[Stage Direction]
Wm. Power, Esq., member for the electoral district of Quebec West, introduced by the. Prime Minister (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick).

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 81) to incorporate the Canadian Northern Telegraph Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 82) to incorporate the Nepigon Railway Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 83) to incorporate the Canadian Northern Express Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 84) respecting the Bay of Quinte Railway Company.-Mr. McColl.
Bill (No. 85) respecting the South Shore Railway Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 86) respecting the Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company.-Mr. Parmelee.
Bill (No. 87) respecting the Quebec Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 88) respecting the Medicine Hat Railway and. Coal Company.-Mr. Scott.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria)-by Mr. Taylor- asked :
1.	What is the total length of the government telegraph line from Ashcroft, B.C., to Dawson, by divisions :-(a.) Ashcroft to Quesnell ? (b.) Quesnell to Atlin ? (c.) Atlin to Dawson ?
2.	What was the original cost of the line to Quesnell ?
3.	What was the cost of the sections from (a.) Quesnell to Atlin, and (b.) Atlin to Dawson ?
4.	How many persons are engaged in the operation and maintenance of the line ?
5.	What are the rates of pay and allowances, if any, for the different classes of employees ?
6.	What are the telegraph rates ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who is not present, has requested me to ask that the hon. member will be good enough to convert that question into a motion.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
In the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1901, contained in cap. 2 at p. 17 of Acts of 1901, the following item appears :-
Expenses of Chief Justice Strong in connection with sittings of Judicial Committee of Privy Council, $1,000.	.
Was the sum paid, and did the Chief Justice attend the sittings of the Judicial Committee in the year 1901 ?
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Chas. Fitzpatrick).: I have to say that the amount in question has not been paid to the Chief Justice, for the very good reason that he did not attend any sitting of the Privy Council in the year 1901.


ABSTRACTION FROM REGISTERED LETTERS.
Mr. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	Was the Post Office Department advised of the abstraction of five dollars in the month of May or June last, from a registered letter posted at Seeley's Bay P.O., in the county of Leeds, by a Mrs. Coleman, addressed to Toronto ? Also of the loss of five dollars from a registered letter posted at Morton P.O., in the said county of Leeds, at about the same time, by a Mrs. Manuel ?
2.	If so was the matter investigated, and by whom ? Was a report made by the party who made the investigation ?



3.	Was the postmaster at Morton removed from office in consequence of an investigation made by the assistant inspector : or was the postmaster exonerated from blame and responsibility ?
4.	Did the inspector report to the department the result of the investigation ?
5.	Was the report withdrawn and replaced by another, in which the facts were not fully or properly represented ?
6.	Was the postmaster and his assistant practically exonerated m the substituted reports ?
7.	If the postmaster was not removed, was hts resignation called for by the Postmaster General or any other person ? If so, when and by whom, and for what reason ?
8.	Did Mr. Judd and other persons of the village of Morton make representations to the department ? If so, did their representations agree with the report of the inspector ? If not, in' what respect did they differ ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL, (Hon. Wm. Mulock). The department has no information as to the abstraction of five dollars in the month of May or June last from a registered letter posted at Seeley's Bay by Mrs. Coleman. Perhaps the question has reference to the alleged abstraction of one dollar from a non-registered letter posted by Mrs. Coleman at the office in question. This matter was referred to Inspector Merrick who reported that * personal inquiry lias been made at Seeley's Bay and Morton but no evidence was obtained which would lead me to suppose that the letter was tampered with at either of these offices, and I am of opinion that it left Morton in same condition as posted.'
With reference to the other inquiry, namely, the loss of five dollars from registered letter posted at Morton by Mrs. Manuel, this matter was referred to inspector who investigated and reported thereon. The inspector reported that in his opinion the loss occurred at the Morton post office, but he did not find who was the guilty party. His report showed the existence of more or less laxity which rendered it possible for persons other than those officially connected with the office to abstract a registered letter. The report of the inspector was not withdrawn or replaced by any other report. The postmaster was not removed nor was his resignation called for by the Postmaster General. The department has no knowledge as to whether any other persons called upon him to resign. No representations upon the subject have been made to the department by Mr. Judd or any other persons of the village of Morton. [DOT]


MAIL CONTRACT, ROUND HILL-ARMSTRONG'S CORNER, N.B.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Why was the recent change made in the carrying of the mail from Round Hill, in Greenwich, King's County, N.B., to Armstrong's Corner, Queen's County, N.B. ?
Mr. TAYLOR.: 2.	Upon whose recommendation was the change made, and what reasons were given for the sarnie ?
3.	Were tenders asked for the new service ; and if not, why not ?
4.	Who is the mail carrier on the route as at present constituted ; and what pay does he receive for such service ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	There has been no change made in the mail service between Armstrong's Corner and Round Hill, New Brunswick.
This answers 2 and 3.
4. The present contractor is Francis A. Wood, who is paid at the rate of one hundred and sixty dollars per annum.


RAILWAY LANDS-PATENTS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER-by Mr. Scott-asked :
X. How many acres of land were patented to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company up to the 1st of March, 1902 ?
2.	How many acres were patented to the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company up to the 1st of March, 1902 ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to continue issuing patents to these companies until all their land has been patented to them ?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sift on) :: 1.	The number of acres patented to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, up to 1st of March, 1902, is 9,404,572'51.
2.	The number of acres patented to the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company, up to 1st of March, 1902, Is 1,002,003-26.
3.	Yes. There is a temporary delay In the case of the Calgary and Edmonton Company, but patentry will, no doubt, be proceeded, with in a short time.


N W T.-TAXATION OF RAILWAY LANDS- C.P.R. LAND GRANT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER-by Mr. Scott-asked :
What measures, if any, have been taken ty the government to submit the question of the termination of the exemption from taxation of the Canadian Pacific Railway land grant to the courts ?
The MINISTER OF THE) INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton). A memorandum was submitted to the Deputy Minister of Justice on the 7th of October last, asking that steps should be taken for the purpose of having the question referred to determined by the courts. A variety of detailed information was required by the Department of Justice before the matter could be fully considered, and the method of submitting the question decided upon, and some delay necessarily took place. It was finally concluded that the question could best be settled by bringing about a suit between a local municipality and the railway
[Stage Direction]
company, which would constitute a test case. The land commissioner of the Department of the Interior and the Deputy Minister of Justice are making arrangements to bring this about.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER-by Mr. Scott-asked :
Has the government any information as to Its being the intention of the War Office to purchase horses in North-western Canada during the coming summer ?
The MINISTER OE AGRICULTURE <Hon. Sydney Fisher). The government has no official Information in regard to this matter, but it is a matter of public notoriety that the War Office is purchasing horses in Canada at the present time for South Africa through its officer, Col. Dent, and that that officer has expressed the expectation of purchasing horses in the North-west Territories during the coming summer.

[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.
['']
Mr.  R. A.@: PRfNGLE (Cornwall and Stormont). Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate. What has surprised me has been the variety of opinions expressed by hon. gentlemen on the government side of the House. The hon. gentleman who spoke last night, the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes), opened his remarks by referring to the inconsistencies that the opposition were led up to. I think it ill-becomes any hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the House to refer to inconsistencies. Their whole record has been a record of inconsistencies. I am not going pver all those old and pretty well threshed out subjects now-commercial union, unrestricted reciprocity, continental free trade, free trade as they have it in Great Britain, and all the other fads and policies which these hon. gentlemen advocated for a period of eighteen years. I say that in so far as this side of the House is concerned there has been no inconsistency. We have been twitted with having the old policy, of some twenty-five years ago. We are proud to stand by the policy which was advocated twenty-five years ago, and we believe it is the policy which is in the best interests of the Dominion of Canada. The hon. member for West Huron spoke in regard to the woollen industry, following the 63i
hon. member for North Lanark (Mr. Rosamond). He stated in regard to that industry that if those engaged in it were not satisfied with a duty of 23 per cent, they should get out of business. He is only reiterating the statements made by members of the government. I say that is not a fair statement, it was not a proper statement, and it is all the more reason why we, on this side of the House, should ask for a declared policy and that the manufacturers should know just what their position is in regard to the tariff. The hon. gentleman went on to say in regard to that industry that he had not as yet had any evidence of the woollen industry being in an unsatisfactory condition. He said that in so far as he could ascertain, the woollen industry was thriving, and that every mill in this country was running on full time. I would like to take him to the town of Cornwall, in the electoral district which I have the honour to represent. I can show him a mill in which there are some $200,000 invested and which is one of the best equipped mills in Canada, but, which, to-day, has closed its doors necessitating the discharge of 170 operators. In regard to these operators, about fifty of them are the heads of families. Each of these families will average about five persons. The closing down of that mill simply means taking the bread out of the months of 350 people in the town of Cornwall. It cannot be said that the people behind this mill had not sufficient capital to run it, and make the running of it profitable. The mill is owned, as you know, by Lord Mount Stephen, a very wealthy man who as quite able to operate the mill, if, under existing conditions, there was any object in operating it. Now, I say that the hon. member for West Huron, before he makes a statement of that sort, should inquire and see just what the condition of the woollen industry is in this country. The hon. member for North Lanark has given some very valuable figures in regard to the increased importation of woollens between 1897 and 1901, and it is quite apparent that it has almost doubled within that period, to the injury of the woollen industry of this country. The hon. member for West Huron also stated that it was in the interests of this country that there should be a reduction in the tariff in regard to other lines of articles which are consumed by the people. He is one of the hon. gentlemen who are evidently in favour of a tariff for revenue, or free trade. He has referred to the policy of the Conservative party, and he says that that policy was an anti-British policy. I will just refer him to the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) some time ago when he clearly stated that if the policy which he advocated of unrestricted reciprocity discriminated against Great Britain,

he was quite satisfied that it should do so. The hon. gentleman has said :
I believe this country would have been better oft if we never had a national policy.
I shall not go back to the dark days between 1873 and 1878, when owing to the Mackenzie government not meeting the conditions as they arose, Canada was in a most depressed state. We all know that the Conservative tariff, inaugurated in 1879, was really the first Canadian tariff that gave thorough protection to our home industries. We know that the results of that tariff were most satisfactory. Two years after the adoption of protection there was collected $2,900,000 more than was necessary for the expenditure of the country, while prior to that time, year in and year out, there were deficits. The official statistics tell us that within two years after the adoption of protection in 1879, there was an increase of over $20,000,000 in the value of bank stocks; the Canadian labourer got better wages; the Canadian manufacturer made larger profits; the Canadian merchant increased his business, and the Canadian farmer obtained a higher price for his products. It is needless to dwell further on the prosperity which Canada enjoyed as a result of the adoption of the national policy. Any one who looks at the statistics will see the progress which Canada made during the years immediately succeeding 1879.
We have had a good many speeches from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, and we have had a good many different theories advanced by them as to our fiscal policy. The hon. gentleman from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton); the hon. gentleman from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and other supporters of the government, made strong protectionist speeches, while the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) came out as a straight free trader. At all events the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) is consistent, and he holds to his theory of free trade no matter what policy the government he supports may place before the country. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) told us that the conditions in Canada are very similar to the conditions which exist in the United States. I agree with that statement to the extent that our natural resources are similar to the resources possessed by the United States. But, the hon. gentleman said further on in his speech :
The proposition that you can protect the labouring man is the greatest absurdity that was ever spoken.
I do not agree with that statement. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) turns to the statistics, he will find that in every protectionist country the rate of wages has increased, while in the free trade countries the rate of wages has diminished. That would indicate that you can protect the labouring man. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) also said :	,


Mr. PRINGLE.: In my estimation protection is neither more nor less than legalized robbery.
That is the old old story. For years and years the Liberals made that declaration when they were out of power. But if protection is legalized robbery, why did not the party which the member for Russell supports abolish protection when they got into power ? Why did not they institute free trade instead of adopting to a large extent the national policy, which was inaugurated by the Conservative party ? Perhaps the hon. member for Russell can settle that with his political leaders. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) further said :
In the United Stares every producer of the natural resources of that country is a slave.
With that statement of the hon. gentleman I cannot agree. The producers of the United States would, no doubt, be themselves astonished to hear that. Further, the hon. member said :
I believe our duty is to legislate for the Canadian people without any regard to what the American people or any other people do.
In that statement I absolutely concur, and I say that in the interest of the Canadian people we should have a declared and settled policy of adequate protection in this country. The hon. member for Russell has spoken of the history of the United States, and he told us that the industrial history of that country had not been a record of success. Well, we in Canada are much interested in the history of the United States, and if time permitted I could carry this House back to all the protectionist measures that were adopted by the neighbouring republic. To begin with, I would have to take you back to the second Act which was placed on the statute-books of the Congress of the United States, and which was the foundation stone of the success of the industries of that country. From the date of the passage of that Act until the present time, there have been almost continuous tariff Acts passed by congress, giving protection to the industries of the United States, and whenever that country reduced the tariff and moved in the direction of free trade, there was a financial crisis and trade w^s depressed. I believe that we in Canada have got to look at this matter largely in the light of experience, and 1 say that the experience of other nations in dealing with fiscal matters should be a guide to us. Let us remember that it is not only the United States that has adopted a high protective tariff. I think lam safe in saying that every nation under the sun, with the single exception of Great Britain, has adopted protection as its policy. France to-day is one of the richest countries in the world, and France is highly protective. We all know the industrial history of Germany. ' We know that Germany in years gone by had a protective tariff, and we know that tariff was lowered to the

great disadvantage of Germany. We know that in 1897, Bismarck came down with a manifesto which was acceptable to the German people, and they carried a protective tariff by a large majority, the result of which has been that since that time Germany has gone on increasing in wealth and increasing in prosperity.


Mr. EDWARDS.: What are the conditions in Germany to-day ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: The conditions in Germany are, I understand, prosperous.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


William Cameron Edwards: Germany is to-day experiencing the greatest depression she has ever known in her existence.


Mr. MACLEAN.: Probably because they have not enough protection.


William Cameron Edwards: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pringle) a question ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I would be pleased to answer the hon. member for Russell.


William Cameron Edwards: Belgium is close to France and Germany, and would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pringle) tell me what are the present conditions in Belgium. Will he also kindly tell us of the conditions of Switzerland, a small country, and also of Holland ?


