Mr. SPEAKER.: In regard to petitions Nos. 1 to 42, asking aid for the construction of the Montreal bridge, as they involve the expenditure of public money, and in addition as petition marked 41 has not, as required by rule 85, three signatures attached to the prayer, they are out of order. The same thing applies to petitions Nos. 43 and 44 which ask a sum of money to be expended for a harbour of refuge on the Bay of Fundy. These two petitions asking for the construction of that harbour also involve an expenditure of public money and are therefore out of order. The only petition which is in order therefore, is the first one.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 93) respecting the Hudson's Bay and North-west Railway Company-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 94) respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.-Mr. Barker.
Bill (No. 95) to incorporate the Penny Bank.-Mr. Osier.
Bill (No. 96) to incorporate the Manitoba and Keewatin Railway Company-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 97) to incorporate the Dominion Railway and Power Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 98) to incorporate the Montreal * Subway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 99) respecting the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company.- Mr. Demers (St. John and Iberville).
Bill (No. 100) to incorporate the Toronto and Niagara Power Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 101) to incorporate the Nepigou Railway Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 102) to incorporate the Gaspe and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Talbot.
Bill (No. 103) respecting the Lake Champlain and St. Lawrence Ship Canal Company.-Mr. Malouin.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to mention to my right lion, friend that 1 observe a press despatch from Washington yesterday in these terms :
Washington, April 2, 1902. Secretary Hay and Mr. Raikes, secretary of the British- embassy today signed a treaty extending to the British colonies .he provisions of the original treaty between the United States and Great Britain for the preservation of industrial properties.
There was some such treaty more particularly with regard to trade marks in 1877; subsequently a treaty between France and Spain and other nations to which the United States and Great Britain also became parties at a later date. I understood that these two conventions already applied to the British colonies. I would like to know whether my right hon. friend has any information on the subject which he would like to give to the House V


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The government has uo information whatever upon the subject, but of course its attention has been called to the despatch quoted by my hon. friend, and we have asked, and at this moment are expecting information with regard to it. Without having received any such information, I am quite sure of one thing; That whatever treaty has been concluded by Great Britain with the United States, would not



ipso facto apply to the colonies, but that the colonies will be left to decide for themselves whether or not they shall be parties to that agreement whatever it may be.



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 be granted to His Majssty ; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
['I was not present at the committee when this Bill was discussed. Probably the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has had the matter under consideration and if the usual provisions in the bridge Bills are included in this that is all that is necessary. I would suggest that we proceed with the Bill, reserving this one point.\nSubsection C of section 8 allowed to stand.\nProgress reported.']
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney A. Fisher).: Mr. Speaker. At the hour at which I moved the adjournment of the debate last night, it seemed inadvisable to ask the House to listen then to the remarks which I feel it incumbent upon me to make in this debate. I would not have cared to enter into a discussion of the public questions of the day at this time, had it not been for some statements which have been made by gentlemen on the opposite side of the House in regard to two or three matters in which I am somewhat, personally concerned, and in which I have been taking considerable interest during the present administration. Hon. gentlemen opposite have made some statements in this debate which I cannot help characterizing as not only reckless hut rash, inasmuch as *they have shown thereby the lack of study of the condition of affairs and of what has actually occurred under the administration of the present government during the last few years.
First, let me say a word or two in regard to a matter which was brought up by my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), when he spoke a week or two ago in this debate, in regard to certain figures pertaining to the census which has been taken by my department during the past year. Hon. gentlemen opposite alleged that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce had made statements which could not be substantiated, and one hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) undertook to disprove some of those statements, and asked that further proof of them be submitted. I venture to think that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce put this matter in an incontrovertible form before the House, so far as the broad question is concerned. The statements which he made did not go into such detail as could perhaps be called absolute and entire proof on every point; but they were sufficiently detailed. I think, to appeal to the mind of any unprejudiced individual who either heard or read them, and to prove his main contention, which was that the census cf 1801 was unduly swelled in the figures of population, and that therefore


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: comparisons on this point were unfair to the progress and prosperity of Canada during the last decade, and that it was necessary to show that these were unfair, or else the people of the world and the people of our own country, in studying the census, might not understand and appreciate to the full extent the immense progress which Canada has made in the last few years.
Now, Sir, I have under my hand a number of statements which go into greater detail than those submitted by my hon. friend. I venture therefore to supplement what he has stated by placing some of these statements before the House and the country. They are far too voluminous for me to read them all ; but I wish to read some specimen ones, which I have taken very much at random, amongst the many papers which were laid on the Table by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and other statements which I have prepared. My hon. friend from Pictou claimed that in the taking of the census of 1891 extreme care had been taken by the government and the minister in charge of the department at that time to insist that the enumerations should be carefully and accurately made. He pointed out that, in so far as industrial establishments were concerned, the enumerators were instructed to include only those which had an annual output of $200. He therefore concluded that it was only such establishments that were included in the tabulation of the census of 1891, and that it was quite reasonable that industrial establishments yielding an annual output of $200 should be regarded as industrial establishments.
I have under my hand the instructions which were issued to the enumerators in 1891, and I find no such statement in those instructions. There was no instruction given to the enumerators that they should only include industrial establishments which gave an annual output of $200. As a matter of fact, that was the same instruction as was given in 1871, in 1881 and in this last census. I do not quarrel with that instruction, but I want to correct the impression that was conveyed by the remarks of my hon. friend from Pictou.
But, further than that, I find that in these tabulations not only did the enumerators take industrial establishments which had not an annual output of $200, but here in the bureau at Ottawa such establishments were included to a very large number indeed. I have in my hand the third volume of that census, which gives these industrial establishments. I have not undertaken to go through the whole 386 pages of that volume, but I did go through the first 80 pages, and as a specimen I find that in those 80 pages there are 339 industrial establishments included in the tabulation the product of each of which was less than $200- a pretty fair proportion, in fact a very large proportion of the whole number.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: What Is the proportion of the whole number ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not worked out the exact proportion ; but these 339 establishments had a total annual output of $44,500, or an average of $144 for each establishment, instead of $200. This shows that the industrial enumeration was not made on the basis which has been alleged.
But, Sir, there is a much more important part of the tabulation and the enumeration which I also want to go into, that is, for the population. Hon. gentlemen opposite and their friends in the country have been making certain criticisms of the census of 1901. In the first place, I may say that the instructions that were given in 1901 with regard to the enumeration were practically the same as the instructions given in 1891, 1881 and 1871. It is true there was one difference made in the census of 1891, which was pointed out by my hon. friend from Pictou, that difference being that people who had been absent for more than 12 months were not to be enumerated ; and my hon. friend took great credit to the government of that day for taking that precaution and thereby preventing the enumerating of people who had left the country or left the particular-locality permanently. Now, Sir, what have we found ? We have found, by a careful investigation, in so far as it has gone-and it has gone very far indeed in the province of Quebec, and a reasonable distance in the province of Ontario-that if that instruction was given, it was disregarded to such an extent that we must conclude that it was wilfully disregarded. The enumerators, some of them, ignored it entirely ; because I shall be able to show, not by .general statements of the number in the aggregate, but by individual statements, that many individuals and their families were enumerated who had been more than 12 months absent from the place where they were enumerated.


Mr. SPROULE.: May I ask the hon. member a question ? Was not the first question of the enumerator this :	In the event of
any of the members of the family being away, do you expect them to come back ? In the event of their not being expected back, the next question was :	Have they
been away more than a year '? But in the event of the first question being answered in the affirmative, even if they were away five years, the enumerators would be obliged to include them.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There were no such instructions. The instructions were that if they were absent more than twelve months they should be held to be away permanently and should not be put on, but, as a matter of fact, they were put on in 1891 in numerous instances. In the census of 1901 the instructions were
that they should not be put on, and we have no proof or suspicion that any were included who were away more than twelve months.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have taken two positions on this question. First, they claim that the census of 1S91 was correctly taken and then they imply that the census of 1901 was not. The accusation is made that in the province of Quebec, in the census of 1901, the enumeration was excessive, that some people were counted who should not have been, and that in Ontario fewer people were counted than should have been on the schedules. I venture to say that I can prove that in the province of Quebec in 1901 no more people were enumerated than should have been, but that in the census of 1891 names were put on to an enormous extent that should not have been enumerated at all. If, therefore, there is any accusation of favouritism committed by either government in unduly swelling the population of the province of Quebec, that accusation comes with ill grace from Jion. gentlemen opposite, because it was really the late' government which was guilty. Let me cite a few instances just to show how the administration of these hon. gentlemen opposite proceeded in taking the census in 1891. Let me first say that in the investigation which I caused to be made, we found a ready means of obtaining information in the province of Quebec, where there is a large Catholic population. And I took care to have the investigation made in those counties in which the population is practically and .entirely Catholic, and not where there is a large mixed population. My hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) spoke of the counties of Drummond and Arthabaska, in which there is a mixed Catholic and Protestant population, and he argued that the reason of the disparity was that in the parochial census the Protestants were not included, but in the counties where I have had an investigation, the details of which my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce laid on the Table the other day, the county of Drummond and Arthabaska does not appear because we limited our inquiry to those counties where there is a homogeneous Catholic population and where, therefore, the census bulletins should give results similar to the parochial censuses.


Mr. CLANCY.: In every case has the hon. gentleman observed this rule ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Practically.


James Clancy: Practically-that is another thing.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that there is no part of the Dominion, no matter where, where there are not some

people of a different religion from that of the majority, but the numbers are so small in the counties I have alluded to that they can be practically ignored. My hon. friend is not so familiar with the province of Quebec perhaps as some of those who come from that province, and know more about it.
An lion. MEMBER,, ) V e do not know very much about it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is a pity.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, As my right lion, friend says, that is a pity. Comparing the census taken by the late government in 1891 with the parochial statistics, we find that the numbers in the former were in every case much the larger, whereas in the census of 1901 there are four counties, namely, Bellechasse, Bagot, Port-neuf and Lotbiniere, where the parochial statistics are larger than those of the official census. In other words, if any error has been made by the census enumerators in 1901 it is due rather to their having failed to count all the people than to having unduly swelled the numbers.


James Clancy: Were these censuses taken at precisely the same period ?
I find again Norbert Charbonneau, aged 30, and his wife, aged 31, both have left the parish over fifteen years. Their children were also registered in the census of 1891. Aged 5 years, 3 year's, and 9 months respectively.
None of these people ever resided in St. Jean de Matha, yet their names appear in the census schedule.


James Clancy: Was this investigation made under oath ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was made by the parish priests.


James Clancy: That makes no difference.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was made by people who knew the locality and had personal knowledge of the individuals who were living in the parish for years.


Mr. HUGHES (.Victoria).: Mffien were these investigations made ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Last year.


Samuel Hughes: And the fifteen years date from last year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were taken within three months of each other, and the figures I will give afford such glaring and convincing proof that no one can imagine for a moment that any difference could be due to any radical change in the population within that period. In these twenty-one constituencies, to which I have referred, the difference in 1891 between the official census and the parochial censuses is 40,000 to the. advantage of the former, or, very nearly 2,000 per constituency of an excess in the official over the parochial census. But in 1901, on the contrary, the difference is only 8,000, or about 400 per constituency.
I would ask the House to bear with me while I read a few of the details just to show in what way this enumeration was taken in 1891 and what were the results. I have here the returns from the county of Joliette, the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Morin, attested by Dr. Turgeon and Mr. Dugas. 1 am not making any general, statement, but taking individual instances and giving individual proofs, and .here is one of the first instances that I find :
Leon Charbonneau, aged 39, and his wife, aged 36, absent from the parish for at least the last fifteen years. Yet they are registered in the schedule of 1891 as being present and having six children, namely, Joseph, aged 10; Leon, aged 8; Elizabeth, aged 6; Lea, aged 4; Elise, aged 3, and Olive, aged 2. These people have been absent fifteen years, but they and their six children were registered, and not one of these children was born in that county.


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Y'es. But it was only ten years between the two censuses,
Phillippe St. Ama, 34 years, and his wife, Athelia, were enumerated in 1891 though they never resided in St. Jean de Matha. Still they were counted with their four children, aged respectively 9 years, 6 years, T years, and 2 months. That family was absolutely unknown in that parish, never having lived there either temporarily or permanently.
Here is another instance :	Alexander
Houle, aged 42, and his wife, Mafie-Anne, aged 40. They left for the United States eighteen years ago, but still their names appear on the census schedules of 1891 together with those of eight children, aged from sixteen years down to two years. And two of these children appear in the schedule as having the same name, which strikes one as rather peculiar.
Onesime Cleremont, aged 36, and his wife, aged 34, were absent in the United States when the census of 1891 was taken, but their names and those of three children appear in the schedule.
A little further down we find the name of Onesime Cleremont, aged 38, and his wife, aged 39, and three children. The enumerator, not content with entering absentees once, counted them twice.
Then there is the name of Jean Baptiste Piette, aged 46, with those of his wife, aged 40, although they left St. Jean de Matha twenty years ago.
Their names appear on the census schedules, with two children-Marie Sara, aged 15 years;.

Melina, aged 13 years. Immediately alter the name of Jean Baptiste Piette and family, we find again Maxime Piette and Lea Piette, aged 33, with six children-Marie Louise, 'aged 14 years ; Rose Anna, aged 14 years ; Alexandrine, aged 12 years; Marie, aged 10 years; Joseph, aged 8 years; Napoleon, aged 6 years-which is a repetition of the same Maxime Piette and Lea Piette, already referred to as having left for the United' States 15 or 18 years ago.
Here again, the family, the father and mother and six children are reported twice over, and none of them ought to have appeared on the schedule list. I cannot read all these cases, but I am trying to read fair specimens.
Louis Roeheleau, aged 60, and his wife, Agathe, aged 56, are registered with five children : Joseph, aged 34; Louis, aged 36; Elie, aged 29, Alarie, aged 15, Nathalie, aged 17. But they have never resided in the parish, according to people who have never left the locality during the last 20 or 25 years. One old resident of St. Jean de1 Matha said that he remembered that about 40 years ago, one Louis Roeheleau was living in the parish, but he .'lever saw him since that time.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to ask the name of the clergyman in that case.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Rev. Jean Baptiste Morin.


Samuel Hughes: How long has he lived in that parish ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have no memorandum on that subject, but he has lived there for many years.
Paul Guilbault, aged 48, is regisfcred with his wife, Philomene, aged 30, and 18 children.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I wish hon. members to notice that the wife was 30 years of age, that her eldest sou, Joseph, was registered as 24 years of age. The other children were :
Elizabeth, aged 23; Marie, aged 22; Philomene, aged. 20; Pierre, aged 19; Olive, aged 18; Melina, aged 17, Armeline, agid 16, Paul, aged 15, Georges, aged 14; Miose, aged 13; Hormisdas, aged 12; EugSne, aged 11; Martin, aged 10; Ar-sgne, aged 9; Albert, aged 8; Norbert, aged 8; Marie-Anns, aged 3 months.
The father was 48 and the wife 30, with 18 children, and all were registered.
But Paul Guilbault and his wife and his alleged children have never resided in St. Jean de Matha. It is said in the locality that the same Onesime Plouffe above mentioned in this report had a son-in-lawr by the name of Guilbault. He was residing, at that time, at St. Damieu, in the county of Berthier, but he has left many years ago for the United States, and has never come back to the country. He has never resided in St. Jean de Matha.
This is another specimen of the way the census was stuffed in the province of Quebec in 1891. I have a number more here,
but I will not detain the House by reading them,


Some hon. MEMBER.: Go on.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: All right. I will take another at haphazard :
Alem Parent, aged 23, is registered with his wife, Marie-Louise, aged 18, and their daughter, Rose-Alba, aged 4 months. Alem Parent is the son-in-law of Jean-Baptiste Layer, who was residing in St. Jean de Matha in 1891. Parent himself has always been living in St. Beatrix and never in St. Jean de Matha. This did not prevent the enumerator from registering him and his family twice. The second time he was recorded as follows : Olem Parent, aged 21; Marie Louise Parent, his wife, aged 19, and Rose-Anna, their daughter, aged 3 months.
Olivier Belanger, aged 42, is registered with his wife, Celina, aged 35, and four children : Joseph, aged 8; Henry, aged 7; Albina, aged 5, and Arthur, aged 3. These people are absolutely unknown to the old residents of the1 parish. They are probably some relatives of Mrs. Emelie Robillard, an old lady of 70 years old, who then resided in St. Jean de Matha. But if Olivier Belanger and his family ever lived in the parish, it is over twenty years ago.
And so on.	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: Go on.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) wants me to go on, but I have cases from other counties here that I want to give.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. minister lay on the Table the names of the enumerators in each case ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will look up the name.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman name the enumerator charged with this fraud ? And I would like to ask also whether he has made inquiries of the enumerators in any of these cases, and, if so, in which, and what answers has he got ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I shall be glad to look up the names and lay them on the Table.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. minister made inquiry of the enumerators charged with this fraud ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In some cases that has been done.


