[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 91) to amend the Inland Waters Seamen's Act. He said : The existing Act defining the inland waters of Canada is very uncertain, and doubts have arisen as to what it really means. It says : ' All the waters of Canada above the city of Quebec.' The question was whether that was confined to the River St. Lawrence or whether it embraced the lakes, or whether it could embrace the waters of the great North-west Territories. I have brought in a Bill to define that the inland waters of Canada shall embrace all the rivers and lakes whose waters are navigable, excepting the sea-coasts, bays and harbours, from a line above Point des Monts and Cape Chat on the shores of the St. Lawrence ; and conferring upon the judge of the Supreme Court in the Yukon territory, and upon the judge of the territorial court in the North-west Territories, the same jurisdiction for the punishment of offences as is given to the judges of the Superior Court of Lower Canada, and to the judges of the 62+
sessions of the peace in the lower provinces, with regard to offences committed upon the high seas, within Canadian jurisdiction.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 92) to amend the Act respecting the safety of ships. He said: When the Dominion Act was originally passed, many years ago, it then conformed to the British law. Since then the British mercantile law has been amended in very slight particulars, and owing to the construction of modern ships the spaces that are covered in and are not counted in the tonnage are not allowed by our law to be filled up with a cargo except by deals to the height of three feet, and I propose to amend our law so as to make it conform exactly with the Imperial statute in that respect.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Is that in respect to deck loads ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I may say to my hon. friend that the Bill does not provide for any compulsory inspection of deck loads. It simply amends our existing law so as to provide that the vacant space, which is now compelled by law to be vacant, the spaces covered in in steamers above the three feet of deals, may be filled up with such articles as hay or other light material. It does not otherwise touch the question of deck loads at all.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 93) respecting inquiries and investigations into shipping casualties. He said : The Bill is the result of many communications which have passed between the Board of Trade in England and the Marine Department in Canada. Under the law as it now stands, we have power to investigate into the causes of any casualty which occurs in Canadian waters, even if the ship is commanded by an officer holding a British certificate, a British officer. The officers holding British certificates complained that the manner in which our investigations were held did not ensure to them that perfect fair-play which is ensured to them by investigations held under the British system.
The Board of Trade, after several cases had taken place, and the evidence been
[Stage Direction]
sent to them, intimated as their opinion that the investigation should partake more of a judicial character, and that the judge who heard the case and decided whether the officer should lose his certificate for carelessness, should have the advantage in all cases of competent nautical assessors to sit with him, and that the presiding judge should be a legal gentleman. The Bill has been drafted in accordance with the suggestions of the British Board of Trade, inasmuch as grave doubts exist, and there is a difference of opinion between the law officers of the Crown on this side of the water and the law officers of the Crown in Great Britain, as to whether the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had appellate jurisdiction to amend, or alter, or modify the findings of the court, the present law removes that doubt, and declares that he shall not have that jurisdiction ; so that, if a judicial court, under this statute, finds that an officer has been guilty of neglect of duty, the finding and the evidence are forwarded to Great Britain, to the authority from which he receives the certificate, to be dealt with by them, and cannot be altered or amended by us.
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: It is to British certificates that it relates ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Entirely to British certificates. These are the two main amendments to enable me to appoint county court judges at Halifax, St. John and some other places and to associate with them nautical officers so as to bring our law into unison and harmony with the spirit of the British law and to make it uniform.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I understand the hon. gentleman proposes this change only in regard to certificates issued under the British Board of Trade in England ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Precisely.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Our law as to men holding certificates issued by the Department of Marine here, remains as it is.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries retains the same power as he had before.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Yes, but in regard to the court of first instance, are the general legal requirements necessary to the hearing of this case the same ; for instance, supposing the hon. gentleman were to take Capt. Smith, or some other officer, and appoint him to hold a preliminary inquiry ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not necessarily to hold the Sir LOUIS DAVIES.
preliminary inquiry, but to hold an inquiry dealing with the certificate. We follow the same procedure as in England. The Bill provides for the appointment of a county judge, or a judge of some kind ta act. An assessor would proceed with the court and Capt. Smith could act as the assessor to the judge.


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

Mr.  R. L.@: RICHARDSON (Lisgar) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 94) to amend the Railway Act. He said : Mr. Speaker, for the last two or three years the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and myself have been endeavouring to get a clause inserted into charters in the Railway Committee, conferring upon His Majesty, or upon the government, power to expropriate a railway at any time that it is deemed in the public interest that such railway should be expropriated, and also providing that any bonuses which may be given to the railway may properly be deducted from the price agreed upon in regard to the expropriation of the road. Upon every occasion upon which we have endeavoured to get that clause inserted in a charter in the Railway Committee, we were met by the proposition that it is singling a particular railway out for special treatment, and that there would be no objection if a clause of this kind were made to apply generally. I thought it would be in the interest of the House and the country that a Bill of that nature should be brought before the House.
I have brought it in as an amendment to the Railway Act, and it contains only three provisions. One of the provisions, as I have explained, is that when you take over the road, any subsidies which have been voted to it shall be deducted. I have added to that provision that this clause shall apply to charters granted from the date of the existence of the present parliament. I may say that I looked up the question of the expropriation of railways, and I find that in 1884, Mr. Gladstone introduced a Bill into the Imperial House of Commons which became law, providing conditions under which railways might be expropriated by the government. After thinking the matter over, to some extent, I decided that it would not be well to insert in the Bill any provision ^ of that nature, but that I should simply ask ' the House to make a general declaration in favour of expropriation. I regret that I was not in possession of certain information when we last had the matter before the Railway Committee, because, I find that we are not establishing a precedent at ail. The first Canadian railway charter that was ever granted to a company, the proprietors of the Champlain and St. Lawrence Railroad, provided that the government should have the

right to expropriate the road at any time upon paying to the proprietors the amounts paid on their shares, plus 20 per cent. The Act incorporating the Grand Trunk Railway Company provided that the government might purchase the railway at the end of twenty-one years from January 1,1853, upon certain conditions. The Act incorporating the London and Gore Railway Company, which in 1845 became the Great Western, provided for expropriation by the government at any time after forty years after completion of the work, upon repayment of the amounts paid on shares, plus 20 per cent. In many other charters there is an expropriation clause, so that I am not asking the House to establish any precedent whatever. I think It is desirable that this power should be made general. I am quite prepared for the argument that parliament has control of the railways now, but I think it is as well that we should serve formal notice upon all railway companies from this time forth, that their property may be expropriated by the Dominion, if necessary. Then, there will be no obtaining money from capitalists in the old land under false pretenses. They will clearly understand that a provision exists under which parliament may take these roads over. I think, in view of the trend of public opinion in favour of government control, or government ownership of railways, that it is particularly desirable that the Bill of which I have given notice shall be adopted. I move for leave to introduce the Bill, seconded by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson).


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

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That the names of Mr. Wade and Mr. Pringle be added to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That the name of Mr. Tobin be substituted for that of Mr. Godbout as a member of the Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Charles Hibbert Tupper: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the government if they would cause to be laid on the Table the order in council under which the reference of the claim of Nova Scotia in connection with the Eastern Extension Railway was made at an early day, without waiting until all the other papers are prepared.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is a mere oversight that I have not it with me now.
I will have it to-morrow.



QUARANTINE REGULATIONS WITH UNITED STATES.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: In compliance with the request of the hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy), I beg to move that an Order of the House do issue for a return containing the changes in the quarantine regulations between the United States and Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I beg to present the return.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

Charles Hibbert Tupper: I beg to call attention to the urgent necessity there is for holding a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee. I repeat the reasons which I gave the other day. There are two or three matters which it will be impossible to audit properly unless we have at least two meetings of that committee each week. We have only had about one meeting a week, and I was in hopes that there would be a meeting tomorrow. It is the desire of every one, I assume, that we should get through the business here as quickly as possible, but take the telegraph service in which some half million dollars is concerned, and even if we have two meetings a week, we will barely have sufficient time to make anything like a fair examination of these vouchers which are exceedingly voluminous. I have examined some of them and they certainly require explanation in the public interest. I am not at the moment familiar with the rights of members of the committee, but whatever they be, we have been deferring to the convenience of the members of the government, several of whom are on that committee. It is no doubt in the public interest that they should be present, and considering the government majority and all that we had to bow to their convenience. Possibly it is the right of a member of the committee to have the committee called together and to take his chances on a quorum being present. I wish to know if it is not possible to meet to-morrow.


Mr.   D.@: 0. FRASER (Guysborough). The week before last there were two meetings.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: One.


Mr. FRASER.: Excuse me, two. Arrangements were made and we met on Wednesday, and the clerk called a meeting for Friday, but we only sat a few minutes. I was

away on the last day, but it is not absolutely necessary that the chairman should be there. I find that AVednesday is the most convenient day for that committee to meet, and when we meet on AVednesday, then we can decide as to whether Thursday or Friday would be the most convenient for another meeting. I have no desire but to have two meetings a week, but as there are two other committees meeting to-morrow the Public Accounts will be called for AVednesday.



CANADA NATIONAL RAILWAY AND TRANSPORT COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 13) to incorporate the Canada National Railway and Transport Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Mr. MACLEAN.: On section 2 I object to the name which it is proposed to call this company. In the committee I objected to the use of the word ' National ' in connection with a private corporation like this on the ground that we should retain the word ' National ' for the railways owned by Canada. The word ' National ' is a very good name and instead of calling the Intercolonial Railway the government railway system of Canada, we should call it the National Railway System of Canada. I ask the government that they should in defence of their own road withdraw the word 'National' from the name of this company and use it. hereafter as a distinctive name for the gov-' eminent railways of this country. I do not wish to cause the promoters of this Bill any trouble at this stage, but I would suggest to them that they should change the name. I would ask the minister (Hon. Air. Blair) to request the promoters of the Bill to use some other name.


The MINISTER OF RAILAVAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I do not imagine there would he any objection to striking out the word ' National ' if you like. I did not think it is a matter of quite as much importance as my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) thinks it is, but if it is agreeable to the House it could be called the Canada Railway and Transport Company.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: That makes it all the stronger.


William Findlay Maclean: I think it ought to be called the Georgian Bay and Toronto Railway Company, or some name like that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Make a proposal.


William Findlay Maclean: I would prefer the name should be given by the promoters of the Bill, but if they do not do so we can christen it ourselves.


Hon. JAAIES SUTHERLAND (North Oxford).: Air. Cowan, who has charge of the Bill, is unfortunately ill, but I understood from the solicitor and from Air. Campbell Mr. FRASER.
who was promoting* the Bill that they did not object to a change in the name. We can amend it on third reading.


Air. SPROULE.: This is the proper place to amend it. I move that it be named the Toronto and Georgian Bay Railway.


Hon.   A@: There will be no necessity for such a motion if the promoters will agree to a change in the name. I think myself it is just as well not to have the word ' National ' in. but those interested should have the privilege of naming the company, and that can be done on the third reading.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was discussed in the committee, and I understood that the promoter was not averse to the name proposed. It was not carried, but it was not seriously objected to.


The PRIME AIINISTER.: That may be taken up on the third reading.
On the question that the Bill be reported,


Air. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: I desire to move the addition of another clause to the Bill, in accordance with the terms of the notice which I gave a few days ago. I move that the following be added as clause 14 :
His Majesty shall have the right at any time to take over the undertaking, property, rights and franchises of the company, and for that purpose the provisions of the Expropriation Act shall apply.
From any valuation placed upon such property so taken there shall be deducted on payment the amount of any bonus or subsidy paid by the government of Canada to the company towards the construction of such line of railway or any part thereof.
This resolution is somewhat similar in terms to a resolution which was presented to the committee and the House when a Bill similar to this was under our consideration some twelve months ago. If this were a Bill asking for an ordinary local charter, for the construction of a road seventy-five miles long for the purpose of serving the municipalities through which it passed, there might be some valid objection taken to the insertion of this provision. But the charter asked for is not for the purpose of constructing a local road ; that has never been sought for, and it is not required. Between the town of Collingwood, one of the termini mentioned in the Bill, and Lake Ontario we have already two roads-one running to the city of Toronto, ninety-four miles in length, and the other running to the city of Hamilton, about 112 miles in length. So that the two chief ports on Lake Ontario are connected with that important port on the Georgian Bay by two lines of railway whose greatest distance apart is not more than twenty-five miles. It cannot be said, therefore, that this third road is required for any purposes of a local character. That, I think,
has been made abundantly clear again and again in debates which have taken place in this House on the transportation question, and by representations which have been made by the leading business men and organizations of the province of Ontario ; and if the committee and the House had not been impressed with the view that the road which we propose to charter was to form a link in a transportation route the most direct between the head of inland navigation and the sea-board, I think great difficulty would have been experienced in procuring a charter for the construction of this road. It is proposed that this shall be made an air line. The distance from Collingwood to Toronto by the present rail route is ninety-four miles. By constructing this line in the most direct way, it is expected that the distance will be shortened to seventy or seventy-four miles. Large bonding powers have been given in the Bill, because it is proposed that the road shall be constructed in the most substantial manner possible, with the heaviest rails, the most substantial road-bed, the latest and most improved freight cars, and the heaviest and best locomotives, for the purpose of carrying on the large business which we all hope and expect will be developed between the west and north-west and the sea-board in years to come. The board of trade of the city of Toronto for some years past, being impressed with the importance of this route as a competitive route against the railways, has been drawing public attention to the matter, and has been invoking the aid of the government for the purpose of securing the construction of a line similar to that which is proposed under this Bill ; and I have in my hand a copy of a resolution which was adopted unanimously at a general meeting of that board, held on the 2nd of February, 1899, and Which declared :
That, in the opinion of this board, the Dominion government should take into consideration the question of opening up this most important avenue of communication with the seaboard, and that, in connection with the canal system of this country, they should complete the shortest and most speedy route to the upper lakes by building an independent railway to operate in connection with vessels from Toronto, which is the most suitable harbour on Lake Ontario, and the nearest and most suitable harbour or harbours for the purpose upon the Georgian Bay, as a complement to the St. Lawrence canal system.
On June 1, 1899, the Toronto Board of Trade adopted unanimously the recommendation respecting the means to be adopted to create more Canadian bottoms on our lakes. Among the means which could best accomplish this object was the construction of
A line of railway to be owned and controlled by the government, built across the portage to Georgian Bay, which is the natural receptacle of the grain of the United States as well as of western Canada, the ports of which are able to accommodate the largest vessels which traverse the upper lakes, but which cannot get in to Lake Ontario, thus making a short and speedy route to Chicago, Duluth and Fort William, with opportunities for return cargo, especially of manufactured products for the Canadian North-west. By this project centres of population, including points as far east ias the maritime provinces, Quebec, Montreal and Toronto, become interested in a common aim to build up our lake marine and create an interprovincial marine trade.
I draw attention to these conclusions of the Toronto Board of Trade to emphasize the point, that in all the discussions which have taken place so far, this line of railway was not considered as a local enterprise but as .merely a link, and a comparatively short link in the chain of communication between the head of Lake Superior and the city of Quebec.
When the matter was up for consideration twelve months ago, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), who was deeply interested in this subject, made some remarks on the transportation question, introduced by the resolution of my hon. friend the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett), and in the course of remarks made on the 28th March last, the hon. member for North Simcoe said :
If this railway were built, the chain would be complete, and thus the natural channel through which this trade should go would be perfected, and the lower lakes, rivers and canals would be successfully joined with the upper lakes and canals.
The hon. member then went on to give statements showing the distances by the various routes now adopted between the head of Lake Superior and the ports of Montreal and Quebec, but I need not weary the committee by giving these tables of distances, as they can be found in the 'Hansard' of March 28th last. He concluded by making the statement that ' there seems to be no room for doubt that the route via Collingwood and Toronto is of all the cheapest and best.' But this route of course cannot be made available except by the construction of this air line for the purpose of joining together the ports of Collingwood and Toronto.
Now. the hon. member who represented Kent in the last parliament (Mr. Campbell), who is one of the promoters of this Bill, joined in that discussion twelve months ago and had something to say as to the advantages which he thought would result, not only to the producers of the west and the North-west, but also to the people of the province of Ontario, if this railway were constructed and this route established. Speaking on the same day as the hon. member for North Simcoe, the 28th March last, Mr. Campbell said :
I am strongly of opinion that the great highway from the west should be by way of the


Edward Frederick Clarke: meet with the approval of the committee. It differs from the clause submitted last year in this respect, that it proposes to take over the entire enterprise, not the railway and appurtenances alone, hut the railway and whatever vessels are connected with it in the navigation of the great lakes. It is surely not unreasonable to ask that if the government of the day gives a substantial bonus to assist in the construction of this railway, the amount of the bonus should be deducted from the amount payable by the government, should it decide to take over the road.
I therefore beg to move that the following clause be added to the Bill :
His Majesty shall have the right at any time to take over the undertaking, property rights and franchises of the company, and for that purpose the provisions of the Expropriation Act shall apply.
From any valuation placed upon such property so taken there shall be deducted on payment the amount of any bonus or subsidy paid by the government of Canada to the company towards the construction of such line of railway or any part thereof.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The question involved in the motion of the hon. gentleman was thoroughly threshed out before the Railway Committee, and I need not say that there was considerable diversity of opinion, first, as to whether the clause of this character at all should be introduced, and next, as to what its nature should be.
In the course of that discussion I expressed a certain view and framed an amendment embodying that view, and that amendment, which I proposed to the committee, is identical with that which the hon. gentleman has just moved. But it did not meet with the approval of the committee, and hence the hon. gentleman has felt it necessary to move it here. The question that is before the committee, it seems to me, is not a very large question, viewed from the standpoint of the promoters, nor is it one which, so far as I am capable of forming an opinion on the subject, ought in the slightest degree to militate against the promotion of the undertaking. I cannot conceive why any one who is satisfied that this enterprise had merit in it which would justify him in investing his means in it should hesitate to do so because this clause, if adopted by the committee, was found in the Bill. The first portion of the clause is little more than a declaration or notice that parliament may do, in respect of this particular undertaking what, unquestionably, it can do, without incorporating the clause in the incorporating Bill, in respect of any undertaking that may be set on foot through our legislation. Parliament, undoubtedly, as I view the law and the powers of parliament, can declare in favour of the expropriation of any property that it is deemed necessary in the public interest to possess, even though the company

which may have constructed that work and may have received its charter from this parliament did not take its charter with any express provision to that effect contained in it. The committee thought, or a number of the members of the committee thought, it would be desirable to give the notice, and I could see no objection to such notice being given, because it would simply convey to the promoters and to those investors who might connect themselves with the enterprise that this parliament has this power, which, otherwise, they might not be aware of. I do not consider that portion of the clause the important portion, but rather the second portion of it. This second part, as hon. members will see, provides that, in the event of parliament expropriating, the amount paid shall be subject to reduction by the amount of any subsidy or aid which may be given by this parliament to assist the enterprise. Now, it seems to me that practically the sole question for this committee to consider is whether or not it would be a reasonable or appropriate clause to insert in the Bill or a proper condition to impose. Will any person hesitate to say that it would be a proper condition ? I question if there is a doubt in the mind of any one in this House that, if we grant a subsidy to this road, and if the enterprise is of the importance which hon. gentleman, on both sides apparently, declare it to be-though I have not seen much evidence to convince me of that, but assuming that to be the case-and for that reason it was decided to acquire it, it would be proper to deduct from the value paid for the undertaking the amount of any subsidy granted by this parliament. I am prepared, for one, and so declared myself in this committee, to vote for this amendment. I think it can do no harm to anybody. I cannot see why any one should think it ought to militate at all against the succeseful promotion of the enterprise. What reason could any person have for refusing to go into this enterprise under such conditions ? If they were going in merely for the purpose of getting the bonus as a benefit to be retained by them even though the property were expropriated, I can imagine they would hesitate. But we will not assume that that motive would inspire anybody who would put his money into the undertaking. These are my views as expressed in the committee and as still entertained, and I am prepared to vote for the amendment the hon. gentleman has moved.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES (North Victoria).: I take the liberty of asking the attention of . the Minister of Railways to an amendment to the amendment which I shall move. It is not necessary that we should here enter into a discussion of the merits or demerits of this road. But, if the government purposes taking over this road or any road to the Georgian Bay, I would respectfully submit
that a road leading to the harbour of Midland, which is a much better harbour than that of Collingwood, and which would not require the expenditure of any public money upon it in order to fit it to receive the largest vessels, would be much preferable to one to Collingwood. More than that, the route to Midland could be extended to connect with the magnificent harbour of Parry Sound ; and as a grain route for the city of Toronto, I am satisfied it would be infinitely better than one from Collingwood-not that I would wish to draw these issues in here, but they have already been introduced and that is my reason for mentioning the matter. Still further, if the government is ever going to take over this road, by running to Midland and on to Parry Sound, there would be the beginning of a great national system of railways to the North-west which has been mentioned by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). The government would have at its disposal, from Toronto to Parry Sound, a road in full running order, which would save the construction of another road in case the one to Collingwood was built. However, I mention this in passing. The amendment I propose, seconded by Mr. McCormick, is as follows :
That after the word ' thereof ' in the amendment there be inserted the following :	'And
there shall be further deducted on payment the amount of any bonus or subsidy paid by any municipality to the said company, which amount shall be refunded to the municipality.'


Mr. DAVIS.: What have we to do with the bonuses voted by municipalities.


Samuel Hughes: I may tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis), that a former Liberal leader was not above endeavouring to influence the voters, on one occasion, by holding out the inducement to them, that, if they returned his party to power, not only would a bonus so voted on roads taken over by the government be refunded, but the question of repaying to the municipalities all the subsidies paid by them whether the government took over the roads or not would be taken up. If a municipality has voted a large sum of money-as many of them have done-in order that they might have competition, and subsequently, by amalgamation, the competition for which the money was voted has been denied or done away with, that municipality is certainly entitled to a redress of the grievance under which it labours. It is not necessary that anything further should be said on this subject.


