Mr. KENDALL.

And against themselves, as my hon. friend (Sir. Edwards! says. But, speaking from a maritime province standpoint, I say that retaliation is to-day probably the worst thing that could happen to us. We are looking for extended markets. We want to send our coal, and also our fish into the American market Furthermore, I would point out to the hon. gentlemen, that while retaliation may agree with our feelings it would probably be poor policy for Canada as a whole.

I read an article not long ago, I think in the ' Morning Citizen ' of this city, which to me, appeared very attractive. It pointed out that, by an imposition of a large duty on pulp wood and on paper, it could be arranged to draw the whole of the pulp and paper industry from the United States into Canada, and that industry would be worth here, probably $50,000,000 annually. I say that on the face of it that was an enticing proposition, and one which would well merit the sober attention of any government, provided there were not behind it serious difficulties. I have not the figures at hand, but I would like to point out generally that, during the last three or four years, the export of pulp wood from Canada has not, increased with anything like the degree of rapidity that the export of pulp has increased. It is evident that the opportunities for the manufacture of pulp in this country are so great that, without tariffs or without any government meddling at all, pulp manufacture is goint to be established in this country on a large scale. But I wish to point out where the United States could strike us back, and that in a way that would make every hon. gentleman representing an Ontario constituency come to the government and demand that the duty on pulp wood be removed. There is no duty on bard coal. But supposing that, in a spirit of retaliation, the American government-put a duty of a dollar or two a ton on hard coal imported into Ontario. And if you have no duty on your coke, yet you want great quantities of coke, and will need still larger quantities. The duty on slack coal, I think amounts to only three or four cents a ton. The American government could arrange so that every ton of coal should come into Ontario under an export duty of two or three dollars a ton. In my opinion those who suggest retaliation are not wise. And I would point out also, that, at this juncture the sober, level-headed men of the United States, not only of New England from Boston to New York, but many in Chicago, and many in our border

cities are at work educating the people of tlie American Republic. And I think we see some signs that, perhaps in the not very remote future-I admit that we have to be patient for the time-there may be an opportunity for this country to establish better business relations with our neighbours to the south. I listened carefully to the speech of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell). I always listen carefully to that hon. gentleman's speeches. They contain, as a rule, a great deal of good, sound material; and, even when his argument is, as I think, wrong, I admire the ingenuity of it. But, on this side, we are indebted to that hon. gentleman for several statements, statements of immense importance as coming from that side of the House. In the first place, if I understood him correctly, the hon. member for Pictou said, in effect, that, if his party came into power he would consider it injudicious to remove the preference. I think he must have given more attention to the business situation in England than most of the hon. gentlemen opposite have done. He made a statement to the effect that there was not the slightest doubt that free trade was the best policy for Great Britain. And, best or not best, he pointed out that the public men of that country, without regard to party affiliations, were almost a unit in favour of free trade, that, in fact, not a man over there with a reputation to jeopardize would venture to advocate a policy of protection. I think that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) must have given some attention to statements made by public men in Great Britain. Now, we have so often heard that Great Britain was only waiting for an opportunity to go back to the protective policy, that, at the risk of being tedious, I am going to read a page or two from statements made by leading public men of Great Britain. Mr. Chamberlain, speaking in 1896 of a proposal that a duty should be placed on certain imports from the colonies for the benefit of the colonies, said :

It involves the imposition of a duty-it may be a small one, but it is a duty-upon food and upon raw material, and whatever may be the result of imposing such a duty the tendency is to increase the cost of living, which would intensify the pressure upon the working classes of this country, and it would also have a tendency to increase the cost of production, which would put us, of course, in a worse position than now in competition with foreign countries

in neutral markets The advatage

offered is not enough to induce this country to take the certain loss and the possible risk which would be involved in revising altogether its present commercial policy .... The second point, which is much more important, is that our foreign trade is so gigantic in proportion to the foreign trade of the colonies that the burden of an arrangement of this kind would fall with much greater weight on the United Kingdom than upon our fellow subjects in the colonies.

I think, therefore, we may very fairly ask them to better their offer.

Mr. KENDALL.

Lord Ripon, speaking later, said :

A consideration of these practical difficulties and of the more immediate results above indicated, of a system of mutual tariff discrimination, has convinced Her Majesty's government that even if its consequences were confined to the limits of the empire, and even if it were not followed by changes of fiscal policy on the part of foreign' powers unfavourable to this country, its general economic results would not be beneficial to the empire.

Lord Roseberry, speaking before the Manchester Chamber of Commerce in 1897, said :

Of all the maddest things we have heard in our days, the re-enactment of the corn laws is the maddest we can possibly conceive. Free trade has preserved the empire.

I believe an imperial customs union to be an impossibility, but supposing it were possible, it would be something which would place all the nations of the world in direct antagonism' to it. It is something which, if possible, they would all continue to destroy. *

I think tlie bon. member for I'icton must have given more attention to these statements of English public men than most bon. gentlemen on liis side of tlie House, and be must realize tbat probably for years to come the people of Great Britain *will refuse to jeopardize their commerce by any such ineffective arrangement as that of a preferential tariff, at least on the basis proposed by bon. gentlemen opposite. Let me say to hon. gentlemen opposite that in theory I am an out-and-out free trader. I will go as far as to say tbat I believe it would be in the interest of Canada and in the interest of many of the other colonies, and indirectly in the interest of the mother country, if a preferential tariff could be arranged provided we had free trade within the empire. But tbat is the only arrangement upon which the mother country will grant us a preference ; and it is an arrangement which the manufacturers of this country, either wisely or unwisely, will refuse. [DOT]

Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman made another statement that I wish to refer to. In order to let himself down easily witli his own friends, he stated that it was by the policy of protection that Great Britain had laid the foundation of her mercantile greatness. He made that statement, if I remember him correctly. Again I will ask the House to bear with me while I read some literature which I think the public men of this country should make themselves acquainted with. I want to show what kind of prosperity reigned in Great Britain as a result of her protective policy, and for that purpose I will read from Spencer Wal-| pole's history of England :

There are probably few persons who have not had occasion to study the records of the time, who have any notion of the misery into which the poor had fallen. A long apprenticeship had indeed inured them to suffering; but the misery which they endured in 1S16 and 1833 was as no-

thing compared with the protracted wretchedness which commenced in 1837 and continued to 1842. In 1839, 1,137,000 persons were in receipt of relief in England and Wales alone; in 1840, the pauper roll contained 1,199,000; in 1841, 1,299,000 ; and in 1842, 1,429,000 persons. The population of England and Wales amounted at that time to about 16,000,000; so that one person out of every eleven in the country wras a pauper. . . . Dead and living were crowded

together in miserable dwellings. It is on record that in one case seventeen persons were found li\ing in a room five yards square; that in another ease eight persons, two looms and two beds were found in a cellar, six feet under ground, measuring four yards by five. An inquiry was made in 1841 into the condition of some 1,600 of the poor of Little Bolton. Out of the 1,600, twenty-three had no bed to sleep in ; eight slept in the same bed ; forty-two slept, seven in a bed, in six beds; seventy-eight slept, six in a bed, in thirteeen beds; 185 slept, five in a bed, in thirty-seven beds; and 432 slept., four in a bed, in 108 beds. In Rochdale, at the same time, five-sixths of the population had scarcely a blanket among them: eighty-five families had no blanket, and forty-six families had chaff beds with no covering at all. In Paisley, 15,000 persons were in a state of starvation, with little or no clothing, and no bedding on which to lie.