Robert Laird Borden: Has It been done in this particular case ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot, at this moment say as to that.


Robert Laird Borden: Does not the hon. minister think it would have been fair to ask an explanation before making this charge on the floor of this House ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The probability is that when an enumerator

lias made such an exhibition as that, his evidence would not be worth taking. I have here some, cases from the county of Bagot also. In St. Liboire we find the same kind of thing occurring to a very great extent. Here is one item I would like to read :
The stuffing in the town of Acton Vale and in the Parish of St. Andre of Acton, is probably larger, and the evidence of it is absolutely undeniable. Mr. J. E. Marcil, M.P., for Bagot, has resided 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 had consequently every 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 or the parish of St. Andre of Acton many years previous to the census of ten years ago.
Then the names are given [DOT]
Joseph Gagnon, aged 24, son of Alderic Gagnon and of Sophie Gagnon, is registered in the census book, but has not resided in the town of Acton Vale for the last fifteen years.
Leon Mousseau, aged 24, and Alexandre Mousseau, aged 21, both sons of Bdnonie Mousseau and Genevieve Mousseau, are registered on the census book, but have left the locality for over fourteen years.
Parmelie L'Heureux, aged 24, daughter of Leon L'Heureux, appears on the census book, but has not been living in Acton Vale for the the last sixteen years.
Louis Favreau, aged 26; Louise Favreau, aged 14; Dorinda Favreau, aged 21; Eustache Favreau, aged 20; Georges Favreau, aged 18; Charles, aged 31; Marie, aged 11; Delima, aged >0; Johnnie, aged 28; Angele Favreau, aged 47, and John Favreau, aged 35, are all sons and daughters of Louis Favreau and Angele Favreau. They appear in the census book but they were all born in the United States, and have never resided in Acton Vale.
Clara Lambert, aged 19, and Mary Lambert, aged 19, daughters of Pierre and Celima Lambert, are registered, but they had gone to the United States many years previous to the census of 1891.
Joseph Leveillee, aged 43, and his wife, aged 26, are registered with eleven children


James Clancy: Who makes that report ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Marcil.


Samuel Hughes: Who is Mr. Marcil ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The present member for Bagot.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Who knows the county so well that he has been elected as a Liberal, the first time in many years that a Liberal could be elected there.
The enumerators in the parish of St. Ephrem d'Upton have not been more scrupulous ten years ago than in some other localities in the county of Bagot. Here follow's a list of persons who should not have been registered on the census book.


Robert Laird Borden: Was any explanation asked of this enumerator ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 cannot tell which were asked for an explanation and which were not.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. minister know that any were asked ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. I will take also the county of Rouville in which a most extraordinary condition of affairs was shown.
In the county of Rouville there were 3,123 people enumerated on the Dominion census

more than the parochial census of the same year showed. This is the way in which the work was done in the village of Canrobert:
Pierre Reiadeau, aged 44, and his wife, One-sime, aged 37, are reg stered with eight children: Philias, aged 17, Emma, aged 15, Arthur, aged 13, Rosanna, aged 11, Maria, aged 9, Azarie, aged 7, Thais, aged 5, Fiorina, aged 3 ; that family have left Canrobert village 14 or 15 years ago.
Julien Coiteux, aged 58, and his wife Octavie aged 50, are registered with seven children : Napoleon, aged 22, Zephirine, aged 21, Emma, aged 19, Octavie, aged 17, Louis, aged 16, Joseph, aged 13, Delia, aged 11 ; that family were not residing in Canrobert.
Here follows a list of persons entered in Richelieu village who should not have appeared at all, because they all lived in the United States or had gone to other parts of the province more than twelve months previous to the census of 1891. The list is given here, with the names and details.


James Clancy: Who makes that report 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This was made by the parish priest.


James Clancy: What is his name ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: His name is not here. Then I have the county of Lotbiniere, another one of the same character.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not wish to be constantly interrupting the hon. gentleman, but in any of these places where he lias made inquiries of the enumerator and has received an answer, will he be good enough to state it, in connection with his other remarks.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I told the hon. gentleman a little while ago that I could not lay my hands on the information to show which enumerators inquiries were made from and which were not.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman be able at some subsequent stage to give us that information ?
The	MINISTER	OF	AGRICULTURE.
I will try to.


Robert Laird Borden: We would like to have that.
The	MINISTER	OF	AGRICULTURE.I have	thus far pretty	completely showedthe result of the investigations in the province of Quebec. As I said at the beginning, these	investigations	have been conducted
comparatively easily because of the peculiar conditions in that province which enabled us to get, not only the general figures, but the absolute details and statements of the individual.


Mr. INGRAM.: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand from the statements he has read now, he wants to show that a large number of French families in the province of Quebec were enumerated in 1891 that should not have been ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I was not particular to say that they were French, but as a matter of fact I think they all were French.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to a statement he made when the Cote circular was before this House two years ago. The hon. gentleman stated then that the French families of the province of Quebec were not properly enumerated, that a large number of families were not taken in that census of 1891 ; and that for the purpose of getting at the correct number of French families in the province of Quebec this circular was issued by Mr. Cote. How do these two statements coincide ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was a statement made that in the province of Quebec a large number of people that ought to have been enumerated were not enumerated. Our investigation shows that whether that was the case or not, a very large number of people were enumerated that ought not to have been enumerated. The two statements do not conflict at all. It may well have been that people who ought to have been enumerated were not enumerated, but at the present time I have given proof that hundreds and thousands of people were enumerated who had no right to be enumerated.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman explain to us how these parties were enumerated that should not have been enumerated other than those he now mentioned ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will go on with my argument, if the hon. gentleman will allow me, at a later stage perhaps he may speak and say what he wants to. Now we did not wish to confine the investigation by any means to the province of Quebec. Although the difficulties were much greater in the province of Ontario, still a slight investigation was made to find out whether anything like the same conditions obtained. I may say at once that we did not find anything like as much of this sort of thing in the province of Ontario as we did in the province of Quebec. Whether the difficulties in Ontario were so great that we could not get at the facts, or whether there were no such errors committed, I am not prepared to say ; but I state frankly that the difficulties of obtaining this information in Ontario are much greater than they are in Quebec. Now we chose five places in Ontario for that in-

vestigation, they were chosen at hap-hazard, we chose them without knowing in the slightest degree what the results were going to be, we chose them chiefly for the reason that they showed certain inconsistencies in the figures, they showed that while the number of families had increased and the number of dwellings had increased, the population had decreased.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is reasonable.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is very unfortunate, if it is so, and it is rather an extraordinary condition of affairs. One of these five places was the township of Thurlow and the city of Belleville. A slight investigation showed that the census seemed to have been correctly taken there, there was nothing to show that there had been any stuffing of the lists. But in the other four places there did appear to have been stuffing, in Huron West, in Goderich and Clinton we found errors of that kind. In Goderich we found sixty-three persons out of 3,839 who ought not to have been there, and in Clinton, thirty-eight persons out of 2.633 who ought not to have been there, with an undue swelling of the list hy 1-7 per cent and 1-5 per cent. In North Middlesex-


James Clancy: Before the hon. gentleman reads that, will he say who gave that statement ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. D. F. Macpherson, and he gives the names of the individuals, and all about them. [DOT]


Samuel Hughes: Let us have the names.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not going to read them all, I will lay the names on the Table. I will read a few :
George Nimmens, page 13, lived in London in 1891 ; Martha Tebbutt, page 25, taken twice in Goderich township and in Clinton ; James Robb, page 3, never lived here. A farmer in Tucker-smith ; Fred Crabb, page 19, in Michigan in 1891; Charles Crabb, in Toronto in 1891 ; Charles Gib-ton, page 23, in North-west Territories in 1891 ; Colin Sinclair, page 27, in Detroit in 1891 ; J. M. Proudfoot, page 4. in Winnipeg in 1891 ; William MeCallum, page 3, in Vancouver in 1891 ; William Campbell, page 12, in Chicago in 1891 ; Christine Mclver, page 3, taken twice in Goderich town ; Minnie Gordon, page 24, in Nebraska in 1891 ; Angus McKay, page 28, in Buffalo in 1891 ; Frank Simmons, page 35, in American army in 1891; Robert Reid, page 38, in Brantford in 1891 ; Donald McIntosh, page 46, in Detroit in 1891 ; Wilson Cox, page 50, in North-west Territories in 1891 ; Maggie Burns, page 51, taken twice, in Goderich town ; John McIntosh, page 55, at Sault Ste Marie in 1891 ; William Vivian, page 5, in Michigan in 1891.


James Clancy: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him if the report Hon. Mr. FISHER.
states that these parties were away more than one year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were not there at all. In South Norfolk I find there were 3 per cent away in Simcoe, and 3 6 per cent were added to the list in Port Dover. Then I find a similiar condition of affairs in Cornwall. The inquiry was difficult to make, and I have a report detailing the means taken to arrive at the facts: In order to make the report as authentic as possible I examined the assessment rolls of the municipalities, together with the registers of the high and public schools of the district for 1891, and a comparison of those records with the census schedules has shown that in many cases persons were counted at their homes in the country by one enumerator, and in their boarding houses in the town by another. Many of the pupils attending the Cornwall high school were recorded in this way, and so also were domestic servants and others. In some instances it has been difficult to identify persons of the same family name, such as McDonalds, Frasers, McPhails, &c., who are numerous in the district, and where I had any doubt I have marked such names with a star. All other names given on the appended list as duplicated in the census are susceptible of the clearest verification and I am sure that many others might be furnished if one's memory and exact local knowledge could recall every person who lived in the district ten years ago and disci-iminate between the floating and tfie fixed elements of the population. Here is a list of 150 persons whose names were duplicated and appeared twice on the schedule of that census division.


Samuel Hughes: What division was that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In Cornwall. I have here a list of the individuals named, of the two enumerators wno enumerated them, the places in which they were enumerated, Cornwall town and Cornwall township, many enumerated twice In the town, some enumerated twice in the township, but all of them enumerated twice, once in the town and once in the township, as the case may be. This goes to show that the stuffing of the lists was not alone carried on in the province of Quebec. We have another proof of that which was given to this parliament in 1894 by my hon. friend the present Minister of Militia (Hon. Mr. Borden), who at that time proved conclusively that in his county of King's N.S., there was a very great stuffing of the lists. That proof was given so conclusively at the time that my hon. friend the member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) the other day, acknowledged it ; he granted that it was true and he simply defended it by saying that the enumerator was prosecuted and bad to leave the eoun-

try. As a matter of fact tlie enumerator did not leave the country ; he only went into a neighbouring county, where, apparently, the Minister of Justice of that day was not able to reach him or to punish him. We have another fact which goes to prove the same thing. I have here some returns of the school population in the province of Nova Scotia, and I find some confirmatory facts in that connection. Here we have the different counties with their populations in 1S91 and 1901 with the increases [DOT]or decreases as the case may be, and we have also the statement of the school children for these two years. I find that in some counties the population actually decreased very materially while the school population largely increased. It seems hardly possible that the difference can be actually so great. It points to the fact that the change between 1891 and 1901 cannot have been correct in both instances. There is no possible reason for supposing that the population of the school children was in any way changed or tampered with. But it is quite possible that the census of 1891, with the proof that we have which the hon. Minister of Militia gave in regard to King's county, was tampered with extensively at that time. In Annapolis county the population decreased 3T per cent, but I find that the number of school children increased 12-3 per cent. I find in Antigonish that while the population decreased 15 per cent the number of school children increased 1 per cent. In Colchester the population decreased 8-3 per cent while the number of school children increased 9-9 per cent. In Higby the population only increased 2 per cent while the number of school children increased 21 per cent. I find that in Hants the population decreased 9-9 per cent while the number of school children increased 8T per cent. I find that in King's county the population decreased 2 per cent while the number of school children increased 21 per cent. Here, we have a confirmation in this comparison of the statements which were made by the hon. Minister of Militia. We have here the key' to the solution of the difficulty and I would venture to say that the same key will open the lock in regard to other counties in that province. We have in Queen's county a decrease in both cases. In Victoria county there was a decrease of 14 9 per cent in population, and an increase of 1-5 per cent in the number of school children. I think that what I have submitted to the House thus in detail, and I have only taken these figures at haphazard from the mass of detail that I have here, is sufficient to show that whatever may be the census of 1901, the census of 1891 was, generally, throughout the country, very unduly swelled by the manipulation of the enumerators. I venture to say that it accounts to a large extent, if not entirely, for the fact that in the comparisons of the growth of the population the growth from 1891 to
1901 is actually and in fact much greater in population than it was from 1881 to 1891. Therefore, we as Canadians need not blush ns we would otherwise have to do at the comparative stagnation and lack of growth of the population in our country. I venture to think that there are other points which tend to prove the same thing. There was one notable fact in regard to the census of 1891 which shows how easy it was to misrepresent the actual growth of population. In the census of 1891 while the names of the people are given, there is no address given of the people. there being no place in the schedules of 1891 for this purpose, and consequently, there is no sure and accurate way of laying your finger on an individual except by the iocal knowledge of other people. In the census of 1901 we have obtained not only the names of the people, but in tire cities, we have given the street and house number of every individual on the list of the census, while in the country parts we have given the lot and range and the position of the house of each individual whose name appears on the list, the schedules of 1901 being so drawn as to provide for this. The result is that with the census of 1901 anybody can prove to a demonstration whether an individual was present or not, while, with
just as many people as they desire to do because there are no immediate means except by the local knowledge of some other individual of laying your finger on a man who was reported as being present or who might not be present. This is a most extraordinary difference in the manner of taking the census and one to which I wish to draw the attention of the House and the country. There are some other matters in connection with the census to which I wish briefly to allude.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Fisher) pardon me ? He speaks of a great mass of information. Is he referring to what has been laid on the Table of the House or to something else ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: To what has been laid on the Table of the House and to what I have been reading from here to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: I take it for granted that he will lay all the information on the Table of the House in so far as it has not already been laid on the Table ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly. There has been one effort made in the province of Ontario, and it is the only one I know of in the Dominion of Canada which has been undertaken, for the purpose of showing the incorrectness of the census of 1901, and that is the effort that was made