William Findlay Maclean: And Ireland.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: frankly and manfully and said :	' I liave
been a free trader, but I have come to see that free trade is against the interests of this nation, and I am now a protectionist.' The hon. member for Russell may follow the example of Daniel Webster, and we may see him coming forward next session with a confession like that of the hon. member for North Norfolk.
I might quote the language of Sir John Barnard Byles, which I think contains a great deal of truth. He says :
A nation, whether it consumes i*s own productions or with them purchases from abroad, can have no more to spend than it produces. Therefore the supreme policy of every nation is to develop its own producing forces.
I say the supreme policy of Canada is to develop its own producing forces. There is no reason why the people of this country should import from the United States of America sixty or seventy million dollars worth of manufactured goods. We can make those goods in Canada, and I believe we should make them in Canada ; and notwithstanding what we hear from the opposite side of the House, I believe there are men sitting on the government benches today who are just as strong protectionists as we are, and who will adapt themselves to the conditions existing in this country. The hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) made a very strong speech along the line of free trade ; but I say that he does not agree with the leaders of the Liberal party to-day. Does he agree with the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who made a very strong protectionist speech in this House a short time ago ? Does he agree with the Hon. George W. Ross, the Premier of Ontario ? That gentleman does not say that the national policy was a curse to this country. WThat he says is that the Conservative party were the first to discover the benefits of a protective tariff and to introduce it into this country. This is the language of the Hon. George W. Ross, addressed to the legislative assembly of Ontario on the 22nd of January, 1902 :
It was on this continent largely that the idea of fostering trade by a direct intervention of the government, grew up ; and perhaps it is on this continent that it has as strong a hold as it has in any part of the world. The American government sixty or seventy years ago entered upon a policy of fostering its industries by protection. Germany, France, Italy, Russia, and latterly the Australian Commonwealth has followed in the footsteps of the United States. The purpose in every case, whether wisely or unwisely, whether according to the principles of Adam Smith, or the protectionist school, was to add to the wealth of the nation and to develop its raw material, and to increase its resources. The same object has been aimed at in various other ways. Railways have been built by subvention in land and money, for the development of the latent resources of the country. The states of the Union, including the federal government, have given nearly one hundred mil-


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: lion acres of land for that purpose, as well as large cash subsidies. The Dominion government did so for the Canadian Pacific Railway, and no doubt that road would never have been built unless so aided. (Opposition members- Hear, hear.) We have done so in Ontario, and the other provinces of the Dominion have followed our example. Bounties have been given for the development of special industries in France and in Germany ; bounties by the Dominion government for the development of iron and steel ; bounties by the Ontario government for the development of our iron industry, and latterly the proposed bounty for the encouragement of the beet-root sugar industry.
Then lie goes on to deal with the question of bounty, and proceeds to say :
The object of my argument is to show that it seems to he admitted' all round that a government in modern times has something more to do than merely discharge administrative functions. It has to be the pioneer, if possible, at all events the foster parent, of manufactures and commerce. It has, if possible, to devise ways and means by which the material wealth of the people it represents for the time being may be promoted. It is supposed to stand upon the financial watch-tower, as well as upon the administrative watch-tower, and wherever any great industry lies dormant which the wealth and means at the disposal of the government can awaken, or where any great enterprise can be encouraged for which private capital is insufficient, it seems to be the rule in modern times for nearly every government to put its hand to these varied means of enriching a nation; and, wisely or unwisely, for good or for evil, tax the whole people, in order that the whole people may be wealthy.
Again he adds :
It would be an easy thing for a government to say : 'Give us so much money and we will administer the affairs of the country, see that ofli-cers are appointed .for the various duties, see that cheeks are issued for salaries'-that would be an easy duty. It is another matter for a government to assume the responsibility of leading the nation, or leading and educating the people to apply their minds to the development of industry, and to the fostering of manufactures or to the development of latent resources, or, to any other purpose which may be of more immediate advantage to one or more sections of the country than to the whole country. I think the modern view, although it imposed great responsibility upon the government, is the one we were bound to accept. And I am proud to be able to say that in the province of Ontario, as well as at Ottawa-we have addressed ourselves to the solution, or rather to the discharge, of that duty. In fact, I do not know but the Dominion government, the Conservative government at Ottawa years ago, realized more quickly than perhaps some of us did-(Opposition members- Hear, hear)-what seemed to be the direction- of universal opinion, I was going to say-or rather the direction of all civilized governments at that time, and, realizing that view, they struck out a course which in many respects has been followed since, and has been accepted by some other countries since that time.
These views of the Hon. Mr. Ross certainly do not coincide with those of many of the speakers from the government side of the ,

House. Mr. Ross admits that the Conservative party were the first to adopt that policy of protection which was necessary in Canada, and to which all civilized countries have turned their attention. Let me just refer to another quotation from the Hon. Mr. Ross, and I do so more particularly to show that when the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) says that the Americans have not prospered under protection, he does not agree with his leader in the province of Ontario. The Hon. George W. Ross says :
The Americans have become strong largely by the dominant strain which has permeated American legislation and commerce for the last thirty years, and they have become self sustaining to a great extent; and the British navy has been dominated by the idea, since Nelson's time, that the British navy is invincible. And so will we Canadians, by being imbued with the same spirit of manufacturing our own goods as far as we can, developing our own resources where we have the means, become self sustaining, applying ourselves with energy and tact to whatever comes to hand.
Then he proceeds to deal with the factory question :
A factory means not merely the investment of capital but the employment of intelligent men and women.
He adds further :
We must make special efforts to have the waste places of the country filled up, and its raw materials and products must be manufactured so far as possible, in the country.
To me it seems a good deal of a farce to hear a large number of gentlemen on the government benches make free trade speeches, and then to find another set get up and make protectionist speeches, and to find the government in the position of having adopted, to a great extent, the national policy. But where they have interfered with that policy they have done so to the injury of the people of this country.
A great deal has been said about free trade England. I do not propose to go back into the history of England. We all know that there was a long and interesting period prior to 1840 when England enjoyed the most rigid protection. We know that in 1337-1 think in the reign of Edward III- there were passed enactments for the fostering and encouragement of English industries. We know that from 1337 down to 1846 a most rigid system of protection prevailed in that country. And this very industry, which has been so frequently spoken of here, the woollen industry, owes its present position to that protection. There would have been no possibility of England at that time manufacturing woollen goods for her own people had she not enjoyed the most rigid protection. It was under that policy that the woollen industry of England was built up, just as were built up her other manufacturing industries, until in 1846 they were in a position to dispense with protection and to throw down the tariff wall.
I would like to refer just for a moment to the experience of the United States under a low tariff. I find on reference to the New York ' Tribune ' of January 15tli, that in 1855 the United States were still under their old tariff law of 1846. That was a very low tariff, and here is how Mr. Horace Greeley, in the New York 'Tribune,' describes its effects :
The cry of hard times reaches us from every part of the country. The making cf roads is stopped; factories are closed; and houses and ships are no longer being built; factory hands, road makers, carpenters, bricklayers, and labourers are idle and paralysis is rapidly embracing every pursuit in the country. The cause of all this stoppage of circulation is to be found in the steady overflow of gold to pay foreign labourers for the cloth, the shoes, the Ton and other things that could he produced by American labour, but which cannot be so produced under our present revenue system.
Let me also cite the opinion of another authority, Mr. Peter Cooper :
British iron and cloth came in and gold went out, and with each successive day the dependence of our farmers on foreign markets became more complete ; with 1857 came the culmination of the system. Merchants and manufacturers being ruined, banks being compelled to suspend payment, and the treasury being reduced to a condition of bankruptcy nearly approaching that which had existed at the close of the free trade period of 1817 and 1839.
President Buchanan described the condition of things, in his message of December 14th, 1860, in the following language
Panic and distress of a fearful character prevails throughout the land. Our labouring population is without employment and consequently deprived of the means of earning their bread. Indeed all hope seems to have deserted the minds of men.
These quotations are of course not evidence, and it is wise for us to look at the statistics to find the proofs of the statements made by such men as President Buchanan,
Mr. Cooper, Mr. Horace Greeley and the others. We find that in 1846 there were imported into the United States cotton goods to the value of $13,530,625. In 1860, under this low tariff, there were imported of the same goods to the value of $32,560,024. Take the article of clothing. There, was imported in 1864 $847,742 worth, and in 1860 $2,102,296 worth. Then take woollens, with the exceptions of carpets, we find that in 1846 the imports amounted to $9,850,307, and in 1860 they had increased to $35,394,422, or an increase of 360 per cent. Fortunately for the United States a higher tariff measure was brought down. From 1860 until 1890 a fairly high tariff was in force, but in 1890 the McKinley tariff came in. What effect had that tariff on the woollen industry of the United States ? The consumption increased some 17 per cent, while the value of woollen goods imported decreased to the extent of $21,000,000. It has often been said that the

McKinley tariff was a hardship on the consumer. I maintain that that was not the case. For while that tariff protected the manufacturers and the other industries of the United States, the American consumer got his goods at a lower price than he did under a low tariff. That whole question was referred to a very competent committee, consisting of the following gentlemen :-Canon D. Wright, Commissioner of the Department of Labour; General Francis A. Walker, Prof. H. C. Adams, Edward Atkinson, Prof. E. J. James and William Grosvenor. The first man on that committee was an independent on the tariff question. The next three were pronounced free traders and the next two were protectionists. What diu that committee report ? It reported as follows I only quote a short portion of report:
During the twenty-eight months from June 1, 1S89, to September 1, 1891 (the Act took effect in 1896), the_ average retail prices of 214 articles of common consumption among the people declined 64 per cent,-wholesale prices of the same article declined 33 per cent, the prices of agricultural products advanced 67 per cent, and wages advanced on the average 75 per cent.
This report was unanimously adopted by the Senate Committee, composed of both Republicans and Democrats. I say that this report is a most important document. It shows that under high protective tariff, under that McKinley tariff, the prices of articles commonly used and consumed by the people decreased, the rate of wages increased and the prices to the agriculturists increased by no less than 18'07 per cent. The history of the United States of America has been simply this-that parties who gave protection to the country gave prosperity to the country and that those who failed to give that protection brought disaster to the United States. May I be allowed to refer to an earlier period in the history of the American Republic. We know that in 1824 the United States passed a protective tariff. They were bound to increase their protection, because the British manufacturer at that time, owing to the United States low tariff had got possession of their markets. And Henry Olay, who was one of the leading lights of that time, in speaking of the results of a protective tariff- and the protection afforded was a great deal higher than we have in Canada to-day -said :
If a term of seven years were to be selected of the greatest prosperity which the people have enjoyed since the establishment of this present constitution, it would be exactly that period which immediately followed the passage of the tariff of 1824.
Now, while this government were pledged to a large reduction in our tariff, they have practically maintained the tariff of the Conservative party, except in so far as the preferential feature is concerned. Let me say
Mr. PRINGLE
a word in this connection, concerning the cotton industry. In the town in which I have the honour to live, the town of Cornwall. we are interested in that industry, manufacturing there, very largely, coloured cottons. Under the late government, we had a protective duty of 30 per cent. Hon. gentlemen opposite and their supporters, when in opposition, attacked the Conservative government on account of that duty of 30 per cent. Those engaged in the manufacture of cottons were spoken of as ' Cotton Barons ' and, from one end of the country to the other speeches were made attacking the cotton industry. But when these hon. gentlemen came into power they did not cut down the tariff. As a citizen of Cornwall, I felt very thankful for that. On the other hand, the government increased the duty by 5 per cent, making it 35 per cent, and then they brought in their preferential tariff. But I say that that preferential tariff is an injury to the cotton industry, and it is no .wonder that three of the largest cotton manufacturing concerns passed their dividends within the last year. I have only to look at the returns to find that over $4,000,000 worth of cotton goods were imported into this country under the preferential tariff last year. And, of the class of cotton goods manufactured in our town, over $2,000,000 worth were imported. I quote these figures from memory, but I believe they are substantially correct. Now, it must be plain that that is a great injury to the cotton industry of the country. Prior to the preferential tariff coloured cotton goods came largely from the United States of America. Under the preferential tariff these goods are coming in from Great Britain, and they are coming in at prices which make it almost impossible to compete with them. One hon. gentleman on the other side, speaking in this debate, said that the woollen mills were running night and day. Our cotton industry may Jje running full time, but they may not be making any money, owing to the competition from outside.
We have also the hon. member from West York (Mr. Campbell) who I must say. ought to support this amendment. If he is correctly reported, he made a very strong protectionist speech at a banquet of the Manufacturers' Association in the city of Montreal. Referring to the large importation of agricultural implements, this Is what he said :
If we can have these goods manufactured in the Dominion and the duty were raised, it would mean that this $2,500,000 worth of goods would be made here ; and the actual fact of such manufacture being established would mean an increase of, say, 25,000 to 30,000 in the population. As it is in this line, so would it be in other lines. The tariff is going to be revised before long-I hope this session.
Now this is a very strong utterance, and what does it mean ? Is it a farce ? Are they playing with the people ? One branch

of the government supporters are going out in the country and saying : We are going' to have an increase in the tariff;. Another branch of the government supporters are going out and saying, where it suits them, we are adhering to our principles, and intend to reduce the tariff gradually. The Minister of Finance says there will be a revision next year, and we cannot assume that he will increase the tariff. The only assumption possible is that he will reduce the tariff in accordance with the pledges made by himself and other members of the government. I say that this is a farce. The people of this country ought to know definitely what the position of the government is in regard to the tariff. Are they going to reduce it, or are they going to increase it ? Where the government find an industry is seriously affected by the preferential- tariff, are they going to step in and give that industry -the protection that it needs, so that it may have a part in the prosperity of this country ? I say. Sir. that we require a declared and settled policy in regard to this tariff question.
The government have taken great credit for the increased imports into this country from Great Britain. In 1900, according to the first plank in their platform as laid down in 1893, where they promised to wipe out the national policy, &c., they issued a 'manifesto to the people saying that this preferential tariff had resulted in largely increased sales of British goods to Canada. Now, Sir, I do not think that it is in the interests of the Canadian workmen that that tariff should have the result of largely increasing the sales of British goods to the people of Canada, especially of that class of goods that we can manufacture ourselves. And this manifesto was issued before the,full reduction of 33J per cent had been made in favour of British goods. I would like, Mr. Speaker, for a moment to refer to the woollen industry. -I find in the ' Canadian Manufacturer ' of January 3rd, an article on this British preference, and after dealing with statistics, and showing the large increase of importations of woollens from Great Britain, it says this ;
As herein shown, notwithstanding the tariff preference, our import trade with Great Britain is, as compared with our whoie trade, fallen behind, not only in manufactures of metals hut also in textiles, it is fair to enquire why the preference, for which we receive no quid pro quo should be continued. It has no effect whatever upon our imports of metal goods, and is therefore only valuable as a sentiment, which, in trade, does not count for much, but it most seriously and adversely affects our Canadian woollen industry, and for that reason if for no other, it should he cancelled, or very materially modified ; and one very important feature of any modification it should include is a reciprocal preference on the part of Great Britain and any other British country with which Canadians desire to do business.
Mr. Speaker, the bon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) said there was no progress in this country under the national policy. Without being too local, I would say in regard to the town of Cornwall in the county which I have the honour to represent, that our increase in population from 1881 to 1891 was 2,337, or 52 per cent. That was due almost entirely to the policy of the Conservative party in protecting the Industries of this country. People with capital had confidence in the future of Canada, and they invested in large cotton Industries in that town. But apart from that case, what do we find throughout the country ? We find that from 1881 to 1891 there was an increase in the number of manufacturing establishments in this country of over 51 per cent, find there was an increase in the amount of capital invested in industries of 114 per cent ; and we find the number of employees Increased 44 per cent. Now it is Idle for the Minister of Agriculture to go Into constituencies in this country and say that if the woollen industry cannot exist on a 23 per cent protection it should be wiped out. I say the woollen manufacturers have invested over $10,000,000 of capital in Canada, expecting that the government would give them reasonable protection. I think it is the duty of the government to see that these woollen manufacturers have sufficient protection to put them on an equal footing with their foreign competitors.
I do not intend to deal with the financial question, which has been already covered so completely by the numerous speakers who have preceded me. I will, however, say this, that while the members of the present government were very much horrified at an expenditure of $38,000,000 per annum, they seem to be delighted now at an expenditure of $62,000,000 to $63,000,000 per annum. We find that during the last four or five years, from 1897 to 1901, their total expenditure was $250,550,003, and their total revenues during the same period were $228,670,960. There Is a total deficit of $21,879,043 -during that period of great prosperity, a period of world-wide prosperity. Not only did this country enjoy prosperity, but there was prosperity in every section of the habitable globe. During that period, with such a buoyant revenue, it was the duty of these gentlemen who found so much fault with an expenditure of $38,000,000, at least to have avoided a prodigal expenditure which left them with a deficit of over $21,000,000 during that period of five years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said here from the agriculturist standpoint. Nobody recognizes more clearly than I do that agriculture is the largest and most important industry of this country, and in it are engaged more people than In any other single occupation. I was surprised