Here follows a description, all of which I will not read, in order to spare the feelings of the House :

The miserable condition of the poor was, of course, due to their poverty; and poverty was

not partial, it was catholic 'I could

tell you,' so ran a letter from' Johnstone, 'of mothers dividing a farthing herring and a halfpennyworth of potatoes among a family of seven1.' .... Girls, as well as boys, women, as well as men, worked under ground. The mines were usually ill-drained and ill-ventilated. The children had consequently often to work in the wet; they were kept at work in any atmosphere in which a candle would not burn. The smallest children were employed as trappers, or in opening the traps in the seams through which the coal laden carts passed. But women, boys, and girls were also engaged as hurriers, or in walking backwards and forwards pushing the carts themselves through the seams. Many of these seams were only twenty-two to twenty-eight inches high, so that none but small children could pass through them. In some cases the child was made to push the car ; in other cases children, and even women, were made to draw it by the girdle and chain. The girdle was a band placed round the waist of th'e hurrier. The chain passed between the drawers legs, and chafed the wretched creature's thighs, as he or she drew the load. Little children of seven worked for twelve hours a day, harnessed like beasts by the girdle and chain; hut, unlike the happier beasts of burden, subjected to the task before their growth was complete and their strength mature.

Sir, I think I have read enough to convince hon. gentlemen opposite, and any one may hear of this, that the great prosperity which is enjoyed by Great Britain was not based on protection. I now propose to read from a book called 'Ashworth, Cobden and the League.' I shall not read the solemn description of misery that prevailed throughout the length and breadth of England as it is pictured and I only ask hon. gentlemen

opposite to go to the library and take this book of Ashworth and convince themselves that protection is the basis of England's greatness. I shall read a few of the concluding sentences which I have marked :

The correctness of the views entertained by the league, may be estimated by the variety and abundance of social and national advantages which have become apparent in every direction, as the result of the removal of restrictions upon our international trade. This may be said to amount to a practical extension of the area of our country. Our farmers, no longer affrighted by the cheap farming of foreigners, have embarked their capital, drained their land, improved their agricultual machinery, and thus the produce of the home land has been largely increased ; meanwhile they have also increased the wages of their labourers ; and it may be added, that although the population of the country has increased by about 17i per cent since 1841

This book was written away back in the sixties.

-the extent cf pauperism has been diminished by upwards of 25 per cent during the same period.

The writer concludes :

Tho grand truth brought out and emphasized by free trade is, that it enables millions of people more to live in the home land, and to live with less exertion than they could do without it.; that it stimulates intellect, improves machinery, and increases the produce of the land, the foundry, the machine shop and the loom, and by exchange of products helps us to utilize the prolific stores of the tropical and semi-tropical regions of the earth, and by extending our trading intercourse, to extend also at the same time our own measure of civilization.

Here follows a long list of the growing exports and imports of Great Britain and X will sincerely ask hon. gentlemen opposite when, again, in this House, or on the hustings they make the statement that it was due to protection that Great Britain developed her commerce, to look at this book and convince themselves, as they must be convinced, that the removal of the barriers to trade which existed in Great Britain gave her people more power over life, and free raw materials upon which to exert their industry.

Mr. Speaker, the government of which I am an humble supporter, is accused of making huge and unwarranted expenditures. I simply ask hon. gentlemen opposite to point out these huge expenditures, to itemize them. Ijast year and the year previous, when they were being voted upon, they refused to do so. Now, my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) made the statement the other night-and let me say that I always listen to that hon. gentleman's speeches with profound regard-that our government was doing nothing. I propose to show that our government is doing something. X wish to bring before the notice of the House a matter of great importance, and which, in view of what has occurred

in the eastern part of Canada, is deserving of far greater attention than that which has been attached to it. This government was scarcely in power before it made an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway for the construction of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. We all know that an arrangement had been made before that time for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, which I think hon. gentlemen opposite would be the first to admit did not adequately protect the settlers. By the arrangement which has resulted in the lowering of freight rates on outgoing and incoming materials, Manitoba and the North-west Territories gained $750,000 a year, or in the five years during which that arrangement has been in existence there has been a gain of $3,500,000, about equivalent to the government grant to the Crow's Nest Pass railway. That is something of importance, but, it is not nearly so important as the fact that in making the arrangement some 50,000 acres of coal lands, over which the government had no control previously, were taken over and held for the benefit of the people who may occupy that part of the country in the future. Furthermore, it was arranged that coal was to be put on board cars at a price not exceeding $2 a ton and carried over the Canadian Pacific Railway lines at figures to be decided on by the government. I point to that and I say that the generations of the future will point to that one act of this government as a most important act. Fuel in the Northwest Territories, as every one knows, is one of the prime requisites of life, and I point to this matter as I shall refer to it in a later part of my remarks in connection with a condition existing in the maritime provinces of which this government must take cognizance. We are making some expenditures in the endeavour to get the grain of the North-west Territories to the seaboard, and these expenditures are being made, so far ns possible, to produce a condition that will bring about competition. A railway is being constructed through the Rainy River district, from Winnipeg to Port Arthur. Large subsidies are being voted to construct a road from Winnipeg to Edmonton, and from there on to the Pacific coast. Will hon. gentlemen say that these expenditures must not be made ? These are great and important votes. They are votes that cannot be ignored because the conditions are such, as hon. gentlemen from the west have frequently pointed out, that neither this government nor any other government can afford to ignore the demands on the public treasury for the development of that country from which we will reap such great benefits in the future. Let me say, as I come from the extreme east, that I always listen with sympathy and regard to the requests made by hon. members on both sides of the House who come from the west in respect to this important matter of trans-Mr. KENDALL.

portation. It does not directly interest us, but any man who has been over that country and has seen its resources must realize, if he is at all acquainted with the conditions which prevail in the older provinces, that the situation in that vast western country is certainly the most promising one that we have in Canada to-day. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte), of course, is one of the great sinners, and let me say, as one of the maritime province men, that I have to stand up and vote for him every time he asks for money with winch to deepen the St. Lawrence river. In future Quebec is to be the great summer port of Canada ; still, it is necessary that the depth of the channel from Quebec to Montreal shall be maintained at thirty feet. Coal from the maritime provinces is now being transported up the St. Lawrence in boats of two, three, four and five feet more draught than formerly. In 1897 or 1898, in twenty-four days, a time when the St. Lawrence was very low, twenty-three steamers went on the ground. You can understand why the hon. Minister of Public Works had to grapple with the situation. When he took office he found that the dredges were not sufficiently large for this work and he asked parliament to provide him with money. He has been provided perhaps fairly and liberally, although he claims that he has not been given sufficient. The object of his work is one that this government cannot ignore. The deepening of the St. Lawrence from Montreal to the seaboard is a matter of national importance as well as of local importance to a great many of us.