William Findlay Maclean: As regards these two amendments, I am glad to hear the Minister of Railways and Canals say he will accept that one proposed by the member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). It was discussed in committee, and I believe that while it was voted down there, if we had had the support of the Minister of Railways

at the second reading we would have got it through. I hope under any case it will be put through to-day. In connection with the remarks made here to-day by the Minister of Railways, and already made before the committee, I wish to inform the House, and to inform his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, that somehow the minister does not think much of this proposition. Then, why is all this money being spent on Collingwood harbour ? Surely that harbour is to be improved at the public expense for a definite purpose, and If it is not in connection with a railway complementary of the canal system of this country, for what purpose is the money being spent ? I cannot see. Now, I suppose this road, or a similar road, is an important link in the railway and water transportation of this country. I am surprised to hear the minister say, as he has said on two occasions, that he does not think much of this proposition. While I will vote for the amendment, I must take the opportunity to say that I think the government is making a great mistake in allowing this charter to be taken up by a private corporation. As I argued in the Railway Committee, and as I will argue now, the government should expropriate the Grand Trunk Railway between Toronto and Collingwood, and nationalize a road between Toronto and some harbour on the Georgian Bay-Midland, probably, or Collingwood. But, certainly they could find a harbour, and then they could take over the better portion of the Grand Trunk Railway, double track it. and extend it on to Parry Sound and Sudbury, by North Bay on to Hudson Bay, in connection with the system of the Ontario government. But here is a proposition to get this road, which is the best paying road in Canada, and it could be acquired for what will be given in the way of bonuses to this country. If the government would pursue the policy they have declared of doing great things in connection with the canals of this country, they would not rest a moment until they did have a national railway from the Georgian Bay to Lake Ontario, and connecting with the railway and river system of this country. I am surprised mat this opportunity is to be let pass, as many others have been, without the government getting a substantial advantage to the country. As regards the proposal of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes), I think it is objectionable to interfei'e on behalf of municipalities. I think municipalities ought to make their own contracts when they vote their own money to railways.


James Sutherland: "Why not this parliament as well ?
_ Mr. MACLEAN. This parliament is doing it now. I know the hon. gentleman will say : Why not make a provision in the Sub-' Mr. MACLEAN.
sidy Bill ? We have not made sufficient provision in the past in these subsidy contracts. These subsidy contracts are not stringent enough. If there are to be any more subsidies in this country, I hope the contracts will be much more stringent than they are at the present time


Mr. CALVERT.: I am sorry my hon. friend from Essex (Mr. Cowan) is not here to discuss this Bill, as he is in charge of it; but, unfortunately, he is not able to do so to-day. I am a little surprised at the attitude of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), representing the interests of the city of Toronto, who have endeavoured to place an amendment in this Bill with a view of killing it. Now, the city council of Toronto passed a resolution last year when this Bill was under discussion, offering their assistance if the government of Canada would grant a charter to a line connecting Collingwood with Toronto. They wished to have an independent railway from Collingwood to Toronto, a railway that would bring grain from the west through by the city of Toronto. Now this company proposes to put a large number of vessels on the lakes, they propose to put eight large vessels drawing some 20 feet of water on the upper lakes. These vessels will cost $1,540,000. Then, they propose to put thirty-two vessels on the St. Lawrence with 14 feet draught, that will cost. $3,000,000, or $80,000 each. Now, I always like to follow my leader, the Minister of Railways and Canals, and I would like to ask this question of my hon. friend : Providing this government grants bonuses at all, gives any money to the construction of this railway, and they retain the power of taking it back, what is going to become of the large expenditure in connection with these vessels? As I understand it, this parliament has never granted any money towards the construction of vessels, you simply pay a certain amount of money to vessels that do a certain work for the" country, but nothing for the construction of vessels, and these vessels, which are estimated to cost nearly $5,000,000, will simply be in the hands of the promoters.


Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: No. the clauses provides that they shall be taken over with the railway.


William Samuel Calvert: The clause provides you shall take over these vessels at what they cost. It simply provides that if the road is taken over, the amount of money granted by the government shall be deducted. But, you do not grant any money towards building the vessels, and are you going to take the vessels over for what they cost ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: 
William Samuel Calvert: If you propose to take them over for what they cost, these men will be placed in the position that they will have the vessels on their hands, providing that clause is put in. Can these people go to the money markets of the world and place their bonds and secure money for the construction of that road ? We must also remember that under the policy of this government, on any money that is paid over to the railway companies, they pay 3 per cent interest; so that, we are not actually giving away money, they have not asked for any money yet, but if they do, the policy of the government is that they shall pay 3 per cent on that money. Now, the government can borrow money at less than 3 per cent, and they charge the railway company 3 per cent on all the money they receive from the government ; so that is not a very bad investment.


Robert Lorne Richardson: How is the government going to get 3 per cent from the railway companies ? Your proposition is, that if the government subsidized this railway, the government will get 3 per cent in return on the subsidy. Who from, and under what clause ?


William Samuel Calvert: Under the Railway Act, as I understand it. In the Subsidy Act, where the money is paid over to the company, they have got to agree before they get the money to pay 3 per cent ; the 3 per per cent is taken out of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Calvert) is quite correct, because the subsidy regulations as now framed calls for 3 per cent.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Will the hon. member for South Norfolk tell this House whether the country has received 3 per cent on all bonuses ?


David Tisdale: I did not say that, I was only supporting the hon. gentleman's contention that 3 per cent is charged. If you look at the Subsidy Act you will find that it has been changed.


William Samuel Calvert: Such being the case, why should wb single out this railway when you are making a general Act ? I am in favour of making a general Act dealing with all railways alike, and I think it is unfair to the promoters of this Bill. This Bill passed this House last year, it has passed the committee this year, we have already voted down a resolution proposed by the minister to-day, and I think it will be most unfair to the promoters of this Bill to have anything of that kind placed in it. As I said, this is a strong company, they have a good directorate, men of means, and they propose to build a railway doubletracked, and to place a large number of vessels at both ends, so the enterprise will be one of immense importance to the people of this country. In the interest of the promoters, I would hope that the House would not vote for the amendment, but would vote to pass the Bill as it passed the committee the other day.


David Tisdale: Mr. Chairman, I want to define my position upon this Bill and I will do it as briefly as possible. I do not propose to commence voting for legislation not according to my understanding of the lines we have been pursuing in the Railway Committee and in the House in times past. I believe that either one of these amendments will be a departure from the well-understood principles that we have hitherto followed. This is simply, as I understand it, a private Bill for a private railway.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Not at all.


David Tisdale: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. According to my understanding it is. It has been introduced and passed so far entirely as a private Bill. I think I am quite right and I propose to try to be logical. If, at any future time the government see fit, whichever party may be in power, and it becomes a public matter to adopt the policy which has been proposed, they must stand or fall upon that policy. In the general Railway Act last year, or the year before, wo had quite extensive alterations when the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) revised it and put in a number of new clauses that wore in line with the policy of the government. If the government at the commencement of the session had made the announcement that they proposed to amend the Railway Act in this direction and apply the amendment to all the Bills that should be passed, there would be more logic in the proposition. I have always endeavoured, and I do not propose to change now, to legislate on legislative principles without departing from those in any special case. I say that the Railway Committee, haying passed this Bill, which was introduced as a private Bill, I propose to vote against both of these amendments. I propose to vote against the amendment of the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) because municipalities, if they give bonuses to this road, ought to be allowed to give them on such conditions as they please, as we have no jurisdiction over them. We are asked to say that a municipality cannot give a bonus in spite of this. If we pass the amendment to the amendment, it will be equivalent to our saying that we will take it out of the power of the municipality to give a bonus without any reference to getting it back at all. I think the municipal councils are quite competent to take care

197G
of themselves, and that they will not thank us for trying to tie their hands before the event or before they come to consider the question of the bonus. As to the amendment, if it is proposed to change the general Railway Act and apply expropriation, we can then consider the question, but I do not propose, as far as I am concerned, to vote to put this condition in any one particular Bill. I will say, in passing, now, though perhaps it might be more properly said afterwards, that I do not think this railway is entitled to a subsidy from the government, but that is a matter that we must deal with at the proper time. We neither should assume that it will get a bonus, or not get one, because that is a matter upon which the government will taae the responsibility at the proper time. Assuming that something is going to happen that we do not know will happen is something that we have no right to do in considering legislation of this kind. I have never legislated nor agreed to legislate in that way, and I do not propose to commence to-day. We can consider the question of the application of the expropriation power to Bills of this kind at the proper time. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) has introduced a Bill under which this question may be discussed. This Bill is nothing more nor less than a private Bill. Objections may be taken to the charter if any lion, gentleman wants to object to it, such as that the road is not necessary because it is paralleling an existing road, but, so far, we have never applied that principle and there is no objection to this Bill on that score.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If this had been an ordinary private Bill granting permission to construct a road 70 miles long from one point to another in a territory already served by two railways, would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tisdale) vote for the charter ?


David Tisdale: As a rule, I will vote for a railway charter where the promoters ask for no public aid, but where they will undertake to construct the road as a commercial undertaking, unless it is interfering with some road under construction.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There are two lines under construction.


David Tisdale: Suppose there are three. The only circumstances upon which we object to a charter are when there is [DOT]one road authorized already that is under construction and the time is not up. My view is that wo should legislate on legislative principles. If we do not we become personal. If we become personal, or party, in regard to private legislation, then, God help this House. The only logical and consistent way is to treat all individuals under similar circumstances alike. That I have endeavoured to do in the past and I propose to do in the future.


David Tisdale: 


Mr. B. M. BRITTON (Kingston).: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that ordinarily I ought to oppose the Bill altogether, because it seems to me that there is only one point where grain ought to be transhipped to be sent down the St. Lawrence. However, I do not take so narrow a view as that in discussing the Bill which is now before the House. I am not opposing the Bill, but I am opposed to both of these amendments that have been presented to the House. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) has said that the first part of the amendment is not at all necessary, because parliament has at all times the right to expropriate undertakings of this kind. Then, there only remains the question of the latter part of the amendment. I am speaking of the amendment of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), and that is providing that upon expropriation the amount of the subsidy is to be deducted. This amendment provides for the expropriation by the government of the whole undertaking. I do not want to put it in the power of the government to make an expropriation such as this amendement contemplates. If parliament has such power, or ever should choose to exercise that power, it will be a matter which should receive the most careful consideration of the House . If any one should propose the expropriation of the vessels, such as the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Calvert) spoke of, as being the intention of this company to build for service on the upper lakes and to carry grain to Montreal, I think that will be a new departure, so far as government works are concerned, that will hardly meet the approbation of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean). At least I hardly think so. It will be going a great deal farther than mere nationalizing the railway system of this country. I hope the government will not enter into competition with the private owners of vessel property by seeking to carry grain from the west to the east. I think this can be better done by private enterprise than by the government. Whatever may be said in reference to railways, telegraph lines, the telephone system, and similar enterprises, I do not think the argument applies to the government ownership of vessel property. Then, there is another thing. It strikes me as one of the strongest possible arguments that it is unfair discrimination against this company that such a clause should be put into their Bill. This is unquestionably a private Bill in reference to a company just such as we are incorporating all the time, and the logic of such an argument is irresistible. In view of the legislation which has heretofore been adopted by this House, I do not see what good reason can be given for incorporating in this Bill a clause which has not been incorporated in any other Bill in the past, and which it is not proposed to incorporate in any Bill in the future.
197S


Mr. COCHRANE.: Did not the company agree to accept this clause last year it we would pass the Bill ?


Mr. COWAN.: No.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Yes.


Byron Moffatt Britton: The company which was seeking incorporation certainly agreed to accept the clause at that time. They were forced into a corner and they wanted to get their Bill through, but notwithstanding their willingness to make the concession the Railway Committee would not allow the Bill to pass. I have no quarrel with the promoters for accepting that clause last year, but I agree with the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale), that we should not force such a clause into this charter.


Robert Laird Borden: This railway is declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, and I am inclined to agree with the view of the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) that in respect to such works it would be desirable to pass a general law enabling the government of Canada to expropriate them.


David Tisdale: That is a different question.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it is a different question, and for this reason. You must begin at some time or other with a provision of this kind and there would be exactly the same reason against a general law that there is against this. If we are to start with the assumption that from henceforth the amendment wmcn is proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) shall be applied to all railways, then we must adopt that principle if we insert the clause in this Bill. I do not see any injustice in beginning with this company any more than beginning with any other company. I do not see any more injustice in doing this (provided we make it a principle which shall guide us in the future) than there would be injustice in passing a general Act; because any company coming after the general Act had been passed would be in the same position as this company and as all future companies under the principle I have indicated. I do not however agree with the terms of the amendment, and I do not agree with the views of the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) with regard to the justice of this amendment. The latter part of the amendment is expressed in this way :
From any valuation placed upon the said property so taken shall be deducted in payment the amount of any bonus or subsidy by the government of Canada to the company towards the construction of any such line of railway or any part thereof.
The objection I have to the amendment, and the objection I have to the argument of the
minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) is this : that while it might be in some cases perfectly proper to deduct the subsidy, it does not seem to me that in all cases it would be proper to do so. This amendment refers to the Expropriation Act. We all know the basis on which you work out the value of an undertaking under the Expropriation Act. You do not work it out on the basis of what it cost the persons who have constructed the undertaking; you work it out upon the basis of what the property is worth at the time of its expropriation. The rule in England, and I think in this country, is to add about 10 per cent to that for the reason that the property is taken against the will of the owner. Suppose this property at the time it is to be expropriated should be worth only half of what it had cost to the persons who had constructed it ; it does not seem to me that it would be a just thing to deduct the amount of the subsidy in a case of that kind. On the other hand if the property should be worth immensely more than it cost to construct it, it might be a very proper thing indeed, that the government in taking this road back should deduct the amount of the subsidy. The question came up incidentally in the discussion in respect to the value of the Drummond County Railway. That was not a case of expropriation, but it was a case in which the government were taking over a railway at a fixed price. The view I expressed then and to which I still adhere, is that if you take into consideration as a basis of your purchase the actual cost to the owner, then it is a most proper thing that you should deduct the subsidy after allowing interest or a reasonable advance to the person whose property you are taking. I took the view then, and I take it now that if you are dealing simply with the value of the property it does not seem to me that it would be in all cases a proper thing to deduct the amount of the subsidy, and indeed in some cases if you do so it might work a very great injustice to the owners of the road. For that reason I would not feel inclined to agree with the latter portion of the amendment, while I am in accord with the views expressed by the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair), and by the hon. member (Mr. Clarke) with regard to the first part of it. It may be there is some fallacy in the view I have expressed with regard to expropriation proceedings, and I should be glad if my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Blair) would point out any error in that respect.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman from Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) objects to this clause because this is a private Bill, and because we have not done this heretofore. His reasons do not hold good in my opinion. We can never commence too soon to do a right thing and it is never too late to mend a bad principle. If we believe that this is a proper thing to do,

19S0
then the fact that we have no precedent for it should not deter us. England has been carrying out the same principle for years. It is provided in England that every large vessel which is built according to the Admiralty requirements and which gets governmental subsidies shall be available to be taken over by the government at a certain valuation to be agreed upon in case of war. In this case we provided that this railway shall be taken over in the event of some important national necessity, and as we propose to give a subsidy in this case-


Robert Lorne Richardson: No, we do not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there is no subsidy given to this road, then the clause does not apply at all.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It does not have to apply. No harm is done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This proposed amendment certainly presumes that we will give a subsidy.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Not necessarily.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It certainly does or else there is no sense in the amendment. Of course the first part of the clause declares our right to expropriate, and the Minister of Railways tells us that we have that right already, but the second part says we shall deduct the subsidy if we take over the road, and how can we deduct the subsidy if none is given. I repeat that the principle embodied in this amendment has been in force in England for half a century or more, in connection with the taking over of merchant vessels in case of war. These vessels are owned and built by private corporations and there is no difference between attacking a private corporation for the national need in England and attacking private corporation in case of national necessity here. The argument of the hon. member for South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) consequently does not hold good. I am not in favour of the amendment to the amendment which proposes to deduct municipal bonuses. A municipality in giving a bonus gives it for the purpose of securing a railway for carrying trade to and from the locality, and when the railway is built the local need for which it pays the subsidy is satisfied and is never taken, away. It is only given by the people in the locality, who can always use this local convenience, and the cost of which is partly supplied by themselves. In that event I do not think there are just grounds why the municipality should ask for the money to be paid back. In addition to that, when a municipality gives a bonus, it costs nearly half of it to get the bonus carried ; and thus a large part of it is practically lost and does not inure to the advantage of the railway. But in this case, every person in the country contributes a portion of the cost


Thomas Simpson Sproule: of the railway, both those who use the railway and those who do not. Therefore, when there is a national need that the railway should be taken under the control of the government, I can see no reason why the amount of the purchase price should not be reduced by the amount of the bonus given. The only reason is that stated by the leader of the opposition, which I confess has always been to my mind an argument against this principle. It was this. Suppose we give a subsidy to a private corporation, which goes on and builds the railway, and afterwards transfers it to innocent purchasers. The road runs down in the meantime until it becomes worth less than the original subsidy ; so that if the government took it at a valuation, and deducted the amount of the subsidy, the innocent holder would have nothing. It seems to me that the proposal of the hon. leader of the opposition is a very good one for safeguarding the interests of the innocent holders-that the subsidy should be deducted only when the value of the property exceeds the actual cost. That could. only be when it would become a matter of national importance that the government should take the railway under its control. The hon. member for South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) says this is only a private corporation. There is no doubt that it is, and yet nobody would have given a charter to a private corporation to compete with others occupying the same ground, but for the national need. There are two private corporations occupying the same ground to-day ; and yet we are giving this company this charter because this road is believed to be a part of a great highway of commerce that will be of national importance, not only to Canada but to the United States as well ; because it is hoped it will attract a large part of the commerce of the United States. This road will serve not only the port of Collingwood, but any other ports on the Georgian Bay. At the present time there is a very important harbour being constructed at Meaford, and it has a sufficient depth of water to admit the largest vessels. Then, they have built a large elevator there for the purpose of securing a share of the trade of the upper lakes. Collingwood is only twenty-two miles from Meaford, and the road between the two places is almost as level as a floor. If this road becomes the national highway which we think it is destined to become, Meaford will be able to take advantage of it as well as Collingwood. It becomes the more important on that account, because it will be fed not simply by one good harbour, but by two. I think we should provide that when it becomes necessary in the interest of the country to take the road over, the government should not be obliged to pay the money which the country has put in to help to build it. That would be paying the money twice. For these reasons I am in favour of the amendment.


Mr. RUSSELL.: I regret that I cannot agree with the last speaker in favouring this amendment. I opposed it in the Railway Committee, and I intend to oppose it here, for two reasons : first of all, for the reason which has been very lucidly stated by the hon. member for South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale), that this is exceptional legislation, and if it is a sound principle to adopt, it should be adopted in a general way. I do not think it is a sufficient answer to say that we must make a beginning, and that we might as well begin here as anywhere else. We might begin to-day by applying the principle to this Bill, and to-morrow we might discuss the matter more thoroughly and come to the conclusion that it is, as I hold it to be, an unsound principle. So that one day we would have a Bill with this provision, and the next day we would have one in which it was not contained.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not a fact that the hon. gentleman supported this principle in the Bill of last year ?


Benjamin Russell: I have no recollection of having supported any such proposition, and if I did, that is no reason why I should support it now. On the contrary, I am always open to conviction. Supposing the proposition to deduct subsidies were proposed in a general Bill, there would be a great deal to be said on both sides of the question; the argument does not all lie on the one side. The point is this. When the government conclude to give a bonus for the construction of a railway, why do they do so? They do it in general, I believe, because they know that the dividends likely to arise from operation of the railway will not be sufficient to induce private capital to invest in the enterprise. In other words, the capital put in, tegether with the bonus, does not create a property as valuable as the bonus and the capital combined, and perhaps only creates one worth as much as the private capital put into it. I have in my mind a railway in the province of Nova Scotia into which the Dominion and provincial governments put subsidies amounting to about $500,000, and private capitalists put nearly $1,000,000, and they created a property which, if the government desired to take it over, would probably have been valued at less than $1,000,-000-perhaps at $600,000 or $700,000. The result of such a provision in that case would be that private individuals would be asked to construct a property for the benefit of the whole country, and lose $400,000 or $500,000 of their own money in the effort to do so. I do not believe that Is a right or equitable result, and I do not believe that the proposition applied as a general principle would be likely to operate as the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) supposes that it would. Instead of being any relief to the poor people who are sweating and groaning under the fardels which they have to bear in this matter of railway construction, it might increase their burdens, by making it more difficult to construct railways in this country. It is perhaps not necessary to go into the discussion of that subject at present; but I say it is not a sound principle, capable of application in every case, to deduct the bonus from the value of the property. It would be confiscating the property, and compelling private individuals to construct railways for the benefit of the country at large. In this particular case, it is absolutely indefensible, because it is proposed to make it an exception, instead of introducing the principle as a general one applicable to every one alike.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is not the hon. gentleman at the present time advocating the taking over by the government of a provincial railway in Nova Scotia, and giving back to the province the bonuses given to it by the provincial government ? It is the same principle.


Benjamin Russell: When did I advocate that?


Robert Lorne Richardson: If we could get from the right hon. leader of the House a declaration as to whether he would be willing to accept, as a government measure, the Bill which I introduced this afternoon, and which, I gather from the remarks of the Minister of Railways, would have that hon. gentleman's support, this discussion might end here. The Bill I have introduced merely provides for the expropriation of any railway, when parliament decides that its expropriation is in the interests of the country, and provides further for the deduction of the government bonuses from the expropriation, price, as proposed by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke).
I want to say a word with reference to the contention of the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) and the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell), that we would, if we should adopt this amendment, be creating a precedent. Hon, gentlemen will remember how frequently that argument was used in the last two or three sessions.


Benjamin Russell: I did not use the argument that you would be using any precedent. I am of the opinion that we would not and that it would not be observed as a precedent.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Perhaps the hon. gentleman did not use that argument, but the argument was generally used that it would be unfair


David Tisdale: I do not agree with the hon. gentleman.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I have no desire to misrepresent any one, but it was generally contended that it would be unfair to single out any particular company for the application of this provision, and that the proper way was to bring this up in the House of Commons as a general Act. I

have a good deal of sympathy with that view, and it was in order to get a declaration from the House on the general principle that I introduced the Bill I did this afternoon. There may be some provisions in that Bill which the House may not think desirable, and I would be prepared to accept any amendment that would render it more workable.
With regard to the establishment of a precedent, this would not have the effect, because a precedent has already been established. In 1844, in the parliament of Great Britain, Mr. Gladstone introduced an Act, which is now in the statutes, containing just such a provision as the one proposed, namely, that at any time parliament may expropriate any railway.