In the city of Toronto. I was rather surprised that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), in alluding to census matters, did not allude to this. I can only take it for granted that he felt that the census of 1901 was completely justified and verified by the police census which was taken in Toronto soon afterwards. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) gave a good many of these figures to the House and I will not therefore go over them but I will point out that the assessment department1 of the city of Toronto took their census between April 1st and October 1st, the mean of which was the 1st of July. The assessment department showed a population of 205,887, a smaller number than the Dominion census which showed a population of 208,045. If therefore we were trying to minimize the population of Ontario we evidently did not do so in the city of Toronto. The police census of the city of Toronto was taken some time afterwards and it showed a population of 221,000. The difference between the Dominion census and the police census was completely accounted for by tne fact, that in the police census 4,439 pupils who are non-residents of the city were included, and these ought not, and were not enumerated by the Dominion census enumerators. The number of patients in the hospitals who were non-residents was 527, and in other institutions there were 175 nonresidents. The hotels reported that on November 10th, the day on which the police census was taken, 1,413 transient visitors were enumerated who would not be enumerated in the Dominion census, and it is reasonable to suppose that there were at any rate 1,000 transient visitors in the city who were not in the hotels. This, with the natural increase within the two dates would give a complete confirmation of the Dominion census of 208,000, because the difference which can thus be made up between the two is practically 13,000.
There is another fact in regard to this about which I would like to say a word. In the directory census of the city of Toronto an effort was made to show a much larger figure. The directory census has on frequent occasions been referred to, but we have found on investigation that the estimates in these censuses are very uncertain and very irregular. The estimate made by the directory of the city of Toronto has varied very materially; a different multiplier has been taken to make up the estimate in different years, and some of these estimates have ranged very much higher than the municipal statistics, -and some of them very much lower; showing a very wide difference and consequently showing the utterly unreliable character of such a census. I was rather surprised that my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) did n-ot deal with this matter. He certainly had the opportunity to do so, but he left Hon. Mr. FISHER.	,
it without any cavil, and I therefore take that as a practical confirmation of the census of 1901.
I have dwelt at some length on these things, because I have felt, and I still feel that it is important to show to the country and to sh-o-w to the world, that the population of Canada has not been so- stationary during the last ten years as it would appear to lie from a comparison of the census of 1891, with that of 1901. I want to speak a little further upon another phase of this subject of population, and the census will have to necessarily come into that part of my address also. I stated a few moments ago that one object of discussing this was to show that the progress of Canada had not been so slow as it appeared by the census returns to have been. I believe I can show from tihe census figures, and other figures which I can place before the House: that not only has the growth of Canada during the last ten years been considerably greater -than it was during the ten years preceding, but that in those ten years, the growth of Canada during the last five years of the period has been greater than it was in the fifteen years preceding the advent of this present government to power. The Minister of Finance alluded to that briefly in his speech, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce showed pretty conclusively that the development and progress of Canada had -been very much greater during the last five years than it had been during any previous five-year period in the history of this country. And furthermore, the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) went on to show that in some respects the progress of Canada had been greater during the last five years than in the fifteen years preceding. Hon. gentlemen opposite themselves acknowledge the prosperity of the country. I want to give a little proof of wiliat that prosperity is, and in this connection I will refer to the speech of my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke). When he was dealing with the increase in the population between 1881 and 1891, and between 1891 and 1901. the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) stated that the increase of population during the last decade had been less -than it was during the first decade. I do not know where he got his figures, but they are certainly not the figures of these three censuses. As a matter of fact, in 1881 the population of Canada was 4,324,810 ; in 1891, the population of Canada was 4,833,239 ; and in 1901, the population of Canada was 5,371,051. The increase from 1881 to 1891 was 508,429, but the increase from 3891 to 1901 was 537,812, or, about 30,000 increase more in the last decade than in the first. This is no very great difference I confess, but still it is to the advantage of the last decade.
Now, Sir, in the province of Ontario we have municipal statistics and these statistics enable us to deal with, not only the decen-

lilal census periods, but also with) the conditions trom year to year. Before I go into that I should say that these 'municipal statistics have to be taken with a certain reserve, because in the early days in 1881 and 1882 and 1883, these municipal statistics were not as carefully or as accurately compiled as they were afterwards. Up to 1S81 they were avowedly imperfect, and therefore the figures for 1881 are acknowledged to be, not by any means correct; so that when we come to compare 1881 with 1891 we do so simply for what it is worth. In these ten years there was an increase of
226,000	according to the municipal statistics. But there is this curious fact to be noted: that in 1882 and 1883 there was a sudden increase from 2,000 increase to 19,000 increase. In 1883 and 1884 the increase in the population was 40,000, according to these municipal statistics; in 1884 and 1885 the increase was 33,000, and in 1885 and 1886 the increase was 38,000. Knowing as I do something about the way in which these municipal statistics were handled in the province of Ontario at that time, I am aware of the fact-and I have no doubt lion, gentlemen from Ontario here are also aware of the fact-that these enormous increases were due to the improved methods in the compilation of these statistics.


James Clancy: They are just as loose now as they were then.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Possibly so, and if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) is right, then the comparison made by the hon. gentleman from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) would not be of very much value. As a matter of fact it was only about 1882, that these statistics began to be in any way carefully and completely compiled. In 1885 and 1886, when they had got to the point at which the statistics were compiled about the same as they are now, the increases did not go on to the same extent. In 1890 and 1891, the increases went down almost as low as in 1881 and 1882. I find that in the ten years from 1891 to 1901, these municipal statistics show an increased population in the province of Ontario of 102,626, but they show in the five years from 1891 to 1896, an increase of 50,165, and in the five years from 1896 to 1901, they show an increase of 52,426; or in other words, these same municipal statistics in the province of Ontario show that the population was increasing more rapidly during the last five years than it did in the five years preceding.
There are one or two other points in this same connection. We have in this Dominion census -a statement of the numbers of the foreign-born population of Manitoba, the North-west Territories and British Columbia. which shows the immigration that has come into that western country. The increase of the foreign population in the different periods was as follows :	From 1881
to 1885, 19,000; from 1886 to 1890, 31,526; from 1891 to 1895, 38,728; a total immigration of foreign-born people into that part of Canada in those fifteen years of 89,932. But from 1896 to 1900, there was an increase of 94,527, and from the 1st of January, 1900, to the 31st of March, an increase of 6,451, a total of 100,978. So that we find that 11,000 more foreign-born people came into that country since the present government came into power than came in during the whole fifteen years preceding.
We have also the five-year period census of the province of Manitoba, and what does it show ? In 1891, there were in the province of Manitoba 152,506 souls; in 1896, there were 193,425, and in 1901, there were 254,947. That increase in the five years of the last decade was 40,919, while the increase in the last five years of the decade, since this government came into power, was 61,522, or over 22,000 more than there was during the same number of years under hon. gentlemen opposite.


An hon. MEMBER.: How many of those are Doukhobors ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are very few Doukhobors in the province of Manitoba; but I have no reason to regret the fact that Doukhobors are coming into the country. On the contrary, D think it is a good omen for the future that we see industrious people coming in to add to the productive capacity of the country, whether they are Doukhobors or Mennonites or anything else.
Now, Sir, in connection with the census there has been a good deal of talk about the exodus. Though lion, gentlemen opposite proclaim that the exodus is still going on, one of their principal organs some three years ago said that the exodus was a thing of the past-a matter of history. I am not prepared to say for a single moment that there is no exodus in one sense, although in another sense, I am prepared to deny that there is still an exodus. There is and there always will be a certain migration of people across this continent, with the people of the south speaking the same language and having largely the same institutions as ours; that migration being sometimes from the south to the north and sometimes from the north to the south. But there is this difference, that under the policy of lion, gentlemen opposite the migration was invariably and to an enormous extent from the north to the south, people leaving Canada to go to the United States, whereas I am proud to know that, since a change of government has taken place and a new policy has come into operation in the Dominion of Canada, the great stream of that migration lias changed and is now from the south to the north and no longer from the north to the south. This I consider one of the best auguries for the future of our country, and

it is one which our people cannot too long dwell upon or boast of; because if the wideawake and up-to-date American people are finding the conditions in Canada-the conditions of government, of civil liberty, of material prosperity-better than in their own great union,, it surely will happen that the people of the European continent will follow their lead and come to us in greater numbers than ever before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the bon. minister explain how it is that of settlers' effects imported into the United States from Canada there were in 1899, $1,037,000 worth, iu 1900, $1,144,000 worth, and in 1901, $1,143,000 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Has the hon. gentleman found how many came from the United States to Canada V


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the migration to the United States had stopped.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not say it had stopped. The hon. gentleman has not listened to me. What 1 said was that it had changed to a great extent its direction-that while there will always be, as there always has been in the past, a' migration across the continent, at the present time the greater stream is from the south to the north, and the smaller from the north to the south, while under the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite there was hardly any stream at all from the south to the north, hut a great broad river flowing from the north to the south.
The hon. member for Pictou, in his speech, referred to what appeared to be a quotation, I know not from what document, in regard to the migration of Canadian population to the United States, and he read a passage which had a very strong likeness, although it is not verbatim the same, to a statement which appeared in the press thfee or foul-weeks ago, supposed to be on the authority of Mr. George Johnson, who is described as tine Dominion statistician. I may say that (that statement had no authority from the department, and that the department takes no- responsibility for it. I note this statement, quoted by the hon. member for Pictou, in regard to the number of Canadians who went to the state of Massachusetts in the five-year periods from 1885 to 1890, from 1890 to 1895, and from 1895 to 1900 :
In the first period Canadians went to the state *cf Massachusetts, according to the statistics of that state, at the rate of 12.050 a year ; in the second period, at the rate of 7,236 a year, and in the third period at the rate of 9,888 a year.
Then my hon. friend from Pieitou went on to say :
If these figures are right, there was a larger exodus from Canada to the state of Massachusetts in the last five years ending with 1900 than there was in the preceding five years.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman was well advised in saying :	' If these figures are right,' because these figures are not right. There is a misstatement and miscalculation in the quotation made by the hon. member for Pictou, just as there was in the statement which Mr. Johnston published without the authority of the department. I have here under my hand the United States census and' the Massachusetts census, and in them I find these figures. In the state of Massachusetts the Canadian-born population between 1880 and 1890 rose from 119,302 to 207,601, or an increase of 88,299; from 1890 to 1900, it rose from 207,601 to 293,169, an increase of 85,568. But, according to the records of the Massachusetts State census, during the period from 1890 to 1895, the number of Canadians in the state of Massachusetts increased from 207,601 to 251,346, an increase of 43,745. From 1895 to 1900, the Canadians in the state of Massachusetts increased from 251,346 to 293,169. In other words, the Canadian-born population in the state of Massachusetts increased, in the first five years of the last decade, 43,745, and in the last five years 41,823, or just about
2,000	more of an increase in the first five years when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office, than in the last five years when we were in power.
The statement which the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) read and which was made by Mr. Johnson was also to the effect- which is quite true-that during the last decade the number of Canadians in the United States increased much less than it djd in the previous one, and the fallacy appears to lie in the figures of the year 1895. A certain number of those who went to Massachusetts before 1895 had been added to the period after 1895, which shows an entirely false statement of the facts and an unfair statement of the condition of the exodus from Canada to Massachusetts. At this however I am not surprised.
What do I find when I look back ? In the whole of the United States, taking ten year periods, I find the Canadians increased as follows ;
From 1860 to	1870	
243,494"	1870' to	1880	
223,693"	1880 to	1890..	
263,781"	1890 to	1900	
202.287
What is noticeable about these figures is that the increase between 1880 and 1890, when we bad a continuous ten year period of Conservative rule, was far the greatest, and was least between 1890 and 1900 when we have five years of Conservative and five of Liberal administration. And if you go back to the period between 1870 to 1880. in which there was also five years of Liberal administration, we find that the figures are less by 40,000 than they were in the succeeding period when the country was entirely under Conservative rule. We find therefore that notwithstanding the howl of the hon. gentlemen oppo-

site about bad times under the Mackenzie administration, notwithstanding the attacks which they made on that administration and the manner in which they decried the country during that period fewer Canadians by 40,000 then went to the United States than during the ten years when these hon. gentlemen opposite had full control.
When we come to another decade, during One-half of which the Conservatives governed and during the other half the Liberals were in office, the exodus was still less by 00,000 than in the decade which was distinguished entirely by Tory administration.
X shall not dwell longer upon the exodus and the movement of population, but I would like to say a few words with regard to another phase of the subject, which at this time is specially interesting. I need not go into any details to show the great prosperity which Canada is to-day enjoying. Hon. gentlemen opposite acknowledge it, but they seek refuge in the statement that this prosperity is not due, in any way whatever, to the present government, but solely to natural causes, among which are the great crops that we have been blessed with during the past few years. Well, while I do not question the great advantages we have enjoyed in these abundant crops, I venture to think that my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is hardly warranted in saying that our administration has had nothing whatever to do with our present prosperity. My hon. friend and others like him have been somewhat decrying my own administration, and the work done by my department on behalf of our farmers. Ear be it from me to boast of what I have done, and I have not the slightest desire to magnify anything I may have done or attribute any improvement in our agricultural industry to any personal merit peculiar to myself. But I think I am justified in pointing out certain facts and allowing hon. gentlemen to draw their own inferences. In the first place, during the last five years, our exports, as everybody knows, have enormously increased. We sent out from Canada in that period $23,000,000 more of the products of the mine than in the previous five years, over one-half million dollars more of the products of the fisheries, $29,000,000 more of the products of the forests, and $113,000,000 more of the products of the farm. These are all the natural products of our country, and it is on these we must depend to pay our foreign debts. I was rather surprised and somewhat amused by the statement of my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) that we would be unable to pay our foreign debts unless we had manufactures. He asked pathetically : How are we going to pay our foreign debt if we do not have manufactures in the country? Well, I would ask my hon. friend just to pause a moment and contemplate the figures. We sent out of this country, in the five year period to which I have referred, $205,000,000 worth of the product of the soil, the mines, the fisheries and the forests. And how much do you suppose we exported of manufacturing products in that same period ? Only twenty-two and a half million dollars worth.


Mr. BROCIC.: Yet our debt is not yet paid.


The MINISTER OE AGRICULTURE.: Well, we seem to be pretty solvent, and I venture to think that we are paying our debts pretty well as we go along. We are paying our foreign debts and bills chiefly by the exports of our natural products, and only to a very small extent indeed by the export of our manufactures. We are paying them almost entirely iby the exports of our agricultural, mineral, forest and fishery products.


William Rees Brock: What has the government to do with that ?


The MINISTER OE AGRICULTURE.: I appreciate fully that the government cannot create these things, but no one can deny that it can encourage, stimulate, guide and direct them, by opening the most profitable channels and encouraging those industries which help to open up the country and increase our mining, forestry and agricultural development And it is only to the extent that it does so that I claim credit for this government. But my hon. friend must not forget that this great increase in our export of natural products has taken place under a Liberal administration assuming proportions which it never did under the administration of my hon. friends opposite. If our policy has had the blighting effect which they attribute to it, if our administration has been so prejudicial to the best interests of the country, how is it that in those five years we have had this enormous development of these natural resources and at the same time a considerable development of our manufacturing industries as well ?


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman point out now where they have changed the policy of the Conservative party which brought about these grand results ?


The MINISTER OE FINANCE.: Why then are you dissatisfied ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Surely my hon. friend is not serious. He is about to support a resolution which declares distinctly that our policy is contrary to the life long policy of the Conservative party. I think that he was in the House when Sir Charles Tupper, then leader of the opposition, in answering my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, told him that he could hear the wail of the men engaged in manufacturing industries, who were crying out in fear and trembling that they would not be able to find bread for their families because of the tariff which my hon. colleague intro-

dueed in 1897 and which is the same tariff that my hon. friends opposite want to reform. It is true that somewhat later, finding that that wail existed only in an imagination, stimulated at the time by the dis-appoinment of losing office, Sir Charles Tup-per-I think it was 1899 or 1900, just before the general election-gave utterance to the same opinion to which my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) has just given expression, and told the country that we had stolen the clothes of the late Conservative administration.


James Clancy: Which was correct.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: It was neither correct as to the future nor as to the present effect of the Reform tariff. The duties have been lowered.


