in the enumeration of industries, and therefore, a more unwarranted use of the term fraud or fraudulent when applied to the facts collected by the enumerators of the census of 1891 was never used by any one particularly by any public man in this or any other country. I believe you will search the annals of parliamentary utterances the world over without finding a parallel for such an argument as was addressed to the House of Commons by a leading minister of the administration. But, the hon. gentleman says that this was for a purpose. The purpose was to glorify the national policy. The purpose was to grossly magnify the rate of progress made by Canada through the national policy. Well, if that hon. gentleman had taken the trouble to in. form himself or had not forgotten the facts that came to his knowledge when he discussed this matter years ago, he would have recollected that the theory was put forward by him at that time and was answered and utterly exploded. Instead of magnifying the advancement made by the country, instead of exaggerating the rate of progress made by the country under the national policy, the including of these small industries has the very opposite effect, as I shall proceed to prove to the House. I have already explained that in the United States the practice is to tabulate industries down to $500 of an annual output, and in this country down to $200. Now, taking the industries-I am now quoting from that invaluable third volume of the census from which the hon. gentleman derived so much comfort. I am referring to the total which will be found in the fourth volume, although the materials for it are found in the third volume. In 1SS1 the number of these Industries from $2,000 down, referring to their annual out-Mr. BELL.
put, was 32,072. In 1891 the number had increased to 50,777 from which it appears that the census of 1891 was not the first in which the practice was adopted of enumerating these smaller industries. The same practice had been followed as it necessarily would be under the same instructions in the census of 1881. Therefore, the government in 1881, two years after the Inauguration of the national policy, adopted this very same principle-and I believe it was in force in 1871 as well-by which all industries with an annual output of $200 or upwards would be included.
Under this heading of industries, with an output of $2,000 a year, there were in 1881, 32,072; and in 1891, 50,777; an increase of 18 per cent. The value of the produce of these factories had increased from $20,734,080 in 1881, to $32,195,192 in 1891. Of industries with an output of from $2,000 to $12,000 annually, there were 13,514 in 1881, and 19,029 in 1901; the annual output of these being $64,939,604 in 1881, and $93,260,957 in 1891.
Of industries with an output of from $12,000 to $25,000 per annum, there were 2,061 in 1881, and 2,679 in 1891. The annual output of these industries was $36,808,242 in 1881, and $47,709,005 in 1891.
Take the industries with an annual output of from $25,000 to $50,000, and there were 967 in 1881, which had increased to 1,208 iu 1891. The annual output of these factories was $33,482,170 in 1881, and $42,238,542 in 1891.
Take the large class of factories; the great industries that have been established and brought into existence by the national policy; the industries with an annual output of $50,000 and upwards, and of these factories there were 1,10S in 1881, and 1,675 iu 1891; the total output being $153,767,771 in 1881, and $260,795,190 in 1891.
If we take these for the purpose of comparison it will be seen at a glance that the effect of including all these small industries, which were so provocative of merriment to the Minister of Trade and Commerce; instead of showing a largely increased rate of progress and a greatly increased output; instead of glorifying the national policy, have the opposite effect. The inevitable result of that consideration is to show that there was no fraud in this matter; that it was not a new feature of the census of 1891; that it had been done in the census of 1881, and was done innocently in both cases, the census enumerators simply doing their duty according to their instructions and placing upon their schedules precisely the same information that is placed upon the schedules of the United States census, simply to show us the value of the annual work of those who may be classed as engaged in industrial occupations in Canada. In order to make the matter clearer, let us take the total increase of all the factories of all classes. In 1881, the

total output was $309,731,867, and in 1891 that had increased to $476,198,886. That includes all industries, and it includes these very industries against which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is so much opposed. That shows an increased output in Canada of $166,467,019 and a percentage of 53-74. Let us deduct all these small factories with an output of $200 annually and it will leave the production of these industries-exclusive of the smaller ones-at $288,997,787 in 1881, as against $444,003,694 in 1891, a difference in favour of the latter year of $155,005,907, or an increase of 53-63 per cent, almost identical with the increased percentage when we include the smaller factories. Deducting another class of factories and we bring down the total output to $224,058,183 in 1881 as against $350,742,737 in 1891, there is shown there an increase of $126,684,544, and a percentage increase of 56-4. But if you throw out all these small industries and take simply the great industries of the country, you will find that these factories which produced $50,000 a year and upwards, give us an increase of $107,027,419 in 1891 as compared with 1881, and that would show (for the glorification of the national policy and the justification of the administration of that day) a percentage increase in the industries of the country, not of 53 per cent, which would he secured by taking these fraudulent means charged against the government by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but a percentage of 69 '60 per cent.
The result of that investigation is to show that, if it were the intention of the government of that day to have committed a fraud in this matter, then the means that they adopted were such as to completely defeat their purpose. It is only fair to ask the hon. minister (Sir Richard Cartwright) to furnish us with some further and better evidence why he should ask us to make our minds that the census of 1891 was fraudulent, and also better evidence to establish his contention that there was an increase in the last five years under this government, equal to the increase which took place in Canada for the fifteen years previous.
As bearing upon that question, it happens that there are some figures which tend to show that the very opposite is the case. Instead of being apparent from any evidence that can be discovered that the increase of population was greater in Canada during the last five years, there is evidence to show that it was less; or at least, that the exodus to which tile Minister (Sir Richard Cartwright) attributes the loss of the population of this country, was in some respects greater in the last five years than it was during the other period. I read from a return which I think is authentic :
The question is often asked : Is the movement of our Canadian population to the United States increasing or decreasing.
That was precisely the question that was raised. The question whether or not the exodus is less or greater, will, I assume, show whether there is any ground of justification for the boast of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the whole progress of Canada during the last twenty-five years has been within the last five years, and that for fifteen years from 1881 onward to 1896, Canada has made no progress and has remained with her population stationary.
The state of Massachusetts takes a census on a comprehensive scale independent of the federal census. An analysis of the population statistics of the state of Massachusetts in combination with those of the Federal authorities for the same state supplies an answer to the question above asked (as to whether the exodus has increased or decreased) so far as relates to that state. The number of Canadians in Massachusetts in 1900 according to the Federal census (which is taken in the tens) was 293,169. In 1895, by the state census it was 243,732. In 1890, according to the national census, the number was 207,601, and in 1885 by the state census was 147,352. During the first five years, from 1885 to 1890, the number increased by 60,249 ; during the second period, from 1890 to 1895, by 36,131 ; and during the third period, from 1895 to 1900, by 49,437. In the first period Canadians went to the state of Massachusetts, according to the statistics of that state, at the rate of 12,050 a year ; in the cecond period, at the rate of 7,236 a year, and in the third period at the rate of 9,888 a year.
If these figures are right, there was a larger exodus from Canada to the state of Massachusetts iu the last five years ending with 1900 than there was in the preceding five years; and these happen to be the five years during which it is claimed by the members of the present government that there was practically no exodus, and during which Canada made greater growth than during the previous fifteen years. The result, while not conclusive, goes a long way to show to my mind that there is no foundation whatever for the statements made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce on this subject.
The hon. gentlemen apparently rely very largely for some kind of support for their statements on the fact that we have had good times in Canada in the last five years ; and for that reason they contend that the citizens of Canada had no need to go abroad. But there have been good times in the United States also during the past five years, perhaps better than there has been in Canada. Employment has been easily secured there, wages have been high, and the inducements offered to citizens of Canada to go to the United States have been if possible greater than they were before.
There is another point bearing on this matter which should not be lost sight of. The recovery from bad times comes earlier in the United States than it does in Canada, and the difference between periods of inflation and periods of depression is more

marked there than it is in this country. Oases have come within my own knowledge of sons and daughters returning to their homes in Canada to spend the lean years with their parents on the farm, and to wait until an improved state of affairs in the United States induces them to go abroad again. The mere fact that we have had good times In Canada is not sufficient to affect the exodus. Speakiug from my own experience -and I presume it will be borne out by that of nearly every person present-there has been a greater scarcity of labour, a greater difficulty in finding men, either for the farm or for railroad construction, during the past five years, than there was previously. It is well known too to almost every one that it is almost impossible to obtain a sufficient supply of domestic servants in this country. So that there is no evidence to sustain or to justify for one moment the amazing contention of the government that all the growth of population! between 1880 and 1900 is to be credited to the party in power. It is a monstrous proposition for which there is no warrant whatever.
The lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce quoted figures to show that the city of Toronto had a larger number of unoccupied houses four or five years ago than it has to-day. We all know that. But the argument borrowed from the experience of the city of Toronto is a perfectly fallacious one. There was a boom in that city some years ago, resulting in a temporary increase of population and the erection of a large number of houses. But the boom broke with the usual consequences. There was widespread loss, many men gave up buildings they had erected, losing them altogether, and a great many people who had been attracted to the city by the boom left. There can be no question that for a number of years there was a great depression in the city of Toronto. But that city is now gradually overtaking the excessive rate at which it advanced for a short time, and by a healthy natural growth the population has once more overtaken the supply of buildings, which accounts for the condition of affairs that exists there to-day.
But the Minister of Trade and Commerce is sure that there was an exodus, and he furnishes a reason which to my mind is conclusive. I believe there was a large exodus between 1881 and 1891. I do not accept many of the arguments of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but there was one which struck me as being most convincing. He said that from 1881 to 1891 he went backwards and forwards in the province of Ontario a great many times. He denounced the government of Canada, he cursed protection in all the moods and tenses. He preached to the people of Ontario that they were being ruined, bled white, that the government was in alliance with combinesters, that the whole thing was an M*. BELL. '
organized conspiracy to make the poor man poorer and the rich man richer. Is it not fair to conclude that when the hon gentleman spent his time in thus proving to the people of Ontario that this was a poor country to live in, that there was scarcely any security for life, and none for property in this country, he must have had considerable influence in driving the people of Ontario across the border ? If I had time, I would like, in support of the argument I have just advanced, to furnish the House with some of the speeches delivered by Sir Richard Cartwright on the stump at that time ; but I will quote a few words which he uttered in this House in 1885 in reply to the budget, shortly after the first minister of that day had been to London and had there urged the claims of Canada for a share of the emigration from the mother country. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, standing in his place as a critic of the administration said :
X doubt if the First Minister were well advised when he intimated that it was desirable that there should be a large immigration to Canada.
He goes on to say :
If many had come to Canada, even to Ontario-
Which he seemed to think the best part of Canada