Furthermore, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has a project which I hope in the future to be able to support, namely, the scheme for the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal. Of course we cannot fail to recognize that this is going to cost a great deal of money and that it will be a huge burden for the country to undertake, but it will be for us to consider whether the advantages which this canal will confer in the matter of cheaper transportation, may not outweigh the burdens which it will bring with it. I have been told that heavy freights cannot be carried on the railways at much less than one-half cent per ton per mile, and that on the other hand, heavy cargoes can be carried by water at from one-tenth of a cent to one-twentieth of a cent per ton per mile. From the standpoint of one who has the honour to represent a constituency in eastern Canada, I have also an interest in this Georgian Bay canal. I believe that if we have twenty feet draught in our canal system we will be able to send our coal through to the west, and we can get back what we need-and what perhaps we will need in the future more than we need now-several different kinds of iron ore which are to be found on the shores of the great lakes to carry on our great iron in-

dustry in Nova Scotia. For these reasons, this proposition appeals to me as an eastern man. It has its merit not only from tiie standpoint of the west, but also from the standpoint of eastern Canada. Of course, the interest which we in the east have in this scheme, will be almost inttnitesimal compared with the interest it lias for the western people. As to whether a company should construct this canal, or whether the government should construct it I have no very well defined view. I would prefer by long odds to see the government construct this canal, but if we can get a company to undertake to build it under conditions which are fair and which will maintain control over it by the government of- this country,

I sincerely hope that any further propositions along that line the government may see fit to consider carefully, and .to accede to them if they be in the public interest.

The hon. gentleman from We4t Toronto (Mr. Clarke) said that the present government was doing nothing. Let me point out briefly to him the history of this government in connection with the development of cold storage-not for fishermen which I am particularly interested in-but the development of the cold storage system for tne benefit of the farmers of Canada. 1 say that there are two men who ought never to be forgotten by the farmers of Quebec and Ontario, and these men are Mr. Geo. Eulas Foster and Mr. Sydney Fisher. The farmers will have reason to remember these two gentlemen for different reasons. I wish to point out that so early as 1882 a good cold storage systun was inaugurated between New Zealand, Australia, and London, and that system was developed up to 1893 and 1894, to a degree that placed the experiment beyond all peradventnre of failure. When representations were made to Mr. Foster that a cold storage system was needed for Canada, he seemed, at least not to appreciate the immensity of the requirement. I believe I am speaking the truth when J say that it was with difficulty that a niggardly vote of $20,000 per year could be got with which to endeavour to initiate this business. I find however that for several years only $5,000 or $0,000 was expended out of that small appropriation. As I say, cold storage was no longer an experiment. It was an established fact for Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina, but Canadian public men of that day laid back, and failed to appreciate the crying needs of the country. The evidence of what I say is to be found in the votes for cold storage that this parliament was asked to pass up to the year 1S96. But what happened after that ? We put a farmer into the Department of Agriculture when the Liberal government came into power. Some 'hon. gentlemen say that he is a kid gloved farmer, but I have seen him stand up in this House to defend his department, and I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated that the present

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is not only a scientific man but a practical man as well. He took office in 1896. He was not satisfied that the products of Ontario and Quebec were being dealt with to the best advantage for the farmers of these provinces. He at once asked parliament for a vote, not of $20,000 ; but the first year he was in office he asked parliament for a vote of $100,000 and every year since he got a vote of $100,000, and he expended these votes, and the result is that to-day we have a chain of cold storage extending from the Rocky Mountains into the markets of London, Manchester and Liverpool-a systm of cold storage inferior to none to be found elsewhere in the world. I would be doing an injustice, Sir, if I did not in this connection remember the services which have been rendered to this country by Prof. Robertson, who has enthusiastically directed his great technical knowledge and skill to the successful development and perfection of this system of cold storage. I repeat, that the farmers of Quebec and Ontario should never forget that the public records show that the Hon. Mr. Foster asked from parliament for three or four years the inadequate sum of $20,000 for the establishment of cold storage, and that when the present Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Sydney Fisher, came to office, he at once grappled with the question and had $100,000 a year appropriated, which has been expended every year since then with the result that the farmers of this country to-day are enjoying a prosperity that they were strangers to before.

Now, Sir, I intend to deal at some length with the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway.

At six o'clock, the House took recess.

After Kecess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. KENDALL.

Mr. Speaker, before the House rose for recess, I was endeavouring to persuade hon. gentlemen opposite that the conditions which have been arrived at in Great Britain since the inauguration of a free trade policy, are not based, as has been frequently said by hon. members on the other side of the House, on a prosperity that developed under a system of protection. I think I effectually showed, from the statements of different historians of the period, that never in the history of the British Islands had such a state of distress and degradation prevailed as that which pre-' vailed from 1800 to 1845. I omitted to point out that the population of the British Islands, which at that time was about 10.000,000. has since grown to some 40,000.000. a population which has almost trebled itself in the short space of sixty years; to-day in Great Britain a degree of prosperity pre-

vails which is not equalled in any other European country, unless possibly iu France; and the shipping industries of the country, which at that time were considerable, have increased by leaps and bounds until to-day, there are, for every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom, from the King down to the youngest child In a foundling charity, 24 tons of shipping. I think that is an evidence of very great expansion.

When referring to the development of the iron industry in Nova Scotia up to 1890, I omitted to point out-and I am informed by a man as well qualified as any other man in America to speak on this point- that every iron business inaugurated and built up under a system of high protective duties in the United States, which existed between the state of Maine and New York, had to leave the site on which it was built up, and move away west; that to-day there is nothing but a spot of rust to mark the former sites of those original iron industries which were developed under protection; that in fact the iron business of the United States has moved to the west, where coal, iron and lime lie in juxtaposition to be worked to the best advantage. And, I pointed out that the prosperity we hope to attain from the development of iron in the eastern part of Canada depends entirely upon that industry being placed at the point where it can be most advantageously worked.