to bear the bon. member for West Huron saying that tbe agriculturist of this country was not benefited by protection. Then if be is not benefited by protection, wby do not tbe government remove all protection from the agriculturist of this country ? When I turn to the ' Hansard ' for 1890, I find that there were tremendous importations of fresh meats and other meats; I think that, year 33,000,000 pounds of American meat came into Canada, notwithstanding that we then had protection in favour of the farmers, and the Conservative party advocated an increased protection on meats coming in from the United States. We find that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce opposed it. He voted against it, and every member of the government voted against it, but, when they came into power they dared not reduce it. They left it just as it was framed by the Conservatives in 1890. If protection in favour of the agriculturists of this country is a curse, why do not hon. gentlemen remove it ? They have removed the protection from three or four articles, and they have removed it to the detriment and injury of the agriculturists of this country. We have a number of hon. gentlemen coming from the western portions of this great Dominion. I may say I am always pleased to hear them speak and advocate their views, but, these hon. gentlemen, instead of being sectional, should be guided by broader lilies. They should be national. They must not think that they have all the interests in the west. They have great and important interests, they are going to assist in making this a wealthy country, but their history will be largely the history of the United States. We remember the days when Illinois and the western states were all opposed to protection. We find to-day that in the western states the population has changed. We find that the manufacturers have had to remove to the west to be near the agriculturists of those states. Let me just quote a word from a very able author in connection with the agricultural condition of the United States. Before I quote that I would like to say that in looking at the report of the bureau of statistics of the United States, I find this statement from the chief of that bureau :
Following on the rapid advance in the population of the western states, large and diversified manufacturing enterprises of this country have moved steadily towards the west.
I believe, and I firmly believe, that if the policy advocated by the Conservative party were carried out in this country you would see large manufacturing industries established in Winnipeg to supply the people of that great western country and the articles that they require would be manufactured by Canadians for the Canadians in the west. The statement has been made that the agriculturists of the United States have not prospered under protection. I say Mr. PRINGLE.
that statement is untrue, that statistics show us that the progress of the agriculturists of the United States has been greater than the progress of the agriculturists of any other nation under the sun. Wealth in the United States has increased at an enormous rate. Mulhall, whom I do not think any one will accuse of being a protectionist, in his ' Industries and Wealth of Nations,' in 1896, says :
The growth of American agriculture in half a century has been unparalleled in any age or nation.
Then he goes on to say :
In 1840 the United States produced-
And he gives the quantities. He also gives the production in 1850, showing that there had been a marvellous increase. I am not going to detain the House by giving these figures. This promient authority in the United States says :
While the great manufacturing industries of tt^e United States were in process of creation, instead of diverting capital from the development of agriculture there is a consensus of opinion that the artificial system of promoting manufactures has contributed more to the rapid opening up of the fertile land of the western states than any other cause.
The statement - has been made that wages are lower in protectionist countries than in free trade countries. I am not going to weary the House by giving statistics in regard to that matter, but I have taken the trouble of going into the tables, and I find that wages have increased in every protectionist country while they have diminished in free trade countries. I find that in the United States the increase has been very large. Take journeymen carpenters, for instance; between 1840 and 1860 they received $1.25 per day, and subsequent to 1SU0 the price ranged from 81.25 to $1.75 a day. In 1891, when the McKinley Bill came into force, wages ran from $3 to $3.25 per day, and this has been the history of all protectionist countries. I am now going back for a moment to the woollen industry in the United States. I find by looking at the statistics that the imports of woollens during the twelve months ending December, 1894, amounted to $16,809,872. In 1895, under free trade, or rather, under a lower tariff, because it was not free trade, the imports amounted to $60,319,309. We find that when the Gorman-Wilson tariff came into force in the United States that the manufacturers found it was utterly impossible for them to compete with the foreign product. Some mills were built at Bradford, England, solely for the purpose of supplying the people of the United States with woollen goods. Subsequent to the repeal of that law these mills were closed, the machinery was brought to the United States of America and woollen goods were manufactured for the Ameri-

can people. I would like to give a few figures from the industrial census of the United States for 1893, showing under this low tariff the injury to the business and people of the United States. There was a decrease in labour of G04 per cent, a decrease in wages of 69 per cent, and a decrease in business of 47 per cent. The number of hands out of work was 101,703, and the total loss in the weekly wages was $1,202,000. There was an average decrease in the rate of wages of $2.35 per week. There was a loss in wages of over $300,000,000, in round figures. A very good barometer as to the condition of the country is the number of failures, and in looking up these figures I find that under Cleveland in 1894 there were 12.721 failures and that under Harrison in 1894 there were 10,034, Cleveland's extra industry of the sheriff in that respect being 2,687. I say that, go where we will, under present conditions, there is no market to gain on the face of the globe. Other nations are not only producing for themselves, but are also looking for foreign markets. I am not going into all the figures of our imports except to say roughly that we imported from the United States during last year $119,000,000 worth, a part of which were necessaries and a large portion of which were dutiable goods-I think about $65,000,000 worth-and as I have heard it stated in this House, I believe that $40,000,000 worth of these goods could be manufactured by our own people in this country. X referred a few moments ago to the importation of cotton fabrics, and I find that the correct figures in regard to the importation of printed, dyed and coloured cottons, which were imported in 1901, and which came into direct competition with the product of the Canadian coloured cotton mills, are as follows : We imported from Great Britain $2,494,503 worth, or 24,165,332 yards of coloured cotton fabrics. Our total importation of cotton fabrics from Great Britain in 1901 amounted to $4,841,165. From the United States w'e imported $1,368,696 worth, so that the total importation into Canada of manufactured cotton goods for the year 1901 amounted to $6,209,861 in value. It is whispered that the large mills at "Valley-field have been promised an increase in the tariff. I hope they will get it, because I believe that it will be very largely in the interest of the country if the tariff on cotton goods could be increased; at all events increased to shell an extent as to put Canadian manufacturers on a par with the manufacturers of foreign countries.
The House will pardon me if X say a word or two with regard to the increase of wages in the woollen industries. We in this country want to see our artisans and our factory employees receiving fair wages. We want to see them get reasonable wages, for If they do not they will not stay with us, but will depart for the United States, which is a high; protected country and where the
wages are high. Look at the relative wages paid in the United States and in England. I now refer to the woollen industry, and I find that in Massachusetts the spinners get $6.00 per week as against $2.43 in England ; the wool sorters get $11 per week in Massachusetts as against $7.29 in England ; the overlookers get $15 a week in Massachusetts as against $8.26 in England. In the mechanic and repair shops we find that the carpenters get $13.50 a week in Massachusetts as against $6.80 in England, and the machinists get $13.20 in Massachusetts as against $7.29 in England.
The following table will show the relative wages paid in Massachusetts and in England



[Stage Direction]
- .	Massa- chusetts.	England.
	8 cts.	$ cts.
Spinners.   ..@: 6 00	2 43Wool sorters	11 00	7 29Overlookers	15 00	8 26Assistant overlookers	9 00	4 36Weavers	7 oo	3 40Mechanic and Repair Shops.	Carpenters.	13 50	6 80Machinists. . 	13 20	7 29Blacksmiths	12 00	7 20Stokers... 	9 00	4 37Engineers	15 00	7 29Carding.	Overlookers	it; no	ft 729 01)	4 37Carders	(>
50	3 04
It will be seen that wages are very much higher in the United States than they are in free trade England. The wages paid in Canada have got to correspond to a large extent with the wages paid in the United States or else we cannot keep our population in Canada. Why, in the little town of Lowell. Massachusetts, I was surprised to find that there are 6,000 Canadians working there in the cotton mills, and manufacturing cottons which are sent back into this country and are purchased by our people here. I believe Sir, that with a proper system of protection we would have these Canadians living in our own country and manufacturing cotton goods for the people of Canada.
The hon. member for Russell said that the United States is not a prosperous country. Let us look at the wealth of the United States as compared with the wealth of other countries and we will see that the statement of the hon, gentleman (Mr. Edwards) is absolutely refuted. The following table


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: This is the report of the evidence of Mr. Falwell, another large woollen manufacturer in the United States :
Mr. Falwell testifies that his rate of wages are about the same now as under the McKinley Bill, but that when the Wilson Bill was in force the general rate was about 10 per cent lower and about half his mill was stopped. He attributes the fact that wages are higher in America than in Europe exclusively to the tariff. He understands that while wages In American woollen mills are about double what is paid in France and Germany, they are a little less than double what is paid in England.


Mr.   W@: Steele was examined before that commission and he is asked this question :
Q. How did the wages compare ?-A. The wages are much higher here than there. I will give you an instance showing that one department of the business-that is, the weaving department. The weavers over there as a rule are higher skilled weavers; they can only get work as learners, unless they are well skilled and capable ; I just speak of this one instance although it is a good comparison of the great number of workers. There was one woman'- and the weavers in England are mostly women, here they are largely men-this woman was a very good weaver, but the highest wages I remember of her making were about $5 a week. She came to our mill and she worked on the same loom and on the same class of goods precisely-not made out of the same wools but the character of the goods was similar-and she made $14 in our mill ; and we have people now -men1-that earn as high as $18 a week, but I never knew a man weaver over there making over $7.50.
Under the United States tariff of 1897 on cloths, knit and other fabrics, and all manufactures of every description made wholly or in part of wool, there was a specific duty besides an ad valorem duty of 50 per cent. Under the Act of 1894 the duty was from 35 to 40 per cent ad valorem.
In this country under the preferential tariff there is only about 23 per cent on woollen goods, and it is impossible for our woollen industry to pay the wages which have to be paid in this country and exist under that rate of duty. The American woollen mills could not exist under a tariff of 40 per cent and a small specific duty, and how can it be expected that woollen mills in Canada, situated under similar conditions, can exist under a tariff of 23 per cent ?
Mr. Falwell, a woollen manufacturer, testified that his trade had no more than got established under the McKinley Bill before the Wilson Bill was passed. He only ran half his capacity during the period of the Wilson Bill. The markets ware flooded1 both with goods and with wool, but it is pretty well over now and if we are simply let alone I think everything will work out right.
Another great injury to the woollen trade caused by a low tariff is the importation of

shoddy, which is used in a very low grade of goods. So far as I can learn, our Canadian woollen manufacturers give to the people an honest article, but the low class of goods that came into the country from abroad under a low tariff were largely composed of shoddy, and this was also the experience of the United States under a low tariff.
There is a question, Mr. Speaker, of vital importance to this country, to which the government should turn their immediate attention ; that is, the transportation question. But the government of this country seems to think that all they have to do is to let things alone, while our agriculturists are suffering great hardships from the high rates that not only prevail on the railways, but on the ocean steamers plying between the port of Montreal and the old country. A short time ago I read a very interesting and able speech on this subject delivered by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. MacLaren), in which that hon. gentleman showed that there has been a loss to the farmers of this country of $10,000,000 in one year. That is equal to more than one-third of our customs taxation. And what is the reason of that loss ? It is caused by the high rates charged by the railway companies in this country. Now, surely this is a matter which our government can control. Surely our government can see that the agriculturists of this country get as low rates as the agriculturists of the United States. If they do, there will be a saving to them, according to the figures I have before me, of over $10,000,000 a year.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken a great deal longer than I had any intention of doing, and I will just say, in closing, that I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition. I am a firm believer in the development of Canada for Canadians. It is our duty as a people to further the interests of Canada, and to protect our labour, our agricultural products, manufactures and industries. Bet us legislate in so far as we can to promote the wealth of this country. Let us do ah that we can to bring prosperity to this country-to the artisan in the humblest home as well as to those who combine their capital arrd invest it for the purpose of developing the resources of this country. I am firmly convinced that the policy laid down by the Conservative party is the policy which will ac'crue to the benefit of the Dominion.