-they would have found themselves in a position where they could only be provided for by displacing the native population.
The fact that the hon. gentleman, standing here as the critic of the administration, could deliberately challenge the conduct of the First Minister in asking that immigrants of the most desirable kind should come to this country, and could warn them against coming, is sufficient to give us some idea of the kind of arguments he would address to the people on the stump, without the controlling and modifying influence of the fact that in this House men's speeches are reported, and there is a chance of their being held to account for their utterances. So that the only thing his argument that the population of this country had not increased, but that there was an exodus, proves is that he was busy in the province of Ontario, during the period from 1881 to 1891, in endeavouring to convince people that Canada was not a good place to live in and was a good place to live out of. I think 1 have said enough with regard to the census to show that there is not much basis for the figures and criticisms given us by the hon. minister. And if we are to be asked to believe that Canada stood still from 1881 to 1895, it will be necessary for some better arguments than have been given us by the hon. minister.
In rebuttal of the hon. minister's statements, there is a host of facts. For in-

stance, there are the voters' lists. We find that the voters' lists in Canada showed :
In 1887	
993,914	names.1891	1,132,201	"1895	1,353,735	"
In Ontario the voters' lists showed as follows :
In 1882	
406,000	names.1887	
495,000	"1891	
568,000	"
Then this government came into power- this government which has so enormously added to our population and increased our prosperity-this government which has increased our population at the rate of 100,000 a year. Well, you will find that the voters' lists show just the opposite. They show a decline in population since that date. In 1895 there were 650,000 names on the Ontario lists. In 1898 this number had decreased to 576,000. That was the list prepared specially for the plebiscite on prohibition. And in 1900, at the last general election, the number of voters on the Ontario lists stood at 580,000. Where then were these hundreds of thousands who were pouring into Canada in order to swell our population and add to the glory of this government ? They are conspicuous by their absence. They are not to be found in the voters' lists, and I am sure that there is no place where these hon. gentlemen would better like to have them. Because had these hundreds of thousands been brought into the country undqr the happy circumstances that have prevailed since the advent of this government and been growing richer every day since owing to the wonderful administration of this wonderful government, they would certainly support the regime to which they owed then-good fortune, and our lion, friends opposite would have been very careful to see that their names were down on the voters' lists. But where are they 7 The voters' lists say no where.
Then going back to his old love, playing again the old tune he is unable to forget, the Minister of Trade and Commerce proceeded to magnify the United States at the expense of Canada. He compared the Dakotas and Minnesota with the province of Manitoba. Again I find that the hon. gentleman's figures do not correspond, as they should, wiith the official returns. According to him the Dakotas gained lzU,000 families from 1881 to 1891, or in all OuO,-000 people, allowing five to a family. But the official returns of the United States census show that the Dakotas, instead of gaining 600,000 in that period, only gained 376,000, or not very much more than one-half the figures given us by the hon. minister. The state of Minnesota he credited with a gain of 200,000 families or a million souls. But taking the figures from the United States census, I find that the actual increase of Minnesota in that period was from 780,000 to 1,301,003, or an increase of 521,103, just about half the amount given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On the other hand, Manitoba had increased from 62,000 to 152,000, the exact increase in the ten years being 90,246, or a percentage of 144 between 1881 to 1891.
I think I have said quite enough to show that we should hesitate considerably before accepting the figures given us by my hon. friend, and the conclusions based thereon. It is always possible for any of us to make mistakes, and it is quite easy to go wrong in figures, but I think that before a gentleman so prominent in the administration should venture to attack so important a document as the census of the country and openly charge thousands of his fellow citizens with deliberate fraud, perjury, connivance and conspiracy, he should endeavour to be at least accurate in his statements. I should hardly be| willing to accept as conclusive the statements of an lion, gentleman, based on statistics which fail so completely to correspond with the official returns.
The hon. gentleman was rather inclined to be jocose in the course of his speech, and toid a story rather at the expense of our hon. friend the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He said that he once had a vision, during which he passed through the different circles of Inferno, and that when passing through the circle reserved for faithless souls, he came to an apartment in which he found a number of figures hanging up in unaccustomed and extraordinary attitudes. They proved to be the souls of farmers who had believed in protection, and being too green to burn, were hung up there to prepare them for the furnace. I wonder if the hon. minister is to be rewarded, according to Dante's conception, by being placed in that circle destined for faithless souls. If he should come into that quarter of the Inferno, he will find there a number of figures hauging up in anything but comfortable attitudes, and will find out that these are the souls of the sons and daughters of the great province of Ontario who were so green as to believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he told them that, if returned to power, he would destroy the microbe of protection, drive out of the country the combinsters, revise the tariff and give the people all the commodities of life at prices free from the increases caused by the iniquitous protectionist system.
I well believe that that may be his experience ; and, if so, of all the tortures the hon. minister will suffer when he finds himself in that place reserved for faithless souls, souls that have violated the trust placed in them by confiding friends, his greatest torture will be the anguish, the appealing, pitiful expression, of those poor souls, men and women from Ontario, who will look upon him with eyes of reproach and say : You brought us hither ; I am that lady of Oxford

county who gave you your tea after you had held forth and explained how you were going to do away with the duty on coal oil, how you were going to give us our glassware free-no more 30 per cent on lamp chimneys or six cents a gallon on coal oil ; we trusted you and here we are in torment. That will be the worst punishment of the hon. gentleman when he finds himself in the inferno for faithless souls. And, if there is one man in that government who, more than another has broken every promise he made to the people, and betrayed every confidence reposed in him, it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That hon. gentleman is unfair to his country to this day. I called attention a few moments ago to the manner in which he manufactured the figures for Dakota and Minnesota to the disadvantage of our fair province of Manitoba. He compared the growth and progress of these new countries. Why did he not do it fairly ? What were the states of Dakota and Minnesota ? They were a territory lying at the outskirts of the union, the only place left to be filled up by the overflowing population pressing upon them from the south. On the other hand, the province of Manitoba, with which he compared them, was cut off from eastern Canada by that long, desert, rocky district which intervenes between it and the thickly settled parts of Ontario-no border settlement, no possibility of people flowing j in from over-populated provinces adjacent. Nothing could be done for that province un- ! til the government of the day had succeeded, by completing the Canadian Pacific Rail- J way, in bringing it into a position where it [ could be filled. And, of the enormous pro- | gress made by the province between 1881 and 1891, amounting to 144 per cent, practically the whole of that ought to be credited to the last five years of that period when, the railway being finished, it was possible for population to flow into that province. I have said enough-and more will be said by hon. gentlemen oil this side who will complete the demonstration I have started-to indicate the absolute futility, folly, and inaccuracy of the statements of the hon. gentleman. It would be better, far better if both government and opposition, instead of trying, for petty party purposes, to show that our country was not progressing, or to try for similar purposes to show that it had progressed only when men of our political stripe were in office, were we to recognize the fact that in Canada we have a country so fine, opportunities so great, that nothing can keep down the growth and development of the Dominion. I cannot, for my part, conceive how advantage is to come to our country from such criticism as has been, at times, indulged in by hon. members of this House. For myself, I am glad- and this is characteristic of all hon. members on this side-I am delighted at the progress made by Canada whether under a Liberal or under a Conservative administra-Mr. BELL.
tion. That progress is admirable, it is what | we all wish to see ; and we should join hand in hand to make still greater the speed with | which our country is advancing to the front ' rank among the nations of the world.


Mr. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON (Cape j Breton).: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) addressed the House a few evenings ago he likened the debate to a revival meeting, the chief business of which was a political confession of faith. The comparison was not inapt. We j have had this programme continued this afternoon and evening, and it is likely that it will be continued for some days. This afternoon and evening, we have had a confession of faith from the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell). There is nothing extraordinary about that confession of faith, except that it differs somewhat from a confession of faith we have heard from that hon. gentleman on some former occasions. However, it may be fashionable in those days to change opinions, and I have no doubt that the hon. member for Pictou has found that ample reason to change from his profession of faith some years ago. It is not my purpose to find fault with anything the hon. gentleman has said, because 'it differs from what he said on the occasions 1 have referred to. But, now that the hon. gentleman has concluded his observations I must confess that, for my part, I am somewhat in doubt as to whether he is a protectionist or, like myself, a revenue tariff man. The speeches that have preceded that of the hon. member for Pictou on that side have made several things abundantly plain. They struck me as being somewhat contradictory, because they went to prove different things. Some of these speeches went to prove, in the first place, that Canada is prosperous and, in the second place, that the government which hon. members on this side are supporting is in no Way responsible for the prosperity Canada is now enjoying. In the third place, these speeches went to prove that this country is not prosperous ; and in the fourth place they went to prove that the government is entirely responsible for the want of prosperity which characterizes the country. And, in the fifth place, some of these speeches made it abundantly clear that hon. members on the opposite side are not satisfied with the present government. It is not my intention to quarrel with hon. gentlemen opposite because of that, and I think I speak for hon. members on this side when I say that there is not much worry on this side over the matter. It is of far more importance to myself, and. I take it, of far greater importance to every hon. member on this side that the people generally are satisfied with the government. And we have had opportunities, not so long ago, of ascertaining very clearly, that the country is satisfied with the manner in which the present government has administered public affairs since 1896.

I am like my hon. friend from Pictou in recognizing that, this discussion having gone on for upwards of a week, it is very difficult to contribute anything new to the debate. It is, therefore, my purpose not to delay the House long, but to be as brief as I can. I shall try to emulate the example of my hon. friend from Pictou and not inflict upon the House any large array of figures. We have had to listen to a considerable number of figures during the past week, and it will be my aim to give as few figures as I possibly can. With regard to the prosperity of the country, I think there are some evidences that it exists. Hon. members opposite invariably open their speeches by the admission that the country is prosperous, but almost invariably they conclude their speeches, like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, by asserting that the country is not prosperous. For my part I am satisfied to take the trade returns as a proof that there is prosperity in this country. It is not denied that trade during the past five or six years has increased tremendously, and relying upon the trade returns for the proof of my statement, I should not dwell at any greater length upon it.
Our hon. friends opposite, both in the House and outside of it, have had a good deal to say during the past five or six years with regard to the expenditure of public money in this country. We hear from day to day charges made against the government that the expenditure is growing. I am going to admit, if it is any consolation to my hon. friends opposite, that the expenditure is growing ; and for my part I am satisfied that the expenditure should keep on growing, provided always that we have good results from it. I take it that a young country like our own must, if its resources are to be developed, expend a good deal of money in their development, and for my part I am prepared to support a policy of a generous expenditure of public money throughout this country.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Alexander Johnston: I am glad that my hon. friends opposite are prepared to support the policy of a generous expenditure of public money. I was saying that if the resources of this country are to be developed, an expenditure of public money is necessary. We have a great country to the west, stretching to the shores of the Pacific ocean, a country of marvellous resources ; and if that country is to be developed the government must be generous in the expenditure of public money for that purpose, but without forgetting at the same time the necessities of the older provinces. In the province from which 1 come we are not satisfied that the time has been reached when there should be no further expenditure for the development of its resources, and I think the general opinion throughout all parts of the Dominion is that
the time has not yet arrived when the expenditure of public money should be curtailed.
But while our friends opposite are profuse in their criticisms of this expenditure, they take very good care, both in the House and outside of it, not to particularize, not to single out any particular item to which they object. Now, Sir, if they expect their criticisms to have any weight it will be necessary for them to point out the particular items in the expenditure to which they object. I sat in this House during the whole of last session, and I do not now recollect that during the whole of that session our hon. friends opposite put themselves on record as opposed to any particular item in the expenditure made by this government. I say if they expect their criticisms to bear fruit and to be taken seriously by the people, they must point out the" items to which they object. That is the position which hon. members on the government side of the House will take, and that is the position which people generally throughout the country will expect the opposition to take.
We have been told that the public debt of this country has been increased. I am not going to deny that it has increased. But it has not been increased to any alarming extent, and I do not think that there is anybody in this country who seriously believes that the increase in the public debt during the past five years has been an alarming feature of the present administration. I think most people, when they calmly reflect upon the question, will conclude that the increase has been a very moderate one. If hon. gentlemen will compare the increase in the debt during the last five years with the increase during the period our hon. friends opposite were in power, they will find that the increase during the last five years has been very slow compared with that during the eighteen previous years. For every dollar that the present government lias added to the debt, they have added very largely to the trade of the country ; while for every dollar that the government supported by our friends opposite added to tlie debt, there was no corresponding increase in the trade of the country. The hon. member who has just taken his seat is not very hopeful it seems to me, of the conditions which obtain in this country. I am not disposed to agree with him that the situation in Canada to-day is without some hope. 1 am not disposed to agree with him that Canada lias not a bright future; or that we have any reason to expect that we should not witness a continuation of the prosperity which we are at present enjoying. For my part I would be sorry indeed to sound a note of alarm throughout the country at this particular time.
On the question of the tariff I shall have very little to say. I suppose I shall be expected to make my profession of faith on the question of the tariff, and I shall do