David Tisdale: I did not argue for one moment that we could not pass a general law, and the hon. gentleman is misrepresenting me.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am not making the slightest reference to the hon. gentleman at all. My observations are purely of a general character. I am saying that in 1844 a precedent was established in the British parliament. Also in the first railway charter which ever passed the parliament of Canada the Act incorporating the proprietors of the Champlain and St. Lawrence Railway, there is a provision for government expropriation at any time, on paying to the proprietors the amount paid on their shares, plus 20 per cent. In the charter of the Grand Trunk Railway there is also a clause providing for expropriation, so that if the government desired to take over the Grand Trunk Railway, from Collingwood down, we have the power to do so under the charter of that company itself. Then, in the Act incorporating the Great Western Company, originally known as the London and Gore Railway Company, there is just such a clause providing for expropriation. And if hon. gentlemen choose to look through the statutes, they will find many railway charters giving this power of expropriation.
We are asked, why single out this company to begin with ? Well, there is no desire on the part of any one to single out this particular company. It is promoted by a gentleman who has always been deservedly popular in this House and generally respected, and it is particularly painful to me to have to offer any opposition at all, because of my desire to agree with and ass'st that hon. gentleman. But we have to begin somewhere, and is not the present just as good a time as any other ?
I agree with the Minister of Railways that if this parliament, or any municipality or province, contributes to a railway enterprise, and the people desire to take that road over for its own benefit, the subsidy paid should be deducted from the price awarded. Why should we hand over the subsidy itself ? In Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
giving a company the privilege to build a railway, we confer a valuable franchise, and if in addition we give a bonus, why should the people not be returned that bonus when taking over the railway.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The government have not given bonuses to this road, and have ample power to expropriate any time they think fit. The hon. gentleman wants to expropriate before any bonuses are granted.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The Minister of Railways explained that point fully in the committee. He showed that there was no power in the general Railway Act, or even in the Expropriation Act, to deduct the government bonus. Parliament, of course, can exercise the right of eminent domain and expropriate anything, but we want to serve notice on all companies from this time out.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not say that.


Mr RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: Well, some one used that argument. I repeat that it would be.desirable we should serve notice that from this time forth parliament may expropriate any railway it may deem in the interests of Canada to take over. Then the men who put money into these enterprises will know that such a provision exists. They may not stop to think that parliament is supreme, and may exercise its right of eminent domain, but when put in a general Bill, such as the one I propose, they cannot plead ignorance. Unless, however, we have the promise that the Bill I propose will pass this session, we ought to insist on the clause suggested being put into this particular measure.


James Sutherland: I have not heard any reason advanced why this should be made an exceptional case. Of course, the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) said that this was not an ordinary road, but I do not think that any member of this House will admit that there is anything in that statement. During the past few years we have granted a great many charters very much more extraordinary, and they met with no particular opposition. What I want to point out is that some years ago, in order that we might have unanimity with regard to Bills of this kind, a committee was appointed, and a model Bill was adopted, and this measure is strictly along the lines of that model Bill.	We have given
charters in the past with very much wider and more extraordinary powers. But, for the sake of having uniformity, the most experienceed men in these matters got together and framed a model Bill; and that model Bill has been pretty closely stuck to, except in cases where some good reason was shown for variation. In this case, I am safe in saying, no reason at. all has
been given. My bon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) says that this is an important railway, and that the Toronto Board of Trade has had the subject before it. I will admit that the members of the board of trade have been squabbling about this road for a great many years. But, we have not found these members of the board of trade, nor. the citizens of Toronto, coming forward to put a dollar into this enterprise. If it is such an important and extraordinary enterprise, if it is going to do such a tremendous trade, it is strange that these men who are investing money and raising money in other countries for railway enterprises, have not found it of advantage to themselves or the country to make or promote investment in it. The fact is, we had a little local squabble in Toronto. But we have had before the committee, Bill after Bill of a hundred times as much importance as this, we have had such Bills go through every session, and not a word along the lines of the proposed amendment. I can only come to one conclusion-that there is thought to be a special effort now to move a seductive looking amendment. I am prepared to say that there may not be something in the principle or policy involved in the amendment ; but, I think that no one who seriously desired the future prosperity of tile country would be able to announce off-hand whether he favoured the principle of that amendment or not. As has been ably pointed out by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Bussell), it is a question whether this, instead of being a movement in the public interest, if seriously and closely examined, may not be found" to involve a most mistaken policy. I believe that what we want in this country is the development of our resources ; we want people with capital, whether Canadians or outsiders, to invest in railway enterprises under proper conditions. We have had a great deal of experience in these matters, and, as a result of that experience, we adopted a model Bill. Subject to the conditions that our experience has shown to be necessary, we should give every encouragement we can to railway enterprises. If the time ever comes, after we have granted a charter in the ordinary manner, when the parties who have the charter appeal for a subsidy, or bonus or assistance, then is the time l'or any hon. member to declare on what conditions it is thought wise to give that assistance. It has been pointed out that charters have been granted in the past containing conditions of expropriation. But, when the model Bill was framed, such a condition was left out, because it was well known that it was unnecessary, as parliament has the power to expropriate these enterprises at any time desired ; and. by putting in such clauses, you only handicap parliament, and, perhaps, injure the public interest. I think it is about time that the members of this House should recognize that the people of the country want the 63
development of this country's resources, and that they feel the need of railways for that purpose. Let us remove, in any proper way we can, any burden under which the people unjustly suffer, but, for the mere advancement of a seductive idea which, it may be, may work up to our practical disadvantage, let us not impose conditions which are different from those we have had, or which are to be found in other countries. I gather from the remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), that if he were asked by a capitalist for his advice as a lawyer as to investing in an enterprise of this kind, he would say that this charter seemed to contain some unusual legislation, which might, as some members say, be harmless, but, on the whole, it would be better for the capitalist to have nothing to do with the matter. That is in accordance with the experience of every one who has tried to raise money upon the debentures or stock of any company such as this, whether chartered by the provincial or Dominion parliament. So, I do not see that any reasonable argument has been advanced why this Bill should be treated differently from any other Bill considered in this House. I am not prepared to say that the principle involved in the amendment is not a good thing, but it is one that should be most carefully considered before we adopt it, and, if it is deemed a wise policy, it should be adopted as a general policy and one applying to all roads. As to the enterprise itself, I do not think it is necessary to say anything. There are differences of opinion. If the parties interested in the district affected, and in the enterprise, can raise the money to develop that trade, It would be a great advantage to the city of Toronto, and, perhaps, a great advantage to the western country in giving a competing route for grain. If it is possible that this enterprise could be carried out, I say, in the name of all common sense, let us give these people the best possible Bill, and thus place them in a favourable position for floating the enterprise.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to say, for the sake of clearness, that if I thought a stipulation of this kind would handicap any railway, I would have a different opinion from that which I entertain. I do not see how it could, from any possible standpoint, handicap this railway or any other, because the valuation which is to be placed upon the road must be the full valuation of the road, including and taking into consideration its prospects in the future. Further than that, the valuation which would be placed upon the road for expropriation would be about 10 per cent more than its actual value if the ordinary rules of expropriation were carried out.


Hon. Mr. SUTHEBLAND (Oxford).: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) a question ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).: I
would like to ask whether his opinion as a lawyer, is that the amendment would apply to the railway only or to the whole scheme, including the steamboats 7 Mr. GOURLEY. In the committee, we agreed that it should apply to both.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I
say, on the face of it, that it does not.


Robert Laird Borden: Speaking offhand, I should say all the property was included, because it uses the words ' undertaking and property.'


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman will see that that is one of the difficulties. I am sure that no two lawyers in the House would agree upon the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not responsible for the opinion of any one else ;
I am giving my own opinion. My own opinion is that the words ' undertaking and property' mean exactly what they say. But, I would like to make myself clear with regard to this matter. I say that a provision of this kind is proper in the case of every railway declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. I limited my remarks to that. I think it is quite proper that this should be contained in a general Bill-I speak for myself in saying that. I say further, that the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland, Oxford) who has just sat down, seem to me to be destructive of his own argument. He tells us that a model Bill was agreed upon. Was it not as unfair to the companies first subjected to that Bill to be so treated as it is for this company to be made subject to this provision now ? The idea I suggested in the remarks I made was, that we should act upon this principle henceforth ; in other words, that we should insert a provision of this kind in a model Bill, a Bill which shall apply to all undertakings of this kind which are declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. The hon. gentleman will bear in mind that in making that statement I am not referring to the latter part of the amendment, because I do not concur with the principle of the second part of the amendment. I think that the second part of this amendment is not proper, and I will votr against the amendment as a whole unless that part is eliminated or modified.
I would suggest that some such modification as this be made, and I will then be prepared to vote for it:
But such subsidy shall not be deducted except to the extent by which such valuation is in excess of the cost of such property, together with a reasonable allowance for interest upon such cost.
If we have a provision of that kind I think the interests of the company would be perfectly safeguarded. As it stands at present I do not agree with it. I can seei that great injustice might be done to the!
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax.)
gentlemen who put thier money into this enterprise, if the amendment were adopted in the form in which it stands.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: We have spent some two hours upon this Bill, and I think the time has come that we should arrive at some conclusion upon it. The policy which 1 have always endeavoured to follow in matters of this kind has been that when legislation comes back; from the standing committees of this House, and especially from the Railway Committee, which is one of the most, if not the most, important, is invariably to support the report of the committee, unless it be shown that some error has been committed. When there is a divergence of opinion, as there is in the present instance, as to what is the best policy to be followed by the House, I have always thought it was best to support the committee and adopt their report. If we undertook to reopen a question that had been settled in the committee, we should have a great divergence of opinion, and it is doubtful whether this House or the committee are the best places for settling questions of this kind. We are accustomed to put a great deal of trust in the Railway Committee, and I think on this occasion we can safely adopt their report as the best judgment that can be placed upon the question. For this reason I am disposed to accept the report of the committee, especially in view of the fact that this very question has been debated at great length and threshed out by the committee. The argument which has impressed me most is that advanced by the hon. leader of the opposition. The hon. gentleman says : If you are to introduce this legislation why not do so by a model Bill 7 I may answer that some years ago, after a good deal of deliberation, we adopted a model Bill, this model Bill has been given to the committee to follow, and if we are to depart from the standing clauses which are to be found in this model Bill, it should be done only after due consideration. It should not be done in this Bill alone, but the new clauses to be introduced in the model Bill should be adopted by the Railway Committee itself and then be taken up by this House and adopted as the legislation of this country. I take much the same view as the leader 'of the opposition. He is not satisfied with the amendment which has been proposed, he would accept it in part but not in whole, and has proposed an amendment to the amendment. His amendment, I would suggest, would be at considerable variance with the policy we have hitherto followed. I am not prepared to say that it would not be in the right direction, but he will agree with me that before we adopt this amendment It should receive considerable attention from the Railway Committee. If it be thought proper to introduce new legislation of this character, for my part I would rather favour It.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not proposing this as an amendment, but as simply voicing my own opinion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I understand that, but it simply supports my contention that if amendments of that character are to be introduced at all they should be considered as part of a standard Bill. Coming-now to the amendment itself, it is in these words :
His Majesty shall have the right at any time to take over the undertaking and the property rights and franchises of the company

And for that purpose the Expropriation Act shall apply. We do not require to put that in any Bill. This parliament has the right at any time to expropriate railway property, the Canadian Pacific Railway, for instance.
I think my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) will agree with me that we have an undoubted right to do so, and we can do so to-morrow. I do not know but the time may come which my hon. friend from East York is sighing for, when we shall have all the railways of this country under our jurisdiction, when we shall have the ownership of them. I am not prepared to adopt his principle to-day, but some time we may come to his conclusion, we may do what has been done in other countries. But if that time ever came this parliament would have to consider the clauses of expropriation, what rule of expropriation should be followed. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition stated a moment ago that at the present time we have a certain rule of expropriation, that is to say, that we take the -value of the property as it is at the time we make the expropriation. We may expropriate a house which may have cost the owner $100,000, and we may only give for it $40,000 or even $20,000, as the marketable value of it at the time of expropriation. Whether we should have such a rule of expropriation as that to apply to railways is another matter. We should have to consider the question in all its details. I think on the whole the balance of opinion and of argument is that that rule should not apply in exceptional legislation under this Bill. But if there is to be exceptional legislation it ought to be carefully considered in a model Bill and not in a particular Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: I wish to point out that we should never have had the confession that we have just listened to from the premier if this amendment had not been introduced to this Bill. He is coming to the *government ownership of railways. I totally disagree with the right hon. gentleman, however, in the doctrine that those things should be settled in the committees, and that parliament should not have a voice. We only delegate our rights to that committee, and we can review their action at any time ; if we see fit to supplement their action we have the right to do so. Another thing I wish to point out is that there are 634
no general principles underlying our legislation in this House. Our legislation in the past has been as erratic as a grasshopper's jumps. It jumps in every direction, and there are no general principles to be found. But we must begin some time. There is only one way to play upon the hornpipe and that is to play upon it, and you must -begin by playing upon it, and we propose to begin some time the policy of taking over these railways, and the sooner we begin the better. I hope the amendment as proposed here to-day will be adopted ; and I desire again to take this opportunity to compliment the right hon. gentleman on the slight confession he has made of his views in regard to government ownership of railways.


Mr. S. E. GOURLEY (Colchester).: I think the Prime Minister underestimates the importance of this discussion. We have discussed questions this session, hour after hour, not nearly so important as this one. I have heard the subject of transportation discussed here time after time, and I take this opportunity of explaining that while I have seconded this amendment, I am strongly in favour of bonuses to railways. I want bonuses for railways, and I will vote for railways through Ontario or through British Columbia and canals, too, if I am treated equally generously when I ask for railway subsidies in the county I have the honour to represent. I will vote for a dozen railways and canals, if they will enable us to take our share of the trade of this continent. Unless the Canadian people show more energy in the future than we have done in the past, we will never reach the position that God and nature intended us to fill. The people of Canada have been very glow during the last fifty years. If we had equalled the energy of our friends on the other side of the line, instead of having to-day a population of 6,000,000, we might have divided the population of the continent with them. While they have been building 200,000 miles of railway, equal to the railways of the whole world, we, little Canadians, sitting here, have built only 17,000 miles. There is the whole difference between the United States and Canada. They have built 200.000 miles of railway, equivalent to the railways of the whole globe, with the Canadian railways thrown in, They have conquered in their railway enterprises the sources of success, a success which is in direct ratio to the miles of railway they have built. We, little Canadians, sitting here-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.
Mr. GOURLEY-not fully comprehending our destiny, have missed great opportunities. I have heard gentlemen say in this House that we are at the end of our railway enterprises. If I believed that, I would lift my hat to Canada to-morrow and emigrate to

some more progressive country. We are only at the beginning of our railway building, and I hope in a few years to see the Georgian Bay canal built as well. We cannot allow the commerce of our country to go to the United States. I think if we doubled our national debt to-morrow, borrowed money at 2i per cent, expended it to build railways, not giving it to boodlers or contractors, but expended it honestly, it would be the greatest achievement Canada ever accomplished. Now, I just wanted to say this, in order to explain my position, in regard to my seconding this amendment, which otherwise might be misunderstood. Let me say one word more in reference to the principle which I think is involved in the amendment. The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) said that the principle ought to be made general. I agree with him, and I may say this, that in the Railway Committee I became alarmed at the trend of affairs; because I thought a most vicious principle was about to be introduced into the legislation of this country. Coming from the maritime provinces, I am not concerned about the rivalries of Ontario. I was only interested in seeing that the legislation of this parliament should not reflect upon the honour of the people. What I thought was going to happen in the Railway Committee was this :	I saw a large element in the
Railway Committee propounding the idea of requiring the subsidies to be paid back if we expropriated the railway. It is admitted that Canada has the power to expropriate, but, if we expropriated any railway, under any charter granted by this parliament, no lawyer, or honest man, would contend that we should take a dollar of the subsidies back unless notice to that effect was given in the charter. We have given no notice to the brokers, the bankers and the capitalists, who have taken our charter and given us their money, of our intentions in this respect.
The hon. member for Hants and other hon. gentlemen said : Do not put any notice in this charter ; we will fix it in the general Act. But, what would be the result ? This Act would be passed and the men who procured it would go to the brokers and bankers of London and get their money. No man would propose that any provision of the general Act should apply to that charter unless he were a criminal, or dishonest, unless that provision was already in the general Act, or passed concurrently with this. The difficulty is this ; If you are going to propose that the general Act shall apply to this company you are going to make the provision retroactive, and if you make it retroactive in reference to this company, you make it retroactive in reference to ' all companies, and the result would be that the reputation of Canada would suffer. I want to build 50.000 miles of railway in this country in the near future, and this is not the way to achieve such a result. While I Mr. GOURLEY.
agree with the hon. member for Hants, I agree with him only in so far as that the principle should be general. If it is to apply to this Bill, notice to the public should be given now. I do not agree with my hon. friend from South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) that this is a private Bill. I have heard frequent discussion here about the transportation question, and it is a vital question, which must be settled ultimately, if the political power of this continent is to remain in Ottawa and not remain at Washington. When I looked at the map and saw that the route proposed by this Bill was going to cut off 300 miles and save us going round the peninsula of Ontario ; knowing what Canada's sentiments are in regard to the transportation of the products of the west, I concluded that this proposal was worth trying, because we want to try every solution for the settlement of this question. We have tried one system, but, if necessary, let us try another ; and, if the St. Lawrence canal system fails, let us build the Georgian Bay canal to-morrow. Let us build railways, until we do succeed in controlling the trade of this northern half of the continent. I hope the hon. gentlemen from Ontario and Quebec, when they talk about the transportation problem of this continent, will not hereafter think that everything begins at Collingwood on the one hand and ends at Quebec on the other. I would ask them to recollect, that when God made the ports of this country, that he made the ports of Halifax and St. John as well as the ports of Ontario and Quebec, and you people must try to recognize that we are legislating for the whole of Canada. I will vote money as readily for British Columbia or Ontario enterprises as I will for the construction of railways in the county in which I live. If I would not do that, I would be unworthy to occupy a seat in this parliament. When I hear hon. gentlemen talk about ending the transportation system at Collingwood on the one hand, or Quebec on the other, it strikes me as something that is not worthy of the discussions in this parliament. I propose, with the co-operation of my hon. friends from the maritime provinces, to introduce a discussion here, during the session, that will show some hon. gentlemen that the real transportation system of this continent will end at Halifax, and it is useless to talk about these little fresh water ports of Ontario and Quebec. You fresh water sailors up here appear to know very little about the ultimate possibilities of the transportation system of this young commercial giant of the north. If any hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, can show me that this amendment will interfere with the bringing of capital into this country, then, I am out of it. If this amendment will prevent this company financing this road, then, again, I am out of it. I want this road to be built, I do not care if there are fifty lines parallel to it. Let us try the experiment.

Amendment to amendment (Mr. Hughes, North Victoria) negatived.
Amendment (Mr. Clarke) negatived.
Bill reported.



GUELPH JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
House in committee on Bill (No. 23) respecting the Guelph Junction Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. Mr. A. G. Blair).: There was an understanding the other evening that this Bill should be referred back to committee. I beg to move :
That the order he discharged and that Bill (No. 23) respecting the Guelph Junction Railway Company be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Railways and Canals for further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 60) to incorporate the United Em-(lire Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Birkett.
Bill (No. 14) to incorporate the Century Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Monk.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 75) respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 79) respecting the Lindsay, Bob-caygeon and Pontypool Railway Company.- Mr. Vrooman.
Bill (No. 80) to incorporate the St. Mary River Bridge Company.-Mr. Dyment.
Bill (No. 82) respecting the Rathbun Company.-Mr. Britton.
Bill (No. 83) to incorporate the Kootenay Central Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 84) respecting the Alberta Railway and Coal Company.-Mr. Oliver.


Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Who authorized the removal of stones placed at great expense in the breastwork at Sandy Island, Alberton Harbour ?
2.	To whom were the stones sold?
3.	What price, if any, was paid for them?
4.	To whom was the money paid?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) :: 1.	No such authorization was given, and no such stones were removed.
2.	No stones out of the breastwork at Sandy Island, in Alberton Harbour, were sold.
That answers the third and fourth questions. I may say to my hon. friend, that I think he is confounding the breastwork at Sandy Island with the foundation of the lighthouse.



PRINTING OF THE FRENCH VERSION OF THE DEBATES.

Mr. ETHIER (by Mr. Marcil, Bonaven-ture) asked :: (translation)
1.	Is the government aware that, since the beginning of the present session, the translators of the Debates have each day translated into English all the French, and into French all the English by them received for that purpose from the Government Printing Bureau, notwithstanding that the amount of matter for translation is equivalent at times to as much as 128 columns of Hansard, in a single day ?
2.	Is the government aware that since the opening of the present session, the translators of the Dabates have also corrected and returned to the Printing Bureau each day, all the proofs sent to them therefrom for that purpose, notwithstanding that such proofs amount at times to as much as 125 columns of Hansard, in a single day ?
3.	Is the government aware that, up to this date (March IS), the Bureau has sent to the translators of the Debates, matter for translation up to the 12th only, and proofs for correction up to the 11th only ; and that of the French version it has paged and published the Debates up to the beginning of the sitting of March 4th only, notwithstanding that the amount of matter for translation in the hands of the printer is sufficient to bring the work up to the 14th at least, and the paging and publishing up to the 11th ?
4.	Is the government aware that the delay in
the printing and distributing of the French Hansard is due to the management of the Printing Bureau and not to the translators of the Debates, who labour day by day and even Sundays and holidays, if necessary, in order to translate forthwith as it is received, all matter furnished to them ?	.
5.	Is the government aware that the delay and tardiness of the Government Printing Office in printing the French edition of the Hansard, is the means of depriving the representatives of the people, the press and the public in general of the advantages they should derive from the steady labour of the translators ?
6.	Is It the intention of the government to put a stop to the delay caused by the Printing Bureau and to secure the paging and publishing, in due time, of the French edition of the House of Commons Debates' ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: (Translation.) The government has no information in regard to the matter referred to by the hon. gentleman. I would advise my hon. friend to apply for information to the committee itself, as they have jurisdiction in the matter.



CONSTRUCTION OF LOCOMOTIVES.

Edward Frederick Clarke: When the contract was made with the Locomotive Works Company, at Kingston, Ont., for the construction of twenty locomotives, was there a clause inserted in it stipulating that the union rate of wages should be paid to the men employed in the works?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: No labour clause inserted in this contract. In contracts for the furnishing of mater-

ials, cement, timber, fuel, oils, rolling stock, plant, and the like, where the filling of the government order forms a part, merely, of the contractor's general business, and is performed upon the contractor's own premises, the department does not attempt to assume any control over the works, or over the portion of the contractor's working staff that may happen to be handling parts of the departmental contract.
All other contracts contain a labour clause.



TORONTO POST OFFICE-STATION B.

Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	When was the building leased which is now occupied and used as station ' B ' of the Post Office Department in Toronto.
2.	What is the name and address of the person from whom the building was leased, and the length of time for which lease runs?
3.	What rent per annum is being paid for the building?
4.	What rent was paid by the department for the use of the building occupied as a branch post office in the Rossin House block, Toronto?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND :: 1.	August 14th, 1900.
2.	A. L. Bender, Toronto : five years.
3.	Seven hundred and fifty dollars per annum-which includes heating.
4.	There was no rent paid directly to the late postmaster at the York street branch office, recently closed, but a salary of $900 per annum and commissions was allowed him, which would total nearly $1,000, for the use of a portion of his store and attendance. The department supplied all fittings.



