Marcil, M.P., for Bagot, is residing in Acton Vale for the last forty years, and for thirty years he has been engaged in business, either as a clerk or as a merchant. He has consequently, opportunity of knowing every one in the locality. Mr. Marcil examined in our office the schedules of 1891, and has pointed out to us the names of those who had left the town of Acton Vale for the parish of St. Andre of Acton many years previous to the census of ten years ago.

These schedules, collected by the census officers in 1891, contained information entrusted to them by the people of Canada under the seal of confidence. But, for party purposes, they have been hawked about and exposed to the gaze of all and sundry, in order to discredit the census of 1891. It will not do for the government to leave this matter where it is. If there is to be an investigation, it will not do to have that investigation held by an officer of the government; it must be held by a commission of men whose reputation shall be beyond reproach or question. And not only the census of 1891 must be inquired into, but the census of 1901 also. And, indeed, in order to a thorough investigation, perhaps

the census of 1881 and the census of 1871, if investigated, might yield valuable information. But, after the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the facts revealed by him in that speech and in the papers laid upon the Table, nothing will satisfy the people but a searching inquiry into the census of 1891 and 1901 as well. It was not necessary for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to go as far as he did.

1 suppose these Star Chamber inquiries might have been made, perhaps are made frequently-and if the matter had been kept quiet, if it had not been so trumpeted abroad, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce had not been given this opportunity of showing his eloquence, his bitterness, and his capacity for going beyond all reasonable length in attacking his opponents, the present position need not have been reached. But the hon. minister has brought these matters forward deliberately; and I maintain that it is incumbent upon this administration to set at rest, as far as they can, this question as to the honesty of the enumerators, as to the motives that influenced the different administrations that held these censuses as to the instructions they gave their officers, as to the good faith in which the information, given in good faith by the people of Canada in these decennial censuses, has been received and treated. Now, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, apparently to serve his own purpose for the moment, discredits the census of 1891. He maintains that the number of the people returned by that census was altogether too high. The hon. gentleman knows-no man better-that the census of 1891 was taken under precisely the same conditions, precisely the same instructions to enumerators, as was the census of 1901, which has just been taken by the government of which the hon. gentleman is a member. More than that, the hon. member must know that, if there were any error at all, It was not likely to be found by searching through the census of 1891. If he remembers the debates in which he took part in the House of Commons from 1882 to 1885, he will remember that it was admitted at the time that the census of 1881 was, probably, largely inaccurate and represented the people of Canada as having a larger population than was actually living in Canada at the time. There can be no question about that. Not the census of 1891, but the census of 1881, was the census that was exaggerated-and, probably also the census of 1871. In the discussions engaged in by Mr. Blake and the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Kichard Cartwright), Mr.. Blake stated in most explicit language that the census of 1881 was stuffed largely with the names of people who had not been resident in Canada for ten, fifteen or twenty years. He states that most clearly in a discussion which took place in the House, in which he shows

tlie practice of the enumerators was to go to a house and say : ' Have you a son or

daughter V ' ' Are they in the States ? '

' Yes.' ' How long have they been there 1 ' ' Ten ' or ' fifteen ' or ' twenty years.' ' Do you expect them to return ? ' ' Oh, yes, I

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

At six o'clock the House took recess.

Mr. BELL.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. BELL.

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

Domestic servants come under three classes : 1st. Those who have homes within Canada from which they u,re temporarily absent ; 2. Those who have no homes at all in Canada ; 3rd. Those in settled employment and resident with families other than their own.

The instructions go on to describe how these are to be taken. The first class are to be taken with the families from which they are temporarily absent ; then the second and third class, those who have no homes at all in Canada except where they are living and finding employment, and those who are in settled employment and resident with

families other than their own, are to be taken with those families. In order to make the matter perfectly plain and eliminate error as much as possible, the census commissioner proceeds to give instructions to the enumerators :

Family, as understood for the purposes of the census, may consist of one person living alone, or of any number of persons living together under one roof, and having their food1 provided together. For example: One man, say a shopkeeper, or a woman, say a seamstress, living alone in a separate house, or in a distinctly separate part of a house, would constitute a census family; but any number of persons living together in a hoarding house, several of them being parents, having children and servants, would only constitute one census family, provide they have no home elsewhere.

So that by a careful description of the different classes under which the population would likely be found, and particularly of those that are liable to duplication, and by furnishing examples and instructions to the enumerators, every possible pains was taken to avoid duplication. Now what would be the results of such a course as that laid down here by the different census officials? It would be to introduce a system of taking the census which would eliminate errors which may have been committed in 1881, by which the census of 1881 may have been enlarged ; and in consequence, the system adopted by the government in 1891 was one that would reduce the number of people apparently residing in Canada, and instead of having the effect of showing a population larger than was actually here, it would come nearer to showing what the actual population of Canada was. Now, it must be borne in mind that the Inn. Minister of Trade and Commerce has made the charge, and has most deliberately made it, that a fraudulent census was taken, and in order to confirm what I said, I will quote his own words taken from his speech :

If they were capable, in a case where detection was almost certain, of perpetrating the gress and impudent frauds I have iust narrated, think you, they would hesitate to add here and there a man to the members of a family where detection was almost impossible. ,

There can be no question about the gravamen of the charge made by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. He has fortified his case with proof, or so-called proof. He said that in one case in the discussion which arose in the House of Commons in regard to the census of 1891 it had been charged that there was reason to believe that gross frauds were perpetrated in the county of King's, N.S., and that this matter was brought to the notice of the House by the member representing that county. He said : What did the government do ? They set every difficulty in the way of investigation. The fact of the case is that there was a fraud committed in the county of King's. There was sufficient evidence brought to show that one enumerator in King's had

probably falsified the census and had probably done it by neglecting, or ignoring, the instructions he had received not to enumerate any individuals who had been away from the province for twelve months. The Department of Agriculture which had charge of the taking of the census, investigated that charge and was sufficiently satisfied that it was thoroughly proved that the census enumerator would have been punished if he had not gone out of the country and thereby escaped the consequences of his act of wrong-doing. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce makes the charge deliberately that the government of the day opposed an inquiry. That is not sustained by any proof advanced by the hon. minister, but, it is, to my knowledge and belief, entirely opposed to the fact. A thorough investigation was made, and it is a matter of knowledge that the only fact upon which the hon. gentleman can rest his charge is that the census officer refused to allow these returns, which had come into his hands from the enumerators and which were regarded as confidential, to be submitted to the House, a course in which I think he was absolutely justified and one I would have very much preferred to see adopted by the government of the day rather than to take these confidential communications and submit them to the inspection of unauthorized and improper persons. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce went on to have a very pleasant quarter of an hour prefacing his remarks by this statement :

As it happens we are in possession of very perfect evidence as to the means they adopted for the purpose of glorifying the national policy.

I find that in 1891 the census of that day enumerated in Antigonish county seventy carpet factories with sixty-nine operatives, and the hon. gentleman indulged in a great deal of jocosity in connection with the fact that one individual was apparently running two factories. Now, in respect to this mat- * ter the hon. gentleman practically accuses the enumerators of having, for the purpose of glorifying the national policy and of vindicating the course which had been adopted by the Conservative administration in giving to Canada a protective policy, fraudulently filled up the census return with a list of industries which were not in existence. I regret very much that a minister and a gentleman in his position should make such a charge, because it is entirely at variance with the facts. The enumerators were instructed to take all the industries they found in the country within the limit fixed for them by their instructions, and they were to be guided by the Act and by the manual from which I have read which was made an Order in Council in order to make it binding upon them. They were to take every industry which they found in the country and which had an output of 830!) per annum. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, throughout his remarks,

seemd to contrast the United States census very favourably to that of Canada, and sought to give the impression to the House that the taking of such industries set down by the enumerators of Canada, carpet factories in Antigonish, knitting factories in Shelburne and basket factories in some other counties, is a practice not followed by the United States enumerators. The instructions given to the United States enumerators are precisely the same as in this country. They are instructed to take every industry they find but when they come to the matter of tabulation there is a difference. In the United States they do not tabulate any industry which has an output of less than $500, while in Canada with its comparatively less advanced development it is thought well to tabulate industries that have an annual output of $200. There is no harm in that. There is no deception in any way. It was not professed by each of these industries taken down by the enumerator represented a factory with a tall chimney, with a large number of employees and a large pay-list. The enumerators were careful to put down nothing but what was absolutely true in the enumeration of industries, and therefore, a more unwarranted use of the term fraud or fraudulent when applied to the facts collected by the enumerators of the census of 1891 was never used by any one particularly by any public man in this or any other country. I believe you will search the annals of parliamentary utterances the world over without finding a parallel for such an argument as was addressed to the House of Commons by a leading minister of the administration. But, the hon. gentleman says that this was for a purpose. The purpose was to glorify the national policy. The purpose was to grossly magnify the rate of progress made by Canada through the national policy. Well, if that hon. gentleman had taken the trouble to in. form himself or had not forgotten the facts that came to his knowledge when he discussed this matter years ago, he would have recollected that the theory was put forward by him at that time and was answered and utterly exploded. Instead of magnifying the advancement made by the country, instead of exaggerating the rate of progress made by the country under the national policy, the including of these small industries has the very opposite effect, as I shall proceed to prove to the House. I have already explained that in the United States the practice is to tabulate industries down to $500 of an annual output, and in this country down to $200. Now, taking the industries-I am now quoting from that invaluable third volume of the census from which the hon. gentleman derived so much comfort. I am referring to the total which will be found in the fourth volume, although the materials for it are found in the third volume. In 1SS1 the number of these Industries from $2,000 down, referring to their annual out-Mr. BELL.

put, was 32,072. In 1891 the number had increased to 50,777 from which it appears that the census of 1891 was not the first in which the practice was adopted of enumerating these smaller industries. The same practice had been followed as it necessarily would be under the same instructions in the census of 1881. Therefore, the government in 1881, two years after the Inauguration of the national policy, adopted this very same principle-and I believe it was in force in 1871 as well-by which all industries with an annual output of $200 or upwards would be included.