so by saying that I am perfectly satisfied that the present government will so adjust the tariff that it will meet with the requirements of every class in this country. It is somewhat diflicult, and has been difficult ever since 1896, to ascertain just what position our hon. friends opposite take upon the tariff question. It is not very easy to locate just where they stand on the subject. We all know that when the present Minister of Finance brought down his tariff resolutions in 1897, the leader of the opposition at that time declared that the tariff then brought down was destined to bring ruin to every industry in this country. Let me trouble the House while I read the declaration which was made on that occasion by the then leader of the opposition. He said :
The result is that this tariff goes into operation and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) knows that the industries of this country are already paralyzed in consequence. While hon. members opposite gloat over the destruction of Canadian industries, I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail of those industries in the Montreal 'Gazette,' where one manufacturer after another declared that those industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return of the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House, was in charge of the fiscal policy of the country. I ray that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.
I need not remind the House, and it is not necessary to remind the country, upon this occasion, how far from fulfilment that prediction of the then leader of the opposition fell. How did the industries of Canada suffer ? They did not suffer. They prospered as they never prospered before, but, when it was found that the industries had not suffered as the result of the tariff which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance brought down in 1897, there was then, in the House of Commons, as there was throughout the country, a claim set up by the Conservative party that the Liberal party had taken up the tariff of the government which had preceded them and that if prosperity had prevailed in this country since 1896 it was due entirely to the fact that the government had taken up the policy and followed in the footsteps of their predecessors. I have a distinct recollection of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) addressing this House the other evening and he went on to point out that if we did have any degree of prosperity since 1896, it was owing in no small degree to the fact that the government of the day were simply travelling in the footsteps of the government which preceded them and which went out in 1896. He went on to say that if there was any difference between the policy of the present government and the policy of that which preceded them, it was slight indeed, and that the difference simply amounted to 2 per cent. He went further and said that if you take the preference into consideration the difference be-


Alexander Johnston: tween the two policies is less still. On the other hand, we had the declaration from some hon.- members on the other side of the House that the tariff of the present government is not satisfactory. They want a declaration of policy as to the tariff, and as I said when I commenced my observations in respect to this tariff matter, so far as I am concerned, I have some considerable difficulty in determining just exactly where our friends opposite and their followers throughout the country are on this question of the tariff.
There is one matter to which I propose addressing myself for a little while. It has become a fashionable tiling during the past few years and even this session in the House of Commons to assail the expenditure of money on the Intercolonial Railway. I propose for a few minutes to point out to this House and to the country that the expenditure of money on the Intercolonial Railway since 1896 has been in every respect justifiable. Need I remind the House that the condition of the Intercolonial Railway, when this government came into power in 1896, was entirely unsatisfactory to that portion of country through which the Intercolonial Railway runs ? I need not remind the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) that he was dissatisfied with the condition of the Intercolonial Railway in 1896.
I am sure that he will be the first to admit that so far as the portion of the province from which he comes is concerned, the Intercolonial Railway was not satisfactory to the people. I need not remind the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that to the constituency which he represents the Intercolonial Railway and its condition was unsatisfactory in 1896. From every constituency through which the Intercolonial Railway runs in the province of Nova Scotia there came the cry that it was not in the condition that a great railway ought to be in. The present Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) went to some trouble to ascertain the exact condition of the Intercolonial Railway and he went to some trouble to put the road in the state that we find it in to-day. We find the Intercolonial Railway to-day in a condition second to no road in Canada. Was the condition of the Intercolonial Railway in 1896 satisfactory to any person who was doing business with it ? Was the rolling stock satisfactory to the people of the country ? Was the freight service on the road satisfactory to the people ? Was the passenger service satisfactory ? I say most unhesitatingly, and, I think the opinion is universal, throughout the constituencies of this country through which the Intercolonial Railway passes, that not one of these services was satisfactory in 1896. I am glad to know that the condition which obtains to-day on the Intercolonial Railway is entirely different from that which existed in 1896. Have we the poor condition to-

day in respect to the freight service that we had in 1896 ? Have we the poor condition in respect to the passenger service that we had in 1896 ? X think not, hut, on the contrary, travel where you will on this continent and you will find that the Intercolonial Railway passenger service is looked on as one of the very best passenger services you can find anywhere in the country, better, perhaps, than anything you can find in Canada, equal to anything you can find in America, and perhaps, for that matter you might go farther, and eliminating the question of speed, you might go so far as to say that in the whole world you cannot find a better passenger service than that which you have now from the city of Montreal to the city of Halifax. It is of a character that the management of the Intercolonial Railway and the Minister of Railways and Canals may well take credit to themselves for having brought about. We will be told that this has cost money.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Alexander Johnston: It is quite true, aud I am not going to deny that it has cost money. But, there was no other way of bringing this condition of affairs about, but by the generous expenditure of money. That expenditure has been made and for my part, and I am speaking for the province of Nova Scotia, from which the hon. member for Pictou comes, and I speak for Nova Scotia because I have more knowledge of the situation as it affects the province, I will say that Nova Scotia is satisfied that the expenditure of money on the Intercolonial Railway since 1896 has not been an unjustifiable expenditure. It is quite true that the government is not making any money out of the operation of the Intercolonial Railway. I am freely admitting that it is so. I would prefer, and every hon. gentleman on this side of the House would prefer, that the Intercolonial Railway should be a money earner. Before I sit down I propose to point out that there are other services that are not money earners and yet we are content that they should be maintained at the expense of the people. The Intercolonial Railway, I regard as a part of the great transportation system of this country. It is an important link in the transportation system. It has a good deal to do with determining what the late of transportation shall be. And for my part I wish to say that I give my strict adherence to the doctrine that the government should continue to hold the Intercolonial Railway. It is not only important to the sections of the country through which it runs, but I take it that it is important to every section of this Dominion that the Intercolonial Railway should be owned and operated by the government of the country.
I regard the Intercolonial Railway as a necessary part of the great transportation
system of Canada, and I regard it further as a complement of our canal system. That, I do not think is an extravagant claim, and probably even the hon. gentlemen from Ontario on the other side of the House, who seem to take special delight in criticising the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway, will admit that claim. Let me remind the House that while we hear a great deal from hon. gentlemen opposite from the west, with respect of the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway we never hear their voices raised against the expenditure of public money on the canal system of Canada. Let it not be understood for a moment that I am in. any way opposed to justifiable expenditure on our canals. 1 am prepared to support a policy which will maintain the efficiency of our canal system, and even if it does cost money, as it does cost considerable money, and more money than it costs to operate the Intercolonial Railway, I, speaking for myself, (and I think I may safely say that I speak for other members who come from the lower provinces) will support and endorse any expenditure which is necessary to efficiently maintain our canals. I do not mean to be understood as saying that the time has arrived when the government of this country shall cease spending money on the Intercolonial Railway. On the contrary,
I believe that there is yet a good deal to be done in the matter of perfecting the service which that railway owes to the people of Canada. Let me remind my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) of the fact that there has been a considerable expenditure of money on the Intercolonial Railway in his county during the past year. It will be interesting for his constituents to know; it will be interesting for this House to know, whether that hon. gentleman joins with his political friends who surround him in condemnation of this expenditure. During the past year there has been considerable expenditure in connection with the Intercolonial Railway in the town of Stell-arton, and in the town of Westville, and in the town of Pictou, all in his own, constituency. In these places there has been a very generous expenditure of public money during the past year. I have no doubt that the constituents of the hon. gentleman will be interested to know whether he supports the contention of those friends of his who sit behind him and around him, and who condemn the expenditure of public money in this connection. I have no doubt that some day his constituents will be curious enough to assertain from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell), whether he opposes or endorses that outlay. He did not find it convenient to make a declaration on this question during his speech, but he must know that the matter is of considerable interest to those who returned him to this House, and no doubt before the session terminates the hon. gentleman will ventilate


Alexander Johnston: the Intercolonial Railway is a part of the general transportation system of this country, and is a complement of our canal system. On the canals of this country there has been expended $81,404,543.98, and it has cost this country $16,985,997.66 to operate the canals. The revenue that the public treasury derived from these canals was $12,717,343, leaving a deficit of $4,268,254.65 as between the actual revenue and actual expense of operation. That is the exact position with respect to our canals. As I have said, I do not wish to be understood as finding fault in any way with this expenditure, and I repeat that I will willingly endorse any policy which has for its object the efficient maintenance of the canals. I take the five years previous to the coming into power of this government; that is from' 1892 to 1896; and I find that there was an average yearly deficit of $298,841 during that period, on the operation of our canals. I take the period from 1896 down to the present time, and I find that the annual average deficit was $238,655.10. That is a record which I think the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and which hon. members supporting the ministry have no reason whatever to be ashamed of. It is a record, Sir, which the people of this country are prepared to support comparing more than favourably with the record of the gentlemen who administered our canals and our x-ailways previous to 1896.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose passing on to another matter. The hon member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) in his address to the House a few evenings ago, made some observations respecting the county of Cape Breton, which I have the honour to represent in this House, and I propose to deal for a few minutes with that portion of the hon. member's speech. He ti-ied to prove that the great prosperity which had come to the county of Cape Breton during recent years was due entirely to the fiscal policy of the Conservative government. On that occasion I asked the hon. gentleman this question :
Does the hon. gentleman know what reason the president of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company gave as the chief cause that led to the establishment of the iron and steel industry in Cape Breton ?
The answer given by the hon. member for West Toronto was as follows
I presume the primary cause was the advantageous situation of Cape Breton to the raw material which enters into that industry and to its shiping facilities. But added to that primary cause was the bounty and the protection which was accorded to that industry by the Conservative government of Canada.
I added :
I would like to add that that is not in accordance with the statement made by the president of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, who ought to know.

The bon. the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is reported in ' Hansard ' as having said : ' Yes ; it was exactly what he said.' My recollection was that it was the hon. leader of the opposition who made this statement. Of this, however, I was not sure. Until I read the report in ' Hansard,' I was under that impression.


Robert Laird Borden: X made no observation.