HORSES FOR THE BRITISH ARMY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaRIVIERE asked :
1. Has the following communication been received by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture from C. W. Peterson, secretary of the Territorial Horse Breeders' Association :-
' I am directed by the executive committee of the Territorial Horse Breeders' Association to call your attention to the fact that, although over 100,000 head of horses and mules have been purchased in the United States, and a considerable number in eastern Canada, for use in the South African campaign, for which satisfactory prices were paid, no attempt has apparently been made by the War Office authorities to secure any portion of this enormous number of remounts in the Territories, in spite of the fact that both the western contingents which left Canada for service in South Africa were mounted entirely on western horses, and that it has not been satisfactorily established that any difficulty was experienced in obtaining a sufficient number of a satisfactory type, although the notices given the rancher in both instances were entirely inadequate, owing to the hurried preparations.
It is well known to western breeders, and the fact is deeply deplored, that the impression evidently prevails in eastern Canada, that there are not enough horses raised in the Territories as yet for any practical purposes. This impression, however, is entirely erroneous. It is true that during the years of low values, breeding operations were largely discontinued, but it is also a fact that the absolute want Mr. BLAIR.
of a remunerative and stable market for horses of certain standard types, is not alone working a distinct hardship upon a vast number of small breeders, but it is also exerting a most baneful influence upon the development of the horse industry here, as it effectually discourages breeding operations. No person will for any length of time expend money and labour upon high class breeding stock without a reasonable assurance of ultimate satisfactory financial returns from his efforts.
Vast portions of the North-west Territories present such topographical, meteorological and soil conditions that general farming or cattleraising can never be successfully prosecuted therein. Such being the case, it necessarily follows that these enormous areas must eventually be devoted, if utilized at all, to the raising of horses, or, in the more favourable localities, to sheep-raising. It is, therefore, clear that the business of horse-raising must perforce ultimately develop into one of the most important branches of agriculture in the west. But even if these circumstances were not in themselves sufficient to bring horse-breeding operations prominently to the front in the Territories, the local conditions are such that no horse-producing country in the world could successfully compete against our cheap pastures rich in lime, and favourable climate, enabling horses to range out winter and summer, at little or no expense to the owner.
The present position of affairs is simply unbearable, and I am directed by my committee to urge you, as emphatically as lies in my power, to come to the rescue of our breeders in some way. The market for heavy draught horses is all that could be desired at present, but the conditions here are not nearly so favourable to the production of this class of horses as to the raising of light horses, and it is particularly in connection with the latter that government assistance is needed.
After devoting considerable thought to the matter, I am directed by my committee to suggest, as a feasible means of putting this industry on a proper footing, that your department should deal with it somewhat on the same basis as has been adopted in respect to the dairy industry in the Territories. An amount of money might be appropriated at the forthcoming session of parliament, sufficient to enable you to purchase, as an experiment, a limited number of horses in the west, conforming to the cavalry, artillery and mounted infantry standards, at a fair minimum price. At least two months' notice should be given to breeders here of the dates and places where your agent would purchase, and also full information respecting the types of horses required, and to what extent they would be handled. The association would undertake to look after the local organization, advertising, &c., and would otherwise render your department every assistance possible. Ample notice is absolutely essential, as horses are usually ranging out, and it takes considerable time to get them in and properly handled. This will not, under ordinary circumstances, be done until there is a sale in sight. Three months' notice would be better than two. In the meantime, negotiations could be opened up with the remount department of the British War Office, with a view to having a purchasing officer sent out, as soon as your department had gathered a sufficient number of horses, to inspect them and select all those coming up to the army standards.
There would doubtless be a certain number of culls no matter how carefully the horses had
been purchased; but those would, in centres like Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa, in most cases, be worth nearly as much as your department paid for them, and if the prices offered territorial breeders for their animals were fixed at their approximate value for army purposes, less the cost of transportation and other expenses (which would still leave a very satisfactory figure), it is unlikely that any considerable loss would be sustained by your department in the whole transaction. Any trifling debit balance would, of course, be amply justified by the impetus which would be given horse-breeding operations in the Territories.
Even granting that the necessary financial arrangements could be made to enable this association to successfully handle such a scheme itself, it could not hope to do so as economically and efficiently as could be done by the federal government. You have in the person of the live stock commissioner an official well fitted to do the organization work required. At every considerable point in the Territories there is a mounted police divisional headquarters where assistance could be obtained in purchasing, holding and shipping these animals, and where an experienced veterinarian in the employ of the department would be available. In fact, the cost of handling the scheme in the hands of your department could be reduced to a mere minimum.
It is anticipated that if an arrangement such as outlined could be continued for five or six years under a government guarantee, the production of military remounts in the Territories would easily double, and if proper representations were made to the Imperial government, based upon actual knowledge of the number *of suitable horses available annually and the record for endurance and constitution which western horses would, by that time, undoubtedly have made for themselves in the service, it should prove a feasible proposition to induce the War Office authorities to establish regular remount depots at various points throughout the west, such as are now maintained in the Argentine Republic by the British government in connection with the Indian army.
In conclusion, I am to express, in behalf of my committee, that its representations may meet with favourable consideration at your
hands.'	, ,.	.
2 Also a copy of the following resolution in support of the above, from George Harcourt, secretary of the Horse Breeders' Association of Manitoba and the North-west Territories
' That this association strongly endorses the proposal made to the Department of Agriculture by the Territorial Horse Breeders' Association, by which the department is asked to secure an appropriation for the purpose of purchasing annuallv in the west a number of horses coming up to the type of the standard required by the various branches of the army, to be resold to the British government.'
3. What action, if any, has been taken on these communications ?
4 If no action has been taken, does the government intend adopting any line of action to the furtherance of the views of those associations?	„„„„
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: Yes, the communications mentioned have been received. These communications are under consideration, and the government are discussing and considering what can be done to induce the Imperial government to purchase horses in Canada for army purposes.



I.C.R-GRAIN EXPORTS.

Mr. WILSON asked :: Referring to the return brought down re St-John and Halifax elevators How much of the grain passing through said elevators, for export, was brought from points west of Montreal over the Intercolonial Railway? What were the quantities for each elevator, separately?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: All the grain passing through the St. John and Halifax elevators, for export, came from points west of Montreal. The number of bushels of grain passing through the St. John elevator, for export, was 507,576. The number of bushels of grain passing through the Halifax elevator, for export, was 763,425.



THE DOUKHOBORS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILSON asked ;
1.	What were the dates on which the several detachments of Doukhobors arrived in this country?
2.	What amount was paid them by way of * bonus?
3.	What amount has been loaned them ?
4.	What was the expense in conducting them to their several locations?
5.	How much was paid for their medical and other attendance?
6.	What has been the total amount expended in connecticn with the immigration of the Doukhobors up to date?
James Sutherland: immigrants treated ; it is therefore impossible to state how much has been paid for medical attendance on the' Doukhobors as distinct from other immigrants.
6. Bonuses, $35,817.78; supplies, &c., $20,000 ; total, $55,817.78. In addition to this amount, there were ordinary disbursements incident to the transportation, locating and care of Doukhobors, which sums are included in the ordinary general immigration expenses, and are similar to the expenses incurred in connection with all immigrants, and no separate account is kept to show the proportionate cost of English, Irish, Scotch, Galician, Doukhobors or other immigrants.



MR. WM. STUBBS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT-by Mr. Taylor-asked : Has William Stubbs, of Caledon, Out., formerly representing tbe riding of Cardwell in this House, been appointed to any position under this government? If so, what are his duties and the salary attached to the office?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) :: Mr. William Stubbs, of Caledon, Ont., has been appointed an official veterinarian of the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of testing cattle for export to the United States, and any other veterinary work required, at a salary of $1,200 per annum.



MR. W. E. O'BRIEN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
Has W.   E.@: O'Brien, of Shanty Bay, Ont., been appointed to any positiou under the government? If so, what position, and what salary attaches thereto?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) :: 


Has W.   E.@: O'Brien, of Shanty Bay, Ont., has been appointed a commissioner to represent tbe Dominion of Canada at the Glasgow exhibition, at a salary at the rate of $2,500 per annum, with $5 a day for living expenses, together with transportation expenses.



I. C. R.-DIVISION EXTENSION.

Mr. DECHENE asked :: Whether it is the intention of the Minister of Railways to extend the first division of the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to. Camp-bellton? If not, why not?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: No decision has yet been arrived at to extend the first division of the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to Campbellton.



MR. DUNCAN C. ANDERSON.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
Has Duncan C.: Anderson, of the township of Oro, in the riding of East Simcoe, been ap-poihted to a position in the Department of Agriculture as a lecturer in British Columbia?
If so, what ds his position and what salary at-Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).
taehes to the position? What is term of service?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) :: 


Air.  D. C.@: Anderson has been engaged by the Department of Agriculture to give a series of lectures at Farmers' Institute meetings arranged for in British Columbia by the Department of Agriculture of that province.
His remuneration is at the rate of $3 per day.
His term of service is from March 4 to the end of the series of meetings on May 3.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Is Air. Anderson in the employ of the local government of British Columbia ?


The AIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.



RICE IMPORTS.

Air. CLANCY asked :: What quantity of uncleaned or unhulled rice was imported from Great Britain for consumption for the year ending 30th June, 1900, and the value thereof? Was 25 per cent of the value of such rice of British production? If so, in what way?


The AIINISTER OF CUSTOAIS (Hon. Wm. Paterson) :: The quantity of rice, uncleaned, unhulled or paddy, imported from Great Britain and entered for consumption in Canada during the fiscal year 1900 amounted to 10,647,075 pounds, valued at $132,221, of which amounts 10,609,779 pounds, valued at $131,450, were entered at preferential tariff rates.
Unhulled or uncleaned rice is treated as a natural product, unmanufactured. The certificate as to the proportion of labour entering into the production of manufactured articles is therefore not applicable to unhulled or uncleaned rice ; and such rice being the growth or produce of a British country entitled to the preference (as British India, Straits Settlements, &c.,) would he allowed entry under the preferential tariff when imported into Canada direct from Great Britain.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House,resumed at eight o'clock.



WAYS AND MEANS-1THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Hon. Air. 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.
['I do not think it will be possible. It would be better to understand that it will close on Thursday.']
Air. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: Air. Speaker, when a vote is challenged on the motion to go into Committee of Ways and means, the question that faces a

member of this House is not alone whether the policy of the government of the day is satisfactory, but also whether the member prefers the policy of the government or the policy propounded by hon. gentlemen on the opposition benches. And, on this occasion, the duty devolving upon a member of the House is made simpler by the fact that the leader of the opposition has condensed the policy of himself and his following in the shape of the amendment which is now be-foi'e the House. As a further means of ascertaining exactly and entirely what is the policy of the opposition, we also have before us the speeches of members of the opposition, and, Sir, I think that any one who lias followed the reports of the debate up to this stage must have been astonished at the impossible positions which our friends on the opposition benches endeavour to maintainor would be astonished but for the fact that our friends have been endeavouring to maintain these positions for the last four or five years, and our astonishment now merges into a feeling of amusement. At once they tell us that the policy of the government involves too high protection, involves excessive duties, at least they complain that too much money is taken from the pockets of the people by the tariff that is in force, and at the same time they complain that the tariff is not high enough, and they think it necessary to place that view in the form that is now before us. In one breath they complain that the government of the day has been and is guilty of dreadful extravagance, but 1 notice that they entirely fail now, as they have failed in the last five years to take any practical exception to any material portion of the expenditures proposed by the government. As I say, in one breath they tell us that the Liberal party as represented by the government in this House is keeping in force the obsolete protective system which was inaugurated in 1878 and maintained until 1896. They tell us that the protective system is still in force, but at the same time they deem it necessary to frame and present an amendment, which, I think at all events, nails them to the position that the present tariff is not high enough. They bring in an amendment which, I suppose, they will support, and they will then feel free to to go out into the country and appeal to the manufacturers on the ground that the tariff in force is not sufficiently protective, and they will make the promise to the manufacturers that if the country will give them the opportunity they will put in force a tariff that will be properly protective. In one breath they tell us that the policy of the present administration is not a proper, a judicious policy; and, in the same breath, they tell us that the administration is simply applying the old policy which the Conservative party maintained in this country for something like eighteen years. In other words, they complain that the Liberal party has stolen the Conservatives clothes. They seem to wish to complain that the members of the Liberal party have become converted to Conservative doctrine. Admitting, for the moment, that that is true, is there any good reason for any patriotic Conservative to complain on that score ? If a Conservative really believes that the principle of protection is a proper principle and that it should be applied in this country, is there any real reason why he should complain because a member of the Liberal party, or an Independent or any other citizen becomes a convert to what he himself, at all events, believes to be the true political gospel ? Liberals, I think, have never urged such a complaint as this. In years past in this country there were contests over questions of principle. Something like sixty or seventy years ago there was a contest in this country on the question of responsible government. The Whigs contended for the principle of responsible government, and the Tories contended against that principle. Time went on and by-and-by the Tories became converted to the principle of responsible government. And, so far as I have been able to learn there never was a Liberal who complained of any Tory who became a convert.
The last hon. gentleman who occupied the floor in this debate, speaking last Friday evening, it seemed to me tried to include in his speech nearly all the impossible positions which the opposition attempts to maintain on the fiscal question. There have been hon. gentlemen on the other side who have taken one line of argument, and gentlemen who have taken a different line. But the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) himself managed to take both lines of argument. He proved, I suppose to his own satisfaction at all events, that the claim that is made by the government that there was a surplus in the last fiscal year of some $8,-
000.000 was an entirely mistaken claim. He proved to his own satisfaction that, instead of there being a surplus, there was a deficit, that the people of the country at the end of the last fiscal year were in a worse position than at the commencement of the year. And this, notwithstanding the fact, that, as I understand it, the public debt was reduced by $779,000 in the fiscal year. A short time after, he proved-also, I suppose to his own satisfaction-that the government took out of the pockets of the people $8,000,000 in excess of what was required to meet the expenses of the country. He also presented a considerable array of figures to prove that the system of protection was still in force and to prove that considerable duties were still in force in regard to agricultural products. He was, at that timb, endeavouring to give an answer to a question. that had been asked from this side of the House. Some hon. gentleman on this side had invited any member of the opposition or any one else who believed in the principle of protection to show how the

agriculturist and how the labour of this country might be protected. The hon. member for South Simcoe took up the tariff and showed that on a number of agricultural products, a considerable tariff was still in force. But that did not prove to me that these articles are protected or that the farmers reap any benefit from the protection of the tariff which is in force on those articles. For instance, there is a duty of 12 cents a bushel on wheat-I think that is the rate. But I feel certain that there is not one farmer in a hundred in this country who gets any advantage through that duty upon wheat. The mere fact that there is a duty upon wheat does not at all prove that the farmer who grows wheat receives any advantage from the tariff. But the hon. member had satisfied himself that the agricultural produce of the country was protected, and in the next breath he told us that after the Liberal government came into power they almost entirely wiped out the duties that had been previously levied upon the imported products of the United States, and had then gone down to Washington and asked for some reciprocity arrangements.
But there were some hon. gentlemen opposite who made a fair argument, and observed some logic in their reasoning. It appeared to me that one of the most logical speeches that I heard coming from the opposition benches was that of the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), who declared himself a protectionist and against the present tariff, because it does not afford sufficient protection. He told the House, what is a fact, that of the $189,000,000 worth of imports brought into this country last year, $76,000,000 of that total represented free goods. As to that fact, the hon. member for East Toronto and myself are in entire agreement, but our conclusions from the same fact differ pretty widely. That hon. gentleman declared that the tariff was bad so far as it involved this free trade principle ; while I believe the tariff is good so far as it contains that principle. He stated that the people of Canada, by a very large majority, were opposed to the introduction of free trade principles into our tariff, and on that point also I cannot agree with him. I think, and certainly hon. gentlemen of the opposition are of this opinion, because they constantly charge the government with failure to obey the mandate,- that in the year 1898 the people of Canada gave a mandate against the principle of protection in our tariff ; it is my opinion, but possibly there is room for a little disagreement, that in the year 1900 the people of Canada again gave a mandate against the application of the principle of protection in our tariff. At all events, the opposition, in complaining against the height of our tariff and then complaining that it is too low, must be considered as holding an untenable position.
One complaint I have to make against the amendment submitted by the leader of Mr. SCOTT.
the opposition is, that ic is not definite enough. It is framed in terms vague enough, I fear, to permit gentlemen representing that party to go through the country later on and make divers appeals to the people, similar to those divers appeals that they made last fall, when the people of Canada were asked to decide as between the Liberal and Conservative parties. We know that members of the opposition, and even leaders of the party, went through different parts of the country making entirely different pleas and entirely different promises. In one province, for instance, they promised to have a duty put on lumber, while, on the other hand, in other parts of the country, they were complaining against the small duty at present existing upon some classes of lumber. In the province of Manitoba, so prominent a leader as Hugh John Macdonald, for instance, promised that if the Conservative party was returned to power the farmers would be given the advantage of free agricultural implements ; while, in other provinces, other Conservative leaders, among them Sir Charles Tupper and the Hon. Mr. Foster, made definite promises that if the Conservative party was returned to power the duty on agricultural implements would be increased. I give these instances as an illustration of the various tactics that -were resorted to, and the various promises that were made by the different Conservative leaders last fall in various parts of the country. In the part of the country from which I come, the government was assailed because its leader was a Frenchman and a Roman Catholic. I state this without fear of successful contradiction, although I notice that since this session opened and since this debate began, certain prominent gentlemen on the other side have questioned whether it were true that racial and religious cries were resorted to by members of the opposition. I say that in the part of the country from which I come the electors were appealed to on the ground that the leader of the Liberal party, and some of his lieutenants, were Frenchmen and Roman Catholics. I believe it is a fact also, that in the province of Quebec, the Liberal party were attacked because one of the leaders was ' too British for me.' Now. I say that I take issue with this amendment partly because it is not definite enough, and I take issue with it because it means, if it means anything, that the principle of protection in the present tariff ought to be increased. I take issue with the amendment because it means, if it means anything, that duties should be increased on agricultural implements, and that duties should be reimposed on such articles as binder twine, barbed wire and cream separators, many of which are used by the farmers in our part of the country. I take issue with it because it means, if it means anything, that the duties at present in force should be increased in respect to the whole line of articles which may be imported into
this country. As I said at the commencement, the question that faces me is not entirely whether I deem the policy at present in force as satisfactory, for if I were obliged to give a candid opinion, I would have to say that I am not entirely satisfied with the tariff of the government as it stands, and any dissatisfaction I may have with regard to it is on account of the height of the duties imposed under that tariff. I notice that the Finance Minister, in his statement, partly foreshadowed a lessening of the revenues reaped under the tariff at present in force.
I have a specific to recommend if there is danger of a lessening of the revenue and the specific that I would recommend is to make a further cut in! the tariff. I believe that in regard to some articles the tariff at present is to a certain extent protective, and I believe, too, that a protective tariff cannot be called a revenue tariff. If the tariff protects a certain line of manufactures it is a tariff which is not calculated to bring in a revenue. So, I would say that if there is to be feared a lessening of revenue under the present tariff, the proper way to obviate the danger is to make further cuts In that tariff. I will give an illustration from the tariff history of the country. Up to 1894 a protective tariff, a tariff of 35 per cent was levied against agricultural Implements coming into this country, and in 1894 a reduction was made to 20 per cent on mowers and binders, a reduction equal to 43 per cent. Since that time the revenue has not lessened notwithstanding that the duty was cut almost in two. The revenue has not lessened, but, on the contrary, it has Increased to an extent equal to nearly 500 per cent. In 1894, before the reduction and while there was a duty of 35 per cent, the revenue reaped from hinders was 824,478.50. Last year, under a 20 per cent tariff, the revenue that was reaped was $160,860.40. Upon mowers, in 1894, when a, 35 per cent duty was levied, the revenue reaped was $9,935.65. In 1900 under a 20 per cent tariff, the revenue was $71,111.40. The revenue reaped from the whole line of agricultural implements in 1894 was $77,921.86. Since 1894 the duties not only upon binders and mowers have been cut, but on other agricultural implements they have been cut from, I think, 35 to 25 per cent, and in 1900, under these lower duties, there was a revenue reaped, not of $77,921.86, hut of no less than $357,200.22, Carrying this argument a little further we find that there has been a general cut in the taxation on all articles brought in since 1897 of from 10 to 121 per cent and that this cut was followed, not by a reduction of revenue, but, by an increase of customs duties of about 40 per cent or an increase from $20,000,000 to $28.000 000. So the argument that is advanced bv the opposition Is fallacious : the mere fact that there has been an increase in the
revenue, in the amount of money that the people have paid in customs duties, is not proof positive that any greater taxation has been levied, because, in regard to binders and mowers, while the amount of revenue which reached tihe coffers of the country was vastly larger this last year than in 1S94, the fact must be plain that no additional taxation was imposed upon the people, or upon the farmers who purchased these agricultural implements, but, that on the contrary, there has been a marked lessening of taxation. While tlm rate of taxation was 35 per cent and while it did not yield money to the general revenues of the country, it was still levied upon the people ; it did not come into the treasury of Canada, but it went into the pockets of "the manufacturers. I take issue with the amendment when it strikes at the preferential arrangement that is now in force between this country and the mother country. I may say that personally 1 do not feel so much interest in whether the preferential arrangement is of advantage to the people of Great Britain as in whether it is of advantage to the people of Canada.
It is because I believe that the preferential arrangement has been of great advantage to the people of Canada in lessening the taxation imposed upon our people that I stand by the preferential arrangement as It is at present upon the statute-book. ^ Before 'I sit down I Wish to refer briefly to another question that is not allied with the trade or tariff issue, but which is a financial question, and which, I think, may be properly mentioned and discussed in this debate. It is not now, and I trust may not become, a matter at issue between the political parties. I allude to that coming Change in relations between the North-west Territories of Canada and this parliament, and as I say that is a question largely financial and so I think it is not out of place in this discussion. I shall preface the remarks that I have to make by the statement that I take it as a tribute to the far-sightedness and the statesmanship of the gentlemen who, in I860, met in the city of Quebec and framed the arrangement which resulted in the confederation of the provinces of Upper find Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, that, in the portion of the country which they then contemplated should become a part of Canada-I allude to the North-west Territories which at that time were known as Rupert's Land-there has hover since the North-west became a part of Canada, and not up to this time, been a thought, or a suggestion, in the mind of any person in that country, so far as their future was concerned 'Other than of becoming a province of the Dominion of Canada and a permanent part of confederation. Notwithstanding the fact that, in som e respects some people there may believe that it would be to their immediate material advantage to be associated in a different way with the country Immediately to the south so that they might