Now, Sir, I hope I shall be permitted for a short time to refer to another project which was initiated by this government : that is, the provision of cold storage for fishermen. Up to this time the success which has attended that project has been gratifying; but we have not yet grappled with the problem in the way which in my opinion is required. We have in the maritime provinces a fishing industry which is worth annually anywhere from $13,000,000 to $15,000,000. We have engaged in this business a population of 45,000 or 47,000 fishermen and fishermen's sons, who represent a population of probably 200,000. In the old days, when people were content to work hard and live in a different way from what they expect to live in to-day, our fishing population showed an inclination to remain there. But unfortunately we have to admit that under the improved conditions of life that population in the eastern counties of Quebec, in the Magdalen Islands, and on the shores of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, shows an inclination to move away from the fishing industry, and, instead of going to the North-west and other parts of Canada to take up lands, they move to the United States. Now, this is a serious state of affairs for the whole of Canada, and particularly throughout the maritime provinces, and if there is any method available by which this can be stopped or diminished, I submit that this government is Mr. KENDALL.

in duty bound to initiate a measure for that purpose. You are to-day engaged in a project to provide a system of cold storage for the shore fishermen. You have some GOO or 700 schooners fitted up for the deep sea fisheries, which lose on an average anywhere from three to six weeks out of the five months fishing season. You can understand that this means an enormous loss to the fishermen and to the maritime provinces. Now, I propose that the government should inaugurate another system for the deep sea fishermen. 1 propose that somewhere about Grand Manan, in the Bay of Fundy, or somewhere in the western part of Nova Scotia, in the Strait of Canso, and somewhere about Gaspe and the Magdalen Islands-at three or four of these places, large freezers should be erected, costing anywhere from $4,000 or $5,000 up to $15,000 or $20,000 each; and that these should be supplemented by two or three steamers built on the plan of Scotch trawlers, and fitted with refrigerators, to be used to collect bait, and to concentrate at these different points, where the bank fishermen could come and get bait. These steamers could also be used to distribute the bait to small freezers, of which we require some one or two hundred in the maritime provinces. It may be said that this would require a large amount of money. I admit that; but the industry is of such importance to us, from the standpoint of population, and it has such capabilities that I believe the government would be justified in making a very generous expenditure, say $150,000 or $200,000, to meet the requirements of this business.

Furthermore, I must point out that the government has in its custody some $5,000,000 known as the fishery award. For want of a better method to make this serve the fishermen, the government pays out the interest upon it in the shape of small bounties of from $3 to $4.50 to the owners of small fishing boats for shore fishing, and a certain amount per ton is given to the deep sea fishermen. Well, Sir, I think it requires no argument of mine to convince the government and the House that this method of appropriation, while it may be fairly good, could be improved upon; and if funds are short, it would not to any extent effect the bounty given to the fishermen, if a small amount of the capital were utilized to provide the facilities to which I have just referred. I am sure, from what we know of the development of this business on the shores of the maritime provinces, from what we know has taken place between New York and Gloucester, Boston and the Western States of America, we may with confidence look forward to results from a bold policy in regard to the fishing business which will be gratifying and of great benefit to the country.

I recollect, some three or four years ago, attending a banquet to the lion. Minister of Finance in New Glasgow, at which the

Minister of Railways was also present; and in reply to a toast the Minister of Railways said that when he removed from the arena of New Brunswick politics to that of the House of Commons to take up the position of Minister of Railways, he felt, considering the conditions which had existed on the Intercolonial railway for several years before, that it would be possible for him to do something of service to the country in connection with that railway, and perhaps win some little distinction for himself. I take the ground that the policy inaugurated by the Minister of Railways has been a bold, aggressive, successful and effective one in the interests of the country. It will not take many more years to silence the criticisms on the purchase of the Drummond road and the consequent expenditure on the Intercolonial railway. In fact criticism on that measure is practicaly dead to-day. I do not think that there is an hon. gentleman on either side who will have the courage to stand up and criticise the action of the Minister of Railways when he abrogated the arrangements between the Intercolonial Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway. By this arrangement, which existed between the late government and the Canadian Pacific Railway, the agents of the Canadian Pacific Railway were given power to corral the whole of the business of the maritime provinces for their road. Even in the very offices of the Intercolonial railway, its officials were not allowed to solicit traffic for their own road. That arrangement the Minister of Railways abrogated. Is there an hon. gentleman in this House who has sufficient courrage to stand up and condemn the Minister of Railways for his action in that respect.

We have been told that we are doing nothing. But surely this act of the hon. minister was an aggressive and a bold act, particularly in view of the fact that in the last election in the constituency of St. John a determined effort was made to fight the minister to the death on that very issue. However, the result showed that when a man takes a bold stand on a great public issue the people of the country will stand by him. We are criticised for our expendi-[DOT] tures on the Intercolonial Railway. I wish to say to the hon. gentleman opposite that the finality of the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway is not yet in sight, and some of us on this side are going to insist that much more generous appropriations be made to still further the interests of that line for the people of Canada. Before I am through to-night, I propose to show that the expenditures which have been made have already 1 been so productive of good that the result gives the people of this country, who are enthusiastic believers in the state ownership of railways, good warrant for continuing their advocacy of that policy. I would ask the House to bear with me a short time

while I read a few figures dealing with the history and development of that road.

I find that in the six years from 1880 to 1885 inclusive, the average annual expenditure was $1,243,281.62 on a mileage of 863, or an average expenditure per mile of $1,440.65. Taking the next period, from 1885 to 1896, eleven years-and this was the period during which the Intercolonial railway was starved-the average expenditure per year on capital account was $396,384 on a mileage of 1,057. Then taking the next period, from 1896 to 1901-a period of great development on the Intercolonial railway-I find that the capital expenditure only amounted to $1,381,924.80 per year on an average mileage of 1,250. In other words, the average annual expenditure per mile amounted to $1,113.54, between 1896 and 1901 against $1,440 a great many years before, and recollect that our expenditure was in the last period necessarily greater by long odds. Yet in spite of that, we did perform the service per mile at $327 less during the last four or five years than it cost hon. gentlemen opposite to perform it.