Mr. O. TURGEON (Gloucester).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, last year in my maiden speech in this House I used the English language to express my views upon the administration of the public affairs of Canada, and having thus paid a deserved compliment to my English-speaking constituents, I feel it my duty to-day to pay the same compliment to my French Acadian friends,
who have opened to me the doors of this parliament.
It is only right that the Acadian people, who number 150,000 souls in the maritime provinces, should attract more and more the attention of parliament and of the country, not only on account of their rapid increase and their attachment to the soil, but also by reason of the intelligent way in which they study every question of public policy, while at the same time, their public men also shine in public life.
French Acadians also deserve the consideration of all Canadians for their energetic and persistent work in developing the resources of this country, as fishermen and as agriculturists ; they also deserve our esteem for the great love they entertain for their native land which they now delight in calling their dear Canada ; and above all, for their sincere and generous loyalty to the great British nation, whose expansion and stability they wish to see maintained, for the greatest good of humanity. The small Acadian people are now one heart and soul with the happy Canadian family extending from ocean to ocean. They play a most creditable part in that harmonious concert of the different races who, in this laud of ours, sing the glories of old France, the touching traditions of Ireland, the chivalrous customs of old Scotland, the triumphs of England, and finally join in a most heartfelt expression of gratitude for those acts of kindness which have atoned for past wrongs, and all bear witness td their ardent love for that constitution which guarantees to every one of us the same amount of civil, political and religious liberty, whether we live in the more modest homes of Evangeline's native land or in the great palaces of Westminster and Buckingham.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to tell the House to-day what kind of judgment it should pass upon the administration of the public affairs during the five years this government has been in power. More than a year has elapsed since the people gave their [DOT]verdict, when the Liberal party were given a new lease of power Jby an increased majority. Nor do I think it necessary to dwell upon the merits of the present administration. This task f leave to other gentlemen who can bring to bear upon the debate all the resources of their eloquence, supported by a larger experience than mine. Such a speech we did hear from the lips of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce who, the other night, held the House spell-bound while he brought to the support of his thesis an array of most striking facts and uncontrovertible statistics. The government stands in no need of panegyrics. The immense prosperity which the country is now enjoying speaks volumes. And this unbounded prosperity could not have spread over the land except under the beneficent impulse of a master-mind which had first to pave the way for it. That master-mind

it was that first prepared the soil in which that luxuriant growth was to germinate, and then, later on, extended its domain and enriched it by steady and persistent labour. That great mind was, no doubt, conscious of the immensity of the resources of this country, of the different ways of developing them ; it must have had a thorough knowledge of the geographical and climacteric conditions of Canada and of her relations to other nations, so as to take advantage of the good dispositions of some of them and refuse to deal with those who were unwilling to offer us good terms.
That prosperity, which has come here to stay, we owe to the wise and vigorous administration of the Liberal government, under the guidance of our beloved right lion. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and witli the assistance of ministers moved by the same patriotic zeal. We are told that this prosperity is due to Divine Providence. In the abstract, it is true. Every thing in this world, I admit, is ruled by an ail-wise Providence. But, were it to follow the same line of reasoning I should be forced to the conclusion that hon. gentlemen opposite will continue to occupy the opposition benches for a long time to come.
When they speak of the immense harvest of last year in Manitoba and the North-west, which was double that of the previous year, I agree with them. In that fact I see the hand of Providence. But when we come to the progress that the country has made by leaps and bounds ; when we have to deal with the increase in our general trade during the last five years, in our exports as well as in our imports ; or when we consider the arrangement under which every up to date invention and all modern improvements have been grouped together, at the conjunction of the two brightest centuries of our civilization, so that we are enabled to carry our agricultural products to the markets of the world in a state of preservation unknown up to this time, then I see there the hand of man, but, you may depend upon it, it is the work of a most skilful, steady and* firm hand, the hand of a patriotic man.
When speaking of the interposition of Providence, hon. gentlemen perhaps mean to say-and here again I agree with them- that the people of Canada have been moved by $ providential suggestion, when, on the 23rd June, 1896, they selected as their future premier the man who up to then had only been the leader of a party, and a parliamentary debater, but who had revealed himself as the most judicious and patriotic leader that Canadians could desire for Canada, and the empire for its most important self-governing colony.
I contend that our leader has been most fortunate in the choice of his colleagues. Realizing that the happiness of a nation rests upon the progress of agriculture, he has intimated to the country that he wished to enlarge its agricultural area and to find new Mr. TURGEON.
markets for the products of the fields, then he looked around for a man who knew the different qualities of the soil, its fertility and all the possibilities of the country ; a man who could and really did secure new markets for Canada, and procure to the farmers means of transportation for their products in a perfect state of preservation to the most distant, and the richest markets of the world. That man was the present Minister of Agriculture, who has done more for our farmers during the last five years than any one of his predecessors in the administration of this branch of public administration.	,
Our leader wanted a man of energy, a man of tact and courage, having a thorough knowledge of the resources of the country and at the same time a man who could grapple with the difficulties which would have to be faced in the development of the resources of those vast territories where the most promising and the richest areas are so remote from the sea ports. He needed for that work a man possessed with an iron will, an energetic and able man who could devise great schemes in order to meet the exigencies created by the nature of the country ; a man who like Richelieu who wished to save Canada to Louis XIV. and to France, could realize that economy does not consist in a cheese-paring policy, but in a judicious expenditure of public money.
And he found that man in the hon. Minister of Public Works, who, during the last five years has won the esteem, the respect, admiration and confidence of everybody, and whose great schemes for the development of the country, and views upon the important question of transportation have elicited the most generous approvals from the opposition as well as from the liberal press.
Knowing that the development of our resources, so vast, so rich and so varied, and that our commerce wdth England and the other countries would increase to fabulous figures, our leader felt the need of a man who could help these workers and the improvers of our resources ; a man who knew how to keep the treasury well filled, and who would be able to balance the expense with the revenue. Now, such a man he found in the hon. Minister of Finance, who not only fulfilled but exceeded his hopes. For, instead of confining himself to maintaining the equilibrium between the expenditure and the revenue, he took advantage of the prosperous state of our trade, and every year offered the country surpluses of which the greatest financiers of the world might well be proud.
The country was glad to find that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Public Works have spared no pains in making the improvements required for the transportation of agricultural products. If these two hon. gentlemen would allow me to offer them a suggestion out of pure

friendship, X would tell them to hasten the completion of their schemes and to go ahead fearlessly while they have the good fortune of being associated with the hon. Minister of Finance ; for they may be sure that he will always follow them with a surplus.
I should also like to say that the hon. Prime Minister who had proved so happy in the selection of the members of his cabinet, when he first formed it, was equally successful in the choice of their successors. The appointment of the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the selection of the new (Solicitor General (Mr. Carroll) have won approval and praise from more eloquent voices than mine. The whole country has approved of these appointments, and the flattering compliments paid to the new appointees in this House, have been endorsed by the French-speaking as well as by the English-speaking people of this country. We have heard praises coming from every quarter to the address of these new ministers, and I may add that the appointment of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Sutherland) has won the same approval from the people. It is probably because the department which the new Minister of Marine and Fisheries presides over is of greater interest to the members of the maritime provinces than to those of any other province, that X feel it my duty to express here not only my approval of his appointment, but to bear witness to the general feeling of satisfaction that prevails throughout the country as to the able and intelligent manner in which the hon. minister performs the duties of his position. It is true that we, of the maritime provinces, have regretted for a little while, I shall say the appointment of the present minister, but the loss of a representative in the cabinet. This expression of regret all through the maritime provinces was not due to the fact that the hon. gentleman who now presides over this department does not reside in our midst and is not yet perfectly acquainted with our wants; but it was due to the feeling that we had lost a representative for the maritime provinces in the cabinet. But from the relations we have had so far with the new Minister of Marine, we feel that we have the best reasons for congratulating him, and we hope that when he is better acquainted with our wants, he will also be able to realize our needs and to lend us a helping hand in developing our maritime industries.
In his budget speech, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has referred to the census. He had to confess that the result was disappointing. I shall not speak of the general disappointment about the small increase of the population in the whole country, but I shall once more ask this House to show some gratitude to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) who, in addition to the benefits he has conferred upon the farming community, has also rendered great service to our French Acadian people. In the maritime provinces, the Acadians being aware of their numerical weakness, were naturally interested in having a correct statement of their numbers made, showing their standing in this happy community to which I referred a little while ago ; for they do not mean to remain in the background in this country of ours, but they mean to play an active role, in the development of British institutions. They were interested in showing their full numerical strength, in order to give further scope to their patriotism and their loyalty. In 1891, unhappily, the census had proved unsatisfactory to the French population of New Brunswick and specially that of Nova Scotia. This year, thanks to the intelligent, disinterested and truly patriotic efforts of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) the same interest has been extended to the French population of the maritime provinces as to the English population of the other provinces, and French enumerators were appointed in the counties where groups of Acadians were found. In short, whether this result is due to the census bureau in Ottawa, or to the enumerators in the maritime provinces, the Acadians are proud today and also pleased to see that they have been fairly dealt with and that their numerical strength was accurately put before the country, so that in future they will be able to speak in the name of a correctly enumerated population.
I say that the Acadian people wish to stand before the country in their full numerical strength, for they have proved that they have in their make up the stuff of which are made loyal subjects of England. It is important that the Acadian people should be known and judged upon their merits ; and in this connection I hope 1 shall be allowed to quote an extract from an article published in a great newspaper on the 15th of March, ' La Presse,' of Montreal. 1 trust that the able director of ' La Presse ' when he was penning these lines, did not think of the false position in which he was placing the Acadian people towards the rest of the population of Canada :
Neither do the Acadians wish to he called, Canadians nor do they call themselves Canadians. To their mind, the country they reside in is not exactly Canada, it is Acadia. They are either Acadian or French ; they do not object to call themselves such, hut Canadians or French Canadians never. To them Canada is as much a foreign country as Lousiana Is. They go to Canada as they go to the United States. And Canada, in their eyes, is confined to the province of Quebec.
If these lines had been written forty years ago or before confederation, when the maritime provinces were no part of the Dominion, I could understand it. But to-day, the Acadians in the province of New Brunswick as in all the other maritime provinces, are happy to call themselves Canadians. They

have become enthusiastic and loyal British subjects in Canada. They heartily joined hands with their brothers of Canada as soon as the isolation in which they had so long lived had ceased. To prove it, I have only to say that, though I was born in the province of Quebec, I have been returned to this House by a county which boasts of the largest Acadian population in the maritime provinces or at least in New Brunswick. This county in the limits of which reside one-third of the 80,000 Acadian souls of the maritime provinces have elected as their representative in parliament a French Canadian, born in the province of Quebec, against one of their own fellow-countrymen, an Acadian, born in that very county. I think we have here one of the most convincing proofs of the generosity of the Acadians towards their kinsmen and co-religionists of the province of Quebec. At the same time 1 wish to bear witness to the fact that the French Canadians having received since confederation the benefits of education, have grown as progressive as their brothers from the other provinces, and that they work with a perfect harmony for the common good of this great Dominion of ours.
I could further say, Mr. Speaker, that the increase of population, as shown by the census in the maritime provinces, chiefly in the province of New Brunswick, is due to the high birth-rate among Acadian families. In thousands of Acadian homes, children, from the very cradle, imbibe Canadian feelings and are taught by their mothers the love of this land of ours, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
I felt, Mr. Speaker, it was my duty to correct the false notions likely to rise from that editorial of ' La Presse,' so as to dispel all doubts as to the intelligence of the French Acadians, and as to their political standing in this great country of ours.
Before offering a few remarks on the figures given us by the hon. Minister of Finance, there is another question to which i should like to call attention for a few moments ; I mean the Department of Kail-ways... This is one of the most important public departments mainly for the maritime provinces. Since 1890, that department has been under the control of a man with an iron will ; a man than whom there is none more respected and better loved by the members coming from New Brunswick, because we have known him better. The opposition in this House and their political organs, within the last few years, have concentrated all their attacks against that minister, and they think they have a great case in the deficit which has occurred in the administration of the Intercolonial Railway, as if that deficit was going to bring about its ruin and the downfall of the government. It was on that question that the Hon. Joseph Howe delivered one of his most masterful efforts half a century ago, when he spoke in such patriotic accents of the manifold


Onésiphore Turgeon: advantages which would accrue to us of closer relations between the lower provinces and Canada, and from the traffic which this railway would develop. In the same national enterprise another statesman who has left such a bright record in the annals of the province of New Brunswick, the late Hon. Peter Mitchell, also found a theme of lofty inspiration. The same railway also found a patriotic champion in another Canadian statesman, one of the greatest men that Canada has ever produced, Sir George Etienne Cartier. This great man spoke most forcibly of the harmony which would be promoted from a closer intercourse between the people of the maritime provinces and the people of Canada. The other night, the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) and the member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) were eloquent exponents of those same views.
It looks as if the opposition had only one way of proving their patriotism, and that is to bring about the downfall of the government or one of its members. If 1 had time, it would be an easy matter for me to point out to this House the figures showing the result of the operation of the Intercolonial Railway for the different years elapsed since confederation up to our days ; and I believe that I could prove that the final result is all to the advantage of the present administration of the Intercolonial Railway, which has been operated in as efficient a manner as any other department. 1 shall not give all those figures. I shall content myself with showing the difference existing between the Intercolonial Railway in 1880, when the Liberal party came into power, and the state in -which it is now.
The people of the maritime provinces who daily see what is going on and notice the general increase of traffic on that road need not be enlightened on that point; but for the House and for the people of Canada at large, this comparison will serve a useful purpose, as it will show them how efficiently the Intercolonial has been operated since 1896 under Liberal rule, by the hon. Minister of Railways.
Owing to the prosperity which we have been enjoying these last five years, a large share of which the maritime provinces have had, the Intercolonial Railway has been equipped in an up to date fashion along its whole line ; and so, the feeling of discouragement which formerly prevailed among the people, has given place to a feeling of satisfaction and of hope in the future. The railway is now equipped in such a way as to be a credit to the whole country.
The Conservative administration, with a view to manufacturing small surpluses, had allowed the road to fall into a dilapidated condition ; and had such a state of things continued much longer, it would have resulted in depriving the maritime provinces of the facilities of communication which they are now enjoying, and they would

have found themselves severed as it were from the other provinces ; now, I need hardly add that it would have meant the ruin of that great enterprise and the ruin of the maritime provinces themselves. Therefore, I make bold to say, that from that standpoint, we look upon as a happy interposition of divine Providence the change of government that then took place, from which have flowed such beneficial results to the country.
We have heard a good deal of late from hon. gentlemen opposite about the deficit which we had last year ; but as I said, a little while ago, these hon. gentlemen take precious good care not to refer to the era of deficits under Conservative rule, and they abstain also from showing the difference between the present condition of the road and what it was five years ago. Now, thanks to the wise administration of the hon. minister, we have a road that is a credit to the country and a sure index to the prosperity of Canada as well as an omen of what the future keeps in store for us. There is no railway on this continent which offers better accommodation to the travelling public then does the Intercolonial, a fact to which several hon. gentlemen have borne witness. I may be allowed to refer here to an incident that occurred at a public meeting in the county of Gloucester, as an instance bearing upon this same subject. I had been telling the electors that the Intercolonial was now one of the best equipped railways on this continent, and one that afforded the best accommodation to the travelling public. Among those who attended the meeting were two reverend gentlemen who had lately returned from an extended trip in England and throughout France, Italy and Germany ; and when they heard me stating that our railways were, in the matter of accommodation and comfort to the travelling public, far ahead of the other lines on this continent, one of those reverend gentlemen got up and craved leave to say that, from his own experience, he might further add that our railways were far ahead of all those they had travelled on in Europe.
In order to show, Sir, the nature of this road,-were it for no other purpose than that of advertising it-I dare say that it affords the best accommodation to all travellers from the different parts of America and from Europe, who may come and visit our Canadian sea-ports and our picturesque sites ; and that, moreover, it can develop a cohsiderable trade, not only between the provinces themselves but also between America and Canada.
What I have said so far ought to suffice to show that the government and the Minister of Railways deserve full credit for their management of the road. But, in the matter of deficits, I have here a statement which will show the results of the operation of 64
the Intercolonial for the last five years under Liberal rule :
1896-	97, deficit	$ 59,940.651897-	98, deficit	
209,978.661898-	99, surplus	
62,645.431899-	1900, surplus	
120,667.021900-	1901, deficit	
488,186.77
It is this last deficit about which hon. gentlemen opposite have made so much fuss. Therefore, we have a total of surpluses for the five years of the Liberal administration, of $183,312.45, against a total of deficits of $758,106.08, which leaves a loss, all earnings deducted, of $575,793,63, or an average of $115,158.72 per annum during the last five years.
While making the most of these deficits, such as stated by the Minister of Railways himself, hon. gentlemen opposite ignore altogether the deficits piled up under the late Conservative government. Allow me, Sir, briefly to refer to those figures, not so much in a spirit of disparagement or criticism as to the management of the former administration, as to place those facts in their proper light and to show what the present administration have done. From a mere comparison of the results achieved under both regimes, we shall be enabled to realize what the Minister of Railways has done to improve the road and put it in good working order. I ask the House to bear with me for a few minutes, while I enter into those somewhat tedious details. Let us take the results of the operation of the road, under Conservative rule, during the seventeen years for which they are fully responsible :
Surplus. Deficits.
1879- 80	 $ 97,131 23
1880- 81	$	542 65	
1881- 82	 9,605 18	
1882- 83	 10,547'83	
1883- 84	 6,981 30	
1884- 85	'	78,547 901885-	86	
133,905	791886-	87	
262,252	691887-	88	
383,445	691888-	89	
276,846	731889-	90	
547,835	871890-	91	
684,946	561891-	92	
493,935	031892- 93	
20,181 59	1893- 94	
5,838 29	1894- 95	
3,815 21	1895- 96	
55,187 52

The deficits under the Conservative administration, during that period, amounted to $3,014,035.01. If we deduct from that total the amount of surpluses, or $57,512.05, We find that there was for that period a deficit of $2,956,522.96. Now, if we take the average for that period under Conservative rule, we shall find that, for the seventeen years referred to, the yearly average of deficits was $173,913.11.