trade with the cities of St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Chicago, which are much nearer than the cities of Toronto and Montreal, Where they chiefly trade, notwithstanding that materially and immediately it might he, in a way, to their advantage to look to a different destiny, there is not at the present time, never h-as been, and I do not think ever will be any thought in the mind of any resident, or any citizen of the Northwest, but to remain as a part of confederation and a part of the Dominion of Canada. The people in that country have for some years been looking forward to the time when a change should be made and when the part of the country in which they live should become in all respects equal to the other provinces of the Dominion.
Occasionally, in this House-even since this session has opened-there have been remarks dropped which might lead a western member to believe that the opinion is held down here that the western people are very impatient ; that they are looking for . their wrongs to be righted immediately ; that they want things to move a little too fast ; but, Sir, in regard to this question the people of the North-west cannot be accused of any undue baste. They have been heretofore working under such a constitution as the Federal parliament thought well to grant. They have now come to a stage when they feel that some additional powers are required and when some different arrangement ought be made so as to enable them to better carry on the work of local government. The difficulty they labour under is not so much constitutional as it is financial. So far as their constitutional powers are concerned the people feel that they might possibly get along for some time yet without any marked change. But they have come to a point in their history when they feel hampered as regards their finances. The members of the House all know the difference which exists between the financial relations of the provinces to the Dominion and the financial relations of the North-west Territories to the Dominion. Each of the provinces has a fixed financial status and the provincial subsidies are not voted by this parliament year after year, but are paid under statute, whereas with regard to the North-west Territories the grant which corresponds in a sense to the provincial subsidies, has to be voted each session by this House. To better explain some of the difficulties which arise under the present system, I will quote the words of the chief spokesman of the Northwest Territories, the Hon. Mr. Hauitain, from a speech he made in the legislature last session. He said :
already exhausted every means of obtaining any very large increase to that parliamentary vote. Even were any government so well disposed towards the Territories-and I think all governments are in a way-the conditions surrounding a parliamentary vote, the conditions which exist at Ottawa, prevent any adequate amount being given to us under our present institutions. I make that statement believing such to be the case. So long as the Territories remain in a dependent condition and receive their financial assistance as a matter of grace rather than of right; so long as the Territories remain in the position of having a large amount of money voted as_ a grant in addition to a number of other things which the provinces do for themselves, provided for them every year in the Dominion Supply, just for so long will it be impossible for the Territories to secure that suitable financial recognition without which even the present institutions cannot be successfully carried on. We have pretty well passed through the preliminary stages, and we have pretty well come to an end of our usefulness so far as our present condition will permit us. We have to a certain extent fairly well exhausted, in the broader sense of the word, the powers given to us under the legislative jurisdiction which we now possess. I believe the time has come for beginning the superstructure for which we have been laying the foundations. I believe we have laid these foundations well; and that so far as the institutions we have created; so far as the main body of our laws-which deal not only with the primary but even with many of the secondary wants and interests of this country-are concerned, I believe we have a good body of laws, and that very largely we have exhausted the more obvious uses and powers of the constitution which we have and of the powers which we possess under it. X do not say that further progress is impossible, but I do say that any very large amount of progress, or any very large amount of development, is not possible under the existing institutions.
I will not take up time arguing that the North-west Territories have pretty nearly arrived at a period in their history when a change must be made in their existing relations to the Federal parliament. The people up there, at least if they are properly represented in the legislature and if their chief spokesman the Prime Minister of the Territories, is to be relied upon ; the people there have come to the conclusion that very shortly some change will have to be looked for. Before the local elections in 1S98, the Hon. Mr. Hauitain spoke at various points throughout the Territories on this subject, and I shall quote from the language he used at one place to show that even three years ago this change was looked forward to and that the present legislature of the Territories was in reality given a mandate to open up negotiations with respect to the subject. Speaking at Yorkton, the Hon. Mr. Hauitain said :
We might well go on developing under the territorial system for a long time to come if our revenue would only keep pace with our requirements. But the present financial condition is an impossible one-I mean the condition of being *dependent upon the annual vote of parliament tor the larger part of our income. We have


Thomas Walter Scott: If the financial question is capable of other solution, I will be satisfied to remain as at present. The only thing there seems to be to do is to think at least of negotiating for provincial establishment. I feel convinced that it will be the principal work of the new legislature before the end of its four years' term to enter into such negotiations. With the

greater development that now seems assured, the needs in respect of schools and improvement will certainly develop. Outside of direct taxation, there seems no possibility of a solution except by provincial establishment-not perhaps to-day or next year, but in the reasonably near future.
Last session in the legislature the following address was voted upon by all the local representatives of the people and unanimously adopted :
1.	Whereas by the British North America Act,
1867,	it was (amongst other things) enacted that it should be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, on address from the Houses of the parliament of Canada, to admit Rupert's Land and the North-west Territory, or either of them, into the union on such terms and conditions in each case as should be in the addresses expressed and as the Queen should think fit to approve, subject to the provisions of the said Act ;
2.	And whereas, by an address from the Houses of the parliament of Canada Her Majesty was prayed to unite Rupert's Land and the North-west Territory with the Dominion of Canada ;
3.	And whereas, in order to further the petition of the parliament of Canada, Her Majesty, under the authority of the Rupert's Land Act,
1868,	accepted a surrender from the governor and company of adventurers of England trading into Hudson's bay, of all the lands, territories, rights, privileges, liberties, franchises, powers and authorities whatsoever granted or purported to be granted by certain letters patent therein recited to the said company in Rupert's Land ;
* 4. And whereas, in the said address it was represented to Her Majesty, as a reason for the extension of the Dominion of Canada westward, that the welfare of the population of these territories would be materially enhanced by the formation therein of political institutions, bearing analogy, as far as circumstances will admit, to those which existed in the several provinces then forming the Dominion ,*
5.	And whereas, the Houses of the parliament of Canada by their said address expressed to Her Majesty their willingness to assume the duties and obligations of government and legislation as regards these territories ;
6.	And whereas, in pursuance and exercise of the powers invested in the Queen by the aforesaid Acts, Her Majesty, by and with the advice of her most honourable Privy Council, ordered and declared that from and after the 15th day of July, 1870, Rupert's Land and the North-western Territory should be admitted into and become part of the Dominion of Canada, and granted power and authority to the parliament of Canada to legislate for the future welfare and good government of these territories ;
7.	And whereas, by the British North America Act, 1871, the parliament of Canada was further given power from time to time to make provision for the administration, peace, order and good government of any territory not for the time being included in any province;
8.	And whereas, under the several authorities so given, the parliament of Canada has created political institutions in these territories bearing a close analogy i.o those which exist in the several provinces of the Dominion ;
9.	And whereas, by the confederation compact the provinces which formed the Dominion, on
the 15th day of July, 1870, were furnished with the means of carrying on local self-government upon certain well-defined bases ;
10.	And whereas, the territories, being an integral part of the . Dominion, and having had imposed upon them the duties and obligations incidental to the political institutions which have been given to them, and which said duties and obligations the parliament of Canada has declared its willingness to assume, are entitled to such Federal assistance for their maintenance as will bear due proportion and analogy to that given to other portions of the Dominion for similar purposes;
11.	And whereas, repeated representations have been made in various ways to the government of Canada with the view of obtaining just and equitable financial assistance towards providing for the proper and efficient administration of local affairs in the Territories and for the public necessities of their rapidly increasing population ;
12.	And whereas, such representations have been met by intermittent and insufficient additions to the annual grant, the provision so made by the parliament of Canada never bearing any adequate proportion to the financial obligations imposed by the enlargement and development of the political institutions created by itself;
13.	And whereas, it is desirable that a basis should be established upon which the- claims of the Territories to suitable financial recognition may be settled and agreed upon :
14.	Therefore be it resolved, that an humble address to His Excellency the Governor General be adopted by this House praying him that he will be pleased to cause the fullest enquiry to be made into the position of the Territories, financial and otherwise, and to cause such action to be taken as will provide for their present and immediate welfare and good government, as well as the due fulfilment of the duties and obligations of government and legislation assumed, with respect to these Territories, by the parliament of Canada ;
15.	And be it further resolved that, whereas,
by the British North America Act, 1871, it was (amongst other things) enacted that the parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of ...	. such province, His Excellency be also prayed to order inquiries to be made and accounts taken with a view to the settlement of the terms and conditions upon which the territories or any part thereof shall be established as a province, and that before any such province is established, opportunity should be given to the people of the territories, through their accredited representatives, of considering and discussing such terms and conditions.
That, Sir, is the succinct record of the history and the present claims of the legislature of the North-west Territories. And that the government here have been fairly seized of the fact that a change in the near future will be necessary. I infer from a statement that has been made in this House by one of the ministers of the Crown since the commencement of the present session, in answer to a question that was put by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean). The hon. member for East

York asked if any new provinces were likely to be formed in the North-west Territories after the census was taken, and this answer was given by the 'Minister of the Interior :
A deputation, consisting of two members of the North-west government, Mr. Haultain and Mr. Ross, were in Ottawa some time ago on other business, and took the opportunity of discussing this question. I may say that while during the last three or four years they have not addressed any official communication to the government, yet from time to time they have discussed with myself and my colleagues the question of giving the Territories provincial status, and lately they handed us a memorandum on that subject. We have not officially replied to that memorandum as yet, hut expect to do so shortly. This is a matter, of course, requiring serious consideration. I may say, in a general way, that I am of the opinion that it will have to be dealt with in the very near future. The people of the Territories are as capable of self-government as any other people In Canada, and have shown their fitness by the admirable manner in which they have carried on their present administration. Of course, the financial question is a serious one. The subsidy required for the Territories in the course of a few years would have to be greatly increased, and there is the question of the control of public lands and matters of that kind which would have to be settled.
These various statements will obviate any necessity of my going into the question as to whether the time has come for this change. The representatives of the Territories think the time is approaching, and we may conclude from this statement of the Minister of the Interior that the government here are seized of the fact that the time is rapidly approaching when a change must be made in the relations of the North-west legislature to this parliament ; and as the census is to be taken this year, the data thus obtained will make it possible to intelligently negotiate, and will bring a favourable time for commencing negotiations.
I may refer briefly to the causes which make this change necessary. A country so large as the North-west Territories, with a sparse population, is always an expensive country to govern locally. During the last few years very material additions have been made to the population. Immigrants have been coming into the country in large numbers, making necessary further expenditures on education and public works. I believe that in one year as many as one hundred new school districts have been formed in the North-west Territories, and have had to be provided for by the local government. No argument is necessary to show that with such a condition of affairs the financial requirements of the local government are increasing very rapidly. As to the way in which the local authorities expend their money, statistics show that a very large proportion of their revenues is devoted to education and public works. The total amount at the disposal of the local legislature last year was $470,000. Of this, no less than $182,000 was voted for education and Mr. SCOTT.
$178,000 for public works, including the construction of roads and bridges, sinking public wells, providing ferries and similar services, leaving only $110,00b for civil government, legislation, administration of civil justice, and so forth. In these figures I think we find full justification for the commendatory remarks made by the Minister of the Interior with reference to the territorial government.
I wish to refer for a moment to a question that has been raised with respect to some of the foreign settlers. The hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) asked a question in the House as to the provision being made for the education of the Doukhobors, a considerable number of whom are settled in the Territories, I assume from the manner of his question that he thought the government should devote a certain amount of money and take certain steps to see that the education of the Doukhobors was not neglected. I have not any very intimate knowledge of that subject, but I am aware that the members of the local government have had conferences with representatives of those people ; and while I believe that there is and will be a considerable amount of difficulty with regard to the education of the Doukhobors, owing- to their peculiar customs and beliefs, still I think that the past history of the local government gives us warrant to believe that that government is perfectly competent to deal with whatever difficulty may exist.
Hon. members will readily understand that in a part of the country to which many foreign immigrants are coming year after year-and since the opening up of the Northwest Territories, every year there has been an influx of a large number of people who may be classed as foreigners, people from the continent of Europe,-there must be problems of more or less difficulty to be solved by the local authorities. In the past, the local government has been found competent to cope with the difficulties which have arisen, and while a certain amount of patience may be required in dealing with peculiar people like the Doukhobors, we may take it for granted that the local government will be competent to grapple with any difficulties that may arise. I fear that the local authorities would take exception, and properly, to this parliament stepping into the domain of education, the power of dealing with which was many years ago conferred upon the local government. The difficulty of dealing with people like the Doukhobors, owing to their peculiarities, this House, of course, has a right to consider, and the consideration will further impress on hon. members the necessity of providing financial means to the local government to enable it to deal effectively and efficiently with these people.
I propose, Sir, with the permission of the House, to glance very briefly at the political history of the North-west Territories. The
acquisition of these territories was contemplated by the statesmen who met in Quebec in 1865-the fathers of confederation ; and from one of the resolutions then passed, I extract the following sentence :
Provision being made for tlie admission, on equitable terms, of Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories, British Columbia and Vancouver, on such terms as the parliament 'Of the federated provinces shall deem equitable land as shall receive the assent of Her Majesty.
Respecting the contention that the expenditures incurred with regard to the Northwest Territories, including the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, should be wholly charged against the North-west Territories, let me quote another portion of the resolution as showing the view on this point held by the fathers of confederation :
The communication with the North-west Territories and the improvements required for the development of the trade of the great west with the seaboard, are regarded by this conference as subjects of the highest importance to the federated provinces.
Thus, the view held by the fathers of confederation respecting the expenditures which would have to be made in the North-west Territories, was that these expenditures would not be incurred so much for the Northwest Territories as for the provinces which originally formed confederation. The territory was acquired following an address from the Canadian parliament to Her Majesty, praying that Rupert's Land and the North-west Territories might be united to the Dominion of Canada. The address recited that:
It would promote the prosperity of the Canadian people and conduce to the advantage of the whole empire, if the Dominion of Canada constituted under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, were extended westward to the shores of the Pacific ocean. That the colonization of the fertile lands of the Saskatchewan, the Assiniboine and the Red river districts; the development of the mineral wealth which abounds in the region of the North-west, and the extension of commercial intercourse through the British possessions in America from the Atlantic to the Pacific, are alike dependent on the establishment of a stable government for the maintenance of law and order in the North-western Territory; and that the welfare of a sparse and widely scattered population of British subjects of European origin, already inhabiting these remote and unorganized territories, would he materially enhanced by the formation therein of political institutions bearing analogy, as far as circumstances will admit, to those which exist in the several provinces of this Dominion.
The foregoing quotations show distinctly, first, that the North-west Territories were acquired for the benefit primarily of the confederated provinces ; second, that it was the intention of Canada to extend to the Territories a system of government bearing analogy to those of the provinces; and third, they include a guarantee that the Territories would be placed on an equitable basis compared with the other provinces. That
I take to mean that we would eventually be given a constitutional and financial position, which would bear strict analogy to the positions occupied by each one of the other provinces. On the 15th July, 1870, the North-west Territories were admitted into confederation and became part and parcel of the Dominion. The history of the local government in that country since .then I shall not take up the time of the House by going over, I may say briefly, that from time to time additional powers were conferred on the local authorities until now there is very little difference-practically none constitutionally-between the position of the Territories and that of any province. The Territories lack a few of the powers possessed by the provinces, as, for instance, the power to borrow money on the public credit, the power to charter railways, tlie power to erect and maintain such institutions as insane asylums. But they have authority over education and other matters; and so far as any power has been conferred upon them, they exercise it in exactly the same manner as similar powers are exercised out toy the local legislatures and governments in provinces.
I do not wish to go into any of the details at present. My intention is merely to draw the attention of parliament to a subject with which this parliament will almost certainly have to deal in the very near future-almost certainly before the end of this term. But there are one or two details to which I wish to refer briefly. The question will arise whether one or more provinces should be created out of the present territories, namely, the two Assiniboias, Saskatchewan and Alberta. On that point I do not care to offer any decided opinion, and I do not know that there exists in the minds of the people any very decided opinion. My personal opinion is in favour of the erection of only one province, as I think it would be a mistake to create too many governments in that country, and X believe that one system-one lieutenant governor and one executive-would be sufficient to attend to the interests of local government in that country. The point is sometimes raised that the area is very large, which no one will dispute, but it is not larger than that of at least one existing province. The area of the four districts in the North-west Territories is about 302,000 miles, and that of the province of British Columbia comprises 383,000 square miles. The area is not very much larger than the area of Ontario, which is 222,000 square miles, and of Quebec, which is 228,000 square miles.
It is interesting in this connection, to remember that, prior to confederation the late Sir John Macdonald held strongly to the opinion that a legislative union for all Canada would be preferable to a federal union. If a man so far-sighted as Sir John Macdonald believed that the legislative interests of all Canada might be most satisfactorily

dealt with by one legislature sitting at Ottawa, and if that proposition was possible, the proposition that the area comprised in these four districts could be governed in a local sense by one legislature is not at all an absurdity. Another suggestion has been mooted, one on which I have no hesitation in expressing a very decided opinion-a suggestion that a portion of the territory should be annexed to the province of Manitoba. The people of the Territories generally, would very strongly oppose the carrying out of such a proposition; and the people who, if it were carried out would find themselves in the province of Manitoba, would and do most strongly oppose the proposition. As 1 have explained, the relations at present existing between the legislature of the Territories and this parliament, and the whole constitutional and financial position of the Territories limit the resources of local government practically to the annual grants voted by this parliament, apart from the powers of direct taxation which have been conferred upon it. I do not imagine that this House would look with equanimity upon the powers of direct taxation being applied to any severe extent in that country. This House looks to a speedy settlement of that country, looks for a large immigration to that country, looks for progress in that country, and certainly the application of the power of direct taxation to a severe extent would not conduce to that progress or that early settlement or any very large immigration. Apart from the power of direct taxation, really the only resource of the local government of the territory is the annual grant voted by this parliament. I do not wish to complain that the annual grants have not been fairly generous, although in no year have they sufficed to fully and adequately meet the requirements. Looked at from all points of view, however, I think the yearly grants have been fairly generous. But a position has been reached where the need is growing so fast year by year that it is found almost impossible or entirely impossible to get the income from this parliament which is necessary. I will not weary the House with a statement of what the annual grant has been-that may be found in the estimates for the various years, which are on record. I will not go any further into the matters of detail, but shall draw the attention of the House to what X think should be a broad, general principle upon which the arrangements which will be made should be negotiated and arrived at. On the constitutional side, I imagine, the proposition is very simple. I have no doubt that this House will very readily confer upon the legislature of the Territories all the powers which have been conferred upon the legislatures of the provinces. But financially the case may be more complex. On the financial side there may be room for argument. Financially, the various pro-


Thomas Walter Scott: 

be kept in this country instead of one. There is no practical reason why the same work should not be done by us as is done by the Attorney General's Department in the provinces. We should also have control of the registry offices. The important power to legislate with regard to property and' civil rights given to us in one section of the North-west Territories Act is largely curtailed by the Dominion parliament having undertaken to deal with the question of land titles under the Land Titles Act, and I need not remind the House how often we run up against the Land Titles Act in attempting to legislate on many questions. In much of our important legislation we have to deal with land and land titles, and it is a practical argument that if we had the power-as they have in the provinces-to deal exclusively with property and civil rights we should be able to make a great many improvements in much of our general legislation as well as Improvements in the land titles system itself. I believe the land titles system under local administration can be made to be not only a self-supporting service, but can also be so conducted as to very largely reduce the number and amount of fees which a.re at present charged for the various services performed. There are other matters, but I need hardly dwell on them. I believe that-no matter at what time, remote or near, the larger question of provincial institutions is settled-we require an extension of the powers of this House immediately. Many of them we should have had some time ago. We have been asking for them ever since 1892-asking for them every year.
I have kept the House a great deal longer than I intended and X fear that I have, to some extent, wearied the House. I regret exceedingly that it was not some other hon. gentleman with more ability and more fluency who would have better presented the case and have performed the duty of placing it for the first time before parliament, but, I feel, at all events, that the question is large enough and that the country to which It refers is great enough to create pride in the mind of any one who has the privilege, however poorly, of studying and dealing with it. I trust that when the time comes, whether it comes next year, or the succeeding year, and I feel assured that it will come before the end of the term of this parliament, that parliament may deal with the question on broad principles and endeavour to place the citizens of the Northwest Territories in a position entirely equal, in no way inferior, to the position which is occupied by the citizens of any other province of Canada.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It is not my intention to enter into a discussion of the budget as the ground has been pretty well covered


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I think the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara has the floor.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I thought I was next on the list, Mr. Speaker. I put my name down a week ago.