James Clancy: No.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Then why does the hon. gentleman support a resolution to have them raised ? Why does he want the tariff changed ? If he has to-day that protection for the manufacturing industries which be had before 1896, why does he support the resolution of the hon. leader of the opposition V Or does he wish to support the resolution of the leader of the opposition ? No; these hon. gentlemen cannot ride the two horses in that way-they are not clever enough. And the amusing thing about it is that the hon. gentlemen practically answer one another, and we hardly need to answer them at all. But I wish to tell the hon. gentlemen a little of how we have changed this; and, in doing so I have to refer a little to agricultural matters. My hon. friend the member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith) a lktle while ago dealt at considerable length with the question of cold storage. I have here an analysis of the agricultural exports of the country in recent years. It is very suggestive. The hon. member for South Wentworth says that the government has nothing whatever to do with the increase of these exports. I take here products of a certain kind, the chief of which are wheat and flour, oats and oatmeal, and peas. These are the chief products of the field that we export, the chief products of the country that do not call for the intervention of what I might speak of as the manufacturing side of the agricultural industry. In these articles we have increased our exports in the last five years from about $8,-
500,000	to about $16,500,000. That is due to the increased crops of this country-


James Clancy: And increased foreign demand.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: And increased foreign demand, possibly. The hon. gentleman can put that in if he chooses, and I do not object. We have, however, another class of agricultural products usually spoken of under the general name of animals and their products. In these


Sydney Arthur Fisher: the industry and skill and intelligence of the Canadian farmer is exercised in turning the crude products of the soil into a higher class of agricultural products and exporting them. In helping to increase this class of products and in helping to increase the export of them, the government has done a great deal during the last five years. The Increase In this class of exports has been, in round figures, $21,000,000. And out of that increase, I venture to say, a very large portion has been due to the guidance and stimulus of the government policy and the work that has been done by my department in providing facility of transportation and otherwise and in guiding and educating the farmers of this country to produce these goods and send them out. And I venture to say that neither the hon. gentleman nor any person can controvert what I am about to "put before you. In these years we have sent $2,000,000 more of cattle in 1901 than in 1896, our increase in cheese exports was from $13,000,000 to $20,000,000 ; of butter from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 ; of pork products from $4,500,000 to $11,750,000 ; and of eggs from $800,000 to $1,600,000-a total as I say of about $21,000,000. This has been due to the improved methods pursued in production and the better facilities for transportation provided, to a very large extent by the work of the administration.


James Clancy: It is due to one point in which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) has followed the policy of his predecessors.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Clancy's) opinion because he has not studied the ques-. tion. The hon. gentleman thinks that this is simply due to the one item of cold storage. But I am going to refer to that iu a few minutes. The analysis of export that I have given, I think, is of value. One other point I wish to refer to is the fact that this increase of export is almost entirely to the old country. This increase lias been an increase not only in quantity, but in value to a very considerable extent. We have beeil able to get better prices for these articles in the old country than we got before. And I venture to think that the increase in prices is, to a considerable extent-I do not pretend that this is the cause of it all-due to that preference which was an integral part of the tariff arrangement established by this government, and that struck the people with such surprise and pleasure in 1897.


James Clancy: I supposed that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) would assume that-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) can restrain his impatience for a little while until he gets the floor, perhaps his speech will be a little more coherent than his present interruptions. That preference attracted the attention of .the people of the old coun-

try to Canadian products, and the difference was shown immediately by this fact- that while before 189b, Canadian products were sold iu the old country under the names of other countries-were deliberately asked to be sold in such packages that they could not be recognized as Canadian-to-day every retail dealer in the old land tries his best to put the name ' Canadian ' on everything he is selling In order to attract his customers and induce them to try it. And I am glad, as Minister of Agriculture, to say that when these people have tested the Canadian products, they are glad to go back for more. The result is the splendid showing of increased exportation of the articles that I have just given. But hon. gentlemen opposite are always decrying this preference and taking the line that, while the preference may-they are doubtful of it-may have helped our agricultural sales, it has not helped the English people. And my hon. friend from Toronto brought forward in his speech a little while ago a rather specious argument, the fallacy of which, I should think, the hon. gentleman must have been aware of, because I would naturally give him credit for enough intelligence to recognize it. I -did not expect to have to impute to him disingenuousness in putting the argument forward. He stated tha-t in the live years preceding the preference the aggregate of British imports into Canada were $1S7,000,000, and that from 1897 to 1901 inclusive, the aggregate was $186,000,000-practically the same. He put this forward as proof that the preference had done no good. Surely, the hon. gentleman knew perfectly well that the aggregate in -the first live years was an aggregate of yearly importations into Canada which were steadily decreasing from $43,000,000 in the first year to $29,000,000 in the last year, while the -aggregate in the succeeding five years was made up of importations which began at about -the lowest figure of the first five years and went on increasing. The one was,an aggregate composed of amounts on a descending scale, the British importations gradually and pretty rapi-dly tending toward the vanishing point, and the other of amounts which were steadily rising, and had got back -in five years to just about the place from which the policy of -hon. gentlemen opposite had lowered them. Sir, that is a fair specimen of the kind of -argument and manipulations of figures to which hon. gentlemen opposite descend in order to prove their contention. I was surprised, I confess, that the hon. gentleman from Toronto should make an argument so disingenuous unless, he was so obtuse that he could not see the fallacy in it.
Now, the hon. gentleman opposite spoke a few minutes ago -about one of these articles I have read over as being the only one in which we did anything for -the export trade to England. I suppose the hon. gentleman alluded to the trade in butter, which even hon. gentlemen opposite confess, has been
enormously stimulated and improved since their time, and which could not be improved under the old condition of affairs, because butter from Canada could not be carried to England and placed on the market there in good condition owing to the condition of transportation that obtained under the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite. Since that time, however, things have changed.
I want to point out that in respect of those articles I have alluded to we have done an enormous amount of work of which, perhaps, the House and the country are not aware. During the last five years what I may call the educational side of the Department of Agriculture has been greatly enlarged. We have been able, by the addition of some officers to our staff, though I must confess at some considerable expense, to reach the farmers and producers throughout the country in a way that was never even attempted before ; we have been able by the distribution of information from the Experimental Farm and from the agriculture and dairying branch under Professor Robertson, to disseminate information, to bring new points to the attention of the people, and help them to overcome the difficulties in their various industries. This has resulted in the increase of our cattle trade with Great Britain, taken in connection with the admission of free corn to feed their cattle, and it has resulted in the increase of the cattle trade with the United States by removing the quarantine impediment which had effectually shut out our cattle from the United States market. We have appointed a live stock commissioner who is to-day organizing -the live -stock interests in this country, and enabling those engaged In that interest to work together, to understand the situation of their trade, and better to overcome the difficulties which they encounter. We have stimulated the fruit trade by the passage of the Fruit Marks Act, which, though only in operation one year, has already done something to improve our export trade in fruits, by the appointment of inspectors under that Act to supervise the trade, by arranging for proper ventilation of the holds of steamers which cross the Atlantic, to carry our fruits and cheese in a proper condition, by arranging for cheese curing rooms, and the improvement of cheese curing in this country, which is only beginning to-day, but which has been necessary for a couple of years past, and which we have been working the people up to during the last two years. We have established a complete and continuous chain of cold storage from the creameries in Canada to the retailers in Great Britain, and that has been done so effectually that the butter trade of Canada is to-dav fivefold what it was in 1896. These 'things have been done by the department without much ostentation, hut they have resulted in stimulating production and improving the exports.

Now, I have here a few details which I wish to give in reply to some strictures that were made by the hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith). That hon. gentleman said that I had not done my duty because I had not compelled every steamboat that sails from a Canadian port to put in fans, &c. Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman is crediting my department with a great deal more power than it possesses. We have no power to compel any steamship company to do anything against their will ; though we have power to offer them inducements, we can show them the advantages they will reap from making these improvements. I found that difficulty from the commencement of my work. As a result of the representations that were made to one of the largest steamship lines, I was able to induce them to put in mechanical cold storage apparatus which, until that time, had never been put in any sliiji sailing from Canada. The result was the stimulus of the butter trade, followed by experiments in regard to the export of fruit, and this also offered prospects of improving the condition of the poultry meat exports, which have already grown to considerable proportions. When I found there was a necessity for proper ventilation in the holds of the vessels for the carriage of apples and cheese I exercised some pressure to induce the steamship companies to make the arrangements necessary, and succeeded to some extent. I went further than that. Last year I endeavoured to get the steamship companies to put in cooling apparatus by which the air would be artificially cooled in special chambers, and in that state forced through the holds where the fruit and cheese were stored. I was not successful with all the steamship companies at first, and I am condemned for that. X would like the hon. gentlemen opposite to tell me how I could compel the steamship companies to do this. Hon. gentlemen do not reflect that these are independent companies who trade for their own benefit. I went to the head of one of these companies in England, and represented the necessities of the Canadian trade. I asked him if he would not put in one of these cooling apparatus into the holds of each of his vessels in which butter and cheese were carried. I had already been in communication with his agents in Montreal, who had recommended to him that it should be done, but the head of the firm in England refused to do it. When I went there last summer I asked him to do it and he said he would not. Although I urged him, he still refused, and then I said, ' well, I have only one resource left, I will publish to the people of Canada who ship these goods across the Atlantic, that while your competitors do make these arrangements in their vessels to meet the demand of the Canadian trade, you refuse to do so ; and I will see, and you will see, whether the shippers of Canada will patronize your boats.' But my arguments had no influence with him. The moment that Professor Robert-Hon. Mr. FISHER.
son and I came back from England. I instructed Prof. Robertson to meet the shippers at Montreal who were engaged in shipping these goods, and he told them that this company had refused to meet our demands. At once I got a cable from the company, asking me how it was that I authorized a Dominion officer to do this, and I replied that it was necessary in the interests of the exporters and shippers of Canada. Tc-day that company is fitting up their ships, because they do not dare to go contrary to the demands of the Canadian trade and shippers of these goods.


James Clancy: Did that company give reasons for their refusal ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The reasons were that they did not think it would pay, now they do think it will pay.


Samuel Hughes: I did not catch the name of the company.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not give the name, I do not think it is wise to give it. I will give the name to the hon. gentleman privately, but I do not think it right to publish the name of the company to the public.


Samuel Hughes: I think the hon. gentleman should not make the statement unless he is prepared to give the name of the company.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
James Clancy: Would the hon. gentleman say whether the government were repaid as well for the sum they expended in fitting out these steamships with cold storage V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, the money paid for them was refunded.

This particular line which was referred, to by the hon. member, for South Wentworth was under contract to supply certain vessels. They put on those vessels which the fruit-growers of Nova Scotia declared were suitable vessels. They, for their own convenience and for their own purposes, sold two of these vessels and they offered to put on other inferior vessels. The result has been that they have not been paid their subsidy and I venture to think that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce will not pay them their subsidy until they provide the accommodation which they are required to provide by the contract and which is needed by the trade. We have no means of compelling these companies. We can only hold inducements out to them that certain things are necessary to accommodate the trade of the country. We can describe what things are necessary and help them to meet these requirements. If they refuse to do it we have nothing more to do with them. If they will do it, we can give them the assistance which it has been the policy of this government to give for the purpose of inducing these companies to provide the necessary facilities. But, they have provided these facilities to a great extent. There were live main lines plying to Montreal during last season. Twenty-eight steamers have been fitted up and others are being fitted up today so as to be in readiness for the season of 1902. There were 77 sailings from Montreal last year with exhaust fans for the ventilation of their cargo space. We also induced the fitting out of four steamers with cold chambers rto force air through. Canada, with one exception, that of the line from Bristol to the West Indies which was subsidized lately by the home government, is the only country that has obtained vessels fitted out in this way for the carriage of cheese and fruit. We opened these negotiations last year and the result was that four steamers were fitted out as a trial and these steamers were so successf ul and our products were carried so well that this winter the main line companies are fitting out more vessels. Ten others are under way and it is expected that they will be fitted out for this season. These things are directly in the line with what I have been describing. These are the things that the hon. member for South Wentworth ignored while he quoted one particular case down in Nova Scotia. During the season of 1901 there were from the port of Montreal 254 sailings of ships. My officers reported on and inspected 204 of these sailings.


James Clancy: How many ships 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 cannot tell the hon. gentleman how many ships there were. But these were the sailings. There were so many sailings of the ships from Montreal. It does not matter very much whether one ship made forty trips or four. The other fifty sailings which 69
were not inspected were at the commencement of the season when there were none of these products going forward. We supervised and inspected and reported on every sailing of the regular line ships that went forward from Montreal last year, we have the records of all of these sailings in the department. We placed in these ships self-registering thermometers which could record the temperature in the cold storage chambers and the ships' holds during the voyage. These instruments were taken out of the ships bn their arrival at the ports in England by our officers who recorded the temperatures shown by the thermometers. We have a complete record of these temperatures. The hon. member for South Wentworth said we ought to do that. It has been done for three years past.


James Clancy: Could the hon. member give the House the value of the goods shipped by these sailings 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not the value of them. All the butter shipped from Canada practically went by these sailings, as well as the fruit that went from Montreal and the cheese during last season. This was so much thought of aud so well liked that I was gratified to receive a resolution from the Montreal Board of Trade and a letter from the buyers of these products in England. The following is a resolution from the Butter and Cheese Association of the Board of Trade, Montreal
The members of this association have noted with gratification the complete success of the cold air chambers system used on some steamers running from this port during the past season, and they feel they cannot exaggerate the importance of having it installed in every vessel carrying dairy produce from1 here next season. It is certain that having experienced the benefits of the cooled chambers last season the great majority of British buyers will next year insist on having all goods shipped in these chambers. The demand is likely, therefore, to far exceed the supply unless some effort is made to induce the steamship companies generally to turn all their 'available cheese carrying space into cold air chambers. This association believes it would be immensely to the advantage of the whole dairy interest were there np other way of shipping possible, than in cooled chambers, and it would heartily join in all efforts made to accomplish this result.
This is another communication which came to me from the Home and Foreign Produce Exchange, Limited, of London, Eng. :
A few steamers sailing from Montreal to London have been fitted with cool air ventilators, which have proved a great success >n carrying Canadian cheese, and it is the opinion of the undersigned that the best interests of cheese Importers would be served if all steamers catering for the cheese trade were so fitted. It is also the opinion of the signatories that even during the winter months ;t would he desirable to continue this system1, as it is well known that heating in steamer's hold is caused by storage near other cargo, which has a tendency to create heat. The signatories would be glad



If the committee of the Home and Foreign Produce Exchange would take the matter up, with a -view to furthering the end suggested.
The importance of these representations will be appreciated from the fact that the memorial has been signed by practically all the London firms importing cheese.
Now that the matter has thus been brought to your notice, I would urge that no effort should be spared to give effect to the wishes of the trade.
Yours faithfully,



[Stage Direction]
Chairman.
James Clancy: Do the bon. gentleman's contracts not cover the whole season V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The contracts covered all the trips that the ships made.


James Clancy: Well, then, that letter has not much point.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is the kind of work that is being done. I want to say a word or two in regard to the cheese trade, a trade which has been the glory and the boast of the people and particularly the farmers of Canada for many years. We have made notable progress in this trade which commenced so many years ago. Many years ago, by the enterprise of the people of Ontario chiefly In the beginning, this trade obtained a high position and it maintained that position ever since until last year. Unfortunately, last year, in consequence of the heating of the cheese in the cheese factories, in the storing rooms here and during transportation, the cheese of Canada did not have as good a reputation on the English market as it had before.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
Professor Jas.   W.@: 
James Clancy: The cheese makers say that is not so.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The cheese makers will not say that is not so, in the presence of myself, or of Prof. Robertson, or of the experts who carried on the experiments I have referred to. I have stated the same thing at the Eastern Dairymens' Convention which was held at Whitby. Mr. Ruddick also went to the Western Dairymens' Convention at Woodstock this last fall, and (he laid the same facts before that great dairy convention where the best dairymen of the Dominion congregated, and the result was that the people begged us to put in practice the new scheme which was suggested to them for trying to get over that difficulty. Not one single man in either of these great conventions stated what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy)-without knowing anything about it-dares to state here.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I venture to tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) that the Eastern and Western Dairymens' Associations for the province of Ontario, represent the farmers and the dairymen of this country far more than he does, and that they know more about the cheese business than he.