Let its look at the average working expenses, and let me again bring to the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite that a saving was affected during the last few years of the Conservative regime. But how was it affected ? By reduced wages, by an inferior train service, and by the fact that possibly there was not sufficient business to keep the train hands busy. In 1896-97, only the regular hands were constantly employed, and the train hands engaged for the special were from one-quarter to one-half their time idle. From 1882 to 1886, the average working expenses amounted to $2,382,243 on an average mileage of 891, making $2,674 per mile. From 1887 to 1891 the average working expenses had increased to $3,351,343 or $3,372 per mile, and from 1892 to 1896 the expenses had fallen to $3,083,219 or thereabouts, and the operating expenses of the road were reduced from $3,372 to $2,700 per mile. That was done by the Conservatives, but how was it accounted for ? By a reduction of wages, by inferior train service, and by the fact that there wms not sufficient business to keep the railway employees constantly at work. Last year we had a large deficit on the road. How do you account for this ? In 1896 the money paid for fuel on the Intercolonial railway amounted to $408, S61 against $973,268 in 1901, or the coal purchased for the Intercolonial Railway in 1901 cost more than twice as much as it did in 1896. But I shall deal with that matter a little later. So much for fuel. I am dealing now with the three items of fuel, the wages paid to the employees, and the repairs made on the road, and to these three I would call special attention. That is, coal in 1901 cost a great deal more than twice as much as it did in 1896. Now, for repairs, I shall compare the two years 1896 and 1901 :

Mr. TAYLOR.

That is vengeance. economy with a

Mr. KENDALL.

Sometimes, generous expenditure is the wisest economy, as I think I shall show. Now, we come to the question of wages, and for this comparison I will take three years :

Intercolonial Railway-comparison of wages for 1891, 1896 and 1901.

- 1901. 1896. 1891.Wages of drivers, firemen and clean- 8 cts. 8 cts. 8 cts.ers

Wages of conductors, train, baggage and brakesmen . . Wages in repairing roadway, fences, semaphores, and 468,734 14 264,604 16 274,281 45452,385 55 255,412 68 259,940 94laying new sidings St a t i o n m asters, agents, clerks, telegraph operators, station bag-gagem asters, yard masters, switch - 012,571 94 353,687 70 396,937 65men and labourers 500,866 40 303,796 20 297,226 00

It will he noticed that during the five years before 1891, the wages for drivers, firemen and cleaners amounted to considerably more than in 1896 itself. Hon. gentlemen opposite who were then in power were curtailing expenses in that year, with results that we shall see later on. The wages I have given do not include salaries paid to general manager, manager, traffic manager, district superintendents and all high-priced officials. It will be seen that there was an increase in 1901 over 1896 of the total wages , Mr. KENDALL.

as I have just given them of $863,000. Now, let me recapitulate these increases in 1901 as compared with 1896 :

Increase for coal

$564,407" for wages

863[o57Repairs

506,957Grand total of increases in expenses of 1901 over 1896 $1,934,421

I have a note to the effect that there was an increase of labour of about 70 per cent, and the receipts show also an increase of about 70 per cent in 1901 as against 1896.

Now, the freight carried in 1895-6 was 1,379,618 tons, and in 1901 the freight carried was 2,111,310 tons, or an increase of 731,962 tons. The number of passengers in 1896 was 1,471,866, and in 1901, 2,025,296, or an increase of more than half a million passengers carried on the Intercolonial Railway in 1901 over the number carried in 1896. Now, hon. gentlemen opposite talk about increased working expenses. Is it reasonable to suppose that this huge addition to the business of the Intercolonial Railway could be made without a corresponding increase in cost ? And let me remind hon. gentlemen opposite-and I do not wish to criticise the former minister too harshly-that possibly, in a legitimate desire to curtail the expenses of the Intercolonial Railway during a period of depression from 1891 to 1896, the hon. gentleman went too far and starved the road to a condition that made it more expensive than it otherwise would have been to bring it up to the condition that the trade of the country required in 1901. Now, let us look at the revenue :-

' 1895-0. 1900-1. Increase.$ 8 8Earnings from passenger traffic .... 971,426 1,607,106 635,740Freight traffic 1,788,813 3,121,006 1.332,193Mails and express freight 197,400 244,062 46,662Totals 2,957,639 4,972,234 2,014,595Earnings per mile of railway

Earn mgs per train mile $ cts. 2,589 00 76 97 $ cts. 3,782 00 79 39

Earnings per mile of railway in 1891, 82,721.

Now let us compare the gross earnings of the Intercolonial Railway at different periods with the capital employed at different periods :

Mr. TAYLOR.

What taxes do you pay on produce from Ontario 1

Mr. KENDALL.

We pay on all your agricultural machinery, pianos, organs, sewing machines, milling machinery and carriages. Everything you produce goes down there, the trains are loaded with your products and you take nothing back.

Mr. TAYLOR.

You pay no taxes on that all the same.

Mr. KENDALL.

We pay taxes into the pockets of the manufacturers.

Mr. ROSAMOND.

Nonsense, nonsense.

Mr. KENDALL.

But I have digressed. I say it is some gratification, as being the first public man who took that stand, to find Mr. James Ross, the leading director of the Dominion Coal Company, a few weeks ago give an interview to one of the Montreal papers, in which he said: My assistant manager has just returned from the Mediterranean, where he has found markets for Mr. KENDALL.

our coal. I well recollect the ridicule I had to submit to from the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite, when I said that our coal would go into the Mediterranean. 1 also recollect having my own political friends pull me down and say : For God's sake do not make our party ridiculous. It is with some gratification that I point to the fact that the leading man in connection with the Dominion Coal Company made the statement that his assistant manager has just returned from the Mediterranean and that he had found markets not only for their own surplus coal, but, markets for the other collieries in Nova Scotia for all the coal they had to send. Now, I come to another matter and as I think it is somewhat important, I would ask hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House to give it their earnest attention. We have had a great development of the coal business. We are glad of it. We have endeavoured to make the conditions under which these large companies operate as generous as possible, consistent with the public good, but before I go into this question, I wish to point out that the Liberal party in Nova Scotia, of which the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was at the time leader, was charged with having created a coal monopoly. There is no monopoly. Right across the water the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company have purchased the property of the General Mining Association and instead of being content with an output of

250.000 tons a year they have an output of

300.000 tons, they are making preparations for an output of 600,000 tons and they will probably before long, have an output of nearly a million tons. Other coal companies in Nova Scotia are operating coal mines. There is no monopoly, and here I wish to point out and I am going to deal with a serious condition, but, I wish to point out before doing so, that this monopoly which the Liberals were said to have brought into existence is selling its coal cheaper than the other companies.