Thomas Walter Scott: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara has the floor.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mr. Speaker, for a long while, or at least, since the 7th November last, I have wondered a good deal how it was that the hon. gentleman who so well represented West Assiniboia in this House for several parliaments was not able to be with us during this parliament, and I am very glad to be able to say that I have discovered the reason. I think I have found it out. Evidently the hon. member who used to be in this House and whom the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott), who has just spoken, succeeded in ousting from that position by obtaining enough votes to enable him to represent that constituency here, must have been defeated at the polls because he was not able to promise to do so many impossible things for the North-west Territories as the hon. gentleman who has succeeded him. I cannot think of anything else that had anything to do with the reversal in the allegiance of that constituency. I have listened to-night with a great deal of attention for an hour and twenty-five minutes to the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, to find out what he had to say about the fiscal policies, about the fiscal policy, if any, of the government, and about the fiscal policy of the opposition. I have listened for over an hour of that time to his discourse on entirely different matters and I give the hon. gentleman a great deal of credit and a great deal of thanks too, because it will serve as an example, as an illustration for me when I shall say a word In regard to the government fiscal policy, which I shall do in a few minutes in the course of my speech. The hon. gentleman who has just sat down has also assisted me by saying that nobody knows to-day, in spite of over a week's debate on the fiscal questions of this country, what is the fiscal policy of the government outside of the members of the cabinet themselves. We have been trying to find that out for four years and we did think, that, although they would not tell the people what their policy was, they would tell the members of parliament when we got into a new parliament after the elections. But, we have not discovered it yet from the members of the cabinet and we find that of those behind the cabinet no two of them agree for one minute as to what that policy is. We have the hon. gentleman who has just sat down discoursing to us; he wants free trade, and he illustrates his position by saying that he does not want a duty on wheat. But he does not say that he would remove the duty on wheat, and he votes for a government that keeps that duty on wheat and votes for a government that does not put a duty on corn. The people of Ontario are more concerned in having a duty on corn than the people of the North-west Territories are in having a
duty on wheat. I know that it is denied that throughout the Dominion there are sectional feelings, I know it is denied that the province of Quebec votes in one way for certain reasons that it ought not to take into consideration, but, while on the floor of this House we find that all the members of the Conservative party stand together as one man on matters of policy, we cannot find hon. gentlemen opposite able to debate the question without bringing in sectional matters that particularly affect their own constituencies. So, if we want an excuse or a justification, for putting on the records of the House a declaration distinctly saying what our policy is, hon. gentlemen opposite have not only given us that excuse, but our regard for the honour of the country forces us to do so because we want to have a policy declared in such a way as to be understood by the ordinary every-day man in this country, so that he can tell his neighbour in Buffalo, or his cousin in Ireland, or England, or Scotland, what kind of laws he is going up against if he emigrates to this country. If we cannot have a policy that every one can understand in that way from the government, the next best thing to do is to have a policy from the opposition, so that if the people will be willing to bide a wee they will know what is going to be the policy of the country when the opposition become the 'government. If we wanted any reason for putting a declaration, or a resolution, upon records of the House such as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax), whom I have the honour to follow in this House, has placed upon the records, we have it from the very proceedings, the very arguments which are made by hon. gentlemen opposite in their endeavour to support the government willingly in everything that is done, and everything that the government may do. In 1896-I do not wish to repeat, but it is necessary to make the argument consecutive-it is well known that the government got into power by making certain pledges and it is well known and never disputed that it did not carry out these pledges. In 1900 it was argued upon the hustings of every province-I will not speak specially for the provinces of Quebec, or Manitoba, or for the North-west Territories, because I was not there, and I cannot say what they did there, but it is fair to assume that the same arguments were made there as were made in Ontario, that there was more than one reason why the government should be turned out of office. It was argued that in public matters you could not trust them, and that was given as the reason why they should be turned out. The province of Ontario, which I think, I may say, without wishing to wound the feelings of hon. gentlemen representing other parts of the Dominion, leads the other provinces in civilization and progress, undertook to say by a very large majority that such things as were shown to have been done could not be done in public 64i
life any more than they could be done in private life, that the business of Canada could not be done on that basis, that the affairs of the country must be carried on in a proper and business like way. I have heard many reasons given by hon. gentlemen as to why the government is not better represented on the floor of this House from the province of Ontario ; but, if you look at it in any constituency you like, comparing it with another constituency and applying fair and proper reasoning to it, you will find that the reason which generally actuated the mind of the people, was whether they would or would not employ persons to carry on their business whom they had employed before and who had not carried out what they said they would do. I am not debating now whether free trade or protection is the best policy for the province. I believe protection is the best policy. I have always believed it, I believe it now, and I am caused more than ever to believe it by the fact that some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House admit that it is while all hon. gentlemen on this side of the House say it is. That does not carry a doubt according to the expressions of the cabinet, but it does carry a doubt according to expressions of hon. gentlemen behind and supporting that cabinet. For all these reasons we must conclude that protection is the best policy for this country. But, Sir, the question of whether protection or free trade is the better policy in our interests is not the question that most concerns us as a people. Sir, it is a question of the national honour of Canada ; it is a question as to whether we are to do business in public matters upon the same moral plane as we do business in private matters. I stand here to say that if my hon. leader were to-day to treat the public issues so lightly from a moral standpoint, as have the leaders of the Liberal party I would not come to this parliament to sit behind him and to vote with him on party questions. The hon, gentleman from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who spoke in favour of protection the other night, was forced before the last elections to issue a special address to his electors in order to make himselif safe and for fear the government would go down, and that he would go down with.it if he did not show to the people that he was' not going to be guided by that sort of political morality-if the word is permissible-which seems to And favour with the Liberals of this country. I say that we are here to-night. Sir, to decide whether the government of this fair Dominion will be obliged to do what it says it will do, or whether it is to be allowed to get into power promising that it will do certain things when in power, and then not only not do them, hut come hack four years afterwards and not pay the ordinary compliment to the people of telling them what they are going to do or what

they are not going to do. This government in effect says to the people of Canada : We told you we would do such and such a thing in order to get to power, hut now that we have power for the second time we will not pay you the compliment to say whether we are free traders or protectionists ; we will let you find that out for yourselves, and we will go as we please on this question so long as we have men behind us to vote to retain us in power. That is the position which the government places the people of Canada in to-day. I say that if we had no better reason to vote for protection and for a business policy such as that propounded by the leader of the opposition there would be sufficient to entitle this amendment to the support of the ordinary individual in the fact that the leader of the opposition has plainly laid down what policy he wants ; has nailed his colours to the mast, and will steer his course towards a plain business policy which every one can understand and rely upon. The gentleman from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) was frank enough to tell us the other night-and these confessions will fall unawares from the lips of gentlemen opposite-that when the Liberals were wandering around in the wilderness of opposition they did this and that and [DOT]the other thing. Well, Sir, I can tell that bon. gentleman that although the Conservative party to-day is in the wilderness of opposition, we will never wander around ; we will always be able to blaze the trees as we go along, so that we can always be found and always find our way back. Today in opposition we place upon record [DOT]what our policy is, and even if it is not a policy that commends itself to every man who may be an utter free trader, it will at least commend itself to every man who has the interests of his people at heart, for he knows where we are going to take him, he knows our record is good, and he knows we never said we would do a thing and refuse to do it afterwards, even though we had made a mistake. Now, Sir, it has been asked me a great many times how it happened that the chief whip of the Liberal party in the last parliament was not returned to this House from a constituency that was supposed to be safe for the Liberals, and how it is that I came here in his stead. I have always thought it better to reserve the explanation as to that until the time arrived when I could state it publicly in the House of Commons. It is due to no qualification of mine, and it is due to no disqualification on the part of Mr. Gibson. The people of the banner electoral district of Lincoln and Niagara, the oldest settled part of Ontario, a place that first had a parliament building in the whole of this Dominion ; a place that first had a lieutenant-governor residing there-and were it not that I see some hon. gentlemen opposite smiling, I would say, a place that is in the forefront of civilization-a district ahead of the rest of the Dominion in age, if age Mr, LANCASTER.
counts for anything ; that electoral district has returned a supporter of the Conservative party to oppose the acts of the Liberal government simply and solely because the electors 'did not know what that government would do if it were returned to power on the 7th of November, for they knew that during its four years of power it had done nothing that it promised to do in the years prior to 1896. That and nothing else caused the constituency of Lincoln and Niagara to send me to this House. And, Sir, although perhaps I should not say so, I trust that my constituents will not find me wanting in representing their interests ; at all events, when I return to them they will never have to accuse me of making false pledges and of promising them something which I did not endeavour to have carried out.
The resolution before us, Sir, has been thoroughly discussed by gentlemen on both sides of the House. It has been explained over and over again by gentlemen on this side of the House, while the gentlemen on the other side do not appear to he able or willing to understand wbat it means. It is pretty well written, it is pretty plain English ; it is protection and it is a preference with Great Britain, that is to say, a mutual preference. My bon. friend from West Assinibola (Mr. Scott), who last spoke, made an able and eloquent argument in favour of the North-west Territories, and I will take the liberty of pointing out to the government what this follower of theirs thinks a man should do in carrying out his duty. That hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) evidently came here determined to see that the Northwest Territories, and his district of West Assiniboia especially, should get full and ample justice at the hands of this parliament. Now, Sir, the rule that ought to guide us ini business, be it great or small, should be the same rule in principle in small affairs as well as in great. That hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) devoted the largest part of his speech to trying to prove to the government that they should give a preference to the North-west Territories in return for something which the Territories have done for us, as he says. Now, would not the same rule apply in the relations between Canada and the British Empire, and is it not the duty of the Prime Minister to go to England and get something else than Cobden medals for us in return for what we are doing for the mother land ? If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) will apply to the government the same rule which he wishes the government to apply to the constituency which he so ably represents, then he should vote for this amendment moved by the leader of the opposition, because it asks in the interests of the Dominion of Canada just exactly what be wants in the interests of the Territories. As far as that goes we have got a very good example if we need it. I admit that we have not been in the habit of going across the floor to get ex-
2025	MARCH 25, 1901	2026
amples. I grant you that we have never been quite so hard up as to have to go around looking to gentlemen opposite for examples for what we ought to do ; but I do say that we could go for an, example to tihe member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) who asks from this parliament for his constituents, what this resolution, in principle, asks from the mother country for the Dominion of Canada. We are told by gentlemen opposite that it was disloyal to ask England, disloyal to ask Her late lamented Majesty Queen Victoria, or our present noble King Edward VII., to give anything in return for the preference we give them. But, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) does not say that it is disloyal to this parliament to ask us to give to the. North-west Territories something in return for what he alleges they gave us. I believe, Sir, that the reasoning which I have endeavoured to follow in this respect will be the reasoning which will be followed by the people of Canada when next they get the chance, and .that they will expect the Eanadian government to do business with the mother land upon terms which are just and fair to the people of the Dominion. I have heard it argued in this debate that Mr. Chamberlain, representing the English people. will not allow us to do a certain thing, and therefore it is out of the question for us to try and do it. Well, does any gentleman in this House believe that Mr. Chamberlain will desist from trying to get the treaties he wants with Germany or Russia because some man who is interested in trying to dissuade him simply tells Mr. Chamberlain that he cannot get these treaties. He is on the other side of the contract. Where is the astuteness and the business ability of this cabinet ? When they go to England to make a deal with Mr. Chamberlain, they can only come back and tell us : It is true,* we went there to get something in return for this advantage which we are giving to the mother country, and they gave us a Cobden medal, which we will lay on the Table, if necessary, and let you see it. Even if Mr. Chamberlain did regard that as a fair return, that is no reason why we should not go on and try to get just compensation for this country for the great advantages which we are giving to the mother land.
I want to deal for one minute with one or two things which have been said in the course of this debate, because they do not strike me as being correct, and my constituents would blame me if I sat .silent and allowed such tilings to be said without rising to contradict them. It was said by the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) the other night, that the charge of inconsistency against this government might well be laid by some people. 1 suppose he says that in politeness, instead of using the stronger word which we might apply, and say they might be charged with bad faith.
But he censured the hon. member for Pictou for laying the charge of inconsistency against them. That is the way hon. gentlemen oposite try to get rid of the main question in this debate. They take the ground that some one now supporting the opposition did wrong, and, therefore, no accusation of wrong-doing should be laid against the government. I submit that it is the government who are on their trial, and not the opposition. The opposition are not to be blamed for the sins of the government ; and because the government are fairly chargeable with inconsistency, it is no answer to say to the individual making the charge : Six or eight or ten years ago you made a different statement, when, perhaps, the individual was not in the House at all. That is not the kind of argument which I think ought to prevail in this House.
Of course, I am influenced a good deal by the learned lecture which the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) gave, us, being a new member like himself, and not very much older than he is. He gave us a long discourse of twenty-live minutes or half an hour about our duty in conducting this debate. I have no doubt that if we could nil do, as he said, stick to the question strictly, we would be able to get along better than we do. But, the hon. gentleman made some remarks about the farmers of this country and the preference to England which I cannot allow to go unchallenged, as I represent a good many farmers, some 4,000 or 5,000 having voted in my constituency in the last election. He said the farmers did not mind the loss of a few paltry hundreds of thousands of dollars. I suppose lie believes that the possession of the Cob-den medal is worth that much to them, and was a full compensation for their loss on account of this so-called preference to England. Well, he must be speaking for the farmers of South Wellington alone. I wish it to be understood that his remarks do not apply to the farmers of the constituency I represent. Although they are not stingy men, who insist on the last dollar in a business transaction, still they believe 'in doing business on business principles ; and if the government undertakes to do business for them, they expect them to bring back something better than a paltry medal. I do not doubt that the farmers ol' South Wellington are just as intelligent and as able to elect representatives as the farmers of m.v constituency. I am not insinuating for a moment that they are not. But. I do say. that when the hon. member for South Wellington made that remark, I believe he had not consulted the farmers of his own county, and when he goes home and explains it to them, if he can, he will get their orders not to make a remark like that again.
The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell i told us the other day that there was no life in this opposition. The opposition do not mind any little jokes being made at their

expense, but these things get into ' Hansard,' and into the public press, and are read seriously, and lor that reason we do not like them to be said. The hon. gentleman said also that this opposition had no practical head on its shoulders. Well, it seems to me the hon. member had better ask himself again, who has been doing the practical business in this parliament since February 6 ? He had better look through ' Hansard ' and see who has initiated the legislation, and he will find that on nearly every question of public importance the opposition has taken the initiative, and the government has opposed, and has afterwards given in, as they did on the binder twine question. When hon. members opposite make assertions of this kind, which are not based on the facts, but are mere bluff, I warn them, be they young members or old ones, there will always be a member on this side ready to get up and point out what the actual facts are.
Now I wish to speak for a moment in regard to the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). The other night that hon. gentleman declared that he was a protectionist in theory and in practice, if he could get the practice. Well, the practice is on this side of the House, aud when the vote is taken on this question, I should think he would stand up and vote with us, and get the benefit of the practice of protection as well as the theory. He sits behind this government, and he declared at the end of his speech that he was going to vote with the government ; yet, he is a protectionist, and he thinks this government is a revenue tariff government. The hon. gentleman declared himself to be a protectionist, and he knows that we on this side of the House have been consistent protectionists ; he knows we are protectionists to-day, as we always have been, and he knows that our record has been to carry out, when in power, the pledges and promises we have made when out of jjower.
The hon. gentleman said that although he is a protectionist he will vote against this resolution. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not the way to convince new members-if I may be allowed to speak for the new members- upon this side as to what their duty is. We would prefer to take the advice of the hon. gentleman who moved this resolution, and state in clean cut language what we mean, and if what we mean is the same as what is expressed in this resolution, then vote for it. I have no faith in the man who says : I do not believe in a free trade or a revenue tariff, and I do believe in protection, but as this resolution, which meets my views in favour of protection, does not come from my side of the House I cannot support it. I will vote for a thing I do not believe in and against that which I do believe in, in order to be upon the same side as the government. If this is the sort of argument used in the hopes of convincing this House-


Edward Arthur Lancaster: and I see no reason why we should debate in this House at all, unless in the hope of convincing some of those who differ from us that we are right and they are wrong- if that is the sort of argument to which the hon. gentleman from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) resorts, let me tell him that he will have to adopt an altogether different style of tactics, if he expects to convince us that when we want protection we must not vote for the resolution which proposes that policy.
Let me now, Mr. Speaker, discuss for a moment the question of British preference-as explained by the government. In his budget speech, the hon. the Finance Minister said that we could not obtain from Great Britain the preference we wanted now, but that when we could get such a preference we will have it. It is no doubt not very difficult to understand that when we can get a thing we will have it. Any school boy would know that when we can get a thing which is good for us, we will very likely take it. Yet that was the summing up of this great policy of the government, as I understood the Finance Minister. We cannot obtain a preference because Mr. Chamberlain will not give it to us, but we are in hopes that by saying to him, we do not want it and are not going to make any row, if we do not get it, he will end by giving it to us, and as soon as he will give it to us, we will have it. That is the sum and substance of the Finance Minister's programme.
Well, what is the other side of the question ? We, on this side, say: We can have it if we show the British government that we are entitled to get it and are resolved to get it. We contend that we can get it if we argue our case fairly, and that we could have got it, instead of the Cobden medal, had the right hon. gentleman asked for it. But the right hon. gentleman, not only did not ask for it, but declared- that he would uot. The people of this Dominion to-day, however, are asking for it; and in reply to this demand, hon. gentlemen opposite say it would be a good thing to get, but we will make no effort to get it. I suppose we ought to give them some credit for not saying that such a preference would be a curse and for not imagining that the people are so gullible as to suppose that it would be a serious injury to get something so evidently to our advantage. If there is an independent man on the government benches, if there is a man not hide-bound in his politics, if any gentlemen on the other side are still susceptible to reason, why not, in the name of common sense, vote for the resolution o-f the leader of the opposition ? What matter whether the resolution comes from a Grit or a Tory, if it be in the interests of the country ? Surely, in this parliament, the highest deliberative body in the country, we should do business on business principles just as it would be done in some school section or some little factory employ-

ing not more than ten men. We might then expect to have Canada obtain the same justice as any other country would, for 1 do not believe there is any other country which deals with Great Britain in this waygetting nothing in return for something substantial given. There is no country in the world dealing with Great Britain or with Canada which does not insist on a quid pro quo for what it gives. In fact the argument of the government simply amounts to this:	We do not know how to do this
thing, you think you can do it, but we will not even ask you to assist us. On the contrary, we will declare that it is not in the interests of the country to do it because we do not know how. That is the whole sum and substance of their position. I would appeal to these lion, gentlemen opposite to take a more patriotic course, a more loyal course to Canada, and support this resolution. Let them do as they did with regard to binder twine, in which they admitted we had got the best of them. Let them hedge before it is too late and support this resolution, and we will have a unanimous vote. The position taken by the government is simply a declaration of incompetence, and inability to do the first piece of business they ought to have applied themselves to, one which they have been professing to deal with for some years, and which they claim to have at their finger ends. Yet they have accomplished nothing and will not even try to accomplish anything. Because forsooth public men on the other side of the Atlantic say we cannot get what we desire, they say we will not worry them with trying to get it, and lay ourselves open to the charge of not being loyal. But has England ever accused her subjects of being disloyal because they did their duty to those who put their trust in them ? Does King Edward expect us to deceive the people who have entrusted us with the administration of their affairs in order that we may show him that we are loyal ? Would he not, on the contrary, prefer that the government should show its loyalty by carrying out the trust reposed in it ? Would the most loyal man in England blame the parliament of the Dominion for asserting its right in a legitimate and proper way ? The argument that it would not be loyal to ask from England anything more than we are getting is childish in the extreme.
The right lion, the First Minister drew a very pathetic picture. He depicted the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) going to England and talking to the workingmen and asking them for a preference, and he depicted their replying to the hon. the leader of the opposition:	If we do this thing for
you. what are you going to give us in return ? And the leader of the opposition would reply:	Oh, as we are protectionists
people, you must not expect us to give you anything. But did not the right hon. gentleman, by this very illustration, convict
himself of wrong-doing. Because what did he say when he went to the workingmen in England and gave them this preference in our market ? Die} he ask them for anything in return ? He points out that the English workingmen would want something in return for what he gave us. But did the right hon. gentleman ask Mr. Chamberlain what he was going to give in return for this preference ? No, he came away with the (Jobden medal and that satisfied him.
But if this matter were put before Great Britain as it should be, if the right and justice of our case were made out, we would accomplish one of two things. We w'ould either get a preference in return for that which we give, or we would be perfectly within our rights in withdrawing the preference we have given, and thus show that we are not children and fools. I do not wish to detain the House longer, as I know there are a great many hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House who wish to speak. But as I have said at the beginning, 1 could not allow- some of the statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite to pass unchallenged. I could not sit in silence-my constituents would blame me if I had, I say, sat here in silence-while things were said which they no more than I could give assent to.
Before sitting down. I must touch upon one matter referred to by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil)-touched upon by that hon. gentleman very improperly and indiscreetly, it seems to me, touched upon in order to make the most capital he could for the premier of the government which he follows in this House. In a speech devoted to questions of race and religion, brought in under the excuse of being allowed to wander far afield and not stick to the question of the budget, which is before the House, he appealed to every one on the floor of the House to witness that all here were proud of the Prime Minister. If he means to speak of the Prime Minister in his individual capacity. I have nothing to say against the hon. gentleman's remarks. But if he meant, as I understood him to mean, that every one was proud of the Prime Minister in his official capacity, then I feel it my duty to my constituents to say that I am not proud of the Prime Minister nor are my constituents proud of him. And why are we not proud of him ? Because, Mr. Speaker, he had it in his power, occupying the position he does, at a most prosperous time and at a time when Canada filled a large place in the eyes of the people of the empire-not because of anything that he had done, but because he was fortunate enofigh to be the premier of the country at the time when the fruit was ripe which had been sowed long before he knew how to reap it-to do honour to his country and to secure great benefit to his country, yet he showed that he was not fit to be trusted with the affairs of the country. Because, when he was in England he did not try

to secure the bargain for a preference with Great Britain, as he might have done, but he has shown that, since 1896, he has led a government that care not a whit for the carrying out of their promises, but are ready to appeal to the people to put them into power, promising that they will effect certain changes, and, when they attain power, care nothing about fulfilling their promises. When we go to the country, to sweep the country as we did in 1878, these lion, gentlemen hope to be able to tell the people that no objection was made to the things they have done-like this old story about the expenditure to which they say no one has objected. They would be very glad to be able to say that the hon. member for Bona-venture had called the whole House to witness that all were proud of the Prime Minister as a public man, and nobody in the House contradicted him. It is for this reason that I am obliged, unpleasant as it may be, to speak out for the grand old county of Lincoln and Niagara, and to declare that we are not all proud of the premier in his official capacity. We are not proud of a premier who promised to reduce the expenditure, who promised to reduce the public debt, who promised to reduce the number of cabinet ministers, but increased them all, who promised to do everything he could think of to catch a few votes, thinking that the people who had begun to say : ' We might as well have a change anyhow,' could be won by these promises to give him their votes, and that if he got into power he would not be obliged to redeem them. And, worst of all, being trusted a second time with power- for the people of Canada are a good-natured people, and they said : Well, the government slipped by the way-side once, but we will give them another chance-he has not even respect enough for the people to tell the people what their policy is going to be. It must be either because they know that the people will not believe them, or because they have no policy, and have been only waiting until the leader of the opposition should give them one that they can do business with. I think the Minister of Finance has given us a good hint. He does not give the opposition credit for pointing the way. But, in a couple of years he will say : Lo, and behold-as the premier said- we now have the same old policy as we had in 1878 ; the leader of the opposition has approved, and so have all his followers, and we will give it to you; now, gentlemen of the Dominion of Canada, voters and electors why not return ns again to power ?- the combined wisdom of the opposition could not suggest any better policy than this we offer you, for here is the resolution that they proposed in 1901 ; we have acted upon that policy, we have got a preference with Great Britain, and you ought to return us to power, because we have given you the Mr. LANCASTER.	'
policy that the opposition wanted to give you in 1901 and which we then opposed.