James Clancy: I did not give that statement as my own opinion at all. I told the minister that the cheese makers generally denied the statement, and they point out that long before the hon. gentleman's cold storage business they had established the Canadian cheese trade in England.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) does not yet know the difference between the cold 69*
storage system, and that cool storage necessary for the carriage of cheese.


James Clancy: I know it quite well.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has made a statement which is not supported by the facts. If the dairymen of Ontario agree with the hon. gentleman, how was it, that at the dairy convention at Whitby where there were assembled COO or 700 of the best dairymen of the province of Ontario, there was not a word of dissent when the statement was made before them by myself V If the hon. gentleman is right, how is it that at the Western Dairymens' Convention in Woodstock nothing of that kind was said by the men who are the leaders in this work, and who placed the cheese trade of Canada where it is to-day, while the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has never had anything to do with it ? I venture to say that the people of Canada; I venture to say that the members of this House will agree with me, that the men who assembled at these dairymen's conventions know more about the cheese trade than does the,hon. gentleman.


James Clancy: I suppose it is not necessary for me to repeat that I did not make that assertion on my own knowledge ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, but you said it was stated to you by the leading cheese makers of the country.


James Clancy: Quite so.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I say that the leading cheese makers of this country are represented in the dairymen's *conventions in the province of Ontario, and that any cheese makers who do not come to" these conventions are not the leading cheese men of this country.
Now, Sir, we are hoping to get over this difficulty and we are prepared this season to try the experiment of central aceum-mulating rooms for the assembling of the cheese for curing purposes. That scheme was laid before these two dairy conventions in Ontario, and it was also laid before the dairy convention of the province of Quebec. It was accepted by the dairymen who were present at these conventions as being a first rate scheme. They endorsed the carrying out of the experiment which Is to be carried out this season, and so far were they satisfied with it that I have had application after application from people all over this country asking for information as to how they could carry it out at their own expense if they had to -do so, but still more so requesting for information as to how to get the department to carry it out in their particular district.
Now, Sir, I have gone over these facts in general terms, and also to a certain extent in detail. I have laid them before the House because I wish that hon. members and the people iof the country generally

should appreciate and understand, that while nobody on the government benches, least of all myself, wish in any way to claim credit for the enormous crops of Canada during the last few years; crops which have been so instrumental in stimulating the /trade of this country; nevertheless we do believe, and I venture to say that I am prepared to give proof of it at any time and anywhere : that in Canada to-day, the government through the department over which I have the honour to preside, has been able to do a great deal to help, and to guide, and to direct the work of the farmers of this country, so that that work has been made more profitable to them than it was in days gone by. That is all X do claim and I think I can prove that claim. I believe that the trade returns show it; I believe that the records of the prices obtained for our exported products in the old country markets show it, and therefore I leave the matter in the hands of the House.
Now, Sir, I am not going to delay the House much longer. I am glad to have had the opportunity of saying a few words on this question. We have to-day an apparently clear cut division between the opposite sides of the House. We have the decision of the government that they should not make any changes in the tariff. Hon. gentlemen opposite, through the mouth of the leader of the opposition, have put forward an amendment to the motion of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.- It seems to me, Sir, that with the record of the last five years of the commerce and trade of Canada; with the record of the material development in the country; with the record of the prosperity which has reigned in every branch of business, in every industry of this country, amongst the great classes of producers-it seems to me that the principle embodied in the saying to let well enough alone, is the one that ought to guide us at the moment. If difficulties arise in the progress of the country, or in the condition of its trade, or its industrial development, and the government can do anything which seems to them likely to help that progress and development, to help consumers as well as producers, it would be no doubt their duty to take the situation into consideration. But with such a record as we have had during the past five years, with people coming into the country by the thousands to make this country their home, and with the productions of the country going out in such enormous quantities and bringing in such magnificent returns to build up this country, it seems to me that it would be a great mistake for us to change the condition of affairs which has brought these magnificent results about. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that nothing that the government has done has brought them about. The government have been in power five years and more. In 1807 we inaugurated a fiscal Hon. Mr. FISHER.
policy which was signalized by a reduction of the duties, and by a preference which has given us a great advantage in the English market, as it has given our fellow-countrymen in the old land an advantage in our market. The results of this policy seem to be magnificent in any way you look at them; and with this fact before our eyes, I cannot see that it is necessary or that it would be good policy to make| a change now. If in the future any changq is required, let the future take care of itself; but let the present conditions continue as they are, and I believe the material advancement of the country will go on as it has done so splendidly during the past five years.


Mr. ANDREW BRODER (Dundas).: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to discuss the resolution which is immediately before the House, I will, like a great many others, digress a little to deal with the question of the census, which has been so largely dealt with by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, and to answer some of the accusations which have been made by that hon. gentleman. I take some interest in the census, having been myself a chief officer for twenty-two counties in the eastern part of the province of Ontario, and I wish to say emphatically that the twenty-two commissioners under my charge who were brought here to receive their instructions from Mr. St. Denis, were most particularly directed to guard against any inaccuracies in taking the census. They were so carefully directed that that gentleman said to them : ' When you go home to instruct your enumerators, if you find that there is anything that you do not understand, communicate with Mr. Broder; and if he is out of reach, communicate with the department before you do any work. And yet the hon. gentleman charges this sworn body of men with having stuffed the census. It is a poor compliment to pay to 4,239 men in this Dominion, 1,300 of whom were in the province of Ontario, to say that they joined together as one man to stuff the census; and it was a poor compliment to pay to the reverend gentleman whom he quoted to-day to suppose that men under their instructions and guidance would foster anything of that kind. What are the facts of the case ? Hon. gentlemen opposite were prophets a few years ago. They prophesied a certain increase in the population of this country; and when accused of spending more money than ought to be spent, their justification was that the population had increased wonderfully. Now, these hon. gentlemen are face to face with their prophesies, and they find that they do not agree with the facts; therefore somebody must be indicted. But I am glad to be able to say that the public have paid very little attention to the accusations of the Minister of Trade and Commence. They fell about as dead as his apologetic thesis fell a few

years ago. What are the facts ? The increase in the province of Quebec from 1881 to 1891 was 120,508, while the increase from 1891 to 1901, was 132,444, in round numbers 4,000 more of an increase from the stuffed census to the present census than the previous increase. Now, if the census was stuffed to the extent of 40,000 names, as the hon. gentleman holds, how is it possible for the present census to go so much beyond the natural increase ? And when you turn up ' Hansard ' and quote the language of the Minister of Agriculture, when he was justifying the issue of that Cote circular, -what do we find him saying ? He said that the reason for it was that the French population left the province of Quebec and went to the United States. Why, I thought no person was now leaving this country. That was the reason the hon. gentleman gave for the issue of this circular-to reach the people who were leaving the province and going to the United States-a direct bid to stuff the census. I think there was an interview some time ago with Mr. COte, in which that gentleman gave as a reason why the census of 891 was stuffed, that the enumerators got 3 cents per name. Well, if 3 cents per name induced these gentlemen to stuff the census, I wonder how 5 cents a name works. And when you come to the cost of the census, in 1891 it was not quite $500,000, whereas hon. gentlemen opposite have spent $1,000,000 up to date, aiid they have a year and a half before their work will be completed. I will give the hon. gentleman this advice, although he will have no census to take again, there is no doubt about that : but if he has, let him appoint his own officials, instead of allowing the premier of Ontario to unload upon him some one he wants to get rid of. That is what has happened. Mr. Blue was over the Mining Bureau of the province of Ontario, and the miners wanted to get rid of him, and they loaded him on to the Minister of Agriculture, and he has spent up to date over $1,000,000. Then, look at the number of men employed to take the census. In 1S91 there were some 4,000 odd enumerators, but there are over 8,000 to take the last census. As proof of that I will give you the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture that they appointed an enumerator for each polling sub-division, and there are over 8,000 polling sub-divisions in the Dominion of Canada. Another thing I wish to say-that the hon. gentleman takes evidence ten or eleven years after the fact as proof against men who have taken a solemn affidavit to do a certain piece of work; and the reverend, gentleman who sent in the statements which have been read, do not pretend to say that they are a full census of the people. If the hon. gentleman had read to this House the correspondence connected with the documents from which he tried to make out his ease, he would find that they condemned himself most strongly. Some
of these men gave evidence within three months, and some of these hon. gentlemen here have been hunting for evidence to justify the statement made by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. The name generally applied, I believe, to the men who get up a brief is that of jackal for the counsel employed, and the Minister of Agriculture has been acting in this capacity for his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. These hon. gentlemen had to pull the Minister of Trade and Commerce out of a hole, but it will take more than the Minister of Agriculture to do that.
What are the facts ? The exodus is still going on, to the regret of every honest Canadian. And what kind of men are leaving the country ? Young men educated in our schools, who are sent not only to our colleges but to our high schools and collegiate institutes in order to be fit for the business of life. These are the men who, finding there is no room for them in our commercial centres, have to go to the United States. After the state has educated them and their parents have made sacrifices to send them to school, they cannot find employment in this country, even in this era of boasted prosperity, and have to go to the United States. There is not a man in this country, who is engaged in business, who does not know but too well that there never was a time in the history of the country when it was so difficult to find business openings for young men of education and ability to make their way in commercial life. Let me cite one of these hon.' gentlemen's own witnesses-no doubt an unwilling witness but none the less credible on that account. I hold in my hand the repbi't of the Minister of Education for the province of Ontario. And what does he say regarding our population ? All will admit that an indication of the population of the country is the number of its children. And what do we find ? We find that the number of children of school age-and that age has not been changed since 1892-in Ontario in 1899 was 586,350 as compared with 595,238 in 1892. In other words, at the end of seven years after 1892, there were 8,838 less school children in the province of Ontario than there were seven years previously. There is one of the hon. gentleman's own witnesses. He may repudiate him if he likes, but there can be no doubt that his statement is a correct one. That is the present position. Let xhe Minister of Trade and Commerce give a little attention to these figures and see how they square with the explanation he made throughout the country in justification of our increased expenditure.
The Minister of Agriculture has laid a great deal of stress on the encouragement he claims to have given certain enterprises in this country. Does he pretend that it is he who has led the trade of the country in these matters to which the hon. gentleman has referred. If he does, no one will believe

him. Whatever development has taken place has been due to the efforts of our energetic business men who have been using every effort to push trade along. Does he pretend, for instance, that the cold storage under his control is adequate to the requirements of the country ? Let me inform him where some of our cheese is heated. It is not in the factory, but in travelling from one point to another in the country in order to reach the ocean port, and the heating is due to the absence of those cold storage cars which the hon. gentleman is supposed to provide. The cars were not on hand, supplied with this cold storage, and this cheese had to be put into red hot stations, where they had to wait for this cold storage accommodation. The heating did not take place in the factories. This we have on the authority of Professor Robertson and oiners. I have personal knowledge myself of what lam talking about, and I know that it does not make any difference how good your cheese is, if you get it heated on its way to market you may freeze it as long as you like afterwards, it will not recover its former quality. The hon. gentleman knows well that he started out with one kind of cold storage, and then found he had no ventilation and had to change it. He had to get ventilated cold storage, and that is why the ship-owners do not want to bother with him. They know very well that he does not know exactly what he is going to do.
The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE The cold storage has never been changed but we have supplied ventilation in the holds of steamers.


Andrew Broder: * Why then did the fruit which the hon. gentleman sent out get destroyed ?


Tiie MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It did not.	J's ]


Andrew Broder: Why, the hon. gentleman, in order to explain his failure, told us that over in South Africa they were six years trying to find out how to keep peaches in good condition during shipment, and he is not any more clever than the people in South Africa. He will be six years before he can get a proper system. He is only carrying out the plans laid down by the late Conservative administration, and the gentleman in charge is the same one whom the Conservatives appointed.
The' hon. gentleman takes great credit for having tried to help the farmers. But in 1896, when an estimate for cold storage was submitted to the House and when Mr. Poster, who was then acting Minister of Agriculture, wanted these gentlemen to let it go through, they refused, and yet now they talk about their endeavours to promote the interests of the farmers. The hon. gentleman asks us if we ignore the influence of the farmers institutes throughout Ontario.


Andrew Broder: Certainly not, but he must not forget that the agricultural societies do not take so much stock in what he says as he thinks they do. I find in the ' Hansard ' of 1902 that Mr. Bennett put the hon. gentleman the following question :
Is the government aware that at a meeting held on the 5th day of February, instant, in the city of Toronto, the following resolution was passed unanimously by the Shorthorn Breeders Association.
We, the members of the Dominion Short-hern Breeders Association, at our annual meeting, resolved that the tubercular test is unreliable, unnecessary, and in many cases injurious, and that we urge its discontinuance of the compulsory use of toxine by the Dominion government Department of Agriculture ; and we also fail to see the object now of requiring ninety days quarantine, as there is no contagious disease in Great Britain requiring its enforcement to such a length of. time.
In view of the above action, is it the intention of the government to meet the wishes of the said association ?
What did the minister say in reply ? He said :
It is not the intention of the government to act in the direction indicated by the resolution.
He does not pay much attention to these gentlemen nor do they pay much attention to him. Well, the hon. gentleman afterwards spoke for about a half an hour to these men trying to justify his refusal and they passed a resolution condemning it. So much for these societies view of the administration of the minister, and I think that the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario concurred in their condemnation of his administration. He is not in line with these societies, so that we must just take what he says about these matters with a considerable degree of doubt.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. The hon. gentleman spoke of the exodus of to-day as being an exodus from south to north, instead of as formerly from north to south. But he omitted to tell us that if lie and his friends had had their way in the past, there would have been no north country for any exodus to go to. That country would never have been opened up, and consequently there would be no people seeking it out as a place for settlement. But they are singing quite a different song now from what they did formerly. It was not so very long ago when they said : Let that country go, it is not worth bothering about. Very well, then hon. gentlemen have to admit that there is an increase in trade largely from the products of that country which was opened up through the efforts of the Conservative party. And when you deduct the bullion and ore, and the flour and wheat, which are the products of the North-west and Manitoba, tlie hon. gentleman's trade shrinks very rapidly. While we are on the subject of quarantine, I may say that the hon. gentleman takes great