The Conservative government having succeeded in showing small surpluses in the last years of their administration, it may perhaps have occurred to them that it entered into the views of divine Providence to maintain them in power ; but we know beyond a doubt that, even had they succeeded in having a small surplus, after piling up deficits for so many years, that result was due not to a policy of economy-for implies a wise and judicious expenditure of the public moneys-but to a cheese-paring policy by which the public service was starved and stinted ; a policy by which they put off from year to year equipping the road and repairing the rolling stock. As a consequence, the road went on losing in value and in power. But, as I said, when the present government came into power, a change came over the country.
Now, if we compare the five years, under Liberal rule, with the last five years of the last decade under Conservative rule, we shall find that during those last five years, there was a deficit of $2,155,327.54, or an average yearly deficit of $431,065.50.
The Intercolonial, as I said, occupies a most conspicuous position among American and European railways. It Is true that, last year, through unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances, there was a considerable deficit. But before entering into a review of the causes which brought about that deficit, let me call attention to the fact that, if we take the last five years, under Liberal rule, and compare the deficits with the total revenues of the road, so as to find the percentage of the loss to the country in each year, we find an average of $115,158.72 out of a total of $19,246,336.89 of gross earnings, or the equivalent of 167 per cent, whereas, for the first five years of the last decade under Conservative rule, out of a total of $17,566,831.20 of gross earnings, we find a deficit of $2,155,327.54, or a difference of 8-14 per cent. These figures show a difference of 7 per cent in favour of the present administration, notwithstanding those extraordinary and unlooked for deficits which, later on, I shall try to explain, to the best of my ability. But though I may not be able to do full justice to the subject I am handling, I may say that the figures speak for themselves and are. as it were, self-explanatory ; and so, the French-speaking members of this House will give due credit to the hon. Minister of Railways for his management of the railway.
I may say that this deficit was brought about through a combine of the coal dealers who suddenly raised the price of coal by $2.10 ; coal, in previous years, having always sold at $3.20 a ton, after tenders had been called. So, the government had to pay $1.10 a ton more for cnal than in former years. That change in the price of coal involved an additional expenditure of $350,000. The hon. Minister of Railways could j not stop operating the railway, and had to J Mr. TURGEON.
pay the price asked for coal. Even had the price been $4 a ton, he would have had to operate the railway all the same. This accounts largely for the deficit which the Conservative papers have so bitterly criticised of late.
There is also the increase of wages paid to the workingmen on the Intercolonial bv the hon. Minister of Railways and I must say that, upon that occasion, he has shown great generosity towards the workingmen. At the very moment when that increase in the price of coal was being brought about by the combine of coal dealers, which created such a sensation all through the country, the hon. Minister of Railways did not hesitate to grant to the employees on the Intercolonial an increase of wages amounting to $200,000. Could not the hon. Minister of Railways have said, when the increase in the price of coal was known : [DOT]' I am now confronted by a state of things which was altogether unexpected, and which will create a deficit in the operation of the Intercolonial. In order to make up for it, I am going to cancel the increase of wages of from 10 to 20 cents a day I had decided to give those poor operatives on the railway.' Is there a man in this House, having at heart the interests of the working classes, who would have been lacking in patriotism to the point of suggesting to the hon. Minister of Railways to cancel the increase of pay granted to those poor workingmen and employees 7 I do not believe, Sir, that there could' have been found a man willing to offer such a suggestion, and had there been found one, he would have been unworthy of the confidence of his constituents. So those two additional expenditures of $390,000 caused by the raise in the price of coal, and the expenditure of $200,000 resulting from the increase of the pay of the workingmen who theretofore received only from $1 to $1.10 a day and from the general raise of the wages of the employees, those I say, are the two causes which account for the deficit.
As I said a little while ago, the hon. Minister of Railways has kept steadily developing and improving the equipment of the government railways, and not from day to day, as was the case under the former management who neglected their repairs and kept their rolling stock in an inefficient condition.
He knew that if he could not meet his expenditure one year, he was bound all the same to go on with the task of making the i'oad the safest for the passengers and the most favourable for the transportation of goods.
Moreover, there was this year an overcharge for coal. The minister had just ordered repairs to the road bed to the amount of $200,000. Following in the steps of his predecessors, he could have made an apparent saving in striking out these $200,000 ; but he does not intend to run the road from day to day ; he is building for the future, and he will be ready, at a given

time, to carry all tlie traffic that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec will be able to send, and also all the traffic that may come to Cape Breton and Nova Scotia from Great Britain.
Then taking into account the increase of $200,000 in the wages of the staff, a further amount of $200,000 expended on the roadbed and an extra sum of $1.10 on every ton of coal consumed by the railway, we arrive to the total amount of $750,000, which is more than required to wipe out the apparent deficit, and which has been expended wholly for the benefit of the trade and the advantage of the employees of the road.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 37) to incorporate the Sprague's Falls Manufacturing Company (Limited).-Mr. Emmerson.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: This is the Bill for which the Minister of Justice was to prepare an amendment.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: I understand that some agreement was made across the House in regard to this Bill. I think the committee had better rise and let the Bill stand until the promoter is present. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCREARY moved the second reading of Bill (No. 79) to incorporate the Crown Bank of Canada.
William Findlay Maclean: I take this opportunity of calling the attention of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) to the general question of incorporation of banks in this country. We have a general Act regarding banking, but the law is still in such a condition that parties who wish to go into the banking business in Canada must apply for an Act of this parliament to authorize them to do so. I think the time has come when the general banking Act should be so amended that any corporation, or syndicate of persons who wish to engage in banking might embark in that enterprise without applying for an Act of parliament. We have three of these applications before us this session, and we have some every session, 64J
If there is anything this country requires to-day it ds increased banking facilities. It is for that reason that I make the suggestion to the Minister of Finance that he should have the General Banking Act so amended that parties who wish to go into banking could do so on filing .the necessary papers, showing that they' have the necessary capital and giving proper undertakings to abide by the law in every respect. During the last year, in one way and another, I have had occasion to discuss, to a considerable extent, the question of banking. So far as I can gather, apparently everybody wiho has any authority or interest in banking says we have the best banking system in the world. It certainly is the best system in the world for those engaged in banking. Our bank shares to-day are, on the average, worth double their face value, and banking is found to be a very profitable business. Our banks are all branching out, and, as the country is growing-as we are all glad to know it is-there is a necessity for increased .banking accommodation. That being the case, I think the banks ought to be allowed to increase their capital stock without application to parliament, and financial men who wish to start a new bank ought to be free to do so by complying with the necessary forms, as I have suggested. As it is these banks have to make application for a special Act and they have also to comply with the law by filing certain statements with the department. I think this all ought to be embraced in one Act, and that, by filing letters of incorporation with the Department of Finance, and going through the necessary forms, they should be able to take out a license to carry on a banking business. As I have said, there is room for any amount of increased banking accommodation in this country. It seems to me that if the law were what it should be, instead of having .three or four new banks projected, we would have a dozen started in various parts of the country within the next twelve months.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: If any practical difficulty had arisen in the experience of the department in connection with the matters to which .the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) has referred, or if any practical inconvenience had been felt, I should be disposed to sympathize with him. But up to this time, I have not heard any complaint whatever of inconvenience arising from the present system. As to the fact the hon. gentleman mentions, that the bank stocks stand at a high figure, I take it that we all feel that general business is in a better condition when bank stocks stand at a high than at a low figure. As between the two, the present condition of things is to be preferred. I do not wish, however, to discuss the general question of the banking

system. But X might point out that the hon. gentleman is mistaken in supposing, as he apparently does, that it is necessary for a bank to come to parliament for power to increase its capital. The Banking Act makes provision for the increase of a bank's capital in a very simple way. A form is prescribed and regulations provided under which, on application to the Treasury Board, in a very summary way, a bank may obtain leave to increase its capital. It is necessary, however, for new banks to come to this parliament for their charters. But the lines of those charters are so clearly laid down that it amounts to a merely formal application. If the applicants comply with the conditions, practically, the application is never refused. The hom. gentleman may say that, in that case, it would be as well to give the charter by executive as by parliamentary action. But, on the other hand, the banking system is a very important part of the business of the country, and I think parliament would like to feel that it reserved to (itself control of this matter rather than that it had handed it over to the control of the government. At any rate, I am satisfied that no practical inconvenience has arisen through the present system; and while, theoretically, what the hon. gentleman says seems right enough, I think this is one of those cases where we should be wise to let well enough alone.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: I agree with what the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has said. It seems to me we give greater stability to our chartered banks by having each of them incorporated by a special Act of parliament than if we adopted any method that, to the general public, might seem more loose. In no instance is a new bank organized in a month or two. It generally takes a full year at any rate. Therefore, it causes no loss of time for men who desire to engage in banking to be obliged to come to parliament and get a charter in the regular way. To my mind, the proposal of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) would take away a great deal of the stability that we think belongs to our banking institutions. I think our banks will have better standing if they are required to come to parliament to get their charters.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 22) to incorporate the Board of the Presbyterian College of Halifax.-Mr. Fraser.
Bill (No. 47) to incorporate the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 29) to incorporate the Sovereign Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 63) to incorporate the Mpdicine Hat and Northern Alberta Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 65) to incorporate the Yukon Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 66) respecting La Compagnie du chemin de fer de Colonisation du Nord.- Mr. Lemieux.
Bill (No. 68) respecting the Central Counties Railway Company.-Mr. Edwards.
Bill (No. 69) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 70) to incorporate the Ross Rifle Company-Mr. Thompson.
Bill (No. 71) respecting the Dominion Cotton Mills Company, Limited.-Mr. Pre-fontaine.
Bill (No. 72) to incorporate the Pacific Northern and Omineca Railway Company.- Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 73) to incorporate the North Shore Power, Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 74) respecting the Ottawa, Brock-ville and St. Lawrence Railway Company.- Mr. Logan.
Bill (No. 75) to incorporate the Knapp Tubular Steamship Company.-Mr. Bel-court.
Bill (No. 78) respecting the Trans-Canada Railway Company.-Mr. Talbot.

[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.
['Then I will move that the debate be now adjourned.']
Onésiphore Turgeon: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I shall ask the House to bear with me a few minutes more while I conclude my remarks. I think I have fairly done with the administration of the Intercolonial Railway and I shall come now to the financial situation of this country. Like most other people, Canadians are proud to know the financial standing of their country, and like from time to time to be enlightened oh public affairs. The people pay great attention of the national debt and naturally fear to see it increase. They are also much pleased to see new millions added from year to year to our imports and exports, more so when the agricultural products of the country are at stake. More than anywhere else perhaps, the public expenditure is

closely scrutinized. The electors are always anxious to know if the fiscal year will close with a welcome surplus or an unwelcome deficit. That national turn of mind might be called a social virtue, a kind of patriotism which is not without its wholesome influence upon the business of the country, the minds of members of parliament and the general administration. The Americans do not watch so closely the doings of their' congressmen, but the paramount question in the neighbouring republic is the scale of wages. If wages are high, they say that the administration is to be commended. If, on the contrary, wages are low, they say it is time for a change. Not so with us. The Canadian people are not satisfied to know if there is a surplus or a deficit in the public chest. Critical and inquisitive as they are, they will not be satisfied with the mere existence of a surplus or a deficit. A surplus of 3, 5 or $8,000,000 is always welcome, but the people want to know something more. They will inquire by what process that result was reached, and to what circumstances the surplus was due. There are different ways of piling up a surplus. A surplus is a sure sign of the prosperity of the country. If the- trade of the country is prosperous, if the balance is in our favour, the people will look favourably upon the government. If, on the other hand, the business of the country is depressed, even if there is a surplus, the people are anxious to know the cause thereof.
Under these circumstances, I may be permitted to give to the House a few figures from the financial statement so ably delivered a few days ago by the hon. Minister of Finance. He told us then that the revenue had increased to the unprecedented sum of $52,514,701. This result was reached by an increase in different sources of revenue, amongst which are to be noted the excise duties, with an increase of $450,170. The next increase is to be found in the earnings of the Intercolonial Railway, which amounted to $439,219. The receipts of the Post Office Department have been of $235,969 over those of the preceding year, notwithstanding the reduction in the postage dues. The actual receipts are already larger than they were before the reduction took place.
The above statement affords me the occasion ef commending the wise administration of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock). He has given us increased postal facilities, as well as a reduction of 23 per cent in the postage dues and a further reduction from 5 cents to 2 cents for all postal communications within the empire. Is it not a wonderful achievement ? The expenditure on consolidated fund has been of $46,866,367, an increase of $3,891,088 over 1890. We are then left with a surplus of $5,700,000. But the expenditure on capital account has been exceptionally high during the year, and that has resulted in a net increase in the public debt of nearly $3,000,000. This is
practically the first large increase of the public debt under the Liberal government.
Let us come now to that question of the increase of the public debt. When the Liberal government came into power, in 1896, the net debt, on the 30th June of that year, was $258,497,432.77, having increased during the same fiscal year by $5,422,505.68, for which the preceding government was partly responsible.
Now, what have been the increases in the public debt under the present government ?
1897, increase of	$3,041,163.60
1898,	"	
2,417,802.451899,	"	
2,317,047.691900, decrease of	
779,639.711901,	increase	of	
2,986,196.80
giving a total increase during the five years of $9,982,570.92, which total divided by five gives an average yearly increase of the public debt of $1,996,514.18.
We are told that the Liberal government has increased the public debt. Nobody in this House	will deny such a statement.
But we are in a position to show by comparison, that under the Liberal government the public debt has not increased in the same ratio as it did under the former government, and the showing is all in favour of the hon. Minister of Finance under the Liberal government.
The official records will show for the last seventeen or eighteen years of the Conservative administration an average increase of $6,563,075. Let us come now to the deficits and surpluses of the Liberal administration. In coming into office the hon. Minister of Finance had to acknowledge a deficit of $519,981.41 for the first year. Although comparatively small, part of this deficit must be credited to the old government. For that fiscal year, specially the first part of it, the hon. Minister of Finance had to comply with the obligations contracted by his predecessors in office. But the very next year, under the influence and magnetism of his genius and of his patriotic inspirations the tables were turned and the hon. minister was in a position to present the country with a surplus of $1,722,712.33.
In	1898-99, of	$4,837,749	00In	1899-1900	
8,054.714	51In	1900-1901	
5,648,333	29
Total for five years.. ..$20,263,509.13
Deducting the deficit of $519,981.44 from the first year, we stand with a net surplus of $19,743,527.69. If we divide this last amount by 5, the number of years, we have an average surplus under the Liberal administration of $3,948,705.58.
Under what circumstances has the Minister of Finance been enabled to achieve such results ? All the public documents will tell. New industries have been established, old industries have been galvanized into life under the patriotic influence of the