Mr. JAMBS  J.@: HUGHES (King's P.E.I.) Mr. Speaker, not being accustomed to public speaking either in or out of parliament, I rise with more than ordinary diffidence, perhaps more than ordinary nervousness, to address this House for the first time, hut I presume that the House will give to me that measure of generosity and kindness and forebearance that, I believe, it always extends to members who speak under similar circumstances. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) who has just taken his seat, seems to have some grievance against the government, because he says he does not know what the policy of the government is. The government has been in power four or live years, and surely the hon. gentleman has intelligence enough to know what the policy of the government was in that time -and the Finance Minister, in his budget speech the other day, said there would be no change in the policy of the government, and I presume that the hon. gentleman, if lie was present on that occasion, must have heard the Finance Minister making that statement. The hon. gentleman seems also to have a grievance against the people of Canada because tliey returned this government to power on November 7 last. That is unfortunate for the hon. gentleman, but the people generally have their way in these tilings. I understand that the hon. gentleman is the representative of Niagara. I presume he has lived for many years near the great falls, and, perhaps, the roar and rush of those mighty waters may have influenced his style of public speaking. It did not strike me that the hon. gentleman said anything new upon the question, or anything specific that I am obliged to answer specifically. In the few remarks I am to make, in a general way, I presume, an answer will be found to anything he has said. Now, during the progress of this debate I have obtained some information. I have found, amongst other things, that tlie opposition do not agree with the government oil a great many points. I also found that the opposition do not agree among themselves on a great many points. And I think I have also learned that, generally speaking, or at least, on a good many occasions, each member of the opposition managed to disagree with himself. But, while there was this great divergence of opinion, there were some points upon which we all agreed-Liberal and Conservative, government and opposition-namely, that the country was eminetly prosperous, and that in the last few years the development of the trade of the country was something really wonderful, and'far greater than at any previous time in the country's history. And I noticed that the government was under the impression that they deserved some little credit for some share of this pros-
perity, but the opposition were not inclined to give them credit for anything at all ; on the contrary, they seemed to think that if it were not that this government was in power the prosperity might be greater. It seems to be a cardinal doctrine of the opposition that governments have much to do with the development or retardation of the country. These hon. gentlemen admit that the country has been progressing, and that the trade of the country has been greatly developed ; but, they say : It has been due to Providence and the Canadian people. They seem to think that when the Conservatives are in power Providence and the people can take a rest, because the Conservatives will attend to all things terrestrial.
The opposition say that the present administration have increased the taxation and expenditure of the country, and have increased the public debt. In regard to the increase of taxation, the Finance Minister clearly showed in his budget speech that the reduction of taxation on importations of last year alone was upwards of $3,000,000. The hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), I think it was said that that amount was too high, and he went into a long and somewhat elaborate calculation, comparing the tariff of the present administration for a series of years with the tariff of the late administration for another series of years. He made, I think, a somewhat unfair comparison in that way ; but at all events he was compelled to admit that the reduction in the taxation was about $2,000,000. The hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith), also speaking from the side of the opposition, figured out that in the Post Office Department the reduction in taxation last year was $1,000,000 ; so that, according to two hon. gentlemen opposite, the reduction in taxation last year was at least $3,000,000. That was a reduction which perhaps was not quite as large as we would wish to see on this side of the House, but at all events it was a pretty good reduction in the taxation of this country.
Now, in regard to the public debt, hon. gentlemen have figured it out that the increase during the present administration has been $7,000,000. But if yon compare that increase in four years with the increase in the public debt of $6,500,000 a year during the time the Conservative party were in power, the increase of $7,000,000 in four years would only be half a million dollars more than for each year of the previous administration. The Minister of Trade and Commerce speaking the other evening upon this question, showed that for this increase in the debt Canada had received valuable consideration. For the $3,500,000 that was given in the subsidy to the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, Canada had received ample returns in the coal lands, which alone more than equalled the whole amount of the subsidy, while the trade that the building of that road has developed had already yielded
in customs and excise duties an amount nearly or quite sufficient to recoup the treasury for that sum, not to speak at all of the advantage secured to the people of the North-west by a reduction in the freight rates, which is said to be worth $700,000 or $800,000 a year. In addition Canada lias secured running rights over that road for any railways it may build. Now, there was another $1,500,000 well expended in sending troops from this country to South Africa, another $1,000,000 was the discount on the 2J per cent loan which the Finance Minister "floated in London, and which was purely money well expended, because it established for ever .the 24 per cent rate. The hon. Minister could easily have floated a 3 per cent loan at a premium, and thus have added nothing to the public debt, but the transaction would not have been nearly so good a one for Canada, so that altogether we have $6,000,000 of expenditure for which Canada has received ample return. Now with regard to the public expenditure, the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), replying to the Finance Minister on the budget speech, complained that this government had enormously increased the rate of expenditure. In order that there may he no doubt about what he said, I will read his words :
It is, of course, only natural that our expenditure should increase as our trade increases, but this increase in expenditure is far outrunning any increase in revenue, and there is not the slightest attempt on the part of the government or any member of it to keep our expenditure within our means.
Now, I take exception to that statement, although I do so with some degree of hesitation, in view of the great reputation of that hon. gentleman as a financier, hut I think that statement is entirely contrary to facts. The increase in the rate of expenditure under the present administration is practically the same as it was under the previous administration, and under any government that is in power in this country, no matter whether Liberals or Conservatives, the expenditure is bound to increase as the country develops. I think it was the hon. senior member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper), who, speaking some years ago, stated that the expenditure of this country must necessarily increase. I say that while the trade of the country is developing, the rate of increase in expenditure under the present administration is practically what it was under the previous administration, while the net revenue under the present administration increased about three and a half times faster than under ihe previous administration. I understand that the hon. gentleman from Toronto is director in a large railway corporation. Suppose that he could go before his shareholders at an annual meeting and show that while the business of the company had largely increased, while the net revenue of the company had

largely increased, still the expenses of management had been practically what they were under the previous board of directors ; that the expenditure had been practically what it was before while the increase in revenue had beep three and a half times greater, I want to know if that hon. gentleman would not expect a vote of thanks from the shareholders of the company. The present government, I think, have received from the people of Canada a vote of thanks at the last general elections for the way they had administered the finances of this country during the previous four years.
Some members from the great province of Ontario have asked what this government have done for the farmers, what they have done to find better markets for tbe produce of this country. Now, Sir, allow me to read some figures which will show what has been done under the present administration for the farmers of this country :



[Stage Direction]
Butter	
Cheese	
Eggs	
Bacon and hams	
Animals and their produce (total)	
Apples	
Fruits	
Wheat	
Flour	
Total grain	
Agricultural products ..
Total provisions	
Manufactures	
Exports the produce of Canada	
1896.	1900.
$ 1,052,089	$ 5,122,156
13,956,871	19,856,324
807,086	1,457,902
4,381,968	12,758,025
36,507,641	56,148,807
1,416,470	2,578,233
1,716,278	3,305,662
5,771,521	11,995,488
718,433	2,791,885
8,096,808	18,057,233
14,083,361	. 27,516,609
21,200,808	40,063,218
9,365,384	14,224,287
109,915,337	170,642,369
In regard to apples, the hon. member for Wentworth said that for ten or fifteen years past the apple growers of Ontario had been trying to get the government to do something for tbe apple export trade, and they could get nothing until they applied to the present Minister of Agriculture, who was the first to try to do anything for the apple exporters of Ontario. The statement which I have given is my answer to the hon. gentlemen who have asked on some former occasions what the present government have done for the manufacturers and producers of Canada in order to obtain and develop markets for them.
Now. in regard to preferential trade matters about which we have heard a great deal and about which a great deal was-said during the last election, it appears, according to hon. gentlemen opposite, that it is a very easy matter to get the British government to put a duty on com, meat and other products of large importation into that country. The hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) in, speaking upon this question the other evening, pretended to think that it was an easy matter to have this thing settled. In a very short space of time he fixed up a tariff, that, to his mind, would not only. suit Canada but Great Britain
Mr. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.)
and the other parts of the British Empire. He fixed this matter up, settled It to his own satisfaction and he then, in fancy, took a trip to the commonwealth of Australia. He arranged matters there for the commonwealth of Australia and then, having some more work to do he transported himielf, in fancy, to the old country and showed the effete statesmen of that country what they needed for the mother land. He told them that it was a very easy matter to put a duty on corn and other foodstuffs going into that country, because, as he said, tliis duty would not increase the price to the consumer in Great Britain, but that at the same time it would increase the price of these articles to the producers in Canada. I have heard that the magicians of old were men that could do wonderful things, but I do not believe they could do anything so wonderful as that which the hon. member for West York proposes when he says that Great Britain could put a, duty on, articles from Canada going into that country that Would not increase the price, but which at the same time would give the producers in Canada an increased price. The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), not to be outdone in anything that was going on, rose in his place and showed that'he had a goat of his own that he was going to ride or die in the attempt. He became severe with some of the bad men who were preventing him from buying the railway systems and steamship lines for $2, and he was going to show the people how they could be made rich by taxing themselves. In order to show how easy he could explain all these matters he threw off a few ideas of abstract wisdom, and in winding up the matter he said that tbe United States, a highly protective country, are driving free trade England out of the markets of the world in the manufacture of iron and steel. He drew from that the conclusion that it was because of protection that the United States were enabled to manufacture iron and steel cheaper than free trade England. Did it not strike that hon. gentleman that if the United States were able to manufacture these metals cheaper than England it was because of 'their great natural advantages ? Canada is not a highy protective country as compared with the United States, and we have heard upon the highest authority that Canada can manufacture iron and steel for §6 a ton less than the United States. It would appear to me that if the hon. member for East York had taken the trouble to examine this question he would not have said that it was because of tbe protection that the United States have given these industries that they have achieved such great results but that it is because of the great natural advantages that they can manufacture cheaper. For the very same reason Canada can manufacture these articles cheaper. But, the hon. member for East York was going to make another arrangement. He is

strongly in favour of repealing the preferential tariff altogether, or of making it as lie says, more equitable, and I include with him in this position on this question the toon, member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). These hon. gentlemen say that because of a preferential tariff, as it at present exists, and because of the reduction of 33i per cent on textile fabrics and woollen goods the woollen mills of the country are to be closed up. The hon. member for East York said that for a preferential trade arrangement with Great Britain he was willing to increase the preference to 50 per cent. If the woollen mills cannot stand the present competition, what would become of them it it were increased to 50 per cent ? And I dare say the hon. gentleman would even he willing to add, say 10 or 15 per cent more, in order to strike a bargain ? If the woollen mills are going to be closed up because of the present preference, I suppose they would flourish If it were to be increased to 50 or 60 per cent ? This is the kind of argument that hon. gentlemen opposite address to the House. I was nearly forgetting the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. -Clancy). He appeared to have made a discovery in the remarks that he addressed to the House. He said that the government were taking credit to themselves. because, as a result of giving the preferential tariff to Great Britain, exporters of goods to this country, similar to those manufactured in Great Britain, were obliged to bring the price down to the amount of the preference and he entirely controverted that position. He said that it would never operate in that way at all.*' Am I right in making that statement ?
James Clancy: The hon. gentleman asks if he is right in making the statement that I entirely controverted it. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman.
He has figured it out to his owu satisfaction that the preference to Great Britain only amounts to thirty-five one hundredths of one per cent, but he and his friends say in the same breath that the Prime Minister went to England and gave away valuable concessions and got absolutely nothing in return. I leave it to gentlemen opposite to settle these inconsistencies and contradictions among themselves. I again come back to the statement made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) that the preference the present government gives Great Britain does not reduce the price of similar articles coming into this country from other countries, while on the other hand he tells us that if Great Britain put a duty upon corn and wool and meat and other products going into her markets and gave Canada a preference, then every other country sending similar articles into Great Britain would have to come down to the extent of the preference.


James Clancy: That was not it.
Mr. HUGHES (P.E.I.) Oh, yes, that was it.


James Clancy: I endeavoured to point out that the class of goods imported from other countries to this country were of a different kind, although they may be classified the same, and therefore could not come into competition; and that other countries had separate fields from Great Britain. There are two distinct fields, as the hon. gentleman knows, and therefore they cannot come into competition.
Mr. HUGHES (P.E.I.) The remarks of the hon. gentleman are on record and any person can read them. He may wish to make an explanation now, hut we all know what he said the other evening. Some hon. gentlemen opposite have asked what the present administration have done.


Mr. HUGHES (P.E.I.).: Then, I am stating the case correctly as far as he is concerned. A little later on he said that if we had a preference with England and England would put a duty on corn, meat and other products coining from Canada it would not increase the price of these articles because all other countries exporting similar articles to Britain would have to come down in the price equal to the preference to Canada. It would appear, therefore, that the laws of trade and commerce would work one way in Canada, and in directly an opposite way in Great Britain.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman quite misunderstood me. It has been pointed out that we send a mere fraction, and must always send a mere fraction of the bread-stuffs to England, and therefore the greater must bear the burden instead of the smaller. That is the distinction.
Mr. HUGHES (P.E.I.) The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) is very strong in fractions.


James Clancy: I never asked that.
Mr. HUGHES (P.E.I.) Well, I can tell the hon. gentleman that this government since it came into power have made very great improvements and developments in the Post Office Department; they have reorganized and rejuvenated the militia of this country; they have extended the Intercolonial Railway into Montreal, and, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) said the other day, they have turned a dead railway into a live one; they have provided cold storage and transportation facilities so that the immense exports of products from this country have become possible; they have provided such facilities that the fruit and other perishable products of Canada at the Paris exposition were able to carry off the lion's share of the prizes in competition with the whole world. This government have done a great many other things since they have been in power, and I belfeve they have fully satisfied the

people of Canada. I suppose tliey do not claim that they possess all the wisdom of the earth. They are not infallible or impeccable, but they are at least an earnest, honest, patriotic, progressive body of men who are giving their time and the best of wliat is in them for the true development of our country, and the people of Canada appreciate it. Well, Sir, some of these gentlemen opposite have been rehearsing- their campaign speeches, and we were told'by the hon. member from Wentworth (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member from West York (Mr. Wallace) and others, that the miserable and disreputable race cry that was started in the province of Quebec last year, had some considerable influence upon the elections. I do not know what influence the race cry may lnive had, but 1 want to say that that miserable and disreputable race cry was started in a very small corner of the province of Quebec, namely in the Star newspaper office in Montreal. Perhaps it had no influence in the province of Ontario, I hope it had none, but hon. gentlemen opposite are the best judges of the effect which the race and religious cry was expressly intended to have there. Now, Sir, as to the amendment before the House. In the words of an eminent authority, the language is delightfully vague. It says :
That, in the opinion of this House, the welfare of this country reqiures a pronounced policy of adequate protection and encouragement at all times to the labour, agricultural, manufacturing, mining and other industrial interests of Canada.
That, in the opinion of this House, the adoption of a policy of mutual trade preference within the empire would prove of great benefit to the mother country and to the colonies, and would greatly promote the prosperity, unity and progress of the empire as a whole, and that the present time, when the Commonwealth of Australia is laying the foundation of its fiscal system, is particularly opportune for taking prompt and energetic steps towards the furtherance of this object.
So there is to be high protection for the manufacturers, free trade for the farmers; riches for everybody, everything you want and if there is anything you want and do not see all you have to do Is to ask for It.
This House is further of opinion that equivalent or adequate duties should be imposed by Canada upon the products and manufactures of countries not within the empire in all cases where such countries fail to admit Canadian products and manufactures upon fair terms, and that the government should take for this purpose all such available measures as may be found necessary.
When the leader of the opposition was speaking to this part of the resolution, he declared that he would not approve of bringing it into effect against the United States and, of course, it does not apply to Great Britain, or any paid: of the empire. Therefore, as 87 per cent of our whole trade is with Great Britain and the United States, this part of the resolution would be prac-Mr. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.)
tically a dead letter. It would appear as if the resolution has been so worded that hon, gentlemen opposite can go throughout the country and take whatever meaning they like out of it. It is the hope of these hon. gentlemen that all those who are in distress and oppressed with difficulty, and under any affliction of mind may gather around the leader of the opposition and that he may become their prince in the cave of Adullam, and in this way he may perhaps gather around him a party sufficiently strong to some time in the distant future return him to power. For the reasons I have given, Mr. Speaker, and for many many others, I am a supporter of the present administration. I am both an old Liberal and a new Liberal, because I do not think there is any difference between the two. The hon. member from Toronto (Mr. Brock) told us that the Conservatives were not ashamed of anything in their past history. He is a very fortunate man indeed who has no skeleton in the family cupboard. I do not think that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) has been a close reader of political events in the years 1891 and 1873 and 1849, or else he would know, that if all the skeletons in the political cupboards of the Conservative party were revealed, they would astonish even the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). For the reasons I have given I am a supporter of the Liberal party, and I shall be obliged to vote against the amendment. I thank you. Mr. Speaker, and hon. members for their patient hearing.


Mr.   I@: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose, at this stage of the debate, to go into the figures connected with the budget. They have been elaborately dealt with by members on both sides of the House. I wish merely to confine myself to a few observations which have occurred to me as I listened to the debate, which I followed most patiently and carefully. The most striking feature of the debate, so far as I have been able to see, has been the declaration on the part of a number of Liberals, that while they are free traders in theory, they are still'willing to support protection in practice. I must say that I have listened with regret to many declarations on the part of Liberals that they are willing to accept a protective tariff.
Now, it seems to me that if there is one thing which is desirable in this country at the present time, it is that we should get down to clear definitions. I think it is particularly desirable that we should have a distinct and authoritative statement as to whether the tariff which we have is a protective tariff or a tariff for revenue only. I think. Sir-and I am sure that you and lion, members will agree with me-that it is not a good thing, either in the interest of the country or in our own interest, that we should either practice any deception on the
country or allow any deception to be practised on ourselves. Either this tariff is a protective tariff or it is a tariff for revenue only. My own conviction is that the tariff has not been scaled down to the point of a revenue tariff. I may say that this tariff question was discussed very elaborately in my constituency during an exciting campaign which was waged there previous to the election. Some speakers contended that the tariff had been scaled down to a revenue basis, and that the government, in revising the tariff in 1897, had wiped out entirely the element of protection. The position I took at that time was this. I gave to my audiences three statements with regard to the tariff. I quoted the statement which was frequently made by the Hon. Geo. E. Foster, who, as you know, was the financial critic of the opposition during the last parliament, that the total reduction in the tariff made by this government amounted to 71-100ths of 1 per cent. I merely gave his statement for what it was worth. Mr. *Joseph Martin, a Liberal of rugged independence, a very prominent figure in this country, and one who occupied a prominent position in this House, made the statement at a public meeting in Winnipeg some years ago, that the reductions in the tariff amounted to less than 1 per cent. I gave that statement for what it was worth. Then, I remember listening to a speech which my hon. friend the present Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) made in the city of Winnipeg a little over a year ago, in which he made the claim, if my memory serves me correctly-and he will correct me if I do not present the actual fact-that the reduction had been 21 per cent on the tariff, or 10 per cent if you bring it to cash. Therefore, I said there were three statements with regard to the tariff-the first by a Conservative, the second by a Liberal, and the third by a member of this government. Now, I put the matter in this way-and I think hon. members will agree that it was perfectly fair ; I think the country at least expected, from the ante-election pledges of the Liberal party, and from the Ottawa platform, that if we did not get free trade as they have it in England, which my right hon. friend the leader of the government declared to be his own ideal, we would, at , any rate, get a tariff for revenue only. The question then arose, what is a tariff for revenue only ? Under the administration of the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, we had what I think the country regarded as a tariff for revenue only. That tariff, as you know, was a 174 per cent tariff. In 1878 when the Liberal government of the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie was defeated and the Conservatives came into power, they inaugurated what was known as the national policy, and imposed a tariff which has generally been regarded as averaging 35 per cent. If we were to get a purely revenue
tariff, I think the popular expectation' was that we should get a 171 per cent tariff. Instead of that, if you accept the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Customs -and we will take his statement, and disregard those of Mr. Foster and Mr. Martin -we have a tariff of 324 per cent.
Therefore, what the country and this House have to consider is this : Is a reduction of 2J per cent a wiping out of the element of protection from the tariff ? Now,
I may frankly say that I do not consider that it is ; and, as I said at the outset, I believe if there is one thing desirable in the country at the present time, it is perfect frankness in regard to this matter. Either we have a revenue tariff or we have a protective tariff. I have never been disposed to be hypercritical of the government with regard to the reduction of the tariff. We had conditions established in the country extending over a priod of twenty years; we had industries in full operation, which had grown up under the protective tariff, and it was not reasonable to expect the government to wipe out the tariff, or even to cut it down at one swoop to 171 per cent which was Mackenzie's revenue tariff. Therefore, I was never disposed to he hypercritical of the policy the government adopted ; and when the Finance Minister, in 1897, at the time the revision was made, warned the manufacturers that eternal vigilance would be the price of protection, and when he gave the country clearly to understand that there would be a general scaling down of the customs duties from time to time, I may say that as a western man I was disposed to accept that. I was disappointed, however, when the tariff was announced, for we had reason to expect mat the duties would have been taken off agricultural implements and coal oil, and other necessities of the farmers. But, the country was in a very kindly mood, and was very generously disposed towards the government, and, as the people felt that there would be a scaling down of the duties from time to time, as intimated by the Minister of Finance, they were disposed to be satisfied. Even in the west, where the disappointment with regard to the tariff was very severe, the people were disposed to treat the government with the utmost generosity.
But what is the position now ? I remember very well my hon. friend the Minister of Customs, in that speech to which I have referred, turning to the vast audience in the city of Winnipeg and drawing their attention to the reduction of 2i per cent and asking them if they wex-e not now satisfied. Let me recall also the statement made by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) in his speech at Perth, in which he said, that the tariff was a settled question and had been taken out of the list of issues in this country. And, during my campaign, I was able to quote a statement

made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Parte) at a. banquet in Valleyfield, where he assured the cotton kings that the tariff would not be interfered with. Therefore we may reasonably conclude that the settled policy of this government seems to be stability of tariff.
This session we hoped to 'have the duty on coal oil wiped out. That was one of the great issues during the last four or five years when the Liberal party was in opposition. That duty was' made to do service on every Liberal platform from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the people of the Northwest had reason to expect that this very high duty would be removed.
Prom what I could learn, I feared that this session the former duty on lumber would have been reimposed, and X. listened with great regret to the remarks of the bon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) on that point. If there is one thing in the North-west which we need it Is lumber. There are no pine forests in that country, and we have to get our lumber from, Ontario or Minnesota, and if the duty were reimposed it would inflict great hardship on our people, who require a great deal of lumber in building granaries and stables and sheds to protect their cattle and horses in the very severe weather.
As far as I can judge, we are more likely to have the tariff raised than lowered, and if such he the case, I would like to sound a warning note to the Liberals of this country. I think it is fair to assume that, owing to the educative campaign which was conducted for twenty years prior to iSP6, at -least one-half of our people have been converted to the idea of free trade or at least a tariff for revenue only. But, we have to-day the spectacle of the Liberal party being gradually led -along the path of high duties with a prospect of being ultimately delivered right into the fold of protection, body and boots. If that be the case, a warning note ought to be sounded. I believe that the great mass of the Liberal party in this country is sound on this tariff question. I do not believe that the people want protection, and it seems to me that official Liberalism stands in this position : The voice is the voice of free trade Jacob, but the hands are the hands of protective Esau.
I like to toe perfectly frank. I think it is desirable that we should call a spade a spade, and if our present policy tariff be a protective tariff-and I believe it is-and if a protective tariff was toad for twenty years before 1896, it is equally toad at present. So far as I aim concerned, representing a large constituency in the west, I hope that I will he given grace to raise my voice from time to time against the protective tariff. Exotic industries not indigenous to the country at all are protected by huge bounties. But the farmer is protected in no way whatever. The question of the duty on wheat