Under this heading of industries, with an output of $2,000 a year, there were in 1881, 32,072; and in 1891, 50,777; an increase of 18 per cent. The value of the produce of these factories had increased from $20,734,080 in 1881, to $32,195,192 in 1891. Of industries with an output of from $2,000 to $12,000 annually, there were 13,514 in 1881, and 19,029 in 1901; the annual output of these being $64,939,604 in 1881, and $93,260,957 in 1891.

Of industries with an output of from $12,000 to $25,000 per annum, there were 2,061 in 1881, and 2,679 in 1891. The annual output of these industries was $36,808,242 in 1881, and $47,709,005 in 1891.

Take the industries with an annual output of from $25,000 to $50,000, and there were 967 in 1881, which had increased to 1,208 iu 1891. The annual output of these factories was $33,482,170 in 1881, and $42,238,542 in 1891.

Take the large class of factories; the great industries that have been established and brought into existence by the national policy; the industries with an annual output of $50,000 and upwards, and of these factories there were 1,10S in 1881, and 1,675 iu 1891; the total output being $153,767,771 in 1881, and $260,795,190 in 1891.

If we take these for the purpose of comparison it will be seen at a glance that the effect of including all these small industries, which were so provocative of merriment to the Minister of Trade and Commerce; instead of showing a largely increased rate of progress and a greatly increased output; instead of glorifying the national policy, have the opposite effect. The inevitable result of that consideration is to show that there was no fraud in this matter; that it was not a new feature of the census of 1891; that it had been done in the census of 1881, and was done innocently in both cases, the census enumerators simply doing their duty according to their instructions and placing upon their schedules precisely the same information that is placed upon the schedules of the United States census, simply to show us the value of the annual work of those who may be classed as engaged in industrial occupations in Canada. In order to make the matter clearer, let us take the total increase of all the factories of all classes. In 1881, the

total output was $309,731,867, and in 1891 that had increased to $476,198,886. That includes all industries, and it includes these very industries against which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is so much opposed. That shows an increased output in Canada of $166,467,019 and a percentage of 53-74. Let us deduct all these small factories with an output of $200 annually and it will leave the production of these industries-exclusive of the smaller ones-at $288,997,787 in 1881, as against $444,003,694 in 1891, a difference in favour of the latter year of $155,005,907, or an increase of 53-63 per cent, almost identical with the increased percentage when we include the smaller factories. Deducting another class of factories and we bring down the total output to $224,058,183 in 1881 as against $350,742,737 in 1891, there is shown there an increase of $126,684,544, and a percentage increase of 56-4. But if you throw out all these small industries and take simply the great industries of the country, you will find that these factories which produced $50,000 a year and upwards, give us an increase of $107,027,419 in 1891 as compared with 1881, and that would show (for the glorification of the national policy and the justification of the administration of that day) a percentage increase in the industries of the country, not of 53 per cent, which would he secured by taking these fraudulent means charged against the government by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but a percentage of 69 '60 per cent.

The result of that investigation is to show that, if it were the intention of the government of that day to have committed a fraud in this matter, then the means that they adopted were such as to completely defeat their purpose. It is only fair to ask the hon. minister (Sir Richard Cartwright) to furnish us with some further and better evidence why he should ask us to make our minds that the census of 1891 was fraudulent, and also better evidence to establish his contention that there was an increase in the last five years under this government, equal to the increase which took place in Canada for the fifteen years previous.

As bearing upon that question, it happens that there are some figures which tend to show that the very opposite is the case. Instead of being apparent from any evidence that can be discovered that the increase of population was greater in Canada during the last five years, there is evidence to show that it was less; or at least, that the exodus to which tile Minister (Sir Richard Cartwright) attributes the loss of the population of this country, was in some respects greater in the last five years than it was during the other period. I read from a return which I think is authentic :

The question is often asked : Is the movement of our Canadian population to the United States increasing or decreasing.

That was precisely the question that was raised. The question whether or not the exodus is less or greater, will, I assume, show whether there is any ground of justification for the boast of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the whole progress of Canada during the last twenty-five years has been within the last five years, and that for fifteen years from 1881 onward to 1896, Canada has made no progress and has remained with her population stationary.

The state of Massachusetts takes a census on a comprehensive scale independent of the federal census. An analysis of the population statistics of the state of Massachusetts in combination with those of the Federal authorities for the same state supplies an answer to the question above asked (as to whether the exodus has increased or decreased) so far as relates to that state. The number of Canadians in Massachusetts in 1900 according to the Federal census (which is taken in the tens) was 293,169. In 1895, by the state census it was 243,732. In 1890, according to the national census, the number was 207,601, and in 1885 by the state census was 147,352. During the first five years, from 1885 to 1890, the number increased by 60,249 ; during the second period, from 1890 to 1895, by 36,131 ; and during the third period, from 1895 to 1900, by 49,437. In the first period Canadians went to the state of Massachusetts, according to the statistics of that state, at the rate of 12,050 a year ; in the cecond period, at the rate of 7,236 a year, and in the third period at the rate of 9,888 a year.

If these figures are right, there was a larger exodus from Canada to the state of Massachusetts iu the last five years ending with 1900 than there was in the preceding five years; and these happen to be the five years during which it is claimed by the members of the present government that there was practically no exodus, and during which Canada made greater growth than during the previous fifteen years. The result, while not conclusive, goes a long way to show to my mind that there is no foundation whatever for the statements made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce on this subject.

The hon. gentlemen apparently rely very largely for some kind of support for their statements on the fact that we have had good times in Canada in the last five years ; and for that reason they contend that the citizens of Canada had no need to go abroad. But there have been good times in the United States also during the past five years, perhaps better than there has been in Canada. Employment has been easily secured there, wages have been high, and the inducements offered to citizens of Canada to go to the United States have been if possible greater than they were before.

There is another point bearing on this matter which should not be lost sight of. The recovery from bad times comes earlier in the United States than it does in Canada, and the difference between periods of inflation and periods of depression is more

marked there than it is in this country. Oases have come within my own knowledge of sons and daughters returning to their homes in Canada to spend the lean years with their parents on the farm, and to wait until an improved state of affairs in the United States induces them to go abroad again. The mere fact that we have had good times In Canada is not sufficient to affect the exodus. Speakiug from my own experience -and I presume it will be borne out by that of nearly every person present-there has been a greater scarcity of labour, a greater difficulty in finding men, either for the farm or for railroad construction, during the past five years, than there was previously. It is well known too to almost every one that it is almost impossible to obtain a sufficient supply of domestic servants in this country. So that there is no evidence to sustain or to justify for one moment the amazing contention of the government that all the growth of population! between 1880 and 1900 is to be credited to the party in power. It is a monstrous proposition for which there is no warrant whatever.

The lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce quoted figures to show that the city of Toronto had a larger number of unoccupied houses four or five years ago than it has to-day. We all know that. But the argument borrowed from the experience of the city of Toronto is a perfectly fallacious one. There was a boom in that city some years ago, resulting in a temporary increase of population and the erection of a large number of houses. But the boom broke with the usual consequences. There was widespread loss, many men gave up buildings they had erected, losing them altogether, and a great many people who had been attracted to the city by the boom left. There can be no question that for a number of years there was a great depression in the city of Toronto. But that city is now gradually overtaking the excessive rate at which it advanced for a short time, and by a healthy natural growth the population has once more overtaken the supply of buildings, which accounts for the condition of affairs that exists there to-day.