Minister of Finance, and our trade has forged along by leaps and bounds.
Our total imports and exports aggregated the amount of $239,025,360 in 1895-96, and have crept to $386,903,157 in 1900-01, being an increase of $157,877,797.
Let us compare the development of our export trade during the last five years of the Conservative government and we have the following figures :	*
1891-	92	
$241,369,4431892-	93	
247,638,6201893-	94	
240,999,8891894-	95	
224,420,4851895- 96	239,025,369
Butter exports for the lirst five years of the Laurier regime :
1896-	97	
$2,253,4811897-	98	
2,523,6641898-	99	
4,025,4051899-	1900	
5,429,5631900-	1901	
3,355,197Total	$17,587,310
Under the wise administration of the Laurier government in the short period of five years, from the butter exports alone, twelve million dollars more found their way into the pockets of the farmers of this country.
Let us look now into the cheese industry.
Total for the five years....$1,193,453,797
How slow, to say the least, has been the trade development during these years ! Let us see now what have been our imports and exports during the five years of the Liberal administration :
1896-	97 .
1897-	98 .
1898-	99 .
1899-	1900
1900-	1901

Exports of cheese for the last five years of the Laurier regime :
Total for five years	 $i;651,726,204
The total trade of the country during the five years of administration of the present government has exceeded by five hundred million dollars the total trade of the last
1896-	97..
1897-	98..
1898-	99..
1899-	1900
1900-	1901

five years of the Conservative regime. I leave it to the House and the country to draw the conclusion.
A great cause of rejoicing is the fact that this large increase in our exports has been most marked in the agricultural products. The agriculturist has a fair share in the marvellous expansion of our exports during the last five years. The non. Minister of Agriculture has bent all his energies towards promoting the agricultural prosperity of Canada. To him we must give credit for those transportation facilities and the establishment of a complete system of cold storage by which the farmers of the country have been greatly benefited. No wonder they are grateful for what he has done.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to give the House and the country a few more figures that are interesting to those of us who are representing rural constituencies. Let us look at the butter exports, so largely increased by the perfected system of cold storage established by the lion. Minister of Agriculture, and let us compare these exports with those of the last five years of the Conservative administration.
Butter exports for the last five years under the Conservative regime :
1891-	92..
1892-	93..
1893-	94..
1894-	95..
1895-	96..
Total

There is a difference of thirty millions in favour of the Laurier regime.
We have an increase of thirty million dollars for cheese ; and an increase of twelve million dollars for butter.
It was during a period of such great business activity and progress that the government piled up surpluses to the tune of $19,743,527.69, or an average yearly surplus of $3,948,705.58.
But we are reminded that the Conservatives also had their surpluses. True, but as I have just shown, those surpluses were piled up while our import and export trade went on declining, and those results were brought about through violent means, and by protection which kept increasing from year to year, and to such a point that Sir Leonard Tilley, the then Minister of Finance, a truly patriotic statesman, foresaw that the moment could come when the country could no longer bear a greater load of taxation. The trouble .then was that manufacturers would always look to the government for an increase of duties and a further measure of protection, instead of relying upon their own strength and spirit of enterprise, and equipping themselves so as to meet foreign competition.
Before resuming my seat-for I see that I have spoken at greater length than I intended-I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments more, while I say a few words of comment upon the motion of the hon. leader of the opposition. It reads :


Onésiphore Turgeon: That all the words after ' that ' in the proposed motion be left out and1 the following substituted therefor :
This House regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country .requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries, as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians. And, while thus firmly maintaining the necessity of such protection to Canadian interests, this House affirms its belief in a policy of reciprocial trade preferences within the empire.
Notv, Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to the hon. leader of the opposition, I may remark that I am reminded here of the fact that, ever since the Liberal party came into power, the opposition members and their organs have kept repeating that the Liberals, after their advent to office, had stolen their clothes, by adopting the Conservative policy. Now, with such a resolution a^ this on record, they will no longer lie able to say that the Liberals have stolen their policy.
It is stated in the motion that the time is come for us to adopt a policy of adequate protection to the labouring classes and to the farming interests. I think it is always the duty of the government to follow a policy aiming at the protection of the agricultural community, for agriculture lies at the base of our social system.
It is always time for the government! enforcing a policy of protection to the fishermen who prosecute such a hard and interesting calling.
We are told that we must adopt a national policy. I think the policy of any country should always be a national policy. France, when framing her tariff, adopted a national policy, adjusted to her geographical position and to the nature of the products of her soil. So did the United States, when they framed a national policy with a view to protecting their home industries. That protective policy they have maintained for forty or fifty years, although they have a very rich soil and vast natural resources, to which advantages should be added a large influx of immigrants, from all countries in the world, who by thousands come in every day and swell the army of workingmen, which means a considerable addition to the consumers of home products.
Great Britain herself also framed a national policy of her own, when adopting free trade with a view to protecting her industries, and when seeking new markets for the over-production of those industries, and for the relief of her own market, which was already glutted.
When the present government framed a policy which I might call a policy of discrimination between extreme protection such as is advocated by hon. gentlemen opposite and free-trade which could not be suddenly introduced into this country without jeopardizing the very existence of our
home industries, thereby depriving our workingmen employed in those industries, which had grown under the fostering care of a protective tariff, of their daily bread and labour, the government, I say, did also, under those circumstances, adopt a national policy. The hon. leader of the opposition and his friends took to the past for examples. They like to look backwards and to see how their predecessors have acted. I am also a student of history and I like to learn the lessons of experience. But we must also look to the future and not content ourselves with referring to past records, to see what our predecessors have done or how they have acted. We must adopt a policy of our own and one that is best calculated to develop our trade, our material resources, our industries and our agriculture. The methods that suited our country fifty or sixty years ago may not suit the present conditions of the country.
A government should learn the lessons taught by history, and look to the fathers of confederation as their guides in framing a national policy ; but they should adjust that policy to the conditions of the country and to her needs. This the present government have done, and they have succeeded in developing our national trade and in bringing about an unprecedented prosperity. The people of this country have full confidence in the policy so far pursued by the government, because they realize that'it is a policy calculated to promote the prosperity of the country.
On these several grounds. I cannot vote in favour of the motion of the hon. leader of the opposition. As I said a little while ago, we should not content ourselves with looking backwards to our past achievements, but we must look forward and entertain the brightest hopes for the future that is in store for us.


Mr. J. R. LAVELL (Leeds and Grenville).: I regret exceedingly I was not able to follow very closely the long address to which the House has just listened. I was, however, able to comprehend a reference which the hon. member (Mr. Turgeon) made at an earlier stage of his address, when, though willing to admit that Providence probably had had something to do with the present favourable condition of affairs in Canada, he thought that the way Providence had helped Canada was by putting the present government into power. I notice that he disagrees with the principle laid down by a prominent fellow countryman of his, a member of the government, who apparently flatly denied that Providence had any part in the change of government when he declared that elections are not won by prayers. If I remember correctly the election address of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) himself. I would suggest that Providence had done very little towards placing him on the government side of the

House. However, apart from that, I think it will not he difficult to show that possibly Providence had done more than the hon. member was willing to admit.
In proceeding to debate to-night the fiscal policy of the country and the .management of its finances, I do not feel'that X need to apologize for speaking either at this hour or at this period of the debate. The question is an exceedingly important one, and involves many great interests. We must remember that we are still an extremely young country. There are parts of our country yet unexplored, and even those parts that have been explored by the surveyor are still, many of them, entirely undeveloped. Our natural resources have hardly been touched. We cannot in any sense of the word be said to have fully developed any of the great resources' that Providence has given into our charge. This fact was recognized at an early stage in our political history, and as a result the national policy was born, over twenty-five years ago. That national policy has been reviled, that national policy has been abused, that policy of protection, with which I am glad to say I heartily concur, has been spoken of as an old story. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce seemed to think he had dealt with the whole question when, in referring to the amendment and to the address of the leader of the opposition, he said he could almost picture to himself the former leader of the opposition moving a similar amendment to an address some twenty-six years ago. 1 submit, Sir, that the need of a national policy is just as great now as it ever has been in the history of this country. The history even of these later years of prosperity-for I am glad to say we are enjoying a period of great prosperity-our history, I say, only adds to the conviction that a national policy involving protection to Canadian industries, to Canadian labour and to Canadian agriculture, is just as necessary now as ever it was. We have to develop this co'untry in face of the keenest opposition of our great neighbours to the south. I think 1 may say of them that they show a knowledge of Canada greater than that shown by many Canadians. I think we see in the conduct and attitude of the United States a lively recognition of the resources that Canada possesses.
I do not propose to discuss the question as to how far protection is necessary for this country, because that is practically admitted, even by a free trade supporter of the government such as the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards). The party supporting the government have practically recognized the need of protection by adopting it, notwithstanding that the policy of the former government has been changed in some respects. I submit, however, that where those changes have been made they have been in the direction of increased taxa-Mr. LAVELL. .
tion, and have wrought injury to the country, having done more harm than good. But where tile items of the old tariff have been retained the country has benefited in consequence. The present government have actually been putting in force a policy of protection, though not as well administered as that put in force by the Conservative government. It has, however, been put in force under better conditions, and to one of those conditions I wish now to refer.
When the policy of protection was introduced by Sir John A. Macdonald, it was inaugurated in face of keen opposition on the part of a number of the most prominent men in this country. One of those men who had occupied, and yet occupies, a prominent position, and who had been a Minister of Finance in one of the governments of Canada, was an avowed apostle of free trade. At the very time that industries were being started under the influence of that National policy, that ex-Minister of Finance and his friends became apostles of free trade in the fullest sense of the word, and went up and down the country denouncing the new national policy and threatening to overturn it at the first available opportunity, thereby frightening away capitalists ready to embark in manufacturing enterprises in Canada. Moreover, I do not think it requires much effort of memory on the part of members of this House, or of a majority of the citizens of Canada, to recall the fact that in those years the United States was held up before us as the Mecca of all those who desired prosperity. The United States was held up as the one great country, the one great example we were to follow. Indeed they almost paraphrased an expression of the late Oliver Wendall Holmes, who, you will remember, said that good Americans, when they died, went to Paris, and so the prominent members. of the Liberal party in those early days used practically to say that good Canadians, while they lived, should go to the United States. Unfortunately many young Canadians listened to their advice and left their native land. Not only was an effort made by the opposition of that day to prevent money being put into manufacturing enterprises, but an effort was made to discredit Canada, to prevent its development, and to hold up a foreign land as being the best spot to which ambitious young Canadians could go.
I would call attention to the different circumstances unde^ which the fiscal policy of the present government is administered. As I have said, the fiscal policy of the present government differs only in a few respects from the old one. The present government is not confronted with an opposition preaching blue ruin; the opposition of today have done all in their power to encourage manufacturing in this country. Instead of the present opposition holding up the United States as a model to follow, and as

offering the greatest inducements to ambitious Canadians, it has never thrown the slightest difficulty in the way of the development of Canadian industries, but has given every possible encouragement to the government to continue protection to Canadian industries-has always preached that Canada was the best country in which young Canadians could hope to gain wealth and distinction, that Canada was a country of magnificent resources, and required only energy and hope on the part of her people to become one of the greatest countries in the world. I submit, Sir, the attitude of the opposition has been a very important factor in making the fiscal policy of the present government as successful as it has been. It would be useless, it would be wrong, to deny that it is impossible for public men, whether they be members of the government or members of the opposition, to go through this country preaching blue ruin without producing a bad effect. For. tunately, however, the policy preached by the Liberals in opposition was not put in practice by the Liberals in power. In fact,
I do not think it is too much to say, after looking back over the past seven years, that when the Liberals came into power the old Liberal party died. The doctrines preached by the present government and their supporters are so different from the doctrines they used to preach, that we can truthfully say that the old Liberalism passed into history in the year 1896. The result of the change is that, save in a few spots, and save a few spasmodic utterances of men in the House who speak louder by their words than their actions, the old free trade policy has almost disappeared; though, I regret to say that in some respects -and in some matters sufficient of its influence remains to prevent Canada reaping the full benefit of these years of plenty.
I want to dwell rather on the present than on the past, but before dealing with the present conditions, I want to refer to some remarks made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In reviving old times, possibly he revived them in a way he did not intend. I well remember in my early political life that the name of the ex-Minister of Finance wras always associated with the phrase ' blue ruin.' I could not help feeling the other night in listening to his vigorous speech, that it was largely inspired by a brilliant effort of Lis imagination regarding his favourite theme of blue ruin and corruption. His speech was filled with figures, and how he did handle them ! They reminded me of that prominent public man to whom the Toronto ' Globe ' referred as a ' mixer and muddler of figures.'
I do not propose to go fully into these figures in reference to the census. I will leave that to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), who has already promised to deal not only with them, but with the explanation given by the hou. Minister of
Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright). But, I think it is unfortunate that the government, which is supposed to be a unit, cannot be a little more in accord in the figures that it gives to the country. We heard from the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his budget speech, referring to the census, while regretting the very small increase in the population, that there was no doubt that the large increase had taken place since 1896, and we heard a vigorous, lengthy and complicated speech by the ban. Minister of Trade and Commerce on exactly the same lines. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce started from 1891, as indeed the hon. Minister of Finance must have done, in order to make such a calculation as that. It is rather unfortunate that they had to wait for eleven years before attempting to make a calculation of that kind, and it is almost as unfortunate that they could not have persuaded the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) to foresee that they were going to make a statement of that kind. I admit that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, and he probably is fully aware of the facts, cast doubt on the truth of the figures given to us by the government, and so, possibly, we should not lay too great stress on the figures given to us by the hon. Minister of Customs, but, he has been accustomed to give a statement of the duties collected, and a statement showing the amount of these duties per head of population. I notice that this year he lias left that calculation out of his report, but, he kept it up until last year, and in that report he shows a continually increasing population. Indeed he shows that according to his calculation the population increased more from 1891 to 1896 than from 1896 to 1900. I am not going to lay any stress upon these figures. I merely have pointed to them to express my regret that such a great difference of opinion between the various members of the government in reference to these figures should exist. In the case of the hon. Minister of Customs the figures are practically incorporated in his report, which is laid on the Table of the House and published by order of the government. In the case of the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce the figures as yet remain simply statements, or possibly, visions of the imagination. Surely, all the figures given to us by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce show very little more than imagination on the part of that hon. gentleman. His argument respecting the Ontario end of the census has been contradicted by the Ontario municipal census, and as to his argument respecting the figures from the province of Quebec. I do not think that those of us who were in the House when he made it. will easily forget the impressive, dignified and dramatic manner in which he