Now, we are confronted with a serious condition. We have a coal business in the maritime provinces which is one of the most strongly placed industries we have in Canada. Sir, this business is getting too strong. The coal producers in Nova Scotia are taxing all the people from Montreal down to Halifax and Cape Breton, a great deal too much for coal. They are taxing the Intercolonial Railway too much for coal; they are taxing the Intercolonial Railway to an extent that will surprise you when I mention the figures. I say that on the Intercolonial Railway last year we paid at least $300,000 too much for coal-an amount which would this year wipe out the whole of the deficit and leave a large amount to the credit of that road. And, Sir, the serious feature of the thing is that we have got to be thankful to these coal companies that they have not charged us at least 50 cents or 75 cents

more per ton. It is in their power to do so. They are within their rights in their charges. I do not quarrel with them on that score. But, a certain condition of things has arisen. These_ coal producers are the masters of the situation; they are the masters of a natural monopoly, and by combining they can dictate terms to every consumer of coal, including the government, from Cape Breton down to Montreal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is to be done about this ? Every factory, every railway, every householder, is paying too much for coal, and what are you going to do about it ? The coal companies are within their rights.

An hoif. MEMBER. Take the duty off.

Mr. KENDALL.

Taking the duty off will not help it, because coal from England or from the United States cannot get into that territory. I defy refutation of that statement. Then what is to be done about it ? A condition like this is not entirely new in the history of the world. To-day I pointed out that in British Columbia, when the government was making its arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway, as one of the concessions required in return for the sum of $3,800,000 given to that railroad, the government took over some 50,000 acres of coal land and stipulated that when the coal was mined it should be put on board the cars at a price not exceeding $2 a ton, and should be carried to the North-west at rates to be decided upon by the government. I referred to that this afternoon in connection with what was in my mind with regard to the Nova Scotia situation. What is to be done ? The government, as I have shown, has to a certain extent dealt with a similar situation in the North-west. A few years ago In New Zealand, tlie premier of that colony was confronted with a similar condition. Manufae-turers came to him and said : The coal producers of New Zealand are charging a price for coal that absorbs the profits of our business; we have some thousands of people employed; the situation must be met; we have got to get coal cheaper or the government of New Zealand must take upon itself to support the thousands of operatives whom we must throw out of employment. Mr. Seddon was the premier of New Zealand at that time.

I do not suppose that he acted in a hurry There is no doubt he thought the matter over and talked it over. When the crisis came he went to his telephone and called up the leading coal operators and said in effect-I am not going to have 6,000 or 8,000 operatives of factories thrown on the hands of the government for support while you destroy the business of the manufacturers for the benefit of your coal trade; your coal trade is making too much money; you have got the opportunity.and you are taking advantage of it: the industries of the country 62

are suffering; we have a government meeting to-morrow at twelve o'clock and I give you until twelve o'clock to-morrow to say whether or not you will supply the manufacturers of this part of New Zealand with coal at such a figure, and if you will not do so, the government will telegraph to England to get out mining machinery and will mine the coal itself.

. Now, Sir, there is the situation that I believe the government of Canada has to face. Recollect that the coal companies are within their rights; they can charge us nearly what they like. There is plenty more coal to be developed there but if small operators go there to develop coal mines the large operators will absorb them or put them out of business. Let a Montreal or a Quebec coal dealer undertake to bring coal to any considerable extent from England or Wales, and what would be done ? The coal companies in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia will at once lower the price of coal and teach these men a lesson that they will not want to read again. They Pan undersell them to almost any extent they wish.

I say, Sir, that the time has come, or the the time has pretty nearly come when that situation which interests some three millions of people from Montreal to the sea board, must be met, and particularly so as the government of this country is a large purchaser of coal, and will be a larger purchaser in the future than at present. Now Mr. Speaker I shall make a statement to the House on the strength of two of the best mining engineers of Nova Scotia, one ot whom has mined millions of tons of coal I say on the strength of the statement of these engineers: That to-day, whereas in Cape Breton you are paying $2.70, $2.80 and $2.90 per ton for coal ; the government could mine that coal and put it on its cars tor $1 per ton. I say, that in Pictou on the ""Y'J land, where you pay anywhere from $3.00 to $3.25 per ton ; on the statement of two of the best mining engineers of Nova Scotia, men of large experience-I could give the names in confidence to the hon leader of the opposition but I do not wish to make them public-on the strength of the experience of these men, I say that this government could in Cumberland and in Pictou put coal on board the cars at $1 25 per ton, for which it is now paying $3 apd $3.50 per ton. That would mean a saving of $600,000 or $700,000 a year on the purchases of coal by this government. Is that a small item ? When we were confronted with deficits on the Intercolonial Railway, and when the tax payers of Canada are told by the hon. gentlemen opposite and perhaps by the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House : That the Intercolonial Railway should be made to pay ; and when with honest efforts to make it pay the result has been that we have during the last few years an average deficit of $114,000 a

year-although I am happy to say that notwithstanding the high price of coal during this current year there is a possibility that the Intercolonial Railway will come out on the 30th of June next without very much of a deficit-I say that when this very large sum can be saved to the people of Canada on the purchase of coal alone, is it not a matter for us to consider ? It would be not only a saving of $600,000 or $700,000 a year to the government, but on the basis of the present purchases of coal it would mean a saving of anywhere from $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 to the factories, the other railways, and the householders from Montreal east who purchased this coal. Of course in the near future, with the larger purchases of coal, that saving would be greatly increased.

Now Sir, there is one weak point in what I have stated, I would not advise the government to go into the mining of coal unless the miners of Nova Scotia were willing to make a compact with the government. I wish to tell the hon. gentlemen opposite who are not acquainted with the men who operate the mines in Nova Scotia, something about these Nova Scotia miners so that there may be no misgivings on this point. It is admitted by persons who have travelled over the collieries of Europe and of America, that the Nova Scotia miners are probably the best class of any miners in the world. What is the history of coal mining in that province ? Labour there has been organized and highly organized. The mining labour there does not consist of numbers of unorganized men. They are a strong organized body, probably the best organized body of labourers in Canada. They are not like the shifting mining populations of the western states. They are a class of men who are citizens, who own property and have a stake in the country, who are zealous to maintain their churches and schools. And just here let me interject the remark that with all the development that has taken place there, I am a little apprehensive. I would prefer not to see too rapid a development. The danger of a too rapid development is that we may have to draft into our mining population large hordes of men from outside, who will not assimilate with our people, whose aspirations and whose civilization are not the same. Therefore, I am a little apprehensive on this point, and the mining population are a little apprehensive. They are also beginning to see that the ambitions of the capitalists are factors which they may have to fight in the future as they have never had to do in the past, and they want to be left in a position to meet that situa-

Mon. .

I say the miners of Nova Scotia will not be content to have their normal aspirations as citizens crushed out. I do not know' whether the miners will agree with this or

Mr. KENDALL.

not; but I say that if the government should go and put a fair proposition before the miners, they will at least consider it. I believe the government will be in a position to put a proposition before them that will be attractive ; and if an agreement is made, these miners will stand to it. Let me tell you that in spite of our strong organization in the county of Cape Breton we have not had a strike for 16 years. In Cumberland and Pictou there have been several strikes ; but they were due largely to the fact, I am sorry to say, that the managers were probably more unreasonable than the men, for I have heard the statement made by those well qualified to judge that if the same managers who operated the Cape. Breton collieries had been in charge of the mines in other parts of the province, many of these disturbances would probably never have taken place.