But the Minister of Trade and Commerce is sure that there was an exodus, and he furnishes a reason which to my mind is conclusive. I believe there was a large exodus between 1881 and 1891. I do not accept many of the arguments of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but there was one which struck me as being most convincing. He said that from 1881 to 1891 he went backwards and forwards in the province of Ontario a great many times. He denounced the government of Canada, he cursed protection in all the moods and tenses. He preached to the people of Ontario that they were being ruined, bled white, that the government was in alliance with combinesters, that the whole thing was an M*. BELL. '

organized conspiracy to make the poor man poorer and the rich man richer. Is it not fair to conclude that when the hon gentleman spent his time in thus proving to the people of Ontario that this was a poor country to live in, that there was scarcely any security for life, and none for property in this country, he must have had considerable influence in driving the people of Ontario across the border ? If I had time, I would like, in support of the argument I have just advanced, to furnish the House with some of the speeches delivered by Sir Richard Cartwright on the stump at that time ; but I will quote a few words which he uttered in this House in 1885 in reply to the budget, shortly after the first minister of that day had been to London and had there urged the claims of Canada for a share of the emigration from the mother country. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, standing in his place as a critic of the administration said :

X doubt if the First Minister were well advised when he intimated that it was desirable that there should be a large immigration to Canada.

He goes on to say :

If many had come to Canada, even to Ontario-

Which he seemed to think the best part of Canada

-they would have found themselves in a position where they could only be provided for by displacing the native population.

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

In rebuttal of the hon. minister's statements, there is a host of facts. For in-

stance, there are the voters' lists. We find that the voters' lists in Canada showed :

In 1887

993,914 names.1891 1,132,201 "1895 1,353,735 "

In Ontario the voters' lists showed as follows :

In 1882

406,000 names.1887

495,000 "1891

568,000 "

Then this government came into power- this government which has so enormously added to our population and increased our prosperity-this government which has increased our population at the rate of 100,000 a year. Well, you will find that the voters' lists show just the opposite. They show a decline in population since that date. In 1895 there were 650,000 names on the Ontario lists. In 1898 this number had decreased to 576,000. That was the list prepared specially for the plebiscite on prohibition. And in 1900, at the last general election, the number of voters on the Ontario lists stood at 580,000. Where then were these hundreds of thousands who were pouring into Canada in order to swell our population and add to the glory of this government ? They are conspicuous by their absence. They are not to be found in the voters' lists, and I am sure that there is no place where these hon. gentlemen would better like to have them. Because had these hundreds of thousands been brought into the country undqr the happy circumstances that have prevailed since the advent of this government and been growing richer every day since owing to the wonderful administration of this wonderful government, they would certainly support the regime to which they owed then-good fortune, and our lion, friends opposite would have been very careful to see that their names were down on the voters' lists. But where are they 7 The voters' lists say no where.

Then going back to his old love, playing again the old tune he is unable to forget, the Minister of Trade and Commerce proceeded to magnify the United States at the expense of Canada. He compared the Dakotas and Minnesota with the province of Manitoba. Again I find that the hon. gentleman's figures do not correspond, as they should, wiith the official returns. According to him the Dakotas gained lzU,000 families from 1881 to 1891, or in all OuO,-000 people, allowing five to a family. But the official returns of the United States census show that the Dakotas, instead of gaining 600,000 in that period, only gained 376,000, or not very much more than one-half the figures given us by the hon. minister. The state of Minnesota he credited with a gain of 200,000 families or a million souls. But taking the figures from the United States census, I find that the actual increase of Minnesota in that period was from 780,000 to 1,301,003, or an increase of 521,103, just about half the amount given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On the other hand, Manitoba had increased from 62,000 to 152,000, the exact increase in the ten years being 90,246, or a percentage of 144 between 1881 to 1891.

I think I have said quite enough to show that we should hesitate considerably before accepting the figures given us by my hon. friend, and the conclusions based thereon. It is always possible for any of us to make mistakes, and it is quite easy to go wrong in figures, but I think that before a gentleman so prominent in the administration should venture to attack so important a document as the census of the country and openly charge thousands of his fellow citizens with deliberate fraud, perjury, connivance and conspiracy, he should endeavour to be at least accurate in his statements. I should hardly be| willing to accept as conclusive the statements of an lion, gentleman, based on statistics which fail so completely to correspond with the official returns.

The hon. gentleman was rather inclined to be jocose in the course of his speech, and toid a story rather at the expense of our hon. friend the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He said that he once had a vision, during which he passed through the different circles of Inferno, and that when passing through the circle reserved for faithless souls, he came to an apartment in which he found a number of figures hanging up in unaccustomed and extraordinary attitudes. They proved to be the souls of farmers who had believed in protection, and being too green to burn, were hung up there to prepare them for the furnace. I wonder if the hon. minister is to be rewarded, according to Dante's conception, by being placed in that circle destined for faithless souls. If he should come into that quarter of the Inferno, he will find there a number of figures hauging up in anything but comfortable attitudes, and will find out that these are the souls of the sons and daughters of the great province of Ontario who were so green as to believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he told them that, if returned to power, he would destroy the microbe of protection, drive out of the country the combinsters, revise the tariff and give the people all the commodities of life at prices free from the increases caused by the iniquitous protectionist system.

I well believe that that may be his experience ; and, if so, of all the tortures the hon. minister will suffer when he finds himself in that place reserved for faithless souls, souls that have violated the trust placed in them by confiding friends, his greatest torture will be the anguish, the appealing, pitiful expression, of those poor souls, men and women from Ontario, who will look upon him with eyes of reproach and say : You brought us hither ; I am that lady of Oxford

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

tion. That progress is admirable, it is what | we all wish to see ; and we should join hand in hand to make still greater the speed with | which our country is advancing to the front ' rank among the nations of the world.

Mr. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON (Cape j Breton).

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

I am like my hon. friend from Pictou in recognizing that, this discussion having gone on for upwards of a week, it is very difficult to contribute anything new to the debate. It is, therefore, my purpose not to delay the House long, but to be as brief as I can. I shall try to emulate the example of my hon. friend from Pictou and not inflict upon the House any large array of figures. We have had to listen to a considerable number of figures during the past week, and it will be my aim to give as few figures as I possibly can. With regard to the prosperity of the country, I think there are some evidences that it exists. Hon. members opposite invariably open their speeches by the admission that the country is prosperous, but almost invariably they conclude their speeches, like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, by asserting that the country is not prosperous. For my part I am satisfied to take the trade returns as a proof that there is prosperity in this country. It is not denied that trade during the past five or six years has increased tremendously, and relying upon the trade returns for the proof of my statement, I should not dwell at any greater length upon it.

Our hon. friends opposite, both in the House and outside of it, have had a good deal to say during the past five or six years with regard to the expenditure of public money in this country. We hear from day to day charges made against the government that the expenditure is growing. I am going to admit, if it is any consolation to my hon. friends opposite, that the expenditure is growing ; and for my part I am satisfied that the expenditure should keep on growing, provided always that we have good results from it. I take it that a young country like our own must, if its resources are to be developed, expend a good deal of money in their development, and for my part I am prepared to support a policy of a generous expenditure of public money throughout this country.

Hear, hear.

Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).

I am glad that my hon. friends opposite are prepared to support the policy of a generous expenditure of public money. I was saying that if the resources of this country are to be developed, an expenditure of public money is necessary. We have a great country to the west, stretching to the shores of the Pacific ocean, a country of marvellous resources ; and if that country is to be developed the government must be generous in the expenditure of public money for that purpose, but without forgetting at the same time the necessities of the older provinces. In the province from which 1 come we are not satisfied that the time has been reached when there should be no further expenditure for the development of its resources, and I think the general opinion throughout all parts of the Dominion is that

the time has not yet arrived when the expenditure of public money should be curtailed.

But while our friends opposite are profuse in their criticisms of this expenditure, they take very good care, both in the House and outside of it, not to particularize, not to single out any particular item to which they object. Now, Sir, if they expect their criticisms to have any weight it will be necessary for them to point out the particular items in the expenditure to which they object. I sat in this House during the whole of last session, and I do not now recollect that during the whole of that session our hon. friends opposite put themselves on record as opposed to any particular item in the expenditure made by this government. I say if they expect their criticisms to bear fruit and to be taken seriously by the people, they must point out the" items to which they object. That is the position which hon. members on the government side of the House will take, and that is the position which people generally throughout the country will expect the opposition to take.

We have been told that the public debt of this country has been increased. I am not going to deny that it has increased. But it has not been increased to any alarming extent, and I do not think that there is anybody in this country who seriously believes that the increase in the public debt during the past five years has been an alarming feature of the present administration. I think most people, when they calmly reflect upon the question, will conclude that the increase has been a very moderate one. If hon. gentlemen will compare the increase in the debt during the last five years with the increase during the period our hon. friends opposite were in power, they will find that the increase during the last five years has been very slow compared with that during the eighteen previous years. For every dollar that the present government lias added to the debt, they have added very largely to the trade of the country ; while for every dollar that the government supported by our friends opposite added to tlie debt, there was no corresponding increase in the trade of the country. The hon. member who has just taken his seat is not very hopeful it seems to me, of the conditions which obtain in this country. I am not disposed to agree with him that the situation in Canada to-day is without some hope. 1 am not disposed to agree with him that Canada lias not a bright future; or that we have any reason to expect that we should not witness a continuation of the prosperity which we are at present enjoying. For my part I would be sorry indeed to sound a note of alarm throughout the country at this particular time.