Robert Lorne Richardson: was brought up to-night. One hon. member wanted to know if the hon. member for West Assinlboia (Mr. Scott) was willing to agree to the abrogation of the duty on wheat. Well, as far a-s I am concerned, I would be perfectly satisfied to have the duty -taken off wheat altogether, and I believe so would the farmers of the west. The Ministers of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and Customs (Mr. Paterson) will recall that when they conducted an inquiry with regard to the operation of the tariff, in the council chamber at Winnipeg, -a large deputation of farmers from all over the province appeared before them and declared in favour of taking off the duty on wheat. The people of the west do not desire protection. but if you are going to protect these industries in the east-the iron and coal industries-toy giving thorn bounties, I would like to put in a plea for a bounty to the farmers of the North-west on -growing their wheat.
The future of Canada lies in its vast plains to the west, and unless you make the conditions of that country such that the settlers will he able to procure their necessaries cheaply, you are not going to promote the success of that country as you should.
I am no prophet, but I think those hon. gentlemen who have traversed our western plains, will agree with me that in probably a decade, the balance of power in Canada will be vested in- that country. I remember well when the right hon. leader of the government was wont to make strong pleas in behalf of that country. I am disposed to believe that his heart still beats in sympathy with the people of the North-west, and I would appeal to him to-night not to allow the protective idea to prevail in our tariff.
Something is due to the North-west, if we desire -that country to succeed as it should. And in that connection I would urge a plea against the introduction of too many European immigrants into that country. We have on the plains sufficient now of these foreign immigrants. Land is becoming scarce, such as we have in Manitoba. and we -can well afford to hold these fertile plains for our own sons. Let us put there the best classes of people we can procure, people with broad ideas, people with good blood, people in whom we have confidence. Let us settle these people on the plains, and then we will have a population that will assist instead of retard us in our progress, a population which will be able to exercise intelligence in the politics of -this 'Country and work along the right lines when the time comes for them to receive the franchise.
Now, although not strictly germane to -this question in view of the great latitude that has been allowed in this debate, I would like to say this-that I think it would be desirable to have the government enunciate a clear policy with regard to railway bonus-ing, the construction of railways and the ex-
[DOT]2045

tension of our canals. Take, for instance, | tlie Trent Valley canal, into which, I think, some seven or eight millions of the country's money has been poured In past years. Let me remind my Liberal friends in this House that for all these years they contended against that expenditure as one utterly use-1 less, and now we are going on pouring further millions into that enterprise. I think that is a mistake. We have now expended on our canal system some eighty millions of dollars; and thoughtful men who have studied the question of transportation in this country, I think, will agree that that money has, to a very large extent, been wasted. I do not think that our canal sys-tern has been satisfactory; I do not think there are any set of men in this country today who have a clear and intelligent view as to what the aim should be with regard to the canal system. I would appeal to the House, that, before spending more money, a definite scheme should be formulated so that at least we may cease to expend millions uselessly on the canals. As to the question of railway bonusing, I think that public opinion in this country is growing so strong, that in recent months if not in recent years feeling against this system has so increased that the people will not justify the giving of one dollar further of bonuses to any railway company, more especially in the settled districts of Canada. I think we should allow it to be understood that Canada has reached the stage when a franchise to construct a road is valuable even without a bonus. I do not think we should go further in paying for the railroads of this country and handing them over to exploiters to tax us heavily under the head of freight rates.
I would like to say one word with regard to the public expenditures of Canada. I may be accused of being a cheese-parer, but I am quite willing to be so classed. There was not a declaration of the Liberal party in which I more heartily acquiesced than that made by the Hon. Mr. Mills and endorsed by the hon. premier and also by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies). If you put us in power, said these hon. gentlemen prior to 1896, we will be able to reduce the amount charged for running the machine by two or three-and I think they went as far as to say four or five-millions of dollars. I think they were perfectly sincere in that. In discussing this question with a Liberal friend the other day, he said: 'Mr. Richardson, I do not think this country wants any reform, I do not think the people desire It; what they want is a liberal expenditure of money, and, for my part I have come to the conclusion that it is scarcely worth while trying to advocate any reform in this country.' If that proposition is true, it is an appaling one, and one that every member should take into serious consideration. It may be that our
friends who sit on the treasury benches have come to the conclusion that they would not make the mistakes that Mackenzie made-if they were mistakes-and that the country desires a lavish expenditure of money. If they have conscientiously reached that conclusion, I think it is most unfortunate. I believe that we can save not merely three or four or five millions in the public expenditure, but possibly seven or eight millions. I believe that the departments are loaded up far beyond the necessities of the public service, and I believe that all along the line great savings could be effected. I believe, further, that in this time of prosperity, when Providence has smiled upon us- (I do not attribute good times to the action of the government, though I would not like to deprive the government of any credit due to them in facilitating the matter so far as in them lies)-now that we are having these years of plenty, we ought to take serious stock of our affairs and endeavour, as far as possible, to curtail the public expenditure and reduce the public debt. I believe the time will come, and come soon, when we shall not have as good times as we have now, and instead of large surpluses- on the possession of which I congratuate the country-we will have to face deficits. And it is well, in view of these possibilities, that we should exercise great economy in running our affairs. I believe with ex-President Cleveland that public office Is a public trust. To my mind no statesman or philosopher ever made a better declaration than that. Without lecturing the House, I think we should get our minds fairly seized of that idea. And if the members of the government were fairly seized of that idea, I believe greater care would be exercised with regard to the distribution of bonuses and with regard to expenditures generally. I believe that the distribution of these bonuses is one of the causes, perhaps the principal cause, of the corruption that prevails throughout the country at the present day. I am not prepared to say that corruption is especially due to the operations of the Liberals or operations of the Conservatives ; both parties are to my mind equally blameworthy. All men who are fair-minded know that corruption exists to a very large extent at the present time. I think it would be the duty of public men to put an effective veto on corruption. I do not see anything higher they could do in the interest of humanity than that corruption should be wiped out as far as possible.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Where is it ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: If the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Ross) does not know that there is corruption in this country, it would be quite useless for me to attempt to enlighten him. I say that, inasmuch an

these bonuses are the greatest sources, in my estimation, of corruption, I believe that the sooner we stop them and the sooner the government secures control of the railways and of transportation, the better it will be in the best interests of the country. For, after all, the loss of a few hundreds of thousands of dollars, in my opinion, is nothing compared with the demoralization of the people.
Now, I am sure lion, gentlemen will realize, in view of the statements that I have made, that it will be impossible for me to support the amendment. The amendment calls for adequate protection to our industries. I think our so-called industries have been protected entirely too much, and the period of protection has been already too long. I believe the time has come not merely for lopping away the mouldering branches, hut for stripping the tree comparatively bare. I believe that most of these industries should stand upon their own feet without protection, and, believing so, I find it impossible to support the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition. I am not here to say that I think free trade is possible in Canada at the present. I believe, that for a long time to come at least, it will be necessary to raise our revenue by tariff duties.
My hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) made to-night what I think was a very convincing argument, when he quoted the figures of the revenue received under the 85 per cent protective tariff on agricultural implements which prevailed prior to 1894, and the figures of the revenue received under the tariff revised by the Conservative party in 1894, that is, when the duties were reduced on agricultural implements from 35 per cent to 20 per cent. My hon. friend was able to show that the revenue increased five or ten times, I think ; anyway, to an enormous extent. I was going to suggest to him that he would have made his argument even stronger had he taken the year 1899 instead of 1900. He shakes his head, probably he knows, having gone over the figures. The reason why I think the argument would have been stronger if taken from 1899 is, that last year, as hon. gentlemen know, we had a very serious crop failure in Manitoba, and there was a much smaller purchase of agricultural implements for that reason. I believe that had he taken 1899 he would have been able to make a better comparison. However, his comparison was sufficient to satisfy me and to satisfy all hon. members in this House that you can gather more revenue out of a lower tariff than from a high one; that you make nothing out of a protective tariff, you simply put money into the pockets of the manufacturers instead of into the public exchequer. This argument reminded me of the language I used to hear from the leader of the House in the Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
old days, and which appealed to me especially as a young man, who was sitting at the feet of Gamaliel and receiving lessons with regard to protection and free trade. I may say that so far as my own view goes, I stand by the position which I have held for the last fifteen or twenty years with regard to the tariff. As a western man I do not see how I could take any other position, because if there is one thing that the country requires, it is to have the duties lowered or wiped out altogether from the necessaries of the settlers.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to speak this evening to a very thin House, as I see that a good many members are absent. Now, Sir, I think it would be well, if we really are the servants of the people, that our masters should send spotters to this House to see how their servants are attending to their duties, because I notice many seats on both sides of the House are empty. I think that is not what we get our indemnity for. I do not wish to be critical, I do not wish to be hard on the members that are absent, because they cannot hear me. I have sat here since this House opened, and I have noticed a great many times that the ministerial benches were occupied either by the Prime Minister or the Finance Minister ; one of them is always in his seat, more often the Prime Minister. Now, if I have said anything that will induce a member to be in his seat regularly, I think I have accomplished something. As regards the question before the House, I do not suppose I can throw much light upon it. I must say, however, after listening to the discussion from both sides of the House, that it has turned more often on something else than either the budget or the amendment. The question has been discussed at great length from the political standpoint, and I think the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) is the only member that has spoken this evening from the Independent standpoint. I think it is my duty to take the same line. I was, as you know, elected an independent, and I intend to pursue that course as long as I sit in this House. I will support any government as long as they bring down good measures ; as long as they are truthful, faithful and honest to this country I will support them.
Now, this question of the budget is a very difficult thing, perhaps, for a farmer to undertake to criticise. But if I criticise it at all it will be from the farmer's standpoint. You know that politics run very high in this country, they say there is more politics in Canada to the square inch than in any other country in the world, and I believe it. I was at a threshing bee some years ago, and I am going to tell you what I heard. I see it is in order to tell stories in this House, to talk religion, to do almost anything, so I will tell you a story showing
the condition of politics in the section of country in which 1 live. Two farmers, both ol' them intelligent men, were discussing politics-there were over a dozen of us present. The two men grew quite warm over it, very warm indeed, and one of them broke out in language something like
this : ' The Tories may all go to 

' he
meant Hades, but he said another place- into the place where his Satanic majesty resides, 1 believe. The other gentleman replied : ' There is one thing certain, there will be no Grits in heaven.' I came to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I would remain an Independent, because heaven was not made in vain, and the Independents will be there sure.
Now, there are a number of things in the budget that I think are all right. There are some things, perhaps, in the amendment that may be all right; but I have been a free trader for over fifty years, and 1 cannot swallow the high protective duty in that amendment. I say this much, as I admire many of the actions of the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, for I believe they are in earnest, I believe they are trying to do as their constituents told them to do ; but when they advocate a high protective tariff, which means that the farmers of this country will have to pay higher for everything that they require, and probably get less for everything they raise, then I am sure I cannot possibly follow them. Then, they say that they are opposed to the preferential tariff with Great Britain. On that question I have my ideas. I stop and think of what happened in years gone by. I always thought that the Conservative party were the most loyal party we had. I thought they were true, and especially true to the mother country, but when I find that they stand out so strongly against the preferential tariff, I exclaim : ' Oh, how my idol is shattered.'
I am sorry for one reason that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Bichard Cartwright) is not in his seat. He is getting old now like myself and it requires an active, smart, able, young man to fill that position because he has to look out markets for us. I am sorry, and I think he is sorry too, that he made a speech five years ago when he said that the office which he now holds, and to which he was about to be promoted, was of no use whatever, in fact, that it was like the fifth wheel to the coach. Further, he said, that if we raised more than $38,000,000 it would be a disgrace and a shame. I am reminded that the Psalmist said : ' Oh. that mine enemy would write a book.' The hon. gentleman's political foes say, ' Oh, that mine enemy would make a speech.' because it comes back on him and tells with great force against him. As far as the budget is concerned, it is a very difficult matter. If the Independents of this House were in power we would find it perhaps very diffi-65
cult to arrange so that we could make both ends meet or come out within half a million of dollars of doing so. We would perhaps have as much difficulty as the members of the government have. However, we would bo in hopes that we would have the balance on the right side of the ledger and have something more instead of having a deficit. We would rather have a favourable balance, but, we believe that it is the duty of the government to raise as much as they require to meet the expenditure of the country and that when they raise more money which is not required it seems to me that they should do what every good farmer would do, who had a mortgage on his farm. He would not go and spend the money on finery or on furniture. He would pay off the mortgage, but, instead of that we find that the government, in the last four or five years have added about $7,000,000 to the public debt. It seems to me that the government should at least live within their income and pay off something of the national debt. That is what I believe should be done with the surplus. However, they have thought otherwise. As far as this question of trade is concerned, I may say that those hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who are asking for increased protection, who advocate high duties on everything that is manufactured in this country, and who propose to prevent British goods coming in here in order to protect people who are engaged in business, take a position with which I do not agree. Of course, we do not blame hon. members who represent urban constituencies and are endeavouring to please their constituents, but, on the other hand, those of us who represent rural constituencies will not be justified in going back to their constituents and telling them that they have advocated a high protective tariff. I do not see how they can square themselves with their constituents. What does a high protective tariff mean ? It means that some few men are going to become immensely rich while the rest of us are immensely poor. If you cannot get a sufficient number of specimens of this class of people in our own country you only have to cross the border and you will find millionaires and multi-millionaires whose wealth is the result of protection. Carnegie does not know what to do with his money. He is bringing some of it to Ottawa. He does not know what to do with the money he has made out of the farmers and out of the fools in the United States. There are hundreds of men like him and it is all brought about by high protection in that country. We have been following here in the same footsteps. Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House want to continue in his footsteps.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Jabel Robinson: An hon. gentleman says ' hear, hear.' Well, he is not a farmer ; he does not have to pay for it. Now, wo are told that this government had



the largest surplus that was ever produced in Canada. According to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), this is not the largest, and I have not heard his statement contradicted. I was expecting to hear it contradicted on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Pictou most emphatically says that there have been greater sur-. pluses under some other governments than under the present government. However,
I will leave that for you to settle amongst yourselves. I am quite content that the government should hare a deficit in the post office. If the government have acted in any one way that is beneficial to this country it is the way In which the post office has been conducted. They have reduced the postage in Canada, and we all know how cheap postage encourages trade. I am satisfied the government are justified in doing it. As far as sending soldiers to South Africa is concerned, I am sure the country will endorse the expenditure of public money for that service. It has given us an advertisement and has shown to Great Britain where the hearts of Canadians lie. In regard to the tariff it was expected, and I was expecting it myself, that when this government came into power they would surely carry out the pledges they had given to us. and I would tell hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that if you were tomorrow to change places, it is quite possible that you may not be able to carry out aU the things you are saying in opposition. I notice that I have the attention of the House and I thank hon. gentlemen very much for it. I am afraid I am wearying you.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Jabel Robinson: I was in hopes that the government would carry out their free trade policy, but it seems that they found it almost impossible to do so. I have no doubt that they did the very best they could. But, if they do not carry out their policy and if they continue in the course of extravagance in expenditure and in the appointing of unnecessary officials, they will be sure to hear from somebody on this side of the House. Why, Sir, I have heard, and it is more than hearsay, that when the Conservatives were on the Treasury benches for eighteen years they appointed seventeen supporters of theirs from this House to offices of emolument.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Jabel Robinson: You gentlemen over there laugh about that, but I find from the record that the present government have only been five years in power and they have appointed twelve of their friends from the House of Commons to office, so they went the Tories one better. It is a shame for any honourable man who is elected to serve for five years in this parliament to go begging and sneaking around Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).
the ministers to ask an office. It is a worse disgrace for the members than for the government which appoints them. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope that will not occur again.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Jabel Robinson: I do not pose as a critic generally, but I say what I think and I am not ashamed of it, and I am not afraid to meet any man, and you need not be if you do what is right. I just thought that this government when they promised so many things would have at least given to the farmers free coal oil. Coal oil is the farmers' electric light and the farmers' gas. He takes it in the morning to the barn to do his chores, and at night he burns it in his household. The mechanic, the labouring man, and the farmer use it, but the people of the cities care little about the price of coal oil, because they do not burn it. Now, five cents a gallon makes quite a big item to the farmer and we thought that this government would leave Mr. Rockefeller on one side and that we ' fellers' would get some help, but instead of that Rockefeller got it. I suppose there was some influence brought to bear upon the government, and that the monopolists were taken care of while the farmers got left. We thought that agricultural implements would be allowed in free, and although they were reduced to 20 per cent, still 20 per cent is quite a good deal from the farmers' point of view.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Who reduced that duty ?


Jabel Robinson: Not you. I hope you gentlemen will not catechise me because you put me out, and when I get done, you can speak as long and as fast as you like, but let me have a chance now. The average life of a binder is ten years. The first binder I purchased cost me $200, and the next $120. Capitalize the interest and see how much it costs a farmer for bis binders. Now if this money went into the treasury of the country it would not be so bad, but it goes into the pockets of men who form trusts and put up the price of binders on the farmers, and the government gets no revenue. Consequently the government should take some action in this matter especially for the benefit of these poor people who live on the prairies.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Jabel Robinson: You think I am making a point in your favour, but just wait a little until I get at you. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is nearly twelve o'clock and I must conclude.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Jabel Robinson: I am the only man in this House except the Prime

Minister that you gentlemen tell to go on and speak. When I came down here one gentleman said to me : You will have a very short session this time because all the long-winded fellows are left at home, but I find that we have got some long-winded men left, and all you have to do is to wind them up and they will go on as long as you like, and say very little when they have done. Now, Sir, I do not intend to give the government much advice. I am not going to wield the patronage in my county, and I would not if I had the privilege of doing it. Anyway, the government would not listen to me if I did give them advice, but if they expect to get the votes of the farmers of this country they have got to do as they promised to do. Let them, carry out their pledges. The government, of course, are only men like the rest of us and they are subject to influence if the right influence Is brought to bear upon them. When a man says he is above temptation I begin to think that he has not had sufficient offered to him. Perhaps the reason that I am honest is that 1 have not been tempted, and I do not expect that the government is going to tempt me. Now, Sir, while I have been sitting here for the last eight or nine days listening to this debate I have taken enough notes to fill half a bushel measure, but I cannot use them to-night, and as the budget will not be discussed again I think I had better keep them until next year's budget. There are several things here I would like to speak about. I am strongly opposed to the members of the government taking part in the elections, and you know that in the old country they do not allow a man who has a title to go on the stump and advise the people as to how they should vote. I should like to see the titled gentlemen in this country adopt that system, and if they did the people would have a great deal more respect for them. I noticed that all last week two of the ministers were missing, and it was quite a while before I found out where they were. I discovered at last that there were some public works to be erected away up in North Bruce, and of course they had to be looked after. Again, I found that the hon. member for West Prince, P.E.I. (Mr. Hackett) had a grievance, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries Hon. Sir Louis Davies) went down to look after that. I do not think that kind of thing is right. Just before the election in East Elgin the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was up there, and I am sorry he is not in his place because I do not like to say a word behind a man's back that I would not say before his face. The Minister of Public Works came up into our county with his jaunting car or some other car, and what for ? Well, to build a drill shed. Along about the 5th November he set to dig a hole in the ground and turned the sod with a silver shovel, and that kind of thing and the people became disgusted. Gentle-654
men, if you want to know why you lost East Elgin do not ask any more questions. It is too thin ; a great deal too thin ; it does not do. In the constituency I represent we have not got a five-cent piece of government money invested except it be a railway which last year you built parallel to another line and to which you gave $3,200 a mile. Unless you count that, I do not think my constituency has got a five-cent piece which the government have put into it. So we do not owe them anything ; and my constituents did not send them a supporter on that account, but they sent a man.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the House any further; it is within ten minutes of midnight. I know that the rules of the House do not permit me to move an adjournment; but I will give you my sentiments on this question :
That in the opinion of this House close trade relations between all the British colonies and the mother country would be the means of strengthening the empire, and that some system of fair trade, leading to freer trade, should be inaugurated ; that, in the meantime, all the infant industries of this country should be assisted until they are able to stand alone, but not after ; that all raw material used in manufactures shall be admitted free, as far as practicable- and I mean to include in that binders, which are part of the farmer's raw material ; that the revenue required for the expenditure of the country shall be raised on the luxuries of life as far as possible ; that 50 per cent instead of 33J per cent be taken off the duties on all kinds of British goods ; and that a reciprocal duty be placed against all other countries whenever it is not prejudicial to the best interests of this country.
Now, this is something of my own getting up ; I did not consult anybody as to this. But if I had an opportunity of moving an amendment, that is iwhat I would move.
I do not know that I should say any more, except to give you an illustration of what I mean by infant industries. There was a great big strapping boy, who had grown to be quite a big lad, and who had learned to swear before he was weaned. His mother had not weaned him for several reasons-I will not give them. His mother had company call one day. It was tony company, and she took them into the parlor. The boy was out playing in the mud and dirt, and he ran into the house where the mother was, and cried : ' Mother, I want some tit.' Mother said : ' Go away, you naughty boy ; what do you mean ?' He had learned to say bad words ; I suppose he had been playing with some Grit boys ; and he went in again more ferocious than before, and shouted : ' Mother, I must have some tit.' She said : ' You little dog, go away.' He persisted, and went in again and cried out to the mother : and that night he got such a spanking that he was weaned, and

[DOT]2056
never wanted any more ' tit.' So these infant industries are strong in comparison, but still they want * tit.' Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to close these remarks.


Mr. HACKETT.: May I ask the right hon. leader of the government if he will agree to the adjournment of the debate ? If so, I move that the debate be adjourned.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: There has been, I understand, a private agreement for the closing of the debate. For my part, I am quite willing to agree to the motion of njy hon. friend, but, I suppose, considering the number of gentlemen who want to speak, that it will not be possible to close the debate to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: I would have preferred, as far as I am personally concerned, that the debate should be closed to-morrow. If, however, it is the sense of the House that that cannot be done, of course I shall only have to submit. But, I think it is very desirable that it should be closed to-morrow, if it is at all possible.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not think it will be possible. It would be better to understand that it will close on Thursday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at midnight.

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 26, 1901.