credit for having raised the quarantine, or, rather, modified the condition between this country and the United States. I do not know what the hon. gentleman himself says, but his friends on the platform throughout the country say that Hon. Sydney Fisher, a practical farmer, convinced the American people that our cattle were free from disease. But, in the United States the cattle were known at one time to be diseased. Did the Americans convince Hon. Sydney Fisher, the practical farmer, that their cattle were not diseased ? He opened the gates irrespective of that fact, and that is one of the reasons that we cannot get the embargo In the British market raised-the hon. gentleman has put that beyond all possibility. In fact, he has abandoned the attempt, knowing the impossibility of it, since he made this arrangement with the United States. He ought to have looked after Canadian interests, and I do not see much benefit to Canadians in sending a twelve or fourteen dollar animal over to the United States for the Americans to fatten and send over to England as "worth seventy-five or eighty dollars.
The Liberal party all over this country are singing the praises of the hon. minister as a practical farmer. I question whether he has ever been between the plough tails.
I question whether he ever intends to try. But I want to tell the hon. gentleman that in spite of all the boasting of his friends, in spite of all he has said, he cannot show where he has added one article to the curriculum of the agricultural text-books. In the Agriculture Committee, we are dealing with the same subjects that we dealt with in 1896. And you can go a good deal further back. Cato was asked by a person how to get rich and his answer was ' Feed cattle.'
' Feed them how ? '	' Feed them moderately.' This was eighteen hundred and fifty years ago, and the hon. gentleman is discussing that question to-day. But this ' practical farmer ' of whom his friends say so much, does not do anything to fasten the people to the soil. What kind of farmers does he meet ? He meets the farmer who gets up at nine o'clock and goes down about three o'clock to see how his bank account stands, not the poor farmer who* rises before daylight and ploughs his furrow alone. The poor farmer of small means and in debt is not reached by the hon. gentleman. The man who can take hold and use the propositions laid down by the hon. gentleman is the man who has means to put up buildings, to buy machinery and improve his land. But the poor fellow who is looking for shelter rather than for a comfortable house, who wants to find a place to put his cattle where they will be out of the reach of the storm, is overlooked by the hon. gentleman, though he is a ' practical farmer.' That is one reason why our population is going away from the farm. Free corn, which the hon. gentleman talks so much of,
was not intended for the poor fellow I have been speaking of. He can eat Johnny cake, but the bulk of the free corn is for the cattle in the stalls. When this poor fellow puts on his shoulder a bag of grain to go to market, he is overtaken on the way by a full bag of American corn to be sold ahead of him. This is the fellow the hon. gentleman- has overlooked. What does the census show ? That census must be a cause of thought to every loyal Canadian. We know that it will be impossible to assimilate the foreign element coming into this country unless the natural increase of our population is larger than the census shows. We are up against the fact that the foreign element coming into this country, not assimilated by our own population will never have the true Canadian sentiment that should be shared by all our people. Now, in 1901, we had a rural population of 3,349,055, and an urban population of 2,206,001, that is we had 328,464 more of rural than of urban population. But ten years before, in 1891, we had 3,296,141 rural population and 1,537,098 urban population, or a rural population greater than the urban by 1,759,043. We have increased our total population by 530,427, but our population of farmers has increased by only 52,924, and that included the North-west, where hon. gentlemen claim to have sent in, since 1891,
262,000.	In other words, we have put one man on the soil and we have sent 9 to the town. And this under a ' practical farmer.' I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has not ploughed to the end of his furrow yet. His duty is hardly begun. This is a question that every honest Canadian ought to try to solve. It is a serious thing to think that this wide gate is open out of the country, that those who stand at the gate of life are able with less frequency to report a new life in which there may be great possibilities for the future. That question stands for solution not only at the door of the state, but also at the door of the church. You may have volume of trade, but the true assurance of -economic prosperity and of social security is in the increase and assimilation of population.
Now I ^vant to devoite a few minutes to another matter, which the hon. gentleman touched very lightly. It is a question that I do not wonder he touched lightly. I find he was over in England last summer. I was glad to see he was over there. He made a statement there, which is reported in the Lancashire ' Courier,' while he was speaking before the Board of Trade. He told them that we did not want anything for this preference which we are giving them. The right hon. gentleman who leads the government had already made that statement a few years ago. But that is not the end of it. We see Mr. W. T. it. Preston bobbing up a few days ago at the London Chamber of Commerce, and saying, We do not want anything for this. How are public men in

England, however well Inclined they may toe to give Canada a preference in the British markets, to go to their people and ask them to make any sacrifices, when the premier of Canada, the Minister of Agriculture and their agents are singing out, We don't want any preference V It is a difficult task for the public men of England to encourage or advocate a preference to the colonies in face of this Canadian government saying, We don't want it. These gentlemen are not honest in the interests of Canada when they make that statement. They say there is a great deal in sentiment. Well, Sir, if we follow the history of trade in the United States there is very little in sentiment. It is a very strange fact that the trade of the United States for the last forty years has increased and expanded as England's trade and colonial expansion has increased and expanded. The United States' expansion of trade with England has increased as England's has increased. But that is not the history of Canada. These gentlemen should endeavour to put Canada in the same relative position towards England that the United States occupies ; and, Sir, they are not true to the interests' of this country when they make no attempt to do so. If there is one thing more than another that renders high protection necessary in Canada it is the conditions of this country. What are they V As an English writer has said, the conditions which justify protection are, a country with large natural resources undeveloped, a high political and industrial outlook, and late on coming into the markets of industry. That is exactly the position of Canada. We have untold resources undeveloped ; we think we have the prospect of high intellectual and political advancement, and we know we have ability in the [DOT] markets of industry. Therefore, the duty of Canadians is to stand by these conditions and to make the fiscal policy one that w-iil develop those conditions to the highest extent possible.


THE SOUTH AFRICAN WAR-CANADIAN CASUALTIES.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Before the House rises at six o'clock the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Mr. Borden) desires to read an important telegram.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: I have here a message which has been sent from Capetown to His Excellency the Governor General, and as it refers to a press despatch which has been reported to-day in the bulletins, and gives further particulars in reference to it, I thought the House would like to hear it:
Capetown, April 4, 1902.
Governor, Ottawa.
'C' 3963. Following casualties reported. Das-chpoort 138, Kleinhardls river, 31st March. 2nd Regiment Canadian Mounted Rifles. Severely wounded, Lt. R. H. Ryan, forearm. Slightly Mr. BRODER.
wounded, Lieut. George Baptist McKay, hand ; Lieut. R. F. Markham, arm ; Lieut. W. P. Louden, shoulder. Non-commissioned officers and men killed, 9 ; wounded, 40. Names not yet received.
(Sgd.) CASUALTY.
I may be allowed to add, Mr. Speaker, that while this is very sad news, there is this satisfaction to be taken out of it, that Canadians are maintaining that reputation which they have already earned in South Africa, and that they still prefer death to surrender.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House again In committee on BUI No. 37 to incorporate the Sprague's Falls Manufacturing [DOT] Company, Limited.-Mr. Emmerson.
On section 10,
The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. H. G. Carroll).: It has been agreed that an amendment shall be made to section 10, wbich reads as follows :
The company shall not take or hold within its booms any prize or unmarked logs, &e.
The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) suggested that this clause would perhaps come into conflict with the laws of the legislature of New Brunswick, but in looking into the statutes of New Brunswick I find that the only sections which would bear upon this subject are sections 5 and 9 of the Revised Statutes, chap. 133. Section 5 provides :
In any prosecution under this chapter .	. .
IE the justice shall be satisfied upon sufficient evidence that the ownership of such lumber is in the claimant, or any person not being the defendant, he shall order the same to be delivered up to the owner thereof, or his agent, on payment of reasonable charges for keeping the same.
Section 9 says :
The owner of any such lumber may at any reasonable time, by himself or his agent, enter in a peaceable manner upon any mill, mill-pond brow, boom or raft of lumber, in search of any such property he may have lost; any person wilfully preventing such search, shall for each offence forfeit not more than ten, nor less than five pounds, to be paid to the person by whom or tn whose account such entry may have been claimed.
These are the only sections that relate to this matter, and this section 10 of the Bill does not conflict with any provincial law, but as the bon. leader of the opposition wanted this matter to be made absolutely clear I have prepared an amendment to this section which reads as follows :

Subject to the provisions of any Act of the legislature of the said province, the company shall not take or hold- within its booms any prize or unmarked logs and any person, &c.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 39 to incorporate the St. Lawrence and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Bureau.
On section 10,
Tie company may construct and operate telegraph and telephone lines and establish offices for the transmission of messages for the public and collect tolls for so doing ; and for the purpose of operating such telegraph and telephone lines, the company may enter into a contract with any other company, or may lease the company's lines or any part thereof, and may connect its lines with the lines of any telegraph or telephone company.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: If this is a general power given to this company all along its main line and branches not only for the purposes of the -undertaking hut also for the purpose of doing a general business it must connect with towns and villages, and toefore placing its poles on the streets and highways it should obtain the authority of the municipal corporations. We should put the same conditions in this Bill as those we put in a Bill last week and which we put into all telephone and telegraph Bills that we pass.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: I think the Railway Act provides for that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does not.


Mr. HYMAN.: Probably there is more restriction in this clause than there is in the general sense. It is quite true what the hon. gentleman for Grey says, that they are generally restricted ' for the purposes of the undertaking but in this particular instance they are restricted along the whole length -of the line of the railway and its branches.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you allow them to do a general business they must connect with villages somewhere and then they would depart some distance from their line.


Charles Smith Hyman: They are only entitled to construct telegraphs along their line and can only use their own stations I suppose.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the way I understood it at first, but it would seem that the language of the section might empower the company to construct telephone lines elsewhere than on their own property. The section says that they may construct ' along the line of their railway,' and it seems to me that might empower them to construct along the railway but not necessarily on their own property.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: Suppose the railway line would take a circuitous route and that by cutting across they could save a few miles of poles and wires they should not be deprived of that privilege.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly not, but if they cross a highway they should be subject to having the consent of the municipality, and if they build on private property there should be compensation.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I quite agree in that.


Robert Laird Borden: If the clause were made to read ' upon and along their line of railway ' it would make it plain.


Charles Smith Hyman: There would be no objection to that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose they lease another line, what power would they have under this Act.


Mr. FRASER.: They would take over the power of the company from whom they leased it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition would cover the ground.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, read a third time, and passed.


STRAIT OF CANSO BRIDGE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 46) to incorporate the Strait of Canso Bridge Company.-Mr. McLennan.
On subsection C, of section- 8,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there -anything to provide that tolls shall -be subject to the approval of the Governor -in Council ? Does -the Railway Act provide this ?


Mr. WADE.: There was some doubt in the committee as to whether the Railway Act provided for tolls over a bridge, and therefore these words ' subject to the provisions of the Railway Act ' were added to subsection C. in the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We ought to make it clear that the tolls shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council before this Bill becomes law.


David Tisdale: If the words added are not sufficient, we ought to mention that special section of the Railway Act, so as to make it clear that it governs the tolls on the bridge.


Fletcher Bath Wade: One of the points raised in the Railway Committee was that, as there was some little doubt, it would be better to provide that the tolls over the bridge should be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. But instead of these words the words 1 subject to the Rail-

way Act ' were put in, which does not carry out the intention of the committee. X would therefore move that words be added making these tolls subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. It is the intention of the promoters that the Governor in Council should hpve control over everything.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I should be disposed to go further and provide that the Governor in Council shall have the power to revise the tolls and lower them if necessary. When we say that the tolls shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, then once they are approved, the company may refuse to lower them although they may prove to be too. high. Once these tolls are approved and become law, and the company do not change them, the Governor in Council may not have the power to make any change. Then, what is subject to the Railway Act would only be the railway tolls. It would not apply to foot passengers or vehicles. There must be some provision giving the Governor in Council control of these tolls also.


David Tisdale: I might also call attention to the fact that the Railway xlct only regulates tolls on the railways. The company fixes the tolls and the Governor in Council approves of them. But bridge tolls, as a rule, have been treated as distinct from railway tolls, and there has been a special clause authorizing the Governor in Council to deal with them.


Fletcher Bath Wade: That is all I proposed. I submit that the words in the Bill do not correctly represent what was agreed upon in the committee, and I proposed to substitute the words ' subject to the control of the Governor in Council.' That gives continuing control.


David Tisdale: I would suggest that it be made ' control and regulation.'


Fletcher Bath Wade: I am free to put that in.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would be indefinite. What kind of ' control ' is meant ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: If it is by this government, it will be good control.


David Tisdale: Make it ' fix, control and regulate.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the Governor in Council has the power to fix the tolls in the first place as well as to regulate them, that will be all right.


Peter Macdonald: Mr. Wade moves that the words ' provisions of the Railway Act ' be struck out, and the following words be inserted ' the control and regulation of the Governor in Council.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not like to object, but I do not see why we should not have the carefully considered clause which has been used in other cases. This does not seem to be very clear. .


Fletcher Bath Wade: 


Fletcher Bath Wade: Put in both. The object of the company is to have the tolls absolutely under the control of the Governor in Council. I thought I had met the objection of the other side, having adopted the phraseology of the leader of the opposition. But if any hon. gentleman thinks it well to have the tolls subjected to the clause of the Railway Act, then, put that in also.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) does not understand the position taken by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule). There is a clause which has been used in the acts governing other bridges, and it is suggested that this clause should be used. The chairman of the Railway Committee is in the House and could inform us about this.


Fletcher Bath Wade: It seems doubtful whether the provisions of the Railway Act cover tolls on bridges. But if we make this Bill subject to the Railway Act and add, with regard to this clause, that the tolls shall be subject to the control of the Governor in Council, surely we have it all covered.


David Tisdale: But, as I have pointed out, under the Railway Act, the company fixes the tolls and takes them to the Governor in Council to be approved. But, under the bridge clause, the tolls must be fixed before they commence charging at all. I do not wish to take up time, as we have only an hour and we desire to put through these other Bills. But if you provide that the Governor in Council shall ' fix, control and regulate ' the tolls, you make it all right. If we do not put this in satisfactory form now, I fear we shall have it back from the Senate.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Where would the hon. gentleman suggest putting in the word 'fix'?


Robert Laird Borden: You will have to alter the form of it. If you make it ' charge and Collect such tolls upon and for the use of the bridge and railways as shall be fixed and determined by the Governor in Council,' that would cover it.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I am quite content.


David Tisdale: Make it ' as shall from time to time, be fixed by the Governor in Council.'


Fletcher Bath Wade: I move to add these words at the end of the section : ' Such tolls to be fixed and regulated by the Governor in Council.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we should say from ' time to time.' What would be a reasonable toll to-da3r, a few years hence might be found very unreasonable, and the Governor in Council ought to have power to compel a reduction of tolls if necessary.


Fletcher Bath Wade: They have the power. A railway has to submit its schedule of rates

and classifications to the government, giving their maximum rates, and the government approves of it. But at any time after that, the government has power to alter tlie classification or to alter the rates. That has been done with railways, and it can be done here.


Robert Laird Borden: The Governor in Council surely can be trusted not to embarrass a company by making arbitrary and unnecessary changes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let us understand whether the government have this power or not, because if not, we shall insist upon the Bill being held over until we can have it amended. If, as the member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) says, the Governor in Council has power to change the rates from time to time, then * there can be no reasonable objection to put those words ' from time to time ' in the Bill, so that they shall have power to regulate and change the tolls.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: If they have that power now under the Railway Act, it is hardly worth while bringing it in here.


David Tisdale: One of the vexed questions under the Railway Act to-day is whether they can change a toll once they have approved of it. There is no authority under the Railway Act to levy a cent for persons or animals crossing the bridge, but only as to freights.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I move in amendment that the words ' from time to time ' be inserted after the word ' regulate.'


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: There doesn't seem to be any great necessity for putting in those Words ' from time to time.' If the matter is subject to the Railway Act, it seems to me the Governor in Council has already authority to regulate the tolls from time to time.


Fletcher Bath Wade: It may have a weakening effect on the charter. It may be necessary for that company to come to the government and get a rate fixed before they can finance their scheme. If it were known that that rate were subject to change, they might not be able to raise capital sufficient to build the bridge. If you go into the money markets of the world with a scheme to build a bridge, and you show that you have a fixed rate for a certain length of time, the scheme may be enticing; but if it appears on the face of the Bill that these tolls as they exist to-day may be arbitrarily changed to-morrow by the government, that provision would have a deterrent effect on financiers. Therefore, I think if the government has power to fix and regulate tolls, they have power to say that they will fix this toll now for five , years, or ten years, or twenty years. We will submit to any provision fixing the tolls for a certain period. I do not like to have the Bill made
hard and fast, or made in such a form as will kill the whole scheme. It is hard enough to get money now. The Bill in its present shape passed the Railway Committee unanimously after it was fully discussed. I do not think it is hardly fair that these technical objections should be taken, thev can accomplish no good. The hands of the government are entirely free, when tlie company goes to have its rates fixed. The government is absolutely free to make any rates they think desirable under the circumstances, in order to give such encouragement to the scheme as may be necessary to carry it through.


Robert Laird Borden: Do you go to the Governor in Council to get your rates fixed before you finance the bridge ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: Yes, the company may have to.