On the question of the tariff I shall have very little to say. I suppose I shall be expected to make my profession of faith on the question of the tariff, and I shall do

so by saying that I am perfectly satisfied that the present government will so adjust the tariff that it will meet with the requirements of every class in this country. It is somewhat diflicult, and has been difficult ever since 1896, to ascertain just what position our hon. friends opposite take upon the tariff question. It is not very easy to locate just where they stand on the subject. We all know that when the present Minister of Finance brought down his tariff resolutions in 1897, the leader of the opposition at that time declared that the tariff then brought down was destined to bring ruin to every industry in this country. Let me trouble the House while I read the declaration which was made on that occasion by the then leader of the opposition. He said :

The result is that this tariff goes into operation and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) knows that the industries of this country are already paralyzed in consequence. While hon. members opposite gloat over the destruction of Canadian industries, I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail of those industries in the Montreal 'Gazette,' where one manufacturer after another declared that those industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return of the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House, was in charge of the fiscal policy of the country. I ray that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.

I need not remind the House, and it is not necessary to remind the country, upon this occasion, how far from fulfilment that prediction of the then leader of the opposition fell. How did the industries of Canada suffer ? They did not suffer. They prospered as they never prospered before, but, when it was found that the industries had not suffered as the result of the tariff which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance brought down in 1897, there was then, in the House of Commons, as there was throughout the country, a claim set up by the Conservative party that the Liberal party had taken up the tariff of the government which had preceded them and that if prosperity had prevailed in this country since 1896 it was due entirely to the fact that the government had taken up the policy and followed in the footsteps of their predecessors. I have a distinct recollection of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) addressing this House the other evening and he went on to point out that if we did have any degree of prosperity since 1896, it was owing in no small degree to the fact that the government of the day were simply travelling in the footsteps of the government which preceded them and which went out in 1896. He went on to say that if there was any difference between the policy of the present government and the policy of that which preceded them, it was slight indeed, and that the difference simply amounted to 2 per cent. He went further and said that if you take the preference into consideration the difference be-

Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).

tween the two policies is less still. On the other hand, we had the declaration from some hon.- members on the other side of the House that the tariff of the present government is not satisfactory. They want a declaration of policy as to the tariff, and as I said when I commenced my observations in respect to this tariff matter, so far as I am concerned, I have some considerable difficulty in determining just exactly where our friends opposite and their followers throughout the country are on this question of the tariff.

There is one matter to which I propose addressing myself for a little while. It has become a fashionable tiling during the past few years and even this session in the House of Commons to assail the expenditure of money on the Intercolonial Railway. I propose for a few minutes to point out to this House and to the country that the expenditure of money on the Intercolonial Railway since 1896 has been in every respect justifiable. Need I remind the House that the condition of the Intercolonial Railway, when this government came into power in 1896, was entirely unsatisfactory to that portion of country through which the Intercolonial Railway runs ? I need not remind the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) that he was dissatisfied with the condition of the Intercolonial Railway in 1896.

I am sure that he will be the first to admit that so far as the portion of the province from which he comes is concerned, the Intercolonial Railway was not satisfactory to the people. I need not remind the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that to the constituency which he represents the Intercolonial Railway and its condition was unsatisfactory in 1896. From every constituency through which the Intercolonial Railway runs in the province of Nova Scotia there came the cry that it was not in the condition that a great railway ought to be in. The present Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) went to some trouble to ascertain the exact condition of the Intercolonial Railway and he went to some trouble to put the road in the state that we find it in to-day. We find the Intercolonial Railway to-day in a condition second to no road in Canada. Was the condition of the Intercolonial Railway in 1896 satisfactory to any person who was doing business with it ? Was the rolling stock satisfactory to the people of the country ? Was the freight service on the road satisfactory to the people ? Was the passenger service satisfactory ? I say most unhesitatingly, and, I think the opinion is universal, throughout the constituencies of this country through which the Intercolonial Railway passes, that not one of these services was satisfactory in 1896. I am glad to know that the condition which obtains to-day on the Intercolonial Railway is entirely different from that which existed in 1896. Have we the poor condition to-

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

Hear, hear.

Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).

It is quite true, aud I am not going to deny that it has cost money. But, there was no other way of bringing this condition of affairs about, but by the generous expenditure of money. That expenditure has been made and for my part, and I am speaking for the province of Nova Scotia, from which the hon. member for Pictou comes, and I speak for Nova Scotia because I have more knowledge of the situation as it affects the province, I will say that Nova Scotia is satisfied that the expenditure of money on the Intercolonial Railway since 1896 has not been an unjustifiable expenditure. It is quite true that the government is not making any money out of the operation of the Intercolonial Railway. I am freely admitting that it is so. I would prefer, and every hon. gentleman on this side of the House would prefer, that the Intercolonial Railway should be a money earner. Before I sit down I propose to point out that there are other services that are not money earners and yet we are content that they should be maintained at the expense of the people. The Intercolonial Railway, I regard as a part of the great transportation system of this country. It is an important link in the transportation system. It has a good deal to do with determining what the late of transportation shall be. And for my part I wish to say that I give my strict adherence to the doctrine that the government should continue to hold the Intercolonial Railway. It is not only important to the sections of the country through which it runs, but I take it that it is important to every section of this Dominion that the Intercolonial Railway should be owned and operated by the government of the country.

I regard the Intercolonial Railway as a necessary part of the great transportation

system of Canada, and I regard it further as a complement of our canal system. That, I do not think is an extravagant claim, and probably even the hon. gentlemen from Ontario on the other side of the House, who seem to take special delight in criticising the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway, will admit that claim. Let me remind the House that while we hear a great deal from hon. gentlemen opposite from the west, with respect of the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway we never hear their voices raised against the expenditure of public money on the canal system of Canada. Let it not be understood for a moment that I am in. any way opposed to justifiable expenditure on our canals. 1 am prepared to support a policy which will maintain the efficiency of our canal system, and even if it does cost money, as it does cost considerable money, and more money than it costs to operate the Intercolonial Railway, I, speaking for myself, (and I think I may safely say that I speak for other members who come from the lower provinces) will support and endorse any expenditure which is necessary to efficiently maintain our canals. I do not mean to be understood as saying that the time has arrived when the government of this country shall cease spending money on the Intercolonial Railway. On the contrary,

I believe that there is yet a good deal to be done in the matter of perfecting the service which that railway owes to the people of Canada. Let me remind my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) of the fact that there has been a considerable expenditure of money on the Intercolonial Railway in his county during the past year. It will be interesting for his constituents to know; it will be interesting for this House to know, whether that hon. gentleman joins with his political friends who surround him in condemnation of this expenditure. During the past year there has been considerable expenditure in connection with the Intercolonial Railway in the town of Stell-arton, and in the town of Westville, and in the town of Pictou, all in his own, constituency. In these places there has been a very generous expenditure of public money during the past year. I have no doubt that the constituents of the hon. gentleman will be interested to know whether he supports the contention of those friends of his who sit behind him and around him, and who condemn the expenditure of public money in this connection. I have no doubt that some day his constituents will be curious enough to assertain from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell), whether he opposes or endorses that outlay. He did not find it convenient to make a declaration on this question during his speech, but he must know that the matter is of considerable interest to those who returned him to this House, and no doubt before the session terminates the hon. gentleman will ventilate

Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).

the Intercolonial Railway is a part of the general transportation system of this country, and is a complement of our canal system. On the canals of this country there has been expended $81,404,543.98, and it has cost this country $16,985,997.66 to operate the canals. The revenue that the public treasury derived from these canals was $12,717,343, leaving a deficit of $4,268,254.65 as between the actual revenue and actual expense of operation. That is the exact position with respect to our canals. As I have said, I do not wish to be understood as finding fault in any way with this expenditure, and I repeat that I will willingly endorse any policy which has for its object the efficient maintenance of the canals. I take the five years previous to the coming into power of this government; that is from' 1892 to 1896; and I find that there was an average yearly deficit of $298,841 during that period, on the operation of our canals. I take the period from 1896 down to the present time, and I find that the annual average deficit was $238,655.10. That is a record which I think the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and which hon. members supporting the ministry have no reason whatever to be ashamed of. It is a record, Sir, which the people of this country are prepared to support comparing more than favourably with the record of the gentlemen who administered our canals and our x-ailways previous to 1896.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose passing on to another matter. The hon member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) in his address to the House a few evenings ago, made some observations respecting the county of Cape Breton, which I have the honour to represent in this House, and I propose to deal for a few minutes with that portion of the hon. member's speech. He ti-ied to prove that the great prosperity which had come to the county of Cape Breton during recent years was due entirely to the fiscal policy of the Conservative government. On that occasion I asked the hon. gentleman this question :

Does the hon. gentleman know what reason the president of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company gave as the chief cause that led to the establishment of the iron and steel industry in Cape Breton ?