Now, Sir, there are certain features which I believe can be attached to a policy of governmental mining of coal that will be attractive. You are aware that in other countries, particularly in New Zealand, Great Britain, Belgium and Switzerland there is a movement on foot for the betterment for the condition of labour. I say if the government undertook to secure to the mining population fair wages, compensation for injury and death, and old age pensions- and it would only cost a few cents per ton on the coal to initiate these measures-and if we could guarantee that the present position of the miners as regards their comfort and independence would not be disturbed, I believe it would be possible for this government to make a working arrangement down there that would be highly profitable to all concerned. .

My proposition would be that an independent commission should be formed to work these mines. There are numbers of properties which can be expropriated, and a number which can be obtained without expropriating, sufficient to furnish the coal required bv the government in the eastern part of Canada for the next hundred years. I believe this proposition would find favour in the minds of the people, who feel that the situation as regards the high price of bituminous coal is becoming intolerable, and I suggest to the government that they investigate this proposition. I do not ask for any hurried action ; but I ask that they go over the ground to see that the coal is available, to consult with labour organizations of the country, and to see if some arrangement cannot be made whereby the existing evil may be overcome. These great coal companies will sell coal to-day in the city of Portland at a far lower price than they will to me, who lives w'ithin ten miles of the place where the coal is produced. It is true, they may sell there 5,000 tons and to me only one or two tons, yet the diffeience in the price is so great as to constitute a

burden for which if possible a remedy should be found.

Allow me to come back to the question of bridging the Straits of Canso. I believe that this question has been investigated by an engineer (Mr. Donkin) who has a reputation as wide as Canada, and who holds that the structure can be built for about $4,000,000. I know that when I speak of more millions in connection with the Intercolonial Railway, people are apt to stop for breath, but, Sir, the situation that is developing there is one that will warrant the country in making further large expenditures. I pointed out just now that Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann are developing a great coal property. Other properties are developing. The Dominion Coal Company will greatly develop. The Nova Scotia Steel Company is developing not only its steel plant, but also its coal beds. I made a prophecy a few years ago that our coal would go to the Mediterranean, and I think I will venture another prophecy to-night ; that is that where to-day we mine about 3,500,000 tons of coal on the Island of Cape Breton, before the end of another ten years will mine 10,000,000. To this add the development of the iron industry.

There are other public works in the county of Cape Breton and in connection with the Intercolonial Railway to which I must ask the consideration of the Minister of Railways. I said not long ago that we expected before very long to have a fast Atlantic steamship service, and that the point at which the steamers will meet the Intercolonial Railway in Cape Breton will probably be North Sydney. The present accommodation at North Sydney is not sufficient for the present business, and I want to point out this again in justification of many of the acts of the Minister of Railways. In the autumn of 1897, when the Minister of Railways visited the town of North Sydney, he found that the railway had not been extended down to the water. The Messrs. Reid had completed their railway across the island of Newfoundland, and it was necessary In the public interest that a considerable amount of money should toe expended in connection with the steamship service and the railway of Messrs. Reid, in Newfoundland. An extension was made which for a short time met or nearly met the requirements of business ; but to-day the business between the Intercolonial Railway and the Reid system of railways has grown to such an extent, that the present facilities providede by the Minister of Railways are entirely insufficient to meet the requirements of the trade, and I am going to urge upon him to make very considerable appropriations in order that the wharf at the end of the Intercolonial Railway may be made wider and longer, and that the water about it may be dredged, so that we may be in a position to acommodate any vessel of any size that is likely to come there. The Intercolonial Railway will be crippled 62J

I _

if some appropriations are not made for providing increased facilities, particularly for the eastern end of the road. I wish to point out that that part of the road between St. John and Truro and Halifax and the Sydneys is the part that pays the best, that the expenditures made on it up to this time have been justified by the results, and that still more expenditure is required in order to get still better results. I should also say here that the Webb syndicate are building a railway from the Strait of Canso to Louisbourg, which will open up a valuable piece of country, and in its connections will certainly develop a considerable amount of trade. What its future connections may be is, of course, a matter of conjecture at present.

I have spoken at some length appreciably of the Intercolonial Railway. There is another matter to which I would draw the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals and concerning which I cannot congratulate myself, as a representative of the county, or him as a minister. I have pointed out that the amount of money expended on that road has greatly increased. I have to admit in the hon. minister's favour that the rate of wages to a great many people employed on the track has been increased, but I believe that no industry ought to exist, in this or any other country, which cannot stand on its own bottom and pay its employees sufficient wages to keep them and their families according to the requirements of our civilization. That is a proposition which the people will endorse. I say that there are three classes of labourers on the Intercolonial Railway, the trackmen the mechanics and the freight handlers, who are altogether inadequately paid. The con-

!ud0IL0LS0mem0f tllese men in large places like Halifax, Truro, and Sydney is simply

pitiable. Everybody knows that no man wdh a wife and family of three or four children can live decently, where he has to pay a rent of from $io to $12 a month, on a wage of $1.25 to $1.30 per day, and I shall have in a few days, I hope, the pleasure of supporting the resolution of my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) that in the opinion of this House, the time has come when at least nothing under $1.50 pei day shall be paid to the workingmen on the Intercolonial Railway. I cannot too strongly emphasize my discontent with the conditions of many of the labouring men along that road.

There is another matter on which I may speak a few moments without wearying the House, as it is one of very great importance to the larger part of our population, the labour element, the hon. members on both sides may as well recognize that this is a question which will not down, and that the movements on foot in other countries are today getting a start in Canada. This question, Sir, has got to be dealt with. I congratulate