Alexander Johnston: The statement was made, then, by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. He evidently did not know very much about it. I am pleased to know that the hon. leader of the opposition, who I am sure would know better, did not make the observation. Now, if we have to-day in the county of Cape Breton a magnificent iron and steel industry, it is not due to the reason advanced by the hon. member for AVest Toronto in this House a few evenings ago. In order to point out the true reasons, it is necessary for me to go back a few years. In 1891, and for a year or two afterwards, the coal trade in the county of Cape Breton was not in a very flourishing condition. As a consequence there was a good deal of discontent not only in Cape Breton, but throughout the province of Nova Scotia. The output of coal in the province in 1891 reached the highest figure that had been reached up to that time, being 1,849,945 tons. The following year, 1892, showed a very marked decrease, and in the year after, 1S93, a still further decrease-a decrease which alarmed the people of Cape Breton and the people of Nova Scotia generally. The output for that year had fallen to 1,485,924 tons. I have a very lively recollection of that time. The coal miners of Cape Breton were dissatisfied. For half the year they had no work. If they got work for four or five or six months, they considered themselves very fortunate indeed. A good deal of discontent prevailed everywhere throughout the country, and representations in reference to the matter were made to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), who was then leading the government of Nova Scotia. We were told by our Conservative friends previous to 1892 and 1893, and for that matter down to 1896, that the national policy was sufficient to develop the coal trade of this country. If my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, when he was approached at that time, had followed the example of the Conservative government, he would have said :	'You have the national policy, which is sufficient to develop the coal trade of the country and why should I be asked to interfere ? ' That is exactly What he would have said if he had followed the lines laid down by the gentlemen of the Conservative party. But he did not choose to do that. He entered into negotiations with certain gentlemen of the city of Bos-55}
ton and with the gentlemen who then owned and controlled the coal mines of Cape Breton. The result was the formation of the Dominion Coal Company. I may be asked why I am referring to this matter. My purpose is to point out the position taken by the Conservative party of Nova Scotia on the question, as to what has brought about the present flourishing state of affairs in Cape Breton to which the hon. member for West Toronto referred a few evenings ago.
I wish to show that the Conservative party in the province of Nova Scotia opposed the formation of the Dominion Coal Company.
I am not stating anything new, for it is well known that the Conservative party time and again opposed this measure in the legislative assembly at Halifax. They put themselves on record against it. They pointed out that the formation of the Dominion Coal Company would mean the abandonment of the coal fields of Nova Scotia, and particularly of Cape Breton, to American .speculators. AYell, Mr. Speaker, that prediction has fallen as far from fulfilment as have the predictions of the late leader of the opposition with regard to the tariff policy of this administration. The coal trade of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton did not suffer from the policy inaugurated by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. On the contrary, it has since prospered as it never did before in the history of the country. In 1893, just a year before the organization of the Dominion Coal Company, the output had fallen to 1,485,924 tons. Last year the output rose to 3,625,865 tons or more than double that of 1893. That is not a very bad record, and if the Minister of Finance were not here I would enlarge at much more considerable length on the advantages of the policy inaugurated by him. But let me simply say that it is one which will redound to his everlasting credit and which he succeeded in causing to be adopted against the most determined and strenuous opposition of the Conservative party.
I wish to refer now to the position taken by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) on this iron and steel industry. When asked what were the reasons which had brought about the establishment of this industry, he replied that no doubt it was the advantageous position of Cape Breton with regard to the raw material which enters into that industry and its shipping facilities. Let me say that during the eighteen years in which the Conservative party was in power, Cape Breton was just as near the raw material as she is to-day and the shipping facilities were just as good. There was a bounty on iron and steel for years previous to 1896. Did that bring about the establishment of the iron and steel industry in Cape Breton ? It did nothing of the kind. On the contrary, the position of Sydney was not as good perhaps in 1896 as it was some years previous. The hon. member for West Toronto said that the establish-

ment of this industry was also due to the bounty policy of the government. But that bounty was not a new thing. It was in existence under the late government. All these advantages then existed. The coal was just where it is now, the iron ore was there, the shipping facilities were there, all during these eighteen years of Conservative administration, but there was no iron or steel industry established. Let us come a little nearer the reasons which were important factors in the establishment of that industry. In the month of August, 1899, the mayor and council of the town of Sydney tendered Mr. Henry M. Whitney an address in the town hall. Mr. Whitney, in reply to that address, made the following observations :	.
You have referred, Sir, to my connection with the mineral resources or Cape Breton, which I take to mean my connection with the Dominion Coal Company. It is now some six years ago that I first beheld your beautiful country, and then I came in connection with this1 enterprise. I was little aware at that time what the future had in store for me in connection with that undertaking. It has brought me many trials, many caros and few compensations. I saw in cc i sequence of the changing conditions of trade here and elsewhere and in the carrying out of the necessary programme oy which the trade might be extended and the men receive employment the year through, it had fallen to our lot to perform many an unpleasant duty and to receive more or less your criticism, but I believe now that everybody here will agree that the policy that was adopted by us was intended for good and has been for the greatest good of the greatest number, and now it can he shown that it is owing to that policy *hat we are now enabled to start this great enterprise. I hope that in your minds will be full justification for things that have been done in the past which did not meet the approval of you all.
That is what Mr. Whitney, who is the president of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company and also the Dominion Coal Company, said with respect to the establishment of the iron industry. And I have no doubt if the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) were in his seat, be would be glad to admit that be was mistaken in his view of the causes which brought about the establishment of this industry in the county of Cape Breton.
The organ of the Conservative party in the town of Sydney, at that time, made these comments on this address to Mr. Whitney :
Whatever commercial greatness is in store for Cape Breton it is due to his (Mr. Whitney's) initiative. Whatever progressive changes are taking place in this staid old town are due to his high capacity and potential energy.
That is the testimony given by the organ of the Conservative party in August, 1899, in the town of Sydney, and I am prepared to rest my case there. I have pointed out to you, Sir,-and I shall conclude my observations presently-that Nova Scotia has, during the past five or six years, in common with the rest of Canada, enjoyed a very general


Alexander Johnston: measure of prosperity. Our coal resources, our iron resources and our agricultural resources are being developed as they never were before. And let me tell you, Sir, that the fishing industry is in better condition to-day in Cape Breton than it.was in 1896, when the present government took office. I have in my possession letters from people engaged in that industry, pointing out that the regulations enacted by the present government are far more satisfactory than were those governing this industry during the preceding years. As' I have said, Nova Scotia is enjoying to-day a very general measure of prosperity. In the county of Cape Breton there are public works, which were neglected before 1896, but which are now being actively prosecuted. I speak more particularly with reference to my own county of which I have personal knowledge. And I can say, without fear of being contradicted successfully that, in the county of Cape Breton there are public works that were neglected by the late government before 1896, notwithstanding that from 1878, in almost unbroken succession to that day, the county had given the government two members to support it. The government of this day has been generous in the matter of looking after the requirements of that constituency with respect to public works. It must not be supposed, however, that the list has been completed. We expect that attention to public works will continue in the future as in the past, and I have no doubt whatever that it will.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have about finished the discussion of the matters which I intended to discuss when I arose. I wished particularly to speak about the Intercolonial Railway. And, permit me to say to our hon. friends on the opposite side of the House that they should be a little more generous in their treatment of that road. While the record of the Intercolonial Railway in the matter of earning money is not as satisfactory as we could all wish to have it, for my part I am not alarmed. I think we may well have faith that the future has much better things in store for us with respect to this matter. I have no doubt that the next report of the Intercolonial Railway will show that the present year has been a far more prosperous one for the road than last year. As I have said, I want the Intercolonial Railway still further developed. In my constituency, I want a considerable amount spent on the railway to protect its terminals. The road has terminals at Sydney and at North Sydney, and we are not satisfied that those terminals should remain as they are. The importance of the harbour at Sydney and the future it has in store for it, make it necessary that the Intercolonial Railway should have more commodious terminals both at Sydney and at North Sydney than it has. And 1 take it that the government and the hon. Minister of Railways will regard In a

favourable light the proposal to provide the accommodation for which I ask.


Mr.  T. S.@: SPROtJLE (East Grey). Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) has treated the House to a somewhat lengthy dissertation upon the development of the coal mines, the iron mines, the fisheries and the Intercolonial Railway. How far these subjects might be allowed to be discussed, were you, Mi1. Speaker, to give a rigid interpretation to the rule that would confine the discussion to the amendment before the House, I would not like to be obliged to say. But in your generosity, you allowed the hon. gentleman to wander far afield. I do not regret it. All the hon. gentlemen who preceded the hon. member for Plctou have modelled their addresses upon similarly Liberal lines. We had some apprehensions as to the wisdom of moving our resolution so early in the debate, for fear that we might be confined by yourself, under the rules of the House, strictly to a discussion of that amendment, and not allowed to engage in the general criticism of a budget debate. But, remembering that a custom has been followed of moving the amendment eariy without, in practice, interfering' with the rights of members to travel over the whole domain of finance and the condition of the country, we felt that we might draw upon the patience of the House and not follow strictly the rule laid down. I trust that you will show the same liberality to me as you have shown to hon. members who have preceded me.
I shall say but little with regard to the criticism of the hon. member from Cape Breton. He said there were evidences of prosperity throughout the country generally. We on this side agree with the hon. gentleman in that. It is quite enough to be obliged to deal with subjects on which we disagree without taking up time with those in which we agree. The hon. gentleman declared that he believed in free expenditure of public money. The Minister' of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) will agree with him there, and so will any of his political friends. There will be no dispute on this point from the government side of the House, but there may be a large class of people in the country who will not quite agree with the hon. gentleman that the free expenditure of public money which has characterized the management of the public affairs for the last four or five years is the very best thing in the interests of the country. But I might remind the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton that when he speaks in this way he is very severe on the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) who, for eighteen years, with his stentorian voice, with his extreme adjectives and with the invective which is peculiar to himself. condemned this free expenditure of public money in the very strongest terms, moved resolutions against it-in which his party supported him. He declared that the expenditure was entirely too heavy, when it was more than $10,000,000 less than it is to-day, and said it could be cut down, two, three or even four millions a year. He told us that the country was going to the bad on account of the extravagant expenditure of public money. And, when we take exception to the present heavy expenditure the member asks us why we do not come down to particulars, name the Items to which we object and move to have them struck out. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Johnston, Cape Breton) and the attention of the leader of the government (Bt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid' Laurier) who is sitting before me, and listening to me, to the fact that, during the eighteen years when the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce was in opposition, there, were only about three times, if my memory is correct, when he came down to particulars and moved to have items struck out. The hon. gentleman represented that it was not the duty of an opposition to come down to particulars, but it was their business, when the expenditure was too great to condemn the expenditures generally. So, before the hon. member for Cape Breton reads lectures to this side, he had better read up the ' Hansard ' reports of the past and note the lesson which the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) gave in those days, of the duty of an opposition.
The hon. member for Cape Breton says it is difficult to locate the members of the opposition on the tariff. Is tjie resolution we moved not concrete enough V How can the hon. member ask for more than that V But can the hon. gentleman locate members on his own side 7 Where, for instance, does he put the hon. member for South Oxford, who, in that valedictory address, which sounded so sweetly because it was likely to be his last, declared that he was now as he had ever been in favour . of free trade, and had never changed his principles 7 How is that hon. gentleman in accord with the hon. Minister of Public Works who says :	I am a protectionist;
I was brought up in a protectionist school and have never abandoned my principles; and who practically declares that the leaven which he has introduced into the cabinet will leaven the wfeole lump and that he will make them all protectionists after a while. Then I ask my hon. friend, do they come down to particulars 7 Is he able to locate his friends 7 Can he locate the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards), who says he is a free trader up to the hilt 7 Can he locate the hon. member for South Brant (air. Heyd) who says he is a protectionist 7 He is not a free trader, but he is in favour of protecting the manufacturers of our country. I can go over the whole list, and I find there are scarcely three of them who agree upon one particular. They are as