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Did the kon. Minister of Trade and Commerce pretend that it was a census of the whole population ?
statement shows that the enumerators in 1891 raised in twenty-one counties 40,-!?ore names than were recorded three months previous to the census by the parish priest.
l'ou will notice that he bases his whole argument on the census taken by the parish priests of the province of Quebec, and shows us that the parish priests in these twenty-one counties had enumerated some 40,000 people less. He places these returns, one of which, and only one of which, I have a**cl which is now in my hands, on the Table of the House. I do not know how many of the hon. members of this House have read these returns, and if they had not disappeared from the Table within about half an hour after I read this one, I n ould have had the pleasure of hunting up a few more, because, even although they aie written in French, it is not such an unknown tongue, I believe, as not to be understood by the majority of the members of this House. I am now going to read one or two paragraphs from this return, which is.the return for the counties of Drummond and Arthabaska, in which reference is made to this parochial census. Apparently some letters had been written, which letters have not been returned to the House, i do not know what questions were asked but I gather from this that the principal question was in reference to a comparison between the parochial census and the census of 1891. In answer to that question this return, placed on the Table of the House by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and under his authority, says distinctly in words that cannot be'mistaken :


John Reeve Lavell: Mr. LA\ EEL. I have already read from 1 speech of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce in which he based his whole charge on the discrepancy between the parochial census and the official census taken by the Dominion of Canada, and here in his own return, laid on the Table of 'the House, is the statement that the parochial census is simply a census of those in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church in the province of Quebec. I cannot pre-sunie for a single moment that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce takes it tor granted that no person should be included, if he lives in the province of Quebec, m tile census, unless he is in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. 1 might better trust that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has not adopted the advice which he gave to the members of this House that they should procure some French member of this House to translate these returns for them, and I can only con-elude that from his own imagination of what they contain, he has made that argument to the House and based his charge against the officials of this country. I do not know how far the other returns refer to this matter, but surely, when one of his officials makes such a distinct statement, I think it must be convincing to the House as being correct that this parochial census only contained the figures to which I have referred, and I believe the House will agree with me that it entirely disposes of his argument and that a retraction and almost an apology is due from the hon. gentleman to the people of Canada for making any such charge.
I am not going more fully into his figures save to refer to one point in that address where he exulted in a denunciation of his former opponents and where he laid particular stress on the fiscal policy of the Mackenzie government and comp'ared it very favourably with the fiscal policy pursued

by the Conservative government between 1878 and 1890. He made tne distinct statement that the policy of the Mackenzie, administration enabled the country to tide over the period of depression between 1875 and 1879 better, than did the . policy of the Conservative party enable the country to tide over the period of depression immediately preceding the advent of the present government to power. That was a mere assertion. It is incapable of proof. The majority of the members of this House are able to remember those two periods of depression, and I question if there is. a man on the government side who is bold enough to say, from his own experience, that the depression between 1892 and 1896-was as severely felt as. the depression between 1875 and 1879. That is more especially the case when we compare the conditions existing in Canada with the conditions existing in the United States during these two periods. We have figures to strengthen our memories as to this fact. In the first period of depression under the Liberal government, there was on an average 4J per cent of the paper at the banks overdue, while during the period of depression between 1892 and 1896, there was only 11 per cent of the paper at the banks overdue, and that very slightly differed from the amount of overdue paper in the years immediately proceeding and succeeding. We know also that periods of depression are unfortunately marked by business failures, and we find from the official returns that between the years 1875 and 1879, the total liabilities involved in the failures amounted to $133,138,000, while during the second period of depression under the Conservative government-when the business of the country was far and away wider and more extensive-the total amount involved in the failures was only $75,603,000; very considerably less it will be noticed than during the former period to which I have referred. In order that it may not be said that that was because of -reasons peculiar to Canada, I may say that in the United States which was practically under the same fiscal policy during these two periods, the total liabilities of the failures between 1892 and 1896 were far in excess of the total sum involved in the period between 1875 and 1879. The fact of the matter is that the fiscal policy introduced and maintained by Sir John Macdonald and Ms successors- the fiscal policy which is practically identical with that now advocated by the Conservative party in Canada-created business interests within Canada, and rendered us less dependent on foreign countries. While of necessity, we were affected possibly inductively 'by the currents of trade in other countries, yet we were not affected to the same extent as when we were so entirely dependent on our neighbours to the south as we were during the regime of the Mackenzie government.
But, Sir, notwithstanding the statements that were made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), we find that the more the situation under the national policy is analyzed, the more does the national policy prove to have been beneficial to Canada. One would imagine from the arguments of lion, gentlemen opposite, that the foreign trade of a country is the only index to its prosperity. A very slight consideration of the question will show how utterly fallacious that argument is. When the national policy was first introduced, it was, so to speak, the development period of trade in this country. The home trade was far more important to us than the foreign trade. We had been importing large quantities of goods, and one of the reasons for the creation and development of the national policy was that these goods might be made within our own country, so that our home market might be supplied by Canadians; so that Canadian produce might be sold to Canadians; so that Canadian manufactures might be sold to Canadians, and so that the wants of Canada might be supplied within ourselves. It was not foreign trade, but development of the home trade that Canadians were seeking, and that was the principal object of the national policy. It may be worth our while then to look at the conditions of the trade of Canada in the early seventies. All admit that in 1873 and 1874 we were commencing to get well into the hard times, but still our foreign trade in 1874-'which was distinctly a more disastrous year than 1873-our foreign trade in 1874 was in excess to our foreign trade in 1873, while at the same time the balances in the post office savings banks were going down rapidly. The foreign trade of Canada in 1874 amounted to $204,146,000, but the balances in the savings banks went down until in 1877 they reached the low figure of $2,639,000. Four years after that, when the benefits of the national policy were just beginning to be felt, the deposits in the post office savings banks -had risen to $6,208,000, but our foreign trade was only $175,000,000; or, $28,000,000 less than it was in the disastrous year of i874. I cite these figures to show, not that the foreign trade of a country is no index to. its prosperity, but to show that taken alone it cannot be relied upon as proof in that connection. It is a good thing to have an increased foreign trade when the home trade is healthy, and in some lines, yes, in many lines the home trade of Canada is now healthy and progressive. But I will ask hon. members of this House to examine carefully into this matter. The hon. member for Guysborough in his speech lauded the policy of this government with respect to the iron and steel industry. We may safely take that as a good example of a healthy industry; and why is it healthy ? It is because the policy inaugurated by the Conservative govern-

ment with relation to iron and steel was maintained and continued by the present government; and continued in a way that it could not be affected by the preferential tariff; because the protection to the iron and steel industries is through bounties which are not at all affected by that preferential tariff, which I might almost call the thin end of the wedge of free trade. The same thing might be said of the other industries of the country that are in a healthy condition. They are in a healthy condition, because simply of the fact that the present government in their tariff tinkering did not interfere with the protection that had been given these industries by the Conservative government.
But there are some industries in Canada that are not in a healthy condition now, and one of these about which we hear so much, is the woollen industry, which is 1 may say essentially a home trade. The iron and steel trade ds partially a foreign trade and the exports of iron and steel add considerably to the increase of our foreign trade. The iron and steel trade is not affected by the preferential tariff, but tbe woollen trade which is essentially a home trade is affected by it. Not only is tbe woollen manufacturer injuriously affected by tbe preferential tariff, but tbe Canadian farmer is also injuriously affected by it, and it is with that phase of tbe question which I propose to deal. I call attention to the fact that the importation of cheap shoddy goods is rendered possible by the preferential tariff. These goods come into this country with a nice finish, and they come into direct competition with goods made from Canadian wool which are better in quality, but which have not as fine a finish. What is perhaps more important is, that these goods come into competition with the goods made by the mills which handle Canadian wools. The natural result of this is that these mills have been injured, and the price of Canadian wool has steadily declined ever since 1896 until now when it is almost a drug on tbe market. That is a straight example of the interdependence of one industry in Canada on another. It is all very well to talk about protecting the classes, but protection to Canadian industries is a thing, that affects the whole country. Protection to our Canadian woollen industries, is just as much protection to the Canadian wool grower as it is protection to the Canadian woollen manufacturer. The farmers of Canada lose by tbe reduction in tbe price of wool which is due to the preferential tariff, just as much, and indeed more possibly, than do tbe manufacturers whose business is interfered with toy it.
Let me deal for a few minutes with this preferential tariff. If I am not mistaken,
It was the member for Guysborougli (Mr. Fraser) who said that no man on this side of the House dare oppose the preferential tariff. I do not know- why he gave utter-'


John Reeve Lavell: ately-and I say this advisedly-they did not do that with sufficient completeness ; and the result is that their tariff, while not benefiting- Canada or Great Britain in the slightest degree, has, in certain lines, worked a great injury to Canada. These figures show, if any figures can,-I will not vouch for them after the reflection thrown upon official figures by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, from whose returns I have taken them, but I give them for what they may be worth, and, probably they are approximately correct-that so far as encouraging trade between Canada and Great Britain is concerned, the present tariff, with its preferential feature added is absolutely worthless. And it is more than worthless in the other lines I have mentioned. I have said that, so far as it is based upon Imperial sentiment, I sympathize with it; but, as an expression of Imperial sentiment it is fallacious. We have seen what that sentiment demands, but this preferential tariff [DOT] is used as a mere excuse for refusing to bear our clear responsibility as citizens of the empire. We claim Imperial citizenship, and that claim is one of the reasons alleged for the introduction of this preferential tariff. But it is a paltry thing on the part of Canada as a whole to consider that, by passing a bogus preferential tariff, we have done our duty to the empire. It is interesting to note that in a recent report to the United States government as to its military establishment, it is shown that the people of the United States are spending upon that service over $90,000,000. I notice that, according to the estimates of the Minister of Militia and Defence, our total expense under this head is something like $2,000,000. And, even last year when the Halifax provisional garrison and the special services in South Africa took up something over $900,000, our expenditure was a little over $3,000,000. The population of Canada is, at the very least, one-fifteenth as large as that of the United States, while even this unusually large expenditure to which I have referred on our part is only about one-thirtieth of the expenditure of the United States on military service. I mention this to show that those lion, members of this House who have spoken of our getting no benefit through British connection are a long way out in their figures. If we compare our expense with the expense for the defence of the empire as borne by the people of Great Britain, instead of comparing with the military establishment of the United States, I think we are compelled to recognize that Britain is bearing a very great burden which ought to be shared by all those who benefit by Imperial connection. And we do benefit by it. Most certainly, in the matter of militia and defence expenditure we do not bear nearly the burdens that fall upon the people of the United States, whereas, considering that we cover an enormous territory with a small population. we might reasonably expect to bear a Mr. LAVELL.
much greater expense, per head. Thus, in the matter of dollars and cents, Imperial connection has meant very much for us. It has meant very much more in other ways. I admit that, while we have great and serious difficulties to face, it would be wrong and improper to burden ourselves with too heavy a task financially. I admit further that, in sudden emergency and under popular pressure, we have done something-and I am glad we have done something-to contribute to the defence of the empire, and to take part in the wars of the empire. But we seem to consider that so far as financial burdens are concerned, we have done our duty. I infer from the estimates as they are now before us this year that the present government believes that no further expense should be borne by Canada in connection with Imperial defence, save only, so far as our own shores are concerned, and that only partly. I do not think that the citizens of Canada as a whole heard with any pride that we were still willing to offer our citizens to Great Britain for service in South Africa, but we cannot afford to spend a cent to send them to the country in which they are to serve. We can spend money on wharfs to improve the property of some members of parliament, or we can go on building post offices in friendly villages, but we cannot spend a cent on the defence of the empire. We can squander hundreds of thousands of dollars on an elevator to add to party strength, but we cannot spend a cent to add to the strength of the empire. I would like to have analysed some of our expenditures, just to show that we could succeed in getting a very large fund, without placing additional burdens upon the people of the country, to go towards Imperial defence.
I think that an analysis of the expenditure might be an object lesson to some of the supporters of the present government regarding their former expressions of economy. However, the Big Ontario Policeman has been lost in the Department of Trade and Commerce, and our friend Mr. James McMullen has gone to what he himself called the home for incurables. Apparently, there does not seem to be any lion, gentleman _ on that side able to criticise the expenditure. I have already spoken longer than I intended to and I shall not attempt to do it now. But I submit that, while, undoubtedly, provision must be made for the public service, vastly greater economy should be shown. It is one of the difficulties of the opposition that, in criticising the proposed expenditure of the government as foreshadowed in the estimates, they feel that they are in danger of criticising items that must benefit the country generally. Criticism must, in nearly all cases, be devoted to the methods and details of expenditure after that expenditure has been made. I submit that an analysis of the Auditor General's Report, and an analysis of the expenditure generally in nearly all

departments not in all I am glad to say- would show that there is what might perhaps be very mildly called recklessness and extravagance which in a business house would bring financial ruin very soon. I submit that the enormously increased expenditure cannot be justified by public needs, and we can well afford to restrict that expenditure and do our work as citizens of the empire fairly, and not make a jug-handled preferential tariff an excuse for not doing our full duty. A little while ago, I referred to the unfounded attack-for it was an unfounded attack-made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce for party purposes upon the honesty of the census officers of 1891. But surely it was even a worse insult to the people of Canada as a whole that the government should proceed upon the assumption that Canada will give freely her sons for the empire, but cannot give one cent to feed them, or one cent to carry them to the scene of war, or one cent to look after them after they leave her shores and are engaged in fighting, not the battles of the motherland so much as the battles of the colonies of the motherland, simply because of the avaricious grasp that some of her citizens have on all the monev that even prosperous years can pour into her treasury. This is a point upon which one could easily grow warm. Canada will show the true Imperial spirit that she ought to show by following the lines proposed by the opposition in regard to fiscal matters and contributing towards Imperial defence. Let her use her resources carefully. Let her see to it that her development is not interfered with from outside. And let her spend her revenues in a way to benefit the country rather than individuals. Let her see to it that her own producers are carefully and well protected by legislation, and this done, let her bend her energy to trade within the empire. And lastly, when she has that growing strength which comes from self development, let her contribute towards Imperial defence in a manner commensurate with her resources, and let her no longer consider the giving of a jug-handled preference as a fulfilment of her duty. I submit that the present policy of the opposition is really an Imperial policy. It represents the development of one of the greater parts of the empire, it proposes that we should develop our own strength, our own resources ; and then, it is perfectly consistent with this that we should show our Imperial interests in a legitimate way by properly sharing the burdens of the empire.