The answer given by the hon. member for West Toronto was as follows

I presume the primary cause was the advantageous situation of Cape Breton to the raw material which enters into that industry and to its shiping facilities. But added to that primary cause was the bounty and the protection which was accorded to that industry by the Conservative government of Canada.

I added :

I would like to add that that is not in accordance with the statement made by the president of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, who ought to know.

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

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

X made no observation.

Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).

The statement was made, then, by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. He evidently did not know very much about it. I am pleased to know that the hon. leader of the opposition, who I am sure would know better, did not make the observation. Now, if we have to-day in the county of Cape Breton a magnificent iron and steel industry, it is not due to the reason advanced by the hon. member for AVest Toronto in this House a few evenings ago. In order to point out the true reasons, it is necessary for me to go back a few years. In 1891, and for a year or two afterwards, the coal trade in the county of Cape Breton was not in a very flourishing condition. As a consequence there was a good deal of discontent not only in Cape Breton, but throughout the province of Nova Scotia. The output of coal in the province in 1891 reached the highest figure that had been reached up to that time, being 1,849,945 tons. The following year, 1892, showed a very marked decrease, and in the year after, 1S93, a still further decrease-a decrease which alarmed the people of Cape Breton and the people of Nova Scotia generally. The output for that year had fallen to 1,485,924 tons. I have a very lively recollection of that time. The coal miners of Cape Breton were dissatisfied. For half the year they had no work. If they got work for four or five or six months, they considered themselves very fortunate indeed. A good deal of discontent prevailed everywhere throughout the country, and representations in reference to the matter were made to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), who was then leading the government of Nova Scotia. We were told by our Conservative friends previous to 1892 and 1893, and for that matter down to 1896, that the national policy was sufficient to develop the coal trade of this country. If my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, when he was approached at that time, had followed the example of the Conservative government, he would have said : 'You have the national policy, which is sufficient to develop the coal trade of the country and why should I be asked to interfere ? ' That is exactly What he would have said if he had followed the lines laid down by the gentlemen of the Conservative party. But he did not choose to do that. He entered into negotiations with certain gentlemen of the city of Bos-55}

ton and with the gentlemen who then owned and controlled the coal mines of Cape Breton. The result was the formation of the Dominion Coal Company. I may be asked why I am referring to this matter. My purpose is to point out the position taken by the Conservative party of Nova Scotia on the question, as to what has brought about the present flourishing state of affairs in Cape Breton to which the hon. member for West Toronto referred a few evenings ago.

I wish to show that the Conservative party in the province of Nova Scotia opposed the formation of the Dominion Coal Company.

I am not stating anything new, for it is well known that the Conservative party time and again opposed this measure in the legislative assembly at Halifax. They put themselves on record against it. They pointed out that the formation of the Dominion Coal Company would mean the abandonment of the coal fields of Nova Scotia, and particularly of Cape Breton, to American .speculators. AYell, Mr. Speaker, that prediction has fallen as far from fulfilment as have the predictions of the late leader of the opposition with regard to the tariff policy of this administration. The coal trade of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton did not suffer from the policy inaugurated by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. On the contrary, it has since prospered as it never did before in the history of the country. In 1893, just a year before the organization of the Dominion Coal Company, the output had fallen to 1,485,924 tons. Last year the output rose to 3,625,865 tons or more than double that of 1893. That is not a very bad record, and if the Minister of Finance were not here I would enlarge at much more considerable length on the advantages of the policy inaugurated by him. But let me simply say that it is one which will redound to his everlasting credit and which he succeeded in causing to be adopted against the most determined and strenuous opposition of the Conservative party.

I wish to refer now to the position taken by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) on this iron and steel industry. When asked what were the reasons which had brought about the establishment of this industry, he replied that no doubt it was the advantageous position of Cape Breton with regard to the raw material which enters into that industry and its shipping facilities. Let me say that during the eighteen years in which the Conservative party was in power, Cape Breton was just as near the raw material as she is to-day and the shipping facilities were just as good. There was a bounty on iron and steel for years previous to 1896. Did that bring about the establishment of the iron and steel industry in Cape Breton ? It did nothing of the kind. On the contrary, the position of Sydney was not as good perhaps in 1896 as it was some years previous. The hon. member for West Toronto said that the establish-

ment of this industry was also due to the bounty policy of the government. But that bounty was not a new thing. It was in existence under the late government. All these advantages then existed. The coal was just where it is now, the iron ore was there, the shipping facilities were there, all during these eighteen years of Conservative administration, but there was no iron or steel industry established. Let us come a little nearer the reasons which were important factors in the establishment of that industry. In the month of August, 1899, the mayor and council of the town of Sydney tendered Mr. Henry M. Whitney an address in the town hall. Mr. Whitney, in reply to that address, made the following observations : .

You have referred, Sir, to my connection with the mineral resources or Cape Breton, which I take to mean my connection with the Dominion Coal Company. It is now some six years ago that I first beheld your beautiful country, and then I came in connection with this1 enterprise. I was little aware at that time what the future had in store for me in connection with that undertaking. It has brought me many trials, many caros and few compensations. I saw in cc i sequence of the changing conditions of trade here and elsewhere and in the carrying out of the necessary programme oy which the trade might be extended and the men receive employment the year through, it had fallen to our lot to perform many an unpleasant duty and to receive more or less your criticism, but I believe now that everybody here will agree that the policy that was adopted by us was intended for good and has been for the greatest good of the greatest number, and now it can he shown that it is owing to that policy *hat we are now enabled to start this great enterprise. I hope that in your minds will be full justification for things that have been done in the past which did not meet the approval of you all.

That is what Mr. Whitney, who is the president of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company and also the Dominion Coal Company, said with respect to the establishment of the iron industry. And I have no doubt if the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) were in his seat, be would be glad to admit that be was mistaken in his view of the causes which brought about the establishment of this industry in the county of Cape Breton.

The organ of the Conservative party in the town of Sydney, at that time, made these comments on this address to Mr. Whitney :

Whatever commercial greatness is in store for Cape Breton it is due to his (Mr. Whitney's) initiative. Whatever progressive changes are taking place in this staid old town are due to his high capacity and potential energy.

That is the testimony given by the organ of the Conservative party in August, 1899, in the town of Sydney, and I am prepared to rest my case there. I have pointed out to you, Sir,-and I shall conclude my observations presently-that Nova Scotia has, during the past five or six years, in common with the rest of Canada, enjoyed a very general

Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).

measure of prosperity. Our coal resources, our iron resources and our agricultural resources are being developed as they never were before. And let me tell you, Sir, that the fishing industry is in better condition to-day in Cape Breton than it.was in 1896, when the present government took office. I have in my possession letters from people engaged in that industry, pointing out that the regulations enacted by the present government are far more satisfactory than were those governing this industry during the preceding years. As' I have said, Nova Scotia is enjoying to-day a very general measure of prosperity. In the county of Cape Breton there are public works, which were neglected before 1896, but which are now being actively prosecuted. I speak more particularly with reference to my own county of which I have personal knowledge. And I can say, without fear of being contradicted successfully that, in the county of Cape Breton there are public works that were neglected by the late government before 1896, notwithstanding that from 1878, in almost unbroken succession to that day, the county had given the government two members to support it. The government of this day has been generous in the matter of looking after the requirements of that constituency with respect to public works. It must not be supposed, however, that the list has been completed. We expect that attention to public works will continue in the future as in the past, and I have no doubt whatever that it will.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have about finished the discussion of the matters which I intended to discuss when I arose. I wished particularly to speak about the Intercolonial Railway. And, permit me to say to our hon. friends on the opposite side of the House that they should be a little more generous in their treatment of that road. While the record of the Intercolonial Railway in the matter of earning money is not as satisfactory as we could all wish to have it, for my part I am not alarmed. I think we may well have faith that the future has much better things in store for us with respect to this matter. I have no doubt that the next report of the Intercolonial Railway will show that the present year has been a far more prosperous one for the road than last year. As I have said, I want the Intercolonial Railway still further developed. In my constituency, I want a considerable amount spent on the railway to protect its terminals. The road has terminals at Sydney and at North Sydney, and we are not satisfied that those terminals should remain as they are. The importance of the harbour at Sydney and the future it has in store for it, make it necessary that the Intercolonial Railway should have more commodious terminals both at Sydney and at North Sydney than it has. And 1 take it that the government and the hon. Minister of Railways will regard In a

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

SPROtJLE (East Grey). Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) has treated the House to a somewhat lengthy dissertation upon the development of the coal mines, the iron mines, the fisheries and the Intercolonial Railway. How far these subjects might be allowed to be discussed, were you, Mi1. Speaker, to give a rigid interpretation to the rule that would confine the discussion to the amendment before the House, I would not like to be obliged to say. But in your generosity, you allowed the hon. gentleman to wander far afield. I do not regret it. All the hon. gentlemen who preceded the hon. member for Plctou have modelled their addresses upon similarly Liberal lines. We had some apprehensions as to the wisdom of moving our resolution so early in the debate, for fear that we might be confined by yourself, under the rules of the House, strictly to a discussion of that amendment, and not allowed to engage in the general criticism of a budget debate. But, remembering that a custom has been followed of moving the amendment eariy without, in practice, interfering' with the rights of members to travel over the whole domain of finance and the condition of the country, we felt that we might draw upon the patience of the House and not follow strictly the rule laid down. I trust that you will show the same liberality to me as you have shown to hon. members who have preceded me.