divergent one from the other as day is from night or as darkness from light. Then will my young friend from Cape Breton try and locate his friends and tell us where they stand on this question, and after that he can direct his attention to hon. members on this side of the House.
The hon. member said the Intercolonial Railway management was perfectly satisfactory to him. I have no doubt of that. He told us in the beginning of his speech that he liked a heavy expenditure, and that is what is taking place on the Intercolonial Railway, and it is a benefit to the people down there. But I thought at the time he was praising the present management of the Intercolonial Railway, and saying it was so far ahead of what it had been before, that he forgot to tell the House, or could not be aware of the fact, that only this last year we paid $488,186 for expenses of management and running that railway, over and above all it earned. Is that satisfactory to him ? If it is, I tell him it is not satisfactory to the country by any means. He nods his head in assent; then I can only tell him that his views differ from those of the great majority of the people of this country, because they would like to see all these great public undertakings pay their own way if possible. I think that good management would make the Intercolonial Railway pay its own way, and the fact that it has not been paying its own way is the best evidence that it is not properly managed. Besides the $488,186 that the management is behind in running that railway, at the same time they spent $3,052,000 on capital account within the last year, ^et tiie hon. member says it is perfectly satisfactory to him. Well, I can tell him that there are not many people who will agree with him.
He tells us that the Conservatives opposed the Dominion Coal Company; that it was one of the best things that happened to the country, the Conservatives were the only parties that opposed it. Where was the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) who sits beside him-where was he on this question ? There was not a Conservative in this House, or outside of it who opposed that more strongly than the hon. member for Hants. The hon. member's criticisms would have much greater force if they were directed towards his own friends than against any member on this side of the House. He says that the policy followed by the present government has developed the iron industry, the coal .ndustry, the fishing industry, the agricultural industry, How have they been developed ? By the policy of the present government, he says. Well, if they have, then he ought to be satisfied. But what have they done for the farmer, for the fisherman ? What have they done to develop the coal industries of the country, or the iron industries, beyond putting a bounty on iron ? I fail to Mr. SPROTJLE.
see that they have done anything, and I think the country fails to see it. I would like the hon. gentleman, when he makes that statement again, to come down to particulars, and to tell us what they have done which has favoured the development of those mines; until he does that we will be inclined to disagree with him in his conclusions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct attention for a short time to the budget speech. The Minister of Finance, in delivering his budget speech to this House, painted a glowing picture of the prosperity of the country and the condition of the people. Now, we agree with all that. No one is better pleased than we are to find the condition of the country so satisfactory, to see the people so prosperous and happy. We have no quarrel with the Minister of Finance in that respect; but the difference of opinion comes in when we inquire into the causes that brought about that prosperity, that is where we take issue with the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance and his friends attribute that prosperity to the businesslike management of the present government; they take credit to themselves for that prosperity because of the management of the affairs of this country during the last five or six years. We say that the prosperity is clue to causes over which they had little or no control. Can we verify that statement ? I think we can. Now, to begin with, I ask them what they did to bring about good times ? They did nothing, so far as I know, to bring about good times, except in one particular-they have made a heavy expenditure of money. What did they do for the people ? They did not give the people more employment, except in so far as this heavy expenditure of money by the government gave employment. They did nothing to make wages higher, they procured no new markets for the people, they secured no better values for the products of the people. Therefore, in all these lines they can take no credit to themselves for the good times. Neither did they reduce the cost of living to the people, nor the cost of transportation of the people's products from the place of production to the place of sale, or the place of shipment, so that they might get larger profits. In none of these respects have the present government contributed in any material sense to give prosperity to the country. They did not materially improve the method of transportation-no fast Atlantic service, no better transportation facilities, no reciprocity treaty so that the people could have better markets, although they promised if they came to power they would get such a treaty. They did nothing to makes times better except to spend enormous sums of the people's money during the time they have been in power.
Now, let me ask. What makes good times ? We may reasonably answer, first,

good crops. Who g<Tve the good crops ? They would like to say they did, hut It was Providence gave the good crops. Providence has given us good crops for several years past, and we are reaping to-day the results of these crops. But X think the most sanguine of the supporters of the government would hardly have the audacity to stand up and say that the government were in any respect responsible for the good crops. The next thing to cause good times are good prices. The supply and demand the world over regulate prices. Owing to the hard times w,e had for several years before this government came to power, the large surplus of manufactured goods in the country which had accumulated from over-production was used up, and a better demand arose for our products, then values went up and better prices obtained; then the people had a larger return for their labour and consequently enjoyed good times. There was also better employment for labour, because, following a cycle of hard times, better times prevailed in the United States and in Europe, as well as in Canada, and of course we had better times. But that was not at all in consequence of the management of the present government, they had nothing to do with it, but X say, it was the natural consequence of good times following a cycle of bad times, when consumption had overtaken production, and when manufacturers were therefore prepared to go on again, and the people on their part were ready to absorb the heavy output of the mills and factories of the country. There was a better market for labour, because there was an increased demand for labour all over the world, and that also helped to make good times. Then we have to fall back on the one single item in which, as I admit, the government may take credit for having contributed to good times, and that is by the heavy expenditure of money that they have made.
What have they done ? They have expended very heavily and very liberally throughout their term of office. I take the gross receipts and expenditures of the country from the time they came into power and the statement is as follows : In 1897 they received $37,829,778, but they expended $42,972,755, very much more than they received. In 1898 they collected $40,556,510, but they expended $45,334,281, showing a very heavy expenditure. In 1899 they collected $46,743,102, but they spent $51,542,635, a- very heavy expenditure. In 1900 they collected $51,031,466, but they spent that year $52,717,466. In 1901 they collected $52,516,332, but they spent $57,982,866. And in the year 1902 they will have collected $52,516,332, but they will have spent $65,250,000. I merely read these figures to let the House and the country see to what an extent they have contributed to good times. They have' contributed to good times by the
heavy expenditures they have made during these six years. I take the six years before they came into power and what do I find ?
I find that the expenditure in 1891 was $40,793,208, in 1892, $42,272,136, in 1893, $40,853,727, in 1894, $43,008,233, in 1895, $42,872,338, and in 1896, $44,096,383. The average expenditure for these six years under the Conservative administration was $42,316,000, while the average expenditure of the present government for the last six years was $52,633,334 a year, or an expenditure each year of $10,317,204 more for these six years than their predecessors expended in the previous six years when hon. gentlemen now on the other side of the House said that the expenditure was $4,000,000 too high. When we consider the $10,000,000 of an expenditure over and above the average expenditure of the predecessors of-hon. gentlemen we can easily see how it has helped to some extent in creating good times and giving employment to labour. If you put that amount of money into circulation every year throughout the country, $10,000,000 more than their predecessors spent, it is bound to bring about better times. Then I say that this is the only particular in which these hon. gentlemen have assisted in bringing about better times than those which existed formerly. Although they said that the expenditure of their predecessors was $4,000,000 too high, they have expended $10,000,000 a year more than their predecessors during the last six years.
Now, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) treats us to a lot of figures concerning the trade and commerce of the country to show that the financial transactions of the country all point to good times. We do not dispute that, so it is quite unnecessary to waste time as to that. There is no doubt about that. We agree with him and we are as much pleased as the hon. gentleman is that such a showing is able to be made at the present time. But, what we do take exception to is his manipulation of the figures and the selection of the periods which he made for his comparison with the showing which he made for his own party. The ingenuity displayed by the hon. gentleman is worthy a magician, for, if you look at it, you cannot help but be struck by the ingenuity of the hon. gentleman, although it is not what we would expect from a Minister of Finance. In making his comparison in regard to the annual increase of the debt he said that under the Conservative party which was in power for 18 years, the average increase in the debt during that time was $6,563,075 a year, while, under the Liberal party, during the six years which they have been in power, the average increase of the debt was $1,996,514 a year. He took in one instance 18 years and in the other six years. But he forgot to tell the House and the country that in those 18 years there were included five or six years of the very worst times that Canada has

experienced. In our county, on account of the drought, the people were obliged to sell their cattle at from $5 a head upwards to keep them from starving. There was no food for them. The people were bringing feed all the way from the Ottawa valley. The province of Ontario was in a most abject condition on account of the drought which prevailed that season and in addition to this there was a bad season before this one and a bad season succeeding it. During these three years the crops were destroyed, yet the hon. Minister of Finance compares these three years with three of the most prosperous years during the time that the present government has been in power and thinks that the comparison is a fair one. Then, he takes the public debt, and what is contained in that ? There is included the operations of these six years. He stops at the very year when there is a small addition to the debt of $2,000,000. He tells us that before this year is out he will have to add $6,000.000 more to the debt, and he tells us as well that he has $6,000,000 of borrowed capital from the banks, for which we have to pay 3J per cent interest, and which is due on the 1st of July. Why did he not add that to his statement of the debt ? It is borrowed, it has been spent, and we must borrow money to pay it. It should' have been added to the debt, and if he had done that what would have been the result ? The result would have been that the average increase of the debt during this six-year period, instead of being as he says, $1,996,514, would have been $2,332,567. That is what the House and the country should have been told, because the hon. gentleman should not have undertaken to deceive the country. He knows that the money is spent, he knows that this $6,000,000 which have been borrowed to meet the expenditure will be due in a few months. We are now in March and there are only April, May and June until the year is up. When the year is up he will have to add this $6,000,000 to the debt, and he will have to provide $6,000,000 to pay the temporary loan which he has borrowed from the bank and on which he is paying 34 per cent interest. He did not tell the House or the country that, but he tried to make the House and the country believe that he had only increased the debt to the small extent of $1,996,514 a year. He forgot to tell the people of this country that in these 18 years were included these three years during which were incurred the heavy expenditure on capital account for the Canadian Pacific Railway-1884. 1885 and 1886. We spent In 1884, $23,695,135 on capital account, nearly all of which went for the Canadian Pacific Railway. In 1885 we spent $14,245,841 on capital account, and in 1886, $26,751,414. the year in which we took back from the Canadian Pacific Railway land for which we gave them $10,195,520 of money to help


Thomas Simpson Sproule: tide them over the temporary embarrassment in their financial condition. He forgot to tell the people that these were included in these eighteen years to make up the average increase in the debt of the Conservative party of $6,000,000, whereas, according to the hon. gentleman, their increase is not quite $2,000,000 a year.
That was an unfair thing for the Minister of Finance to do. It was something that the people of this country and the members of this House did not expect from him. It is a most ingenious, way of presenting figures, but it is an unfair way. It reminds me of an incident I once heard on the platform. A gentleman was quoting figures which were about as unfair as those quoted by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, and this man said :	I challenge any man
to contradict me :	these are figures and
figures don't lie. The reply came : No. but liars will figure. When a man in the high position of the Finance Minister places such misleading figures before the country, he is doing a great injustice to his opponents, and he is doing less than justice to his own friends because when the electorate discover the deception they will be likely to visit their indignation on the Finance Minister and on the party he belongs to. Take the expenditure of these three years on capital account, and it will run up the public debt at an average of $3,593,000 a year for eacli year of the 18 years. But the Finance Minister spreads the deficit over 18 years, whereas if he had taken out these three exceptional years the increase under the Conservative government would be only $3,454,000 a year instead of $6,000,000. Does the Minister of Finance think that he has done his full duty in hiding these facts from the House ? I repeat that his arrangement of these figures is very unfair, and we would have expected better from him. The Minister of Finance claims that his government since they came into power have had aggregate surpluses amounting to $19,000,000. Well, what of that ? Did they put these surpluses to good use. If that aggregate surplus were applied to reducing the public debt it would have made an admirable showing for them, but the fact is that their extravagant expenditure has used up all these surpluses, and instead of reducing the public debt as they should have done, they have increased it. But the Finance Minister did not tell the country that. Not at all. It would not have suited his purpose.	[DOT]
The comparison which the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) made with regard to our trade with Great Britain was also unfair. He wanted to show that the tariff preference his government had given to England had increased our trade with Great Britain, and had resulted in some substantial good to the mother country, but the figures which he quoted to prove this were tainted with the same defect of unfairness.