Mr. W. S. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).: Then there is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whose whole life time has been devoted to financial matters. He gave us an admirable speech the other evening, of some three hours length, a speech that I listened to with the greatest interest and attention. I am prepared to say it is the best speech I ever heard on this matter, though I cannot agree with some of the things he said. Now are we not to be influenced by the opinions and statements of gentlemen like these ? There are few of us who have had time to get down to first principles, and to build up a theory for ourselves, and probably if we did build up one it would not stand. So our opinions are to a considerable extent moulded by those with whom we come in contact. But after I have heard all these wise men who have been a long time in parliament, I get bewildered. Such was the effect upon me of the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He is a gentleman who, his friends say, has had a great many different kinds of fiscal policies, and he announces the one he holds to-day. I do not exactly understand what it is, it is a kind of quasi protection, I think. He has hardly sat down before up pops the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards), who says that the ideas of the hon. member for North Norfolk are the veriest nonsense, that he does'nt know what he is talking about. Then the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) announces his policy, which X suppose is the policy of the independent party of which he poses as leader. Then the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has a little theory of his own. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the position we poor unfortunate fellows occupy in coming into the House at the eleventh hour-there having been some 80 new members who came into the House last year-after hearing the diverse views of all these wise men, no wonder we get a little bewildered.
I propose to make a refeence to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think a fair test of the importance of a speech is the attention that is paid to it by those who are opposed to the principles enunciated by a speaker. I have sat here listening from day to day, and I notice that nearly every member who has spoken from the opposition side has had something to say about the speeech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That fact proves to me that it was a speech of considerable importance. There was one part of it that interested me particularly, and that was a reference to my own county as one of those in which there had been a great increase in industries between 1881 and 1891, due to the national policy. I was a little astonished at first by the statement that there were forty new industries in the county of Huntingdon, but I began to get a little light when he stated subsequently that there were forty basket fac-Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).*
tories. I remembered that there was an Indian reserve at the western part of the county of Huntingdon called St. Regis, and that the Indian ladies, commonly called squaws, are in the habit of making baskets, and selling these baskets on the boats and cars, and taking them around the country and disposing of them among the farmers. Those were the forty basket factories that were established in the county of Huntingdon under the national policy. One thing that pleased me was to learn that in those forty basket factories there were forty-five people working ; whereas in the county of Antigonish, there ivere seventy carpet factories that only employed sixty-nine persons. So I thought we were ahead of Antigonish. Now speaking seriously, it seems to me that where a thing of that kind occurs in a census I could believe almost anything else regarding it. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Leeds and Grenville (Mr. Lavell) has been quite fair to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in referring to his remarks on the census. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said this with regard to the stuffing of the census in the province of Quebec :
Every hon. gentleman who knows anything of the customs of the people of Quebec is aware that in that province the parochial clergy every year make a very accurate census of all their parishioners, and I am informed of all the people within their particular cure.
Now the fact is that when the cure goes round to take the census of the parish, he not only takes the Roman Catholic people, but he takes Protestants as well.


John Reeve Lavell: Then the returns are false, are they ? I read from the returns.


William Scott Maclaren: The hon. member spoke of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I am speaking of him also. But we have another test. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, after stating that 40,615 more names were found on the census than were recorded three months previous by the parish priests, says :
I am willing to admit that there will always be a slight discrepancy between such a census and the census taken by the government enumerators. I believe the parish priests do not enumerate those who are absent at the time, and there are some other slight differences; but our census of 1901 corresponds with these parochial censuses within 8,000 souls.
Now they took the government census in 1891, and they took the parochial census of three months previous, and they found there were over 40,000 more on the government census than on the parochial census. They took the government census of 1901 and the parochial census of 1901, and they fouud there was a difference of 8,000. The parochial census was taken in the same way in 1891 as in 1901; and there is where the Minister of Trade and Commerce found a difference of 32,000, as between 8,000 and 40,000. I

think it is fair to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that X should make this explanation.
Now, as I said before, I get somewhat bewildered by hearing so many contradictory statements from each side of the House. So I think the best thing for me to do is to follow my own! opinions. One thing I cannot understand is how the increase of duty is going to cheapen articles to those who have to purchase. That has always troubled me. I was talking the other day to a manufacturer down at the Russell House, and I put him this question :	What about those who have to purchase ? He said :	The increase in duty
does not necessarily increase the price of the article. Well, we are all human, we like to get all we can for what we have to sell, and buy as cheaply as possible. And I have not that confidence in the philanthropy of the manufacturers of this country to believe that they ar-e 'going to give us goods any cheaper than they can afford to, and whatever duty is put on they will add to the price of their goods. Their idea seems to be that if you can put the tariff high enough to keep the goods out of the country the internal competition, as they say, will regulate the price ofi the articles. The government had to pass a Bill to regulate the matter and we had a little experience last summer in connection with the paper combine. I think we will find some combines existing in regard to other things, and that if they have a chance they will charge their own price for the goods. X think that argument is fallacious. I do not think it will hold water at all and I think that what we want in Canada is a cheap country to live in. I live in a purely agricultural constituency. We have no manufactures of any kind of our own, but, when I say that I will also say that X do not believe in parish politics. I do not believe in taking the view merely of our own counties, and when the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), in his speech, was pleading for the woollen manufacturers, I could not help believing that that hon. gentleman being largely interested in woollen manufactures was probably not thinking so much of thp general good of the Dominion as of the dividends which would come to him from the industries in which he is interested.
With 23J per cent of protection on woollen goods, I cannot see why the manufacturers cannot make a fair living. And here I would just like to say that there seems to be an idea abroad that it is only those people who are engaged in manufacturing that have capital invested in anything. Is not the farmer a capitalist in the same sense ? Has not the farmer his capital invested in his stock, his farm and his implements, and should the farmer not get a fair return from his investments the same as the manufacturer of goods ? We have a newspaper 65
in the county of Huntingdon. It is quoted a great deal by the organs of our friends opposite as a Liberal organ which is not satisfied with the action of this government. I refer to the Huntingdon ' Gleaner/ While I do not agree with everything the ' Gleaner ' says, there is no question at all but that the editor of the ' Gleaner ' is a man of great ability and one who gives a great deal of attention to these matters. He issues an almanac each year instead of a holiday number in which he gives a resume of what has happened during the year. He has a good deal to say of the extravagant way in which the government of the Dominion is carried on, and although he says a good deal about the extravagance of the Liberal party, the only consolation we have is that he said far worse things about the extravagance of the Conservative party when they were in power. He gave us an estimate of the return farmers get from their investment, and I think Huntingdon is about equal to any other county in the Dominion. I think we have fairly good farmers in the district of Beauharnois, which includes Huntingdon, Chateauguay and Beauharnois. His estimate was that the return farmers get from their investment is about 2 or 2$ per cent. I was staggered a little at that statement. 1 made some inquiry among the farmers of that locality and verified the figures he had given us. He gave the average produce of the farm, specifying what the farmer had to sell, what it cost to work the farm, and so on, and he reduced it to the fact that the return the farmer gets is not more than 2 or 2\ per cent on his investment. Would the manufacturers of woollen goods be prepared to accept a dividend of that kind ? Or, would the manufacturers of cotton goods be prepared to accept that, or would they want more ? I was reading in a paper a few days ago, on this particular question, a paragraph, and I was wondering if there was any truth in it. Dealing with the statement that factories were not able to make a fair dividend, the reason was given that the owners did not keep their factories up to date in the way of machinery, and it was said that they found it much cheaper to run their factories with old machines which are obsolete and out of date, and to come to the government and get more protection, thus enabling them to pay dividends with old machines which are out of date and not equal to those in use in Great Britain and the United States. That paragraph said :
Grandsons inherit factories originally representing investments of millions of dollars and instead of throwing on the junk pile the machinery installed by their grandfathers they continue to operate them by the old antiquated method. -
It was to me rather a staggering statement, and yet, in conversation with a man who is



interested in a woollen factory, I had this statement made to me :	Some new blood
had been brought into the directorate of a woollen mill and amongst the directors was a man who had had a good deal to do with machinery in other lines. He found a certain machine in operation in this mill, and he thought it would be better to replace it with another machine. After some difficulty he got the directors to consent to put this old machine out and to put another machine in. The machine that was put out was as good as it ever was but it was out of date. The new machine that was put in cost $6,000, and this gentleman told me that it earned $7 a day more than the old machine, which hon. gentlemen will admit is a pretty fair return for an investment of $6,000. Our manufacturers should equip their factories with machinery as good as that employed in the United States, Great Britain and other countries. The great industry of this country is agriculture. There is no question about that. The census of 1901 was certainly disappointing to us all. I have talked to a great many people on that subject. A good many people expected a population of at least 6,000,000, but I hfive not found any person who expected a population of less than 5,500,000 ; yet, we fell short of that. What we want in this country is population. We have the great wheat fields of the North-west Territories waiting for the people to till. We have western Ontario as well as new portions of the other provinces being opened up, and after all what we want is more population. What would be an inducement to offer people to come to Canada ? A number of immigrants are coming from the United States. These people have some means, and they are coming in and settling in the North-west Territories. But, the large mass of the people who come are from the congested parts of Europe. Some of them come because of religious or civil persecution, but the great majority of them are poor men who come in the hope of bettering themselves. One of the things we ought to do, and it would be an inducement to immigration, is to make this country a cheap place to live in. I cannot for the life of me see how, if you are going to protect these manufacturers and enable them to charge the highest price of their goods, how you are thereby making it a cheap country for the consuming masses of the people. Although there is a large amount invested in manufactures there is an infinitely larger amount invested in other pursuits, and I think the people ought to have the advantage of being able to secure cheap goods. I am in favour of a vigorous immigration policy. I am just as loyal as the hon. member for Leeds and Grenville (Mr. Lavell), I served 26 years in the militia, I was out in the Fenian raid and I got my medal. I am just as loyal as loyal can be. There is no question about that. I think if the government Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).
have any money to spend they should devote it to the prosecution of a vigorous immigration policy. I have heard the statement made that the immigrants brought into Canada have cost the country $8.40 apiece. I think if we can get good immigrants to come and settle in Canada even if it costs us $8.40, or $10 apiece, we should get them. I am in perfect sympathy with the mother country in the trouble which she is having in South Africa, and whether it is our duty to pay for the men that we are sending to help her, I am not going to express an opinion at the present moment, but, I would like to see this government engage in a more vigorous immigration policy and make an effort to fill up this country. It is not my intention to quote any figures. You know it has been said that figures never lie, but it is also said that some people who are not very veracious sometimes figure. The figures are all of the same class, they are all taken from the blue-books, but different conclusions are arrived at from these figures. It depends largely which side of the House the member sits who is quoting them. A great deal has been said about the imports and the exports to and from the United States and Great Britain and other countries, and as to whether the imports or the exports are greater or less, but hon. gentlemen do not seem to be able to agree. One hon. gentleman says that because the imports exceed the exports it is a good sign, while another hon. gentleman says that it is a bad sign. They go jumbling things all around, and I made up my mind that I was not going to quote figures at all.
Let us look for a moment at the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), because the hon. the Speaker told us a few days ago that we were to talk about the amendment. I notice that very few hon. members have had much to say about that amendment. They have wandered very far afield and have talked about almost everything but the amendment. Some hon. members, however, did speak about it and one thing they seemed to stumble on is that they want adequate protection. I notice that in the amendment hon. gentlemen propose to protect everything. I think the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) came very near the mark when he told us the other day that there was no way in which to protect the farmer. The only way I know of in which to protect the farmer is to make this a cheap country to live in. I observe that the amendment proposes that we shall protect the labourer. If we increase the tariff, for instance, on woollen goods, how much of it will the manufacturers give to the labourer ? Although I am a free trader, I would like to make a bargain with these people. I would like to ask them if they would give half of the increased price they get for their goods to the men who are working for them.

If they will not give half, I would be willing to make it 25 per cent, and try to strike a bargain with them at that figure. I am afraid the labourer would not get any of the increase. I am afraid it would be taken out of the pockets of the purchasers and that it would go directly into the pockets of the manufacturers. I say here, that so far as the policy of the present government is concerned it does not come near enough to free trade for me; but it comes a great deal nearer to it than the policy proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite, and therefore 1 am prepared to support the government in their policy as it is, and to hope for better things. However, I will speak a word of warning. If there is any revision of the tariff it must be down and not up, or otherwise the government will find that there are a great many members on this side of the House who are not at all satisfied, and who will speak their minds out if they have occasion to, notwithstanding that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and others seem to veer around in the direction of protection. Hon. gentlemen opposite are always twitting us on this side of the House with not being united, and that sort of thing. Do they think we are mere machines who come here to vote in a certain way '! Are we to lose our individuality, and our | independence, because we are members of this parliament ? I hope I will never come to that stage. I am prepared at any time to express my individual views with regard to any matter that comes before us. Whether it is entirely in accord with the party with which I am identified or not, 1 am prepared at all times to express my views on public matters. I may err in judgment, but at all events I will be independent while I am in this House, and state my views as to what I believe to be in the best interests of this country.
Mr. GEORG 13 TAYLOR (South Leeds). It was not my intention to say anything on the budget, but the gentleman who was to follow the hon. member for Huntingdon is not in his seat, and as the Minister of Finance has made up his mind that the House must sit until eleven o'clock, I will try to interest him until that hour, unless he consents to my moving the adjournment of the debate and making my speech to-morrow.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S. Fielding). The threat of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) that he will go on with his speech is one that we should seriously consider. If I am correctly informed, an agreement has been come to, so far as these things are possible, that this debate will be brought to an end on Tuesday next. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is aware of that.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The arrangement is that the division will be taken at the Tuesday sitting of the House, but of course that may run into Wednesday morning.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, of course. That being understood, there is no object in sitting to an unreasonable hour now, and if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tay-ior) wishes to adjourn the debate, I will offer no objection.


George Taylor: Then I will move that the debate be now adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, the House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thubsday, April 3, 1902.