I shall say but little with regard to the criticism of the hon. member from Cape Breton. He said there were evidences of prosperity throughout the country generally. We on this side agree with the hon. gentleman in that. It is quite enough to be obliged to deal with subjects on which we disagree without taking up time with those in which we agree. The hon. gentleman declared that he believed in free expenditure of public money. The Minister' of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) will agree with him there, and so will any of his political friends. There will be no dispute on this point from the government side of the House, but there may be a large class of people in the country who will not quite agree with the hon. gentleman that the free expenditure of public money which has characterized the management of the public affairs for the last four or five years is the very best thing in the interests of the country. But I might remind the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton that when he speaks in this way he is very severe on the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) who, for eighteen years, with his stentorian voice, with his extreme adjectives and with the invective which is peculiar to himself. condemned this free expenditure of public money in the very strongest terms, moved resolutions against it-in which his party supported him. He declared that the expenditure was entirely too heavy, when it was more than $10,000,000 less than it is to-day, and said it could be cut down, two, three or even four millions a year. He told us that the country was going to the bad on account of the extravagant expenditure of public money. And, when we take exception to the present heavy expenditure the member asks us why we do not come down to particulars, name the Items to which we object and move to have them struck out. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Johnston, Cape Breton) and the attention of the leader of the government (Bt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid' Laurier) who is sitting before me, and listening to me, to the fact that, during the eighteen years when the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce was in opposition, there, were only about three times, if my memory is correct, when he came down to particulars and moved to have items struck out. The hon. gentleman represented that it was not the duty of an opposition to come down to particulars, but it was their business, when the expenditure was too great to condemn the expenditures generally. So, before the hon. member for Cape Breton reads lectures to this side, he had better read up the ' Hansard ' reports of the past and note the lesson which the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) gave in those days, of the duty of an opposition.

The hon. member for Cape Breton says it is difficult to locate the members of the opposition on the tariff. Is tjie resolution we moved not concrete enough V How can the hon. member ask for more than that V But can the hon. gentleman locate members on his own side 7 Where, for instance, does he put the hon. member for South Oxford, who, in that valedictory address, which sounded so sweetly because it was likely to be his last, declared that he was now as he had ever been in favour . of free trade, and had never changed his principles 7 How is that hon. gentleman in accord with the hon. Minister of Public Works who says : I am a protectionist;

I was brought up in a protectionist school and have never abandoned my principles; and who practically declares that the leaven which he has introduced into the cabinet will leaven the wfeole lump and that he will make them all protectionists after a while. Then I ask my hon. friend, do they come down to particulars 7 Is he able to locate his friends 7 Can he locate the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards), who says he is a free trader up to the hilt 7 Can he locate the hon. member for South Brant (air. Heyd) who says he is a protectionist 7 He is not a free trader, but he is in favour of protecting the manufacturers of our country. I can go over the whole list, and I find there are scarcely three of them who agree upon one particular. They are as

divergent one from the other as day is from night or as darkness from light. Then will my young friend from Cape Breton try and locate his friends and tell us where they stand on this question, and after that he can direct his attention to hon. members on this side of the House.

The hon. member said the Intercolonial Railway management was perfectly satisfactory to him. I have no doubt of that. He told us in the beginning of his speech that he liked a heavy expenditure, and that is what is taking place on the Intercolonial Railway, and it is a benefit to the people down there. But I thought at the time he was praising the present management of the Intercolonial Railway, and saying it was so far ahead of what it had been before, that he forgot to tell the House, or could not be aware of the fact, that only this last year we paid $488,186 for expenses of management and running that railway, over and above all it earned. Is that satisfactory to him ? If it is, I tell him it is not satisfactory to the country by any means. He nods his head in assent; then I can only tell him that his views differ from those of the great majority of the people of this country, because they would like to see all these great public undertakings pay their own way if possible. I think that good management would make the Intercolonial Railway pay its own way, and the fact that it has not been paying its own way is the best evidence that it is not properly managed. Besides the $488,186 that the management is behind in running that railway, at the same time they spent $3,052,000 on capital account within the last year, ^et tiie hon. member says it is perfectly satisfactory to him. Well, I can tell him that there are not many people who will agree with him.

He tells us that the Conservatives opposed the Dominion Coal Company; that it was one of the best things that happened to the country, the Conservatives were the only parties that opposed it. Where was the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) who sits beside him-where was he on this question ? There was not a Conservative in this House, or outside of it who opposed that more strongly than the hon. member for Hants. The hon. member's criticisms would have much greater force if they were directed towards his own friends than against any member on this side of the House. He says that the policy followed by the present government has developed the iron industry, the coal .ndustry, the fishing industry, the agricultural industry, How have they been developed ? By the policy of the present government, he says. Well, if they have, then he ought to be satisfied. But what have they done for the farmer, for the fisherman ? What have they done to develop the coal industries of the country, or the iron industries, beyond putting a bounty on iron ? I fail to Mr. SPROTJLE.

see that they have done anything, and I think the country fails to see it. I would like the hon. gentleman, when he makes that statement again, to come down to particulars, and to tell us what they have done which has favoured the development of those mines; until he does that we will be inclined to disagree with him in his conclusions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct attention for a short time to the budget speech. The Minister of Finance, in delivering his budget speech to this House, painted a glowing picture of the prosperity of the country and the condition of the people. Now, we agree with all that. No one is better pleased than we are to find the condition of the country so satisfactory, to see the people so prosperous and happy. We have no quarrel with the Minister of Finance in that respect; but the difference of opinion comes in when we inquire into the causes that brought about that prosperity, that is where we take issue with the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance and his friends attribute that prosperity to the businesslike management of the present government; they take credit to themselves for that prosperity because of the management of the affairs of this country during the last five or six years. We say that the prosperity is clue to causes over which they had little or no control. Can we verify that statement ? I think we can. Now, to begin with, I ask them what they did to bring about good times ? They did nothing, so far as I know, to bring about good times, except in one particular-they have made a heavy expenditure of money. What did they do for the people ? They did not give the people more employment, except in so far as this heavy expenditure of money by the government gave employment. They did nothing to make wages higher, they procured no new markets for the people, they secured no better values for the products of the people. Therefore, in all these lines they can take no credit to themselves for the good times. Neither did they reduce the cost of living to the people, nor the cost of transportation of the people's products from the place of production to the place of sale, or the place of shipment, so that they might get larger profits. In none of these respects have the present government contributed in any material sense to give prosperity to the country. They did not materially improve the method of transportation-no fast Atlantic service, no better transportation facilities, no reciprocity treaty so that the people could have better markets, although they promised if they came to power they would get such a treaty. They did nothing to makes times better except to spend enormous sums of the people's money during the time they have been in power.

Now, let me ask. What makes good times ? We may reasonably answer, first,

good crops. Who g

What have they done ? They have expended very heavily and very liberally throughout their term of office. I take the gross receipts and expenditures of the country from the time they came into power and the statement is as follows : In 1897 they received $37,829,778, but they expended $42,972,755, very much more than they received. In 1898 they collected $40,556,510, but they expended $45,334,281, showing a very heavy expenditure. In 1899 they collected $46,743,102, but they spent $51,542,635, a- very heavy expenditure. In 1900 they collected $51,031,466, but they spent that year $52,717,466. In 1901 they collected $52,516,332, but they spent $57,982,866. And in the year 1902 they will have collected $52,516,332, but they will have spent $65,250,000. I merely read these figures to let the House and the country see to what an extent they have contributed to good times. They have' contributed to good times by the

heavy expenditures they have made during these six years. I take the six years before they came into power and what do I find ?

I find that the expenditure in 1891 was $40,793,208, in 1892, $42,272,136, in 1893, $40,853,727, in 1894, $43,008,233, in 1895, $42,872,338, and in 1896, $44,096,383. The average expenditure for these six years under the Conservative administration was $42,316,000, while the average expenditure of the present government for the last six years was $52,633,334 a year, or an expenditure each year of $10,317,204 more for these six years than their predecessors expended in the previous six years when hon. gentlemen now on the other side of the House said that the expenditure was $4,000,000 too high. When we consider the $10,000,000 of an expenditure over and above the average expenditure of the predecessors of-hon. gentlemen we can easily see how it has helped to some extent in creating good times and giving employment to labour. If you put that amount of money into circulation every year throughout the country, $10,000,000 more than their predecessors spent, it is bound to bring about better times. Then I say that this is the only particular in which these hon. gentlemen have assisted in bringing about better times than those which existed formerly. Although they said that the expenditure of their predecessors was $4,000,000 too high, they have expended $10,000,000 a year more than their predecessors during the last six years.