Robert Laird Borden: A railway company for example, does not go to the Governor in Council in order to have their rates approved before they finance their scheme. In all these cases you may trust to the Governor in Council being reasonable, that they will not arbitrarily change these rates from year to year. Any railway company is in the same position with regard to fixing its rates. I think the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is reasonable. It may not be in the power of the Governor in Council ever to touch these tolls again, and I think they should have power to change them when they think circumstances require it. It may be that the tolls twenty-five years from now should be very much less than they are now. The Governor in Council must have the right to interfere. My hon. friend says the Governor in Council has the right to interfere as to railways ; should he not have the same right in respect to these tolls ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: There is this difference ; in regard to nine-tenths of the railways in the Dominion there is a recognized rate which is the maximum rate that railways are permitted to charge. Therefore, if a railway is being promoted, the parties have the right to assume that they will be permitted to charge the usual maximum rate throughout the Dominion. It is quite a different matter in regard to a bridge, because, a bridge being constructed under circumstances of this sort, there is no arrangement as to the tolls they may be permitted to be charged and in my humble judgment I believe it would be necessary for the parties to go to the Governor in Council before they could finance their scheme and ask what would be the maximum rate they could charge. I do not think that would be unreasonable. The Governor in Council has the power to say: We will fix you this rate unaltered for two or five or ten years but only for that time. The Governor in Council is at liberty to

use his discretion as thinks proper under Council before they are changed. The clause the circumstances.	reads :


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) had been in this House a few years ago he would have remembered a discussion which took place in regard to the rates charged on the Victoria Bridge, Montreal. He would remember that it was contended that once the Governor in Council had fixed the rates he could not change them, and notwithstanding the fact that the rates charged then were much too high it was contended that the Governor in Council could not lower them. It is to avoid such a thing as that occurring in the future that we ask for the insertion of this provision. There is another thing which I would like to mention. We have a Minister of Railways and Canals and there are other members of the government who are responsible for looking into railway Bills and Bills of this kind. We should hear from them upon the subject. I am quite sure if the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals was here he would agree with us, and put in a clause to regulate the tolls for foot passengers and other traffic.


Fletcher Bath Wade: These are the words that he suggests.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me very uncertain what the words are, because some hon. gentlemen say these are not the words that were put in by the committee. I think the hon. member had better accept this amendment, because I think that finally the Bill, if it passes, will pass with this clause in. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask him to accept the clause, and if the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals were here, I am sure he would insist upon it.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, if I understand aright the amendment proposed by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), that it would practically impose upon the government the duty of regulating the tolls from time to time, not giving them the privilege of doing it, but imposing upon them the duty of doing so. Instead of putting in this clause suggested by way of amendment I believe that if we simply inserted the word ' control ' making it read ' subject to the control ' it would meet every objection that has been raised, because the word ' control,' in itself, without limitation, means absolute control. If the Governor in Council has the control of these rates, he has the absolute control unless it is limited by legislation and he can fix the rates from time to time.


David Tisdale: Here is the Bill prepared by the_ Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) in regard to telephones and in it lie places a clause giving the Governor in Council power to regulate tolls, saying that they must be approved by the Governor in


Fletcher Bath Wade: Every by-law fixing and regulating tolls shall be subject to revision by the Governor in Council, from time to time after approval thereof.
Why would he do that if there was no doubt, because this is the same principle ? I have not had as much practical experience as the hon. member for Annapolis has had, but I have always understood that this was one of the vexed questions under the Railway Act, because, when the maximum rate was once fixed the railway companies have never wanted to change. But here, in this proposed telephone Bill, the hon. Minister of Justice proposes that this approval shall be necessary, and I think very wisely. He put it beyond peradventure. I quite agree with the hon. member for Annapolis, and that never struck me until he mentioned it, that it might affect railway companies in making through rates because bridge tolls might be of a nature which would make it extremely difficult for them to carry out their arangements. But, if the hon. gentleman is right in his contention that the Governor in Council always has the right to change railway traffic arrangements and rates after they have once been approved, then there would be nothing in his argument that that might injuriously affect the financing of the company. I do not know whether this is so or not but I do hope that when the Railway Act is consolidated the Minister of Railways and Canals, or parliament, will see to it that that question shall be settled and that the Governor in Council shall not only have the right to approve of the rates, but from time to time to alter them if there is any question about their alteration. I think probably the words that my hon. friend proposes to put in would enable the Governor in Council to change these rates, and I cannot see why, if they are not sufficient he should object to putting in the words ' from time to time ' to make it clear.


Fletcher Bath Wade: No such provision, as far as I know-of course, I may be entirely wrong about this because I am not familiar with all the bridge Bills that are before the House-but no such provision as is now being sought to be incorporated in this Bill, has been asked for in regard to any other bridge Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes it has.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I am told that there has been no such provision proposed, and if I am wrong I will vacate my words. I can see difficulties in the way of putting in the words that are suggested, and these difficulties are to my mind difficulties which may be of much importance to the company.
I am willing to assume this position that if any provisions similar to this have been included in the other Bills I will agree to this. I can see where it may be fatal to the

interests of the company and I do not want it to go in unless it has been included in other Bills.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let us rise, and report progress and we can find out.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. Mr. Fielding).: I was not present at the committee when this Bill was discussed. Probably the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has had the matter under consideration and if the usual provisions in the bridge Bills are included in this that is all that is necessary. I would suggest that we proceed with the Bill, reserving this one point.
Subsection C of section 8 allowed to stand.
Progress reported.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 52) respecting the St. Clair and Erie Ship Canal Company.-Hon. Mr. Tisdale.
Bill (No. 44) respecting the Tilsonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company.- Mr. McCarthy.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 83) to incorporate the Canadian Northern Express Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 86) respecting the Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 87) respecting the Quebec Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.

[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 be granted to His Majesty ; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
Andrew Broder: Mr. Speaker, just Before the House rose at six o'clock, I was interrupted in my remarks by the announcement made toy the Minister of Militia ; an announcement which I am sure every one in this House received with mingled feelings of regret and pride-regret for the loss of the lives of the torave Canadians, the news of which will darken many a home throughout the land ; and pride, that they died bravely fighting for the British empire. But, Sir, I thought when that announcement was made that it would be well for hon. gentlemen opposite to put up their colours somewhere, and to emulate the example of these brave Canadians. I was proceeding to remark that the American expansion of trade was commensurate with the expansion of English trade and commerce, and I shall read some figures from an American authority to prove the statement I make. I want to say this:	That the importance of the
trade of the British empire to any country can be easily understood when it is realized that the largest political organization the world has ever seen under civilized government, the British empire, embraces 16,662,073 square miles containing 387,000.000 of people. The official figures given by the writer to whom I have referred, tell us that one-third of a century ago the American exports to Great Britain amounted to $225,090,224, and in 1900 they amounted to $533,819,545 ; an increase in thirty-three years of 137 per cent. During the same period, the American exports to British Africa increased 1,013 per cent; to British Australasia 421 per cent ; to British India, 1,126 per cent, and to British America 322 per cent. In 1900 the American exports to the entire world amounted to $1,394,483,082, of which they shipped to the British dominions $702,070,802, or in other words, 50 '34 of the whole, and to Great Britain alone, they shipped $553,819,454, or 28-28 per cent. During the same year the United States exports to Germany and to all German colonies were 13-43 per cent; to France and to all French colonies 6-22 per cent ; to Italy 2-31 per cent; and to Russia three-fourths of one per cent.. I want to say here that while hon. gentlemen opposite say so much about the change in British sentiment and the increased trade in consequence of that ehange, let me point out that Russia, a country that has been particularly friendly with the United States for thirty years only takes three-quarters of one per cent of the American exports. The Austrian empire only took one-half of one per cent of the export trade of the United States. In other words, the American exports to Great Britain are four times the value of those to Germany ; eight times the value of those to France ; twenty-one times the value of those to Italy; seventy times the value of those to Russia, and a hundred times the value of those to Austria. The American exports to Great [DOT]Britain are more than double the American exports to Germany, France, Italy, Russia and Austria combined ; one-third greater than to all the continent of Europe ; and more than the American exports to all the rest of the world.
In view of that, I wish to say that the gentlemen who have control of the government of this country to-day, should wake up to the necessity of endeavouring to get control of our share of that great market which is now being occupied by the United States. It is a singular fact that notwithstanding the large area of agricultural lands in the United States, agriculture has ceased to be the dominant industry in that country, and manufacturing has become the domi-

gentlemen opposite should be ready to meet the English people half way in the interests of this country. If they would do this and if the responsibility were thrown upon the colonies of furnishing England with agricultural products, there would be a great increase in the acreage of wheat in this country in the very near future. If our Canadian farmers were aware that that market was there waiting for them, he would set about the task of furnishing it with all the agricultural products it can absorb. If there is one motto more than another that ought to be the watchword of every true Canadian, it is this : ' Back to the soil.' I do not mean that in any narrow, but in the widest possible sense. If we ever want to foster Canadian sentiment in this country, we must in every sense of the word, in our literature, in our trade, get back to the soil, and thus cultivate a true Canadian sentiment, not only in the interests of this country, but of the empire at large.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: In endeavouring, Mr. Speaker, to discharge our duties to our constituents and the Dominion of Canada at large, it seldom happens, unfortunately, that we can discuss any question upon which the different parties in this House entirely agree, but I feel that in the message conveyed to us by the Minister of Militia to-night, a subject is touched on which both sides of this House are heartily in accord. We all join in sympathy and regret that others had been added to the long list of those from Canada who have sacrificed themselves in South Africa for the empire. But also we rejoice that, while this loss has been sustained, we have the consolation of knowing that again the Canadian soldiers have acquitted themselves well in the field and have won for this country added renown. Casting over in my mind the many prominent statesmen who have adorned this country on both sides of politics, I venture to say that no act of theirs has ever brought Canada to the attention of Great Britain or stirred to the same extent the interest in this country of the people of the motherland, as the loyal response of the Canadian people themselves when England entered upon the present war in South Africa, the ready offer of service by our Canadian boys, and their valiant acts upon the field of battle in that far away land.
But it is my duty, my painful duty, to turn from things like this, to speak of the government of the day in this country. And, speaking of war, I am reminded that war always has a tendency to unite factions. The moment a country or a party is attacked from without, the rancor and hostility within that country or party are likely to yield, for the time, at any rate. To-day we have the Liberal party coming against the mountain, or the mountain coming against them in the person of the hon. mem-Mr. BRODER.
ber from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). The
government, as we all know, was in a rather unpleasant position, as touching that good will which should exist among the members of a government. But there are indications to-night that the attack, the very justifiable attack, which the hon. member for North Norfolk made upon the policy of the government has been having the effect, though slowly, of closing up the ranks of the cabinet, and it may have even affected the desirable change of bringing about comparative harmony. We have indication of it to some extent to-day. Since the 17th of March, we have been discussing this question, and with the exception of the speech of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) we have not heard one word from the government until this afternoon, when the hon. Minister of Agriculture spoke, brought into line, no doubt, by the circumstances I have referred to.
I notice that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce opened his very long and very familiar speech the other night by saying that if he had closed his eyes he could have imagined himself back in the old days of twenty-five years ago, and thought he was listening to the Conservative party of that day. Well, Sir, when he listened to the Conservative party of twenty-five years ago, he listened to as able men as it has ever been the happy lot of Canada to possess. And I am glad to tell my hon. friend, and to tell the Liberal party of Canada, that the policy which Sir John Macdonald originated in 1876-78 was so broad, it was so much more than a mere matter of tariff policy, it was so far-reaching in its operation and effects, that it is a policy upon which a progressive, intelligent and patriotic party can stand to-day. I cannot return the compliment which my hon. friend unwittingly paid to us and say that if we had closed our eyes we could imagine we were listening to the oratory with which the Mackenzie administration was defended in 1876, 1877 and 1878. Anyone who listened to the utterances of the speakers on behalf of the Liberal party from 1874 to 1878, would be a very dull man indeed if he did not mark the contrast afforded by the Liberal party of to-day. There were giants in those days on both sides; but where are the giants on that side to-night ?
Mr. McCarthy. Where, and oh, where 7


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) says ' Where, and oh, where, and oh, where ?' When I stand up to address the House upon any public question, the House learns the position I take upon that question, though it be one of the great issues of the day. But when my hon. friend from North Simcoe rises, the question is ' Where, and oh, where, and oh, whore ?' We see a peculiar state of things arising from the agitation which

has 'been created by the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk. The position in which the Liberals find themselves by reason of that speech is not at all pleasant for them. We saw the consternation that was depicted on their faces. But we can imagine that when another Sunday has been passed and the whole matter has been thought over, the government leaders to some extent may recover and next week we may hear from them. But, for the time being, the murmur went round, and the voice of the Liberal party was : We brought this man forth to curse the Conservative party, but behold he has altogether blessed them.
Now, 1 come to speak for a moment or two of some statements made this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture. 1 may say at once that I do not propose to take up much time in discussing the relative merits of the census taking of 1891 and of 1901. It is not a question with the people of this country as to how the census of 1891 was taken ; but the people, realizing that they are living in the twentieth century, are asking what the government of the day is doing, not what was done by another government ten or eleven years ago. I wish to remind my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture that by blackening the character of the gentlemen who took the census in 1891, he gives no certificate, either to the gentlemen who took the census in 1901, nor to the minister who presides over the department under which that census was taken. I was struck with the answer that the hon. gentleman gave to the question as to what steps he took for the purpose of ascertaining that the information he got is correct. I venture to say that such evidence as the Minister of Agriculture placed before this House to show the truth of the statements he made, would not be accepted in any law court of 'the land. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture, devoting himself to agricultural pursuits, is not aware of what is required in order to constitute reasonable proof in the minds of the people of this country on that point. But I call his attention and the attention of the House to the fact that there is not at present any verification of the census of 1901 ; but on the other hand, we have evidence that the administration flagrantly transgressed in many instances that have already been brought to the attention of the House, and also in respect to the methods that were adopted in sending out circulars to the census takers. There is great reason to suppose that the statements that he made are of no value whatever, and there is great reason to believe that if an investigation such as he has made was instituted in regard to the census of 1901, an even worse showing would be made than he has made regarding the census of 1891. Now I think the Minister of Agriculture is hardly doing himself justice, or doing justice to the government of which he is a member, in trying to make a mountain over 70
these little mattei's which he supported with such frail evidence. When an hon. gentleman occupying a responsible position tries to grow eloquent over such little petty circumstances as he did when he read statistics uncorroborated by any substantial evidence, it makes one feel that there is not much substance in his arguments. When he goes from climax to climax over the fact that in some lower Canadian households there are as many as 18 children, he hardly gauges correctly the intelligence of the members of this House.
But I pass over that question, and proceed to consider some questions that have been raised by other hon. members. The hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Sutherland) gave us the other day a very interesting list of the acts of this government during the six years that they have been in power. Well, I am glad he gave us that list. It is not very much to be proud of, if that is all they can show of what they have been doing for the benefit of this country. He might have told us of some other little things they have been doing, but he was probably endeavouring to make the same excuse that the leader of the government made in Toronto when he said that there was nothing to reform. Among the matters for which I notice the Liberal party are disposed to take credit, is the reduction of the postage, or what is called the Penny Postage Act. Now, Mr. Speaker, why should the Liberal party take credit for this penny postage ? Was there much labour involved in changing the rate of postage from 3 cents to 2 cents ? Did it involve much negotiation upon the part of the ministry ? 1 do not think they claim that it did ; what they claim is that this bright idea originated in the fertile brain of the Postmaster General. But I do not think that claim will stand investigation. If you inquire you will find that the idea originated as far back as 1896 ; when the Chambers of Commerce of the empire met in London, that was one of the articles of their programme which was discussed and endorsed. Coming as it did prominently before the empire in 1896, the year when this government came into power, it is not surprising that the Postmaster General seized upon the opportunity, and that this opportunist government seized upon the opportunity of making the change.
But I desire especially to call attention to some things that this government have not done, and that are matters of extreme urgency indeed. What have they done in regard to the regulation of freight rates ? Has there ever been a greater grievance, a greater iniquity, perpetrated upon the people than the freight rates as they exist today in the Dominion of Canada ? Why, Sir, it is a fact that the shipper for a short haul is compelled to pay, not merely the same as for a long haul, but in many instances even more than a shipper for a long haul. This I is a grievance that calls at once for the in-



terference of the government, and they can offer no reasonable excuse for having allowed that grievance to exist so long.
Take the question of national transportation. If there is a matter upon which the great agricultural classes of this country have set their heart and which is of vital importance to them it is this question of transportation. Looking at it in the broader sense, if there is anything that would tend to secure a permanent advantage to the people, if there is anything wliich is a living question to-day it is the problem, the greatest problem that any one can address himself to, of solving the best means of carrying across this continent and in the direction of the markets of the world the products of the agriculturists and of other producers in this country. The government have practically nothing to do as this session manifestly shows, because the government have nothing to bring down for the consideration of parliament. If there is anything which calls for the attention of parliament, it is this question. Can the hon. gentlemen give us any reason, any excuse, why this matter has not been taken up and discussed by the representatives of the people and parliament, getting upon it the light and intelligence that will result from laying the matter before the public through the newspapers and so bringing to bear upon it the best views of the people ? I know, of course, that there is the scheme of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). <That has no practical bearing on the case, because we know that the hon. Minister of Public Works persists in announcing that this is only an idea of his own. He does not propose to pledge parliament to it and it cannot be treated as a government scheme. Therefore, we have no general transportation scheme for this country. The result has already begun to be manifested in the fact that the grain of this country which should pass through Canada is passing along American lines and that the grain which is being brought through this country is being taken to American ports for shipment. But, although there is no large scheme of transportation before the people through the instrumentality of the government we have an expenditure of money going on which would almost be sufficient for the inception of this large work and for its carrying out. We have little sums of money, sometimes considerable sums of money, and sometimes large sums of money spent here and there, everywhere, God knows where, because the hon. Minister of Public Works cannot even tell us where the place is; it is not on the map. It is at some hamlet, or some harbour at the mouth of a small creek at which money is spent and spent for what ? To promote a summer hotel ? But the idea is that it is spent at such places as this for the gratification of the parties locally interested and it is a fraud upon the country that should not prevail If there were some large,