When he mentioned the figures of our trade with Great Britain, I asked the hon. gentleman if he would be good enough to give us the figures of our trade with the United States, because I knew that if he did so they would show that the proportionate increase of our trade with the United States was greater than it was with Great Britain. and therefore that his whole argument would have been destroyed. But what was the reply of the Finance Minister ? He said that I had asked him the same question exactly at the same stage of the budget speech last year, and he did not answer it then nor would he answer it now. If the Finance Minister desired to be fair why did he not reply. In that respect his argument was defective and again it was unfair. But I willl supply the figures for the Finance Minister, and I think they will convince the House that his government cannot pride themselves much on the alleged benefits which the preferential tariff has conferred on Great Britain. Our import trade with Great Britain in 1898. under the preferential tariff, was $27,000,000. and with the United States it was $43,000,000. In 1899 our trade with Great Britain under the preference was $37,000,000, and with the United States it w'as $54,000,000. In 1900 our trade with Great Britain under the preference was $37,000,000, and with the United States it was $02,000,000. In 1901, when Great Britain was receiving the full benefit of the preferential tariff, our trade with Great Britain had dropped from $37,985,000 in 1900 to $37,270,000 in 1901, -while during the same period our trade with the United States had increased from $62,000,000 in 1900 to $05,500,000 in 1901. The Finance Minister did not tell the people of the country that. The only conclusion that can be drawn from such a state of affairs is that the preference which the government have been boasting has done so much for the mother country, has done absolutely nothing at all for the mother country. On the other had, it has'done a great injustice to the manufacturer's of Canada, and it lias helped the labouring men in Germany who are sending goods here through the ports of Great Britain to get the benefit of the preference, and to sell their goods in Canada to the detriment of our own working people. But the Finance Minister told us that we had a large revenue now. Yes, we have a large revenue and we have a large expenditure as well. While the revenue is very large on the one hand, the expenditure is very large on the other, and there is no saving on that account. The policy of this government has been that the larger the revenue they get, the greater the expenditure they make. When the people are told by this government that they have collected $10,000,000 a year more than did their predecessors, and that they have had a surplus of over $3,000,000 a year, the people will naturally expect that that surplus should be applied to reducing the national debt. But the people can ask in
vain for that to be done. The surplus has not gone to reduce the national debt; it has been wiped out by extravagant expenditure. No matter how much taxes this government collects from the people the debt runs up year after year, and there is no lessening of the burdens of taxation. If I were to ask in my county of a farmer there : What do you think of your neighbour who had good crops for the last six years, who got good prices for the products he sold, but who still increases the mortgage of $1,000 which he had on his farm. Suppose I said : This farmer has made more money by several hundred dollars a year than he ever made before, but he has been adding a hundred dollars a year to the mortgage ; it was $1,000 the first year, $1,100 the next year, $1,200 the next year, $1,300 the next year, and at the end of six years during which time he had better crops than ever before and larger returns, the mortgage was $1,600. Suppose I asked what do you think of that kind of a farmer. Surely the reply would be : That man must soon go to the poor-house, because if he cannot reduce the mortgage during good times he can never hope to do so in bad times. Well, the Finance Minister is administering the affairs of this country somewhat on a par with that improvident farmer. During all these good years when he has taken $10,000,000 a year more out of the pockets of the people, he did not reduce the mortgage, but on the contrary added to it to the extent of $3,000,000 a year. That is what a farmer would call very improvident farming, and that is the kind of thing that would compel the farmer who would do that, to lose his farm and clear out of the country. Let us apply the same principle to a merchant. During the last five years he has done a larger business, and made larger profits, but nevertheless he has not saved a cent, and his expenses have been running up all the time. The creditors of such a merchant would naturally say : Go into insolvency ; you are not fit to control a business ; your whole management proclaims that you are in no sense of the wrord a business man. If you cannot pay off vour indebtedness during good times, it is utterly impossible for you to, maintain your standing in hard times, and the result will be that sooner or later you must go into insolvency, because you are bankrupt. The same thing is true of a country, and that must be the result of the way in which [DOT]be lion, the Finance Minister has managed the affairs of the country for the past five years.	,
He goes on to tell us that there are heavy liabilities maturing in the next few years which must be provided for. In 1903 there are liabilities falling due to the amount of $9,733,000. Suppose we have hard times and money becomes scarce and the rate of interest goes up, and the hon. gentleman goes into the money market to borrow. Our credit will not be so good as it would be if we had saved ill good times. But instead of

saving the surplus which he has had from year to year and applying it on the debt, he is increasing the expenditure and adding large sums to the debt. In 1904 he says he will have to provide for $20,926,000. Is he likely to do that successfully if hard times come ? What is he doing to-day to improve the credit of the country ? He told us that the credit of Canada was not quite as good to-day as it was when he negotiated the last loan.


Mr. EDWARDS.: - He did not say that. He said that the condition of the money market [DOT] was not quite as good.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He said it could not be expected that our securities, quoted along side of British consols, would show as well now as they did then, because the condition of the money market is not as good. What is that but saying that our credit does not stand as high ? If our securities will not sell at as high a figure, our credit cannot be as good. The hon. gentleman, knowing that he must within the next two years provide for obligations amounting to $30,000,000, goes on with his extravagant expenditure, and makes no provision for these heavy obligations. If the day of adversity comes and we are likely to have bad times in the near future, because the cycle of bad times follows the cycle of good times as surely as night follows day-we shall be obliged to pay dear for it.
The hon. Minister of Finance said that the Postmaster General had made a favourable showing in his department, and was entitled to a great deal of credit. He said :
* Look what he has done, he has thrown off one-third of the postage and yet has made the Post Office Department almost self-sustaining.' The Postmaster General was in my riding in the last election, and said there that when the Liberals came to power there was a deficit of $700,000 in the Post Office Department, but he had wiped it out and made the department self-sustaining. I said at a meeting at the same place that the department was to-day over $300,000 behind, and I was flatly contradicted by a gentleman in the audience, who said that the Postmaster General would not lie. How much was the deficit last year ? The Minister of Finance referred to it, but he did not tell us how much it was.. It was $461,000. That is the way the Post Office Department has been made self-sustaining. How did the Postmaster General succeed in making a good showing for a year or two ? He did it, to Canada's disgrace, by getting out the Jubilee stamps, which he sold for $300,000 or $400,000 ; and the money came out of people who got no return for it in the world.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Out of his dupes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Out of his dupes, as my hon. friend says ; and he put the money into the treasury to wipe out the deficit,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: and then boasted that he had made a splendid showing by his economy and that in future the Post Office Department would be self-sustaining. My opponent and also the reform paper in my riding said the same thing. As I have shown, there was last year a deficit of $488,000 on the Intercolonial Railway and a deficit of $461,000 in the Post Office Department. That is the economy, the good management of these hon. gentlemen.
We have been told that the government have been very successful with their immigration policy. I have here the figures of the number of immigrants they have brought into Canada and what do they show ? But first I will give the amounts of money spent on immigration. The Conservative government, in its last year, spent $120,000 on immigration, which hon. gentlemen opposite said was entirely too much. The year previous the Conservative government spent $127,000. Every year hon. gentlemen opposite were decrying the expenditure on immigration, declaring that it was money thrown away. But in 1896, the first year of the reform government, they spent on immigration $127,000. The next year they spent $261,000, more than double the amount ; the next year they spent $355,000 ; the next year, $434,000 ; and the next year, 1901, $444,729. They declared, when the Conservative government were in power, that $120,000 was too much to spend on immigration, that it was money thrown away ; and yet in six years they have run the expenditure up to nearly four times that amount. These are the men of economy. They boast of the large number of immigrants they have brought into the country-16,800 in 1896 and 49,000 in 1901 ; but remember that they spent four times as much money in 1901 while there are not four times as many immigrants brought in. So that they have no right to take any credit to themselves for any great good they have done to the country in this respect. An hon. gentleman draws my attention to the quality of the immigrants. As that subject has been very ably and fully dealt with already, I need do no more than remind the House and the country that in bringing in Doukhobors, Galicians, Poles and Finns, the government will not elevate the standard of civilization in this country. If there is any fusion of these people with the Anglo-Saxon race, the effect must be to lower the high standard of our people. This is not the kind of immigration that this country requires, and I was glad to hear the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) condemn it in strong language the other evening.
Every word he said with regard to it was entitled to respect in this House and the country. How did hon. gentlemen opposite run up that heavy expenditure V They ran it up largely in paying salaries. When they came into office, we had in Great Britain, Ireland, on the continent and

in the United States agents and we paid out in salaries $15,000. How many did we have in that year, when these hon. gentlemen took office ? We had eleven, and we paid them salaries amounting to $15,000. The next year they had forty-three, and paid them in salaries $30,497. The year following the number was thirty-nine, and the salaries $35,728. The year after that they had thirty agents, and paid them $36,294. Then the next year, the number was raised to forty-three, and the salaries increased to $40,570. So that from $15,000, which was the amount paid in the last year of the late government, the expenditure was increased to $40,500. And that only represents the amount paid to the salaried agents. Over and above those, there are 250 agents in the United States who are working on commission. These hon. gentlemen boast about the results they have accomplished in immigration, but taking into account the additional number of agents they employ and the vast increase in the expenditure and the quality of the immigrants they have brought in, the country will be inclined to give them blame rather than credit for the policy they have pursued.
Towards the close of his budget speech, the hon. Minister of Finance let us into a little secret. He told us that he had decided not to touch the tariff. Some people, he said, were complaining, but on the whole the tariff was doing justice to all. And he told us this, knowing well that by his preferential tariff with England the woollen men were being forced to the wall, the operators forced out of employment, their mills kept on short time, some working on less than half time, and their output largely reduced. Deputations had waited on the minister and made to him the strongest representations; but in the hardness of his heart he decided to do nothing. Neither will he do anything for the lumbermen, who pleaded to have the tariff raised in their interests. Nor will he do anything for the agriculturalists, although he told them how much he intended doing for them when in power. And he will give nothing to the implement manufacturers, notwithstanding the fact that last year nearly $2,000,000 of machines were imported from the United States, thus displacing our own to that extent, to the advantage of the American agriculturalists, to whom the labourers employed in these American implement factories furnish a home market. Nor will he do anything for the beet-root sugar men, notwithstanding the importance of that industry. He has allowed them to bring in their machinery free of duty for one year, but refuses to do anything more. He will neither give them a bounty nor raise the duty on imported sugar, and if that industry cannot succeed with the advantages it has, it may die. He is determined not to give it any bounty to keep it alive. 1 ask
why not do for the beet-root sugar men what he has done for the iron and steel men ? Is the farmer not as Important as the iron men ? If a bounty were paid on the manufacture of beet-root sugar, the farmers would get 60 cents of every dollar invested in that industry. But the hon. gentleman stiffens his neck and hardens his heart, when the agricultural industry is in question, and says he will do nothing.
Then we had a valedictory address from the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright). We had heard threatening and mutterings of thunder for some days previous. When the hon. the Minister of Public Works was giving out his views as a protectionist, we tided to draw out the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and did succeed in drawing him outf to this extent, that he told us the time would come when he should pronounce himself with no uncertain sound. That day came and with it came his valedictory address, for we are told that that was the last time we should hear his melodious voice in this House on the tariff. These hon. gentlemen opposite kept his mouth closed the last six years, and if they thought they were going to the country very shortly, they would have muzzled him again. The hon. gentleman has been obliged to be silent all these years and content himself with simply drawing his salary in a position, which he himself declared was an utterly useless one. He told us that he was a free trader on principle, that he had never changed his views, and that those who had changed theirs were going on a very unsound principle. Then he proceeded to give us some information about Conservative scandals, and even brought poor old Thomas Mc-Greevy out of his grave. If anything could show how uncomfortable the hon. gentleman must be in his present position it was this seeking to revive again a dead issue in the person of Thomas McGreevy, who has long ago gone to answer for whatever sins he may have committed. The hon. gentleman gave us an epitaph appropriate to McGreevy, but I think it would have been more appropriate had he given the House an epitaph that would have suited his own career and demise. I think that when the hon. gentleman does leave the political stage, his country would be disposed to put on his tomb stone the epitaph which a Cornishman placed over his departed wife, only changing the name :
My wife is dead, here she lies,
Nobody laughs, and nobody cries,
Where rhe has gone and how she fares, Nobody knows and nobody cares.
The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce went on to discuss the census and to revamp his old favourite argument about the census of 1891. But in telling us how disappointing it was, he forget to say anything about the cost. What did the census of 1891 cost ? It cost $532,000 all told. And