Now, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) treats us to a lot of figures concerning the trade and commerce of the country to show that the financial transactions of the country all point to good times. We do not dispute that, so it is quite unnecessary to waste time as to that. There is no doubt about that. We agree with him and we are as much pleased as the hon. gentleman is that such a showing is able to be made at the present time. But, what we do take exception to is his manipulation of the figures and the selection of the periods which he made for his comparison with the showing which he made for his own party. The ingenuity displayed by the hon. gentleman is worthy a magician, for, if you look at it, you cannot help but be struck by the ingenuity of the hon. gentleman, although it is not what we would expect from a Minister of Finance. In making his comparison in regard to the annual increase of the debt he said that under the Conservative party which was in power for 18 years, the average increase in the debt during that time was $6,563,075 a year, while, under the Liberal party, during the six years which they have been in power, the average increase of the debt was $1,996,514 a year. He took in one instance 18 years and in the other six years. But he forgot to tell the House and the country that in those 18 years there were included five or six years of the very worst times that Canada has

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

Mr. SPROULE.

tide them over the temporary embarrassment in their financial condition. He forgot to tell the people that these were included in these eighteen years to make up the average increase in the debt of the Conservative party of $6,000,000, whereas, according to the hon. gentleman, their increase is not quite $2,000,000 a year.

That was an unfair thing for the Minister of Finance to do. It was something that the people of this country and the members of this House did not expect from him. It is a most ingenious, way of presenting figures, but it is an unfair way. It reminds me of an incident I once heard on the platform. A gentleman was quoting figures which were about as unfair as those quoted by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, and this man said : I challenge any man

to contradict me : these are figures and

figures don't lie. The reply came : No. but liars will figure. When a man in the high position of the Finance Minister places such misleading figures before the country, he is doing a great injustice to his opponents, and he is doing less than justice to his own friends because when the electorate discover the deception they will be likely to visit their indignation on the Finance Minister and on the party he belongs to. Take the expenditure of these three years on capital account, and it will run up the public debt at an average of $3,593,000 a year for eacli year of the 18 years. But the Finance Minister spreads the deficit over 18 years, whereas if he had taken out these three exceptional years the increase under the Conservative government would be only $3,454,000 a year instead of $6,000,000. Does the Minister of Finance think that he has done his full duty in hiding these facts from the House ? I repeat that his arrangement of these figures is very unfair, and we would have expected better from him. The Minister of Finance claims that his government since they came into power have had aggregate surpluses amounting to $19,000,000. Well, what of that ? Did they put these surpluses to good use. If that aggregate surplus were applied to reducing the public debt it would have made an admirable showing for them, but the fact is that their extravagant expenditure has used up all these surpluses, and instead of reducing the public debt as they should have done, they have increased it. But the Finance Minister did not tell the country that. Not at all. It would not have suited his purpose. [DOT]

The comparison which the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) made with regard to our trade with Great Britain was also unfair. He wanted to show that the tariff preference his government had given to England had increased our trade with Great Britain, and had resulted in some substantial good to the mother country, but the figures which he quoted to prove this were tainted with the same defect of unfairness.

When he mentioned the figures of our trade with Great Britain, I asked the hon. gentleman if he would be good enough to give us the figures of our trade with the United States, because I knew that if he did so they would show that the proportionate increase of our trade with the United States was greater than it was with Great Britain. and therefore that his whole argument would have been destroyed. But what was the reply of the Finance Minister ? He said that I had asked him the same question exactly at the same stage of the budget speech last year, and he did not answer it then nor would he answer it now. If the Finance Minister desired to be fair why did he not reply. In that respect his argument was defective and again it was unfair. But I willl supply the figures for the Finance Minister, and I think they will convince the House that his government cannot pride themselves much on the alleged benefits which the preferential tariff has conferred on Great Britain. Our import trade with Great Britain in 1898. under the preferential tariff, was $27,000,000. and with the United States it was $43,000,000. In 1899 our trade with Great Britain under the preference was $37,000,000, and with the United States it w'as $54,000,000. In 1900 our trade with Great Britain under the preference was $37,000,000, and with the United States it was $02,000,000. In 1901, when Great Britain was receiving the full benefit of the preferential tariff, our trade with Great Britain had dropped from $37,985,000 in 1900 to $37,270,000 in 1901, -while during the same period our trade with the United States had increased from $62,000,000 in 1900 to $05,500,000 in 1901. The Finance Minister did not tell the people of the country that. The only conclusion that can be drawn from such a state of affairs is that the preference which the government have been boasting has done so much for the mother country, has done absolutely nothing at all for the mother country. On the other had, it has'done a great injustice to the manufacturer's of Canada, and it lias helped the labouring men in Germany who are sending goods here through the ports of Great Britain to get the benefit of the preference, and to sell their goods in Canada to the detriment of our own working people. But the Finance Minister told us that we had a large revenue now. Yes, we have a large revenue and we have a large expenditure as well. While the revenue is very large on the one hand, the expenditure is very large on the other, and there is no saving on that account. The policy of this government has been that the larger the revenue they get, the greater the expenditure they make. When the people are told by this government that they have collected $10,000,000 a year more than did their predecessors, and that they have had a surplus of over $3,000,000 a year, the people will naturally expect that that surplus should be applied to reducing the national debt. But the people can ask in

vain for that to be done. The surplus has not gone to reduce the national debt; it has been wiped out by extravagant expenditure. No matter how much taxes this government collects from the people the debt runs up year after year, and there is no lessening of the burdens of taxation. If I were to ask in my county of a farmer there : What do you think of your neighbour who had good crops for the last six years, who got good prices for the products he sold, but who still increases the mortgage of $1,000 which he had on his farm. Suppose I said : This farmer has made more money by several hundred dollars a year than he ever made before, but he has been adding a hundred dollars a year to the mortgage ; it was $1,000 the first year, $1,100 the next year, $1,200 the next year, $1,300 the next year, and at the end of six years during which time he had better crops than ever before and larger returns, the mortgage was $1,600. Suppose I asked what do you think of that kind of a farmer. Surely the reply would be : That man must soon go to the poor-house, because if he cannot reduce the mortgage during good times he can never hope to do so in bad times. Well, the Finance Minister is administering the affairs of this country somewhat on a par with that improvident farmer. During all these good years when he has taken $10,000,000 a year more out of the pockets of the people, he did not reduce the mortgage, but on the contrary added to it to the extent of $3,000,000 a year. That is what a farmer would call very improvident farming, and that is the kind of thing that would compel the farmer who would do that, to lose his farm and clear out of the country. Let us apply the same principle to a merchant. During the last five years he has done a larger business, and made larger profits, but nevertheless he has not saved a cent, and his expenses have been running up all the time. The creditors of such a merchant would naturally say : Go into insolvency ; you are not fit to control a business ; your whole management proclaims that you are in no sense of the wrord a business man. If you cannot pay off vour indebtedness during good times, it is utterly impossible for you to, maintain your standing in hard times, and the result will be that sooner or later you must go into insolvency, because you are bankrupt. The same thing is true of a country, and that must be the result of the way in which [DOT]be lion, the Finance Minister has managed the affairs of the country for the past five years. ,

He goes on to tell us that there are heavy liabilities maturing in the next few years which must be provided for. In 1903 there are liabilities falling due to the amount of $9,733,000. Suppose we have hard times and money becomes scarce and the rate of interest goes up, and the hon. gentleman goes into the money market to borrow. Our credit will not be so good as it would be if we had saved ill good times. But instead of

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

Mr. EDWARDS.

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

Mr. SPROULE.

He said it could not be expected that our securities, quoted along side of British consols, would show as well now as they did then, because the condition of the money market is not as good. What is that but saying that our credit does not stand as high ? If our securities will not sell at as high a figure, our credit cannot be as good. The hon. gentleman, knowing that he must within the next two years provide for obligations amounting to $30,000,000, goes on with his extravagant expenditure, and makes no provision for these heavy obligations. If the day of adversity comes and we are likely to have bad times in the near future, because the cycle of bad times follows the cycle of good times as surely as night follows day-we shall be obliged to pay dear for it.