Haughton Lennox: comprehensive, intelligible scheme laid down for the development of this country, then, we would not complain, but what I do now complain of is that when an election is coming on, or when an election is contemplated, these moneys are being spent in the various localities, not to serve the public interest, but to demoralize the electors. Am I right in saying so ? If you go back just a few months to the eve of this session you have a very significant instance of that. I am glad to see that at this moment the right hon. the leader of the government (Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has returned, because he is one of the gentlemen of whom I wish to speak just now. Speaking of this expenditure of public money here and there where it is totally unjustifiable I want to call the attention of the House to the speeches that were made in Montreal just a few momns ago on the eve of an election, and if you pay any attention to the speeches, the eloquent speeches, delivered by the right hon, the leader of the government and the speeches delivered by the hon. Minister of Public Works, you will have a very fair key to the whole situation. These hon. gentlemen vied with each other on that occasion during an election campaign, when they were trying'to settle the differences between the rival candidates, in showing the magnificent prospects that would result to the city of Montreal by the contemplated expenditure of money. Mr. Speaker, I submit, that if we are going to have fair, ordinary decency in public life, if we are going to have any pretense of honesty this thing should come to an end and there should be a rule laid down as to the expenditure of public money. It should be expended upon some principle. It is not for me, a young member, to outline thait principle, it is not for the opposition to make a policy for the gov-, eminent, but I would suggest for the consideration of the government that there ought not to be money spent upon harbours or on works which have merely a local significance, or which are of mere local benefit in a town or village or township. These matters are intended to be provided for by the township or town or village as the case may be. I submit that if there was a proper policy upon this matter formed, which would not be departed from, laying down that until a work had become a national work in which the people of the country were interested not merely a local municipality or village, then, something like an honest distribution of public funds would be arrived at, and until this is done there must be an unfair and dishonest administration of the people's funds. We also see that this government which has nothing to do and which the right hon. the leader of the government has said has nothing to reform, has allowed this matter of fast Atlantic steamships to still remain in abeyance. I would ask the government which was in such a hurry to come in, which was so anxious to do

better than the old administration what valid excuse it can give to the people for allowing this matter to remain in statu quo until the present day. Can the government plead a rush of business ? There is nothing in this parliament to do except to pass some private Bills in the interest of the railway companies and other corporations of that kind. It is well enough to serve these companies and incidentally it may be in the interest of the people, but when we come to meet here great public measures should be brought before the representatives of the people and I think it would be hard indeed for the government to find an excuse for its delay in this regard. Even in the matter of legislating with reference to the cattle guards question, they have delayed doing so' without any reasonable excuse. A year ago we were told by the Minister of Railways that he had not had time for consideration, but a year has passed, nothing has been done, and we are again told that there must be another year's delay. I speak of these matters because they more particularly affect the interests of the farming community. There is indeed a long list of things which the government might reform, but which the government has not reformed, and which apparently the government do not intend to reform.
I have heard it said a good many times in this House by hon. gentlemen on the other side, that you may protect the manufacturers but that you cannot possibly protect the farmers. Well, gentlemen who make such a statement as that have not carefully considered the matter. If they would only look at the Customs Act they would find a long list of agricultural products that were protected under the Conservative government. and which retain a measure of protection to-day. That fact alone is sufficient evidence that you can protect the agriculturists. You can protect them in a direct way by putting a reasonably high duty, upon the products of the farm, the garden, the orchard ; upon animals and their products, and upon all things generally which farmers have for sale. There is also an indirect protection which you can give to the farmers, and that indirect protection is given in this way. Wherever you place a duty upon an article which is required by Canadian manufacturers, which forms the raw material of their business, and which article can be supplied by the farmers of Canada, then you protect the farmer to a considerable extent.
We therefore have direct protection and indirect protection for the farmer, and if it is found that more protection is required there is no obstacle whatever in the way of the government giving our farming community that adequate protection. It is idle for the government and their supporters to try to make the farmers believe that the reason why they have not done more for 70J
that class of the community, is because they are helpless to protect them. I assert Sir, without fear of successful contradiction, that the government has it in its power to give adequate protection to the Canadian farmer as they can give adequate protection to the Canadian manufacturer.
I shall not take up much time treating of the budget speech because unless you enter into a dry analysis of figures, it is one of those deliverances which do not afford mueh ground for discussion. I call the attention of the government to the fact, that year after year the budget is losing its old time significance as a declaration of the policy of the party in power, as well as being a financial report. It used to be, as hon. gentlemen can ascertain by looking up ' Hansard,' that before this government came into power-under the Mackenzie government and under the Conservative government-we got a clear and explicit declaration of the policy of the party for the coming twelve months at least, either in the budget speech or the Speech from the Throne. But now the Speech from the Throne enunciates no policy of the government, and the budget speech outlines nothing as to the future except an expression of hope by the Finance Minister that prosperity will continue. We could as well discuss the policy of this administration from the public accounts as from any information that is vouchsafed by the Finance Minister of to-day in his annual financial statement. However, let me draw attention to some of the figures which have been placed before the House. The revenue for the fiscal year 1899-1900 was $51,029,994.02, and the revenue for the fiscal year ending 1900-1901 was $52,514,701.01. The increased revenue of the one year over the other was therefore $1,484,707, or 2'91 per cent. One would expect that in these abundant times the expenditure would not increase at all events more rapidly than the revenue, but we find that the expenditure for the year 1899-1900 was $52,717,Kid.81, and the expenditure for the year 1900-1901 was $57,982,866.46, an increased expenditure in the latter year over the former amounting to $5,265,399.62, or 9'98 per cent. Therefore we find ourselves confronted with this result, that our income is increasing at the rate of 3 per cent while our expenditure is increasing at the rate of 10 per cent, in round numbers. And during this prosperous time when the people of the country might reasonably expect that there would be no increase in the public debt, we have the fact staring us in the face that there has been during the fiscal year just closed a net addition of $3,000,000 to the public debt.
We have this promising state of things announced by the Finance Minister, that we may expect by the end of the year which will be closed on the 30th of June next, another $6,000,000 added to the public debt of this country ; and yet the hon. gentleman, who seems to have got into that strain of

mind and that habit of language, says that we have reason to be thankful. He says that we must congratulate ourselves. That there is great reason why not only the government, who are enjoying the fruits of office, but the country and the representatives of the people on this side of the House, should be thankful for this state of things and desirous of its continuance. Thankful for what, Sir ? Thankful for the fact that, in a year when there should not have been one dollar added to the public debt of the country, we have an increase of $3,000,000 1 Thankful for the fact that at a time when, having regard to the revenue, we should not anticipate any increase, there is another $6,000,000 to toe added, and that toy that time this country will be in debt to the amount of 274i millions of money ? Why, the toon, gentleman must think that we ought to be thankful for whatever we get. There was a boy, a midshipman, but in reality a midship-mite, who was taunted toy his companions about his size. It was suggested by them that he could not perform any great deeds of valour. He wished to prove that he could, and one morning he went out pretty early from the ship, taking with him his gun and a piece of pork. He made a fire and suspended the pork over it, and so attracted a couple of bears. In the meantime he had got up into a tree. He fired a shot at one of the bears, and then he recollected to his dismay that he had left his ammunition at the foot of the tree. The companion bear, after devouring the meat, lay down to sleep, and the poor boy was in agony thinking what would happen when she woke up, because he felt that she would certainly climb the tree and devour him. Finally she did wake up, and he was preparing for the fate that he felt certain awaited him. Then he thought, like some wicked gentlemen when they think they are near their end, that he ought to say a prayer ; but, unfortunately, he had delayed praying too long, and he found it impossible to recollect a prayer. Finally he recollected the grace that had been said in the mess room, and he said : ' For what we are about to receive may the Lord-and just then a rescue party came in sight and shot the bear, and he was relieved. The grace was never finished. That is what the Minister of Finance wants the people of this country to do. In the face of the public debt increasing by leaps and bounds, he says : ' For what these people are about to receive the Lord make them truly thankful.' But I do not think they will be.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They have been so far.


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend says they have been so far. Well, he will be a better judge of that when another general election comes. There are means of carrying byelections at the command of the government, which even members of the gov-


Haughton Lennox: eminent would not like to have fully investigated or disclosed ; but when it comes to a general election, and these men have to face public opinion and clearly declare their policy, and say whether they stand for protection or free trade, and give an account of their extravagant expenditure of the people's money, I dare say they will find to their cost that the people are not thankful, but that they will be thankful to have them out.
Now, I am going to read from the ' Monetary Times ' a few lines to show what this non-political journal thinks of this precious budget. Referring to the figures given by the Finance Minister, it says :-
This fairly takes away one's breath, the sums are so vast, and the increase so rapid. Yet it is not recorded that Sir Richard Cartwright either swooned or swore, or that any of the old advocates of economy and reduction did else than cheer the minister as he placidly made these announcements on the authority and with (he sanction of a Liberal government. And yet, apart from the change of front indicated in the party, these figures challenge the serious attention of every thoughtful citizen. Granted that the country is prosperous, is it wise to set so rapid a pace, and raise to such a height the scale of expenditures, which once raised it will be found almost impossible to lower ? It is well to remember that as the prices of staples rise-and there have bean marked1 advances in price in many lines of recent years-the amount received from customs taxation rises, for it is largely ad valorem. Then, when prices fall, the amount of customs revenue falls. In prosperous times, with a buoyant revenue, is it prudent to spend it all and add so many millions besides to a debt already too large ? For $13 per head or $65 per family for one year's government is a tremendous charge. Giving all due force to the contention that we are a growing country, and must needs provide generously for the public services, this headlong rush forward in taxation and expenditure, seemingly unchecked by bit or bridle, invites reflection on the part of business men and thoughtful citizens. These piping times will not always continue, and the overdrain of to-day hastens the exhaustion of to-morrow. We cry a warning and a halt

before the rush has become a rout in which moderation and prudence lose their meaning and their force. At this rate we know not where we shall end, for, though the minister hints at limits to the tide of prosperity, he apparently sets none to the volume of expenditure.
I call the attention of the members of the government to this fact, that although the Minister of Finance, in his budget this year, seems rather more hopeful than he was last year of a continuance of good times, if we consult the great organs of public opinion or the great financiers, we will not find them sharing that opinion. On the contrary, there are indications that the good times are not likely to continue for very long ; that we are just about coming to the crest of the wave which the Finance Minister spoke of last year, and that we ought to prepare for the time, perhaps before 12 months pass round, when we shall be face to face with another state of affairs.

The London ' Times,' a valuable oi'gan of public opinion, points out that Germany, France and Russia are already beginning to be sensible of a change, and suggests to tlie people of Britain whether there is not good reason to believe that a change for the worse is likely to set in there as well. Let me call the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance to the story of Joseph. *1 would not like to follow in the lead of the First Minister of the province of Ontario and mutilate the Bible, but it seems to me that an edition of special copies of the story of Joseph would be beneficial to the government of this country. That story was not written originally for private circulation or for the Egyptians or Israelites alone, but as a warning to all. It was written for the members of this government as well, in order to give them a lesson of prudence, in order to warn them to lay up in the years of plenty provision for the years of scarcity that are bound to follow. And the government would do well to lay this lesson to heart so as to meet the change which is bound to come very soon; and when that change does come, this country will view the course of the government in a far different spirit from that in which they may be disposed to regard it to-day.
I hear hon. gentlemen on the other side frequently ask what our policy is, as if they did not know. Again we hear hon. gentlemen on that side say that they know all about it. Well, I am not an experienced member of the House and do not propose to outline a policy for the government; and if I did and the government should adopt it, 1 fear, from the experience we have had that they would not give me the credit, but would assume the authorship themselves. I would like, however, to call attention to certain characteristics of policy and certain conditions which must obtain in this country to form the primitive elements of prosperity. Our great point first should be to get capital and labour. You may analyse all the various elements which go to make up prosperity, and you will find that the basis of them all is capital and labour. These are at the foundation of all commercial prosperity. A policy to be successful must be one which will have the effect of attracting capital and labour. There can be no complete development or utilization of our resources without what is called in the resolution of the hon. the leader of the opposition, a declared policy, and one which will attract sufficient capital and labour into this country to develop our latent resources. And in order to attract capital and labour, you must have two things constantly in yottr policy. It must contain a reasonable promise of gain and a reasonable assurance of stability. These were wanting in the policy which was in force during the Mackenzie regime. It failed to afford a reasonable return for investment and a reasonable reward for labour, in consequence of which the country was not able to pay
its way. Under those conditions it appeared to many, and among other-as we now have it from the hon. member for North Norfolk-to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that some remedy should be adopted to assist the exchequer and afford relief to the suffering people of this country. Unfortunately, however, in their budget of 1876, although they declared that the condition of. the country was bad, although they said that the government was not able to pay its way, they refused to make any change. The result was that soon afterwards, they lost the reins of government and a better state of things was inaugurated. The late Sir John Macdonald was the man of the moment. He was the one statesman who, according to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) was able in the course of some two hours, between six o'clock in the afternoon and eight o'clock, when the House reassembled after recess, to frame, devise and frame the first of a series of celebrated resolutions. That resolution which he then submitted to the House was in these words :	,
I move that the Speaker do not now leave the Chair, but that it be resolved that this House regrets His Excellency the Governor General has not teen advised to recommend to parliament a measure for a readjustment of the tariff, which would not only aid in alleviating the stagnation of business, deplored in the gracious speech from the Throne, but would also afford fitting encouragement and protection to the struggling manufacturing industries, as well as to the agricultural products of the country.
As it has been understood, Mr. Speaker, that I should not complete my remarks tonight, I would now move that the debate be adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Prime Minister, the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 7, 1902.