the Minister of Finance told us the other day that on the present census we have already spent $948,510, and there is a lot more in the estimates. I am told that the expenditure will amount to over one and a quarter million dollars before we are through with It, so that while the census of 1891 only cost the country half a million dollars, the present census will cost over a million and a quarter. The hon. gentleman was careful to say nothing about that. He said that the last census taken was a better one. Well, so it ought to be, for It cost so much more. Why, there are twice as many enumerators, and the expenditure is still going on.
The hon. gentleman next took up the exodus. He said that the census was most dishonestly taken in 1891. He gave no evidence whatever, but simply made this gratuitous statement, insulting these 350 people who were sworn to do their duty, and who, I believe, did honestly do their duty. Many of these men were just as honest, I am sure, as he was, just as desirous of doing right and of acting conscientiously as the hon. gentleman ever was. He insulted them, declared publicly before the world, in effect, that they were dishonest, that they were untruthful, that they were perjurers, in that they had fraudulently and dishonestly packed the census. And what have they done this for, according to the hon. gentleman ? To make a good showing for the Conservative party and to prove that the national policy had done a great deal for the industries of this country. The hon. member for Pictou reminded him that this could not be the case, because the election of 1891 was over before the taking of the census began. The hon. gentleman went on to dilate upon the exodus. What brought about the exodus ? he asks. When he told us that the exodus was great during the time when the Conservatives were in power, my mind followed the same train of thought as that of the hon. member for Pictou. I thought it was not hard to find out what was the cause of that exodus. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) himself told us that he had travelled five times the length of Canada and had talked to hundreds of thousands of people dilating on the curse of the national policy and of advantage of free trade, and trying to educate the people up to the belief that Canada was a most undesirable place, that the Elysian fields lay to the south, and that the worst thing for Canada was the national policy. Was it a wonder that the people took the hon. gentleman at his word ? Was it a wonder that they came to the conclusion that Canada was not a good place to live in, and so left for the United States in hundreds and thousands ? But he did not content himself with lecturing and speaking to the people who came to hear him in different parts of the country. He mad< known his


Thomas Simpson Sproule: views to the people abroad. X have here ' The Economist,' of the 13th of Ifebruray, 1892, with an article signed Richard J. Cartwright. Here are the opinions of the hon. gentleman given over his own name. The hon. gentleman was blaming the Conservative party for not bringing in immigrants. Now, this article was going to the very place whence we desire to draw immigrants, and this is what the article says :
But it is not equally well known on your side of the Atlantic that it has become painfully apparent for some time back, to every one who has been at the pains to examine the evidence which has accumulated on the subject, that, even in that comparatively short space of time, this most ill-advised policy-
This refers to the national policy

-has resulted in a tremendous exodus of the very choicest portion of the population of Canada, and in a very grave depreciation in the selling value of farm lands and of town and village property throughout all the older sections of the Dominion, including Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward.
The hon. gentleman says that there is an exodus, but he had been for years before telling the people that Canada was not a desirable country to live in, because people were ground down with taxes :
This has been accompanied, as is usual in such cases by an immense increase in the aggregate indebtedness of the Dominion in the shape of large additions to its federal, provincial and municipal debts, and also to the mortgage debts incurred by private individuals, and liabilities incurred for the construction of railroads-by lar the greater part of all which obligations are held abroad.
Briefly, in these thirteen vears, there has been a great displacement of wealth, caused mainly by artiilcial legislation but (as regards the older provinces) absolutely no increase at all of the collective wealth of the community. Two or three cities and perhaps a score of towns, have increased considerably, and a few hundred individuals (who have been privileged to tax their fellows for their private advantages) have grown rich by this system of legalized robbery; but the great mass cf the population and ^otably the agriculture class are distinctly poorer and less prosperous than they were twelve years ago.
VVe bad been inviting the English farmers to come out and settle in our country, but the hon. gentleman steps in and says : Consider the condition of the country you are asked to go to. Were they likely to come after what the hon. gentleman said ? This article was copied in the newspapers all over England, and it was copied in the newspapers of the continent of Europe, the very places where we were looking for immigrants.
Take the returns of the recent census. New Brunswick, with an area of 30,000 square miles inhabited by about 60,000 families has added just sixty-one souls to her population from 1881 to 1891.
Then he goes on to speak of Nova Scotia.
I do not wish to go over the whole argu-

ment. It is interesting, but largely in the same line. He goes on to say :
As to the amount of taxation, the agriculture class has been simply bled white.
Over and above the taxes actually paid into the Dominion treasury to be expended for so called federal purposes, they have been mulcted during all these years tinder tho protein v.; system of at least an equal amount, which is either totally wasted or goes Into the pockets of a very small number of protected manufacturers.
The exact amount evied, or, to speak more accurately* pilaged, in this way can hardly be estimated; but it is known not to be less than a sum fully equal to the entire amount credited to the treasury, and probably mu* exceeds it. In fact, the Canadian tariff (which has been, in the most literal manner dictated by the protected manufacturers) is so constructed that there ara innumerable cases in which for each single dollar paid into the treasury, three, four, five, and even ten dollars are taken out of the pockets of the consumer; nay, in many instances the tax is made absolutely prohibitive, so that the public are heavily taxed without any benefit to the revenue.
Then lie goes on to speak of the duty on sugar, and proceeds :
Taken altogether, it Is well within the mark to say that while the present nominal amount of the taxation of the Dominion is about thirty-one millions of dollars, the genuine actual taxation, i.e., the sum taken out cf the pockets of the people for the benefit of the manufacturers In addition to that paid into the treasury is certainly not le33 and is probably a good deal more than sixty millions.
That is over and above the amount actually taken for revenue purposes. Is it any wonder that we did not get immigrants or that the people left the country ? The hon. gentleman goes on :
It would be well if this were all, but, unfortunately, the economic results of the protective system adopted by Canada in 1879, grieyous as they are, fado almost into insignificance compared with the moral and political pollution it has brought in its train.
Then he says :
One thing, I think, ought to be clear to all intelligent Englishmen, and that is, that it is utterly impossible that Canada can prosper under her present condition-isolated and in danger of being still more completely isolated from the trade and commerce with the entire continent to which she belongs geographically, losing her population at the rate of one million and a half in ten years (if the official statements of the present government are to be relied upon) and subject, at the same time, to a system of taxation and of organized political corruption such as you have happily been strangers to since the days of Walpole or Charles II.
Then he goes on to say :
The Liberal party of Canada, and, indeed, the great bulk of the people of the Dominion wish well to the_mother country, and it is very far from their desire to do anything which in the long run can injure her interests, but their duty in the premises is plain.
As Canadians, they must consult the advantage of Canada first, and if it he,-as it appears
to them it is beyond all possible controversy-' for the best moral and material 'nterests of Canada to form a commercial treaty which will ensure perfect free trade with the United States, you on your side must be content to allow them to try the experiment. It is, and always has been, my own very strong desire that this measure should be so conducted that it might ultimately result in removing all possible causes of conflict between the two great divisions of the British race, and end in bringing them together in a firm and durable alliance.
That is, the Americans and us. Mr. Blake said it would bring them together in a firm manner, because if they ever succeeded in getting it, it must ultimately result not only in commercial union but in political union. He goes on to say ;
I see every reason to hope that that end may be accomplished; but, whether or no, I see still more clearly that some very radical change in the position of affairs in Canada must be brought about, and that very speedily, or else that the Canadian confederation must perish, rotten before it has had time to become even half ripe, as the result of the vice and folly with which its affairs have been administered.
This is the information he gives the people in England. Then he goes on to say ;
But in truth the question between the two Canadian parties is in reality an economic one, and in the long run resolves itself into this- shall Canada be governed for the benefit of the people of Canada, or for the profit of a few hundred protected manufacturers, backed by a subsidized press and a purchased majority in the legislature ? To talk of loyalty in1 such a connection is little short of political blasphemy, and I can only express my surprise that such a shallow subterfuge should have obtained even a momentary credence in .the mind of any Englishman of even average intelligence.
I iaav? the honour to remain,
Your obedient servant, RICHARD J. CARTWRIGHT. That Is the hon. gentleman who, as I say, for 18 years went up and down this country declaring that a protective policy was ruining it, was bleeding the farmers white, was taking $60,000,000 out of the pockets of the people for every $30,000,000 that was gathered in revenue, and that the only solution was commercial union with the people of the United States. And yet we are told that he sat on that Joint High Commission, and if the information we have is correct, when he was offered unrestricted commercial union with the people of the United States, he had not the hardihood to accept it. When we get these papers we will no doubt find that to be the case. But, as I say, the policy which he declared Canada required, and which he preached for years to the people of Canada and to the people of the mother country, that very policy, when it was offered to him, he dare not accept. Then what will the people of Canada think of his integrity, think of his intelligence, think of his consistency ? I am afraid they will not give him much credit for either. Then I take up the ' Economist,' and it comments upon that article :