The hon. Minister of Finance said that the Postmaster General had made a favourable showing in his department, and was entitled to a great deal of credit. He said :

* Look what he has done, he has thrown off one-third of the postage and yet has made the Post Office Department almost self-sustaining.' The Postmaster General was in my riding in the last election, and said there that when the Liberals came to power there was a deficit of $700,000 in the Post Office Department, but he had wiped it out and made the department self-sustaining. I said at a meeting at the same place that the department was to-day over $300,000 behind, and I was flatly contradicted by a gentleman in the audience, who said that the Postmaster General would not lie. How much was the deficit last year ? The Minister of Finance referred to it, but he did not tell us how much it was.. It was $461,000. That is the way the Post Office Department has been made self-sustaining. How did the Postmaster General succeed in making a good showing for a year or two ? He did it, to Canada's disgrace, by getting out the Jubilee stamps, which he sold for $300,000 or $400,000 ; and the money came out of people who got no return for it in the world.

Mr. COCHRANE.

Out of his dupes.

Mr. SPROULE.

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

Mr. SPROULE.

and then boasted that he had made a splendid showing by his economy and that in future the Post Office Department would be self-sustaining. My opponent and also the reform paper in my riding said the same thing. As I have shown, there was last year a deficit of $488,000 on the Intercolonial Railway and a deficit of $461,000 in the Post Office Department. That is the economy, the good management of these hon. gentlemen.

We have been told that the government have been very successful with their immigration policy. I have here the figures of the number of immigrants they have brought into Canada and what do they show ? But first I will give the amounts of money spent on immigration. The Conservative government, in its last year, spent $120,000 on immigration, which hon. gentlemen opposite said was entirely too much. The year previous the Conservative government spent $127,000. Every year hon. gentlemen opposite were decrying the expenditure on immigration, declaring that it was money thrown away. But in 1896, the first year of the reform government, they spent on immigration $127,000. The next year they spent $261,000, more than double the amount ; the next year they spent $355,000 ; the next year, $434,000 ; and the next year, 1901, $444,729. They declared, when the Conservative government were in power, that $120,000 was too much to spend on immigration, that it was money thrown away ; and yet in six years they have run the expenditure up to nearly four times that amount. These are the men of economy. They boast of the large number of immigrants they have brought into the country-16,800 in 1896 and 49,000 in 1901 ; but remember that they spent four times as much money in 1901 while there are not four times as many immigrants brought in. So that they have no right to take any credit to themselves for any great good they have done to the country in this respect. An hon. gentleman draws my attention to the quality of the immigrants. As that subject has been very ably and fully dealt with already, I need do no more than remind the House and the country that in bringing in Doukhobors, Galicians, Poles and Finns, the government will not elevate the standard of civilization in this country. If there is any fusion of these people with the Anglo-Saxon race, the effect must be to lower the high standard of our people. This is not the kind of immigration that this country requires, and I was glad to hear the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) condemn it in strong language the other evening.

Every word he said with regard to it was entitled to respect in this House and the country. How did hon. gentlemen opposite run up that heavy expenditure V They ran it up largely in paying salaries. When they came into office, we had in Great Britain, Ireland, on the continent and

in the United States agents and we paid out in salaries $15,000. How many did we have in that year, when these hon. gentlemen took office ? We had eleven, and we paid them salaries amounting to $15,000. The next year they had forty-three, and paid them in salaries $30,497. The year following the number was thirty-nine, and the salaries $35,728. The year after that they had thirty agents, and paid them $36,294. Then the next year, the number was raised to forty-three, and the salaries increased to $40,570. So that from $15,000, which was the amount paid in the last year of the late government, the expenditure was increased to $40,500. And that only represents the amount paid to the salaried agents. Over and above those, there are 250 agents in the United States who are working on commission. These hon. gentlemen boast about the results they have accomplished in immigration, but taking into account the additional number of agents they employ and the vast increase in the expenditure and the quality of the immigrants they have brought in, the country will be inclined to give them blame rather than credit for the policy they have pursued.

Towards the close of his budget speech, the hon. Minister of Finance let us into a little secret. He told us that he had decided not to touch the tariff. Some people, he said, were complaining, but on the whole the tariff was doing justice to all. And he told us this, knowing well that by his preferential tariff with England the woollen men were being forced to the wall, the operators forced out of employment, their mills kept on short time, some working on less than half time, and their output largely reduced. Deputations had waited on the minister and made to him the strongest representations; but in the hardness of his heart he decided to do nothing. Neither will he do anything for the lumbermen, who pleaded to have the tariff raised in their interests. Nor will he do anything for the agriculturalists, although he told them how much he intended doing for them when in power. And he will give nothing to the implement manufacturers, notwithstanding the fact that last year nearly $2,000,000 of machines were imported from the United States, thus displacing our own to that extent, to the advantage of the American agriculturalists, to whom the labourers employed in these American implement factories furnish a home market. Nor will he do anything for the beet-root sugar men, notwithstanding the importance of that industry. He has allowed them to bring in their machinery free of duty for one year, but refuses to do anything more. He will neither give them a bounty nor raise the duty on imported sugar, and if that industry cannot succeed with the advantages it has, it may die. He is determined not to give it any bounty to keep it alive. 1 ask

why not do for the beet-root sugar men what he has done for the iron and steel men ? Is the farmer not as Important as the iron men ? If a bounty were paid on the manufacture of beet-root sugar, the farmers would get 60 cents of every dollar invested in that industry. But the hon. gentleman stiffens his neck and hardens his heart, when the agricultural industry is in question, and says he will do nothing.

Then we had a valedictory address from the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright). We had heard threatening and mutterings of thunder for some days previous. When the hon. the Minister of Public Works was giving out his views as a protectionist, we tided to draw out the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and did succeed in drawing him outf to this extent, that he told us the time would come when he should pronounce himself with no uncertain sound. That day came and with it came his valedictory address, for we are told that that was the last time we should hear his melodious voice in this House on the tariff. These hon. gentlemen opposite kept his mouth closed the last six years, and if they thought they were going to the country very shortly, they would have muzzled him again. The hon. gentleman has been obliged to be silent all these years and content himself with simply drawing his salary in a position, which he himself declared was an utterly useless one. He told us that he was a free trader on principle, that he had never changed his views, and that those who had changed theirs were going on a very unsound principle. Then he proceeded to give us some information about Conservative scandals, and even brought poor old Thomas Mc-Greevy out of his grave. If anything could show how uncomfortable the hon. gentleman must be in his present position it was this seeking to revive again a dead issue in the person of Thomas McGreevy, who has long ago gone to answer for whatever sins he may have committed. The hon. gentleman gave us an epitaph appropriate to McGreevy, but I think it would have been more appropriate had he given the House an epitaph that would have suited his own career and demise. I think that when the hon. gentleman does leave the political stage, his country would be disposed to put on his tomb stone the epitaph which a Cornishman placed over his departed wife, only changing the name :

My wife is dead, here she lies,

Nobody laughs, and nobody cries,

Where rhe has gone and how she fares, Nobody knows and nobody cares.

The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce went on to discuss the census and to revamp his old favourite argument about the census of 1891. But in telling us how disappointing it was, he forget to say anything about the cost. What did the census of 1891 cost ? It cost $532,000 all told. And

the Minister of Finance told us the other day that on the present census we have already spent $948,510, and there is a lot more in the estimates. I am told that the expenditure will amount to over one and a quarter million dollars before we are through with It, so that while the census of 1891 only cost the country half a million dollars, the present census will cost over a million and a quarter. The hon. gentleman was careful to say nothing about that. He said that the last census taken was a better one. Well, so it ought to be, for It cost so much more. Why, there are twice as many enumerators, and the expenditure is still going on.

The hon. gentleman next took up the exodus. He said that the census was most dishonestly taken in 1891. He gave no evidence whatever, but simply made this gratuitous statement, insulting these 350 people who were sworn to do their duty, and who, I believe, did honestly do their duty. Many of these men were just as honest, I am sure, as he was, just as desirous of doing right and of acting conscientiously as the hon. gentleman ever was. He insulted them, declared publicly before the world, in effect, that they were dishonest, that they were untruthful, that they were perjurers, in that they had fraudulently and dishonestly packed the census. And what have they done this for, according to the hon. gentleman ? To make a good showing for the Conservative party and to prove that the national policy had done a great deal for the industries of this country. The hon. member for Pictou reminded him that this could not be the case, because the election of 1891 was over before the taking of the census began. The hon. gentleman went on to dilate upon the exodus. What brought about the exodus ? he asks. When he told us that the exodus was great during the time when the Conservatives were in power, my mind followed the same train of thought as that of the hon. member for Pictou. I thought it was not hard to find out what was the cause of that exodus. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) himself told us that he had travelled five times the length of Canada and had talked to hundreds of thousands of people dilating on the curse of the national policy and of advantage of free trade, and trying to educate the people up to the belief that Canada was a most undesirable place, that the Elysian fields lay to the south, and that the worst thing for Canada was the national policy. Was it a wonder that the people took the hon. gentleman at his word ? Was it a wonder that they came to the conclusion that Canada was not a good place to live in, and so left for the United States in hundreds and thousands ? But he did not content himself with lecturing and speaking to the people who came to hear him in different parts of the country. He mad< known his