The Liberal party which Sir Richard thinks is not sufficiently understood in this country, partly as the result of deliberate misrepresentation. That policy he states Ties in introducing a system of perfect continental free trade, or unrestricted reciprocity with the United States.'
The ' Economist ' goes on to say :
Such a commercial union with the States as he proposes would not ultimately be prejudicial to Great Britain. Even if it were otherwise, however, 'as Canadians they must consult the advantage of Canada first, and if it be-as it appears to them it is beyond all possible con-troversey-for the best moral and material interests of Canada' to effect such a union, we on our side must be content to let them try the experiment.
Such in brief are the commercial policy Sir Richard Cartwright advocates and the reasons' he urges for its adoption. That it is a wise policy we cannot however admit.
Now then I read that for the purpose of letting the people of Canada see why we did not get immigrants. The fact is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his friends, during all those years, were educating the people of Canada to believe that Canada was not a fit place to live in, and the result was that in many constituencies their electors believed them and left the country in such large numbers that when the election came around in 1891 they were defeated, defeated as I believe in consequence of the education which had been given the people by the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself when he was travelling up and down the country, as he told us the other night he had travelled from one end of Canada to the other. Is it to be wondered at that the people left the country, that we did not get immigrants from England or Ireland, or Scotland, or the continent ? Why, this letter was reproduced in different parts of the United States to show the inferior conditions prevailing in Canada, and I am told the Yankees had the photograph of the hon. minister on the top of the letter, showing that the United States was the most desirable country for immigrants to go to, and that Canada was the last place in the world for them to go to. That is the work of the hon. member for South Oxford, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who gave us his valedictory address the other night
Well, we are told by these hon. gentleman that it is impossible to do anyfhing to protect the farmer, because, they say, if the farmer has more than he can use he must send the surplus abroad, and as long as he has a surplus you cannot protect him. I heard the hon. member for Russell say the same the other night, and I heard another hon. member from the west say the same thing. I ask the attention of the House for a moment to the result of the duty that was put on pork in 1890. I looked at the quantity of pork brought into the country in 1887, 1888 and 1889. I find that during those three years before the Mr. SPROULE.
duty was put on, 72,480,606 pounds of pork and pork products were brought into Canada. After putting on a duty of 2 cents a pound on cured meats and 3 cents on fresh meats, what was the result ? During the three years subsequent, instead of 72,000,000 pounds being brought in, only 25,000,000 pounds were brought in, about one-third of what it was before. Then can you not protect the farmer ? Can you not do him some good ? Pork is one of the lines which the farmer depends on in this county, one of the lines out of which he makes his money ; and while this immense quantity of pork was being brought into this country to feed the labouring men, the lumbermen and the fishermen, the Canadian farmer was obliged to find a market for his pork in Britain and to deduct the cost of transport from the profits he would have received if he could have sold his pork at home. We find to-day that only a few thousand pounds are coming into this country instead of the millions of pounds that were coming in before. I find that in 1878, years before that duty was put on, the amount brought in was 17,717,628 pounds. Take 1895, a year or two after it was put on, and only 4,259,697 pounds was brought in. Now the conditions were much the same, and the amount of imports would doubtless have increased every year had it not been for the duty. In face of these facts will any one say that the farmers of Canada cannot be protected ? If hon. gentlemen opposite believe that, why don't they take the duty off pork to-day ? They dare not do it; yet they have the hardihood to tell the farmers that they cannot be protected, that you cannot increase the value of his product by putting on a duty, because, as long as he has a surplus to export, the home market is no better for him than a foreign market.
I said at the beginning of my speech that there was no agreement between hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to what trade policy this country should adopt. The Minister of Finance has one policy, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has another policy, the Minister of Public Works has a totally different one. One wants free trade, another protection and another a revenue tariff. The hon. gentleman who spoke last said he was in favour of a revenue tariff. What is a revenue tariff ? It was a protective tariff under the old government, but it is called a revenue tariff under the present government. Yet, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce denounced that for years as legalized robbery. Then, if we take some of the members of the party of hon. gentlemen opposite, we find, as for instance the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd), that they are in favour of protection. Each one is in favour of protecting a line of industry in which he, himself, is interested. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) is in favour of the protection of labour, in favour of keeping out Chinamen and Japanese. He is Id

favour of protecting the labourers in so far as keeping out that servile labour that comes into competition with our own labourers is concerned, and he is in favour of protection to labour so far as keeping out the products of servile, or convict, labour is concerned. But, he will not go any further. He is only in favour of protection for the line in which he is most interested. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Morrison) was a member of a deputation that came to Ottawa to ask that a duty be put on lumber, yet he is not in favour of protection. He is only in favour of protection on lumber. There is no settled or definite policy with hon. gentlemen opposite. Their ministry have no agreement. We have always been told that cabinet ministers ought to be agreed upon the same thing, that there should not be any diversity of opinion amongst them, because if they disagree with each other they ought to resign. Why does not the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) resign. He is one of the most out-and-out protectionists in Canada to-day. If this policy prevails, why does not the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce resign, because his policy is the antipodes of it V They have all agreed to hang together but they have no definite policy except to hold on to office and divide the spoils. They will hold on to office as long as they can and as long as there are any spoils to divide. They say that they have a transportation policy. We have heard of that for six years. It is as indefinite to-day as ever it was. They were going to build up Montreal, going to make a fine harbour there, going to build elevators, and they were going to do wonderful things, but they are living in the future, and that policy is indefinite to-day. At that time they were going to extend the work on the Welland canal, they were going to improve Port Colborne, the Rideau ' canal, the St. Lawrence canal, they were going to improve the French river and the harbours of the Georgian bay, but they have no definite or fixed policy and there is no agreement between them as to what their policy is to be. They have no national pride. If they have they have never shown it. They have no national aspiration. If they have they have not shown it and they do not give the people any evidence of it. National aspiration and ambition have no attraction for them. There is no union amongst them. They proclaim themselves as loyal, yet, they are afraid to say that they are in favour of Great Britain. The right hon. Prime Minister, tells us that he is going home to the coronation ceremony. He told the House a few days ago that he has been invited to go to England, and while there to consider the question of Imperial defence, but. he says he does not want to do it and he refuses to do it. Yet he will go over there and tell them about his loyalty, and he will be put in the
front rank of the celebration as he was at the jubilee. He is right in the band wagon as representing the first colony in the empire, yet, he tells us that he will not go home and discuss Imperial defence.


Thomas Osborne Davis: He won't go home till morning.
Mr. SPROtJLE. I am inclined to think that with this situation and what the people think of it he will be inclined to stay out all night and think it over till morning. The opposition have a definite policy. They have a policy that is embodied in the resolution now before the House. Will any one say that they are not agreed on that policy ? Hon. members will see when the vote comes that we are all agreed upon it. Has there been one dissenting voice in this House raised in objection to that policy ? Is it not concrete enough ? I think it will suit the most fastidious. Put it alongside of the various and diversified policies that hon. gentlemen opposite have had.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What duty will you put on coal oil ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Our policy is a protective policy in the interests of the people of the country. What did the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) do ? He told the people that when he was brought to power he would take the duty off coal oil. There is a duty on coal oil to-day. The hon. gentleman did not keep his word. He was either dishonest then or he is untruthful now, because he told the people that he would take the duty off coal oil and he has not done it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What duty are you going to put on ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The policy that we have submitted to this House and to the country aims at keeping Canada for the Canadians.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: How much duty on coal oil ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It aims at building up and developing Canada on broad national lines, not upon sectional lines as does the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite. It aims at keeping the market of Canada for Canada's own people and not giving it to the people of the United States, or the people of Germany or to the people even of England. Our first duty is to look after the interests of our own people. It aims at protecting the labour of the country, it aims at protecting the manufacturers of the country and not allowing this country to be made a slaughter market for the surplus products of foreign countries. It aims at protecting the mechanics of the country, at developing the mining industries of the country and lastly it aims at protecting the most important class of all, the farmers of the country on the lines I have indicated. This is our policy. I claim that it is a

definite policy and one that in my judgment will commend itself to the respect of the people of Canada. Put that beside the vaccilating policy that the government have carried out for the last six years and it will compare favourably in any part of the country. We have no reason to be afraid or ashamed of it. We are prepared to stand up in favour of it in any part of the country and to tell the people that this is the policy that Canada requires and that the statesmen found among the opposition in this House will be prepared to carry it out just as soon as they are returned to power.


Thomas Osborne Davis: 
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: They are going to have both now.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I suppose they will have both, but it will be a long time before they have a chance of interfering with the tariff in any way. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) told us that the Conservatives were not able to get settlers in the Northwest and Manitoba because of the speeches made by Sir Richard Cartwright. If the hon. gentleman looks at the record he will find that there was immigration to a certain extent when the Conservatives were in power, but when the census of 1891 was taken it was found that these people had evaporated, and the reason was, not because of the speeches of Sir Richard Cartwright, but because they were starved out under the Conservative policy and had to leave the country. The hon. gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Bell) tried to dispute the

statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that the census of 1891 had been padded, and he took up the voters' lists of Ontario to prove this. But the hon. gentleman forgot that In the meantime that beautiful franchise Act under which the Conservatives got votes from the graveyards and from the United States had been done away with, and that the names of the Indians had been taken off the lists, which would account for the decrease in numbers in 1901 as compared with 1891. And now as to the tariff. How remarkable is the change of front these hon. gentlemen have made with regard to the tariff ? When the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) brought down the tariff in 1897, Sir Charles Tupper, then leader of the Conservative party declared that it would ruin the industries of Canada although there was then only a 121 per cent preference. A11 his lieutenants backed him up in this declaration. Next session these gentlemen raked up the old stock arguments about hard times and soup kitchens, but when they found that their prophesies did not turn out, then the next session they declared that we had adopted their national policy, had stolen their clothes, and the Hon. Geo. E. Foster declared that the Liberal government had only reduced the Conservative tariff to the extent of one sixteenth hundredth of one per cent. Others of these gentlemen opposite said that we had given no preference but that what we did was to put up the tariff and then to reduce it by the preference to the level of the Conservative tariff. Again this year these gentlemen have a new cry and they say that some of our manufacturing industries are going to be ruined, and we have the leader of the opposition moving a new resolution in favour of what he calls ' adequate protection.' Coming as I do from the west where we are perhaps more interested in the tariff than in any other part of the Dominion, I would like to have a statement from the hon. gentleman as to what he means by 'adequate protection.' For my part I think we have ' adequate protection ' now. The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) who represents the woollen industries in this House no doubt thinks that 50 per cent would be ' adequate protection ' on woollens, whereas some of his farmer friends behind him might think that 15 per cent might be adequate enough. I would like the leader of the opposition to come down off his perch and tell us exactly what he means. Does he mean to repeal the preference that is given to Great Britain ? He has not said anything at all about that, although he has skated all around the water-hole, and spoken of a number of industries that are in danger of being ruined. I would like him to tell us also whether he advocates increasing the duties on agricultural implements or on the other necessaries of life if he had the opportunity of doing so ? The hon. leader of the opposition says nothing about his in-56
tentions in these matters. I would like to know what he means by adequate protection ? That might mean a great deal or it might mean nothing at all; it is beautifuUy indefinite. What the people of the Northwest Territories would like to have from the leader of the opposition is a definite statement of exactly what he means. He reminds me of a Yankee pedlar who had only one suit of clothes in his pack. If he called at a house where there was a big man, he said it would suit the man, and if he called at a house where there was only a boy, he said it would fit the boy. This policy of the leader of the opposition is something like that suit of clothes; it is big enough for any man and small enough for any boy; but that Is not what the people of the North-west want.
Mr. Speaker, as it is rather late, and as I want to make a somewhat lengthy address, I would move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the House adjourns, I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance, who is leading the House at this time, a communication which I observe in ' La Patrie ' of this evening. As that paper has somewhat the character of an official organ, I attached more weight to this communication than I would to one in some other newspapers. The communication, which I will translate, is as follows :
I have nothing official, but I am under the impression that if the pending negotiations between Kitchener and the Boers are not successful, a new contingent will be recruited in Canada at the expense of the War Office. It is even said that in case of peace this contingent will serve as police, and will replace troops whom it is desired to retire from active service.
I wish to inquire of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance whether there have been any negotiations or whether any circumstances have taken place to lend any warrant to this communication in ' La Patrie ' ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It would be obviously inconvenient for us to be held answerable for everything that appears in the newspapers, even in so excellent a paper as ' La Patrie.' I would not like to discuss the matter on the basis of a newspaper report, and I think my hon. friend will see that that is a wise and proper course.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, March 25, 1902.