the lion. Minister of Labour on what he has done. He lias done considerable in the interests of labour, and I am happy to know that he has measures yet in contemplation which he proposes to put on the statutes for the benefit of our labouring men. Not long ago a deputation from the Trades and Labour Council of Canada waited on the government. By the courtesy of one of its members I happened to be present, and I think that the members of the government who were there must have been convinced that from British Columbia to Nova Scotia there is a deep-seated conviction in the labour element of the country that labour does not get a fair share of the profits of industry. I think that that point was emphasized, and I take the ground that while we cannot initiate some measures in the interests of labour in this parliament, and that while many such measures must be introduced in the local legislatures, the government of Canada, so far as it is an employer of labour, should be a model employer of labour. I think that that is a proposition which no one, when he goes before the people, will venture to contradict. Some of you may recollect that last session I requested the government to collect during recess from other countries measures that have been there adopted for the benefit of labouring men. The late Mr. Harper was engaged in collecting this information when he came to nis death by drowning, and shortly before his untimely demise he intimated to me that he had collected a considerable amount of information on this matter, and told me where I could find the balance, and I am indeed indebted to him for having secured the amount of information I have now in my possession. My hon. friend from Cumberland, as you are aware, Sir, has on the Order paper a notice of motion with regard to rates of wages on the Intercolonial Railway, and I have also a resolution on that paper asking that the government recognize that the time has come when the provisions of the British Workmen's Compensation Act should be made available for the labourers of this country. I quite recognize that this is a very radical measure. Lord Salisbury put it through in 1897, at the instance of Mr. Chamberlain, and shortly afterwards one of Lord Salisbury's supporters resigned his position in the House, and wrote a pamphlet against him entitled ' Conservative or Socialist, Which ? ' I saw that in 1898. I got a copy of that measure and showed it to the premier of Nova Scotia in 1898 ; and the following year, when he visited Great Britain, he inquired into its working with the result that he came back convinced that the Act was a workable one, and introduced in Nova Scotia what Is known as the Employer's Liability Act, which contains many of the provisions of the Employer's Liability Act of Ontario, with those of the Workmen's Compensation Mr. KENDALL.

Act of England grafted on it. I take the ground that what is not too good for the British workingmen is not at all too good for his Canadian fellow-labourer, and if this Act has been found workable and beneficial in England, it is a fair proposition for the government to put it on our statute-books for the benefit of its employees.

There is another matter to which I wish to refer very briefly. The Dominion Irou and Steel Company, of Sydney, is, in a certain sense, a child of the government. It receives a large bounty from the government. It has received concessions from the town of Sydney, from the legislature of Nova Scotia and from this government. The country is making an investment in that business, an investment which will probably meet me initial losses which are always incident to the inauguration of a new industry. Sir, I say that business is to a certain extent the child of the government ; and I take the ground that when this parliament bonused that institution and several other similar institutions, it supposed that Canadian labour would not be discriminated against at least. Our workmen down in Nova Scotia-and we have also a number from other provinces-are not narrow-, minded-men. They recognize that a large amount of skilled labour had to be brought in from the United States in order to, operate mat plant. No exception is taken to that. And, Sir, I am not one who would deny to a man from the United States a day's work in Cape Breton or anywhere in Canada ; and, if he came over and, as a good citizen was ready to cast in his lot with us, we would do everything we could to help him. But I do not want to see men brought in here if they are going to displace our own men, particularly when the taxes of those men are drawn upon to pay bonuses to these companies. I think that is a fair proposition. I do not wish to be harsh, but I will say that the spirit of the Alien Labour Law has been impudently violated by that company. I say that Canadians have been discriminated against; I say that men have been brought in here who are not required.

I admit that a great many men were brought in who were

required. Many of them are able, capable men. and their services will be of value in assisting our development. But I emphatically protest against discriminations against our workmen. To my knowledge, capable men who were occupying similar positions to those filled by friends of the managers are being paid only 50 or 60 or 70 per cent as much as men brought from the United States.

For the same work ?

Mr. KENDALL.

Doing the same work. If I hesitate, it is because I wish to be a little careful, for I feel inclined to say, perhaps. a little more than I will say. I shall reserve anything further for a later day, lie-

cause I have been promised by certain uirec-tors in that company that the state of affairs will he improved. But 1 wish to point out to the directors of the Steel Company and the Coal Company, that they and the great banking institutions have made a great investment in Cape Breton in coal and iron, and it will pay them to make an investment in the good feeling of the country. I wish to say-and I feel a little restraint in making this remark-that a document was put into my hands not very long ago issued by the company to the workmen under twenty-one years of age, intimating to these young men that if they did not sign away their rights under the Employer's Liability Act of Nova Scotia, which I have just spoken of, they could consider themselves dismissed. Sir, I say that that is an arbitrary act, that is an act that can only be characterized as an act of oppression. And what I now say I say with deliberation, having thought it out, and I am prepared to take the responsibility of it-that, if the great Napoleons of capital of this country undertake to crush out the legitimate aspirations of our labourin' population, if they ignore and violate the regulations and laws of the country which are the offspring of civilization, if I may say so, then I hope to live to see the time when such tyranny will bring to its perpetrators the retribution that tyranny has frequently brought to its perpetrators in the past-I hope to live to see the day when men who make war on humanity will be outlawed. Now, Sir, having made this statement I wish to say again to the investing public : We have a strongly organized labour in Cape Breton, perhaps the most strongly organized in Canada, but I point to the record of that labour element. It is an element that can be relied upon. For sixteen years in the great collieries in the southern part of Cape Breton, we have not had a strike. I say that that is the best security that investors in Cape Breton can have. That is an asset which investors should not undervalue ; and again I say that the great operators, the great manipulators of capital in placing investments there should see to it that they make an investment in the good-will of the people. I wish to say to them still further that a policy of antagonism to the legitimate aspirations of labour will be fatal, and I sincerely hope that a wise policy will prevail on the part of those who come to develop that country, as it will be developed. Some years ago, in the local legislature of Nova Scotia, the island of Cape Breton was referred to by one bon. member of that body as the tin can at the tail of the dog. But one of the members representing a Cape Breton constituency said: Not the tin can at the tail of the dog, but the jewel in the swine's snout. Sir, we anticipate great developments, and we want to have not only material development but social development as well. And we want the processes which have developed our mining population up to its present status

during the last thirty or forty years to be continued, and are determined as far as possible that elements which are calculated to break up the happy condition that now prevail shall be, as far as possible, thwarted.

Mr. Speaker, I have occupied the time of the House longer than I anticipated. But I did want to say a word or two about the resolution now before the House, and I will content myself with a very few words indeed. I may say to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that I sympathize with him to a certain extent in putting that resolution before the country. I did hope, when he began to read the resolution that it would shed some light upon his fiscal policy, that it would not be merely nebulous and indefinite. There may be some light in it, but it reminds me a good deal of a ray of moonlight in a very foggy night. I cannot understand what the hon. gentleman seeks to do. I would like him to particularize, to point out just where he is going to improve the tariff. I would like to remind the hon. leader of the opposition that a gentleman who occupied the position of leader of the Dominion government, the late Right Hon. Sir John -Thompson, spoke on one occasion of ' mouldering branches ' in connection with the tariff, which, in his opinion, might be lopped off with benefit to the country. We have heard no demand for tariff changes except only from hon. gentlemen on this side who think that the tariff is too high, except from one industry, the woollen industry. I wonder if he ever thinks that possibly this woollen industry may be one of the mouldering branches which the late Sir John Thompson had in his mind. Let him not misunderstand me. I am not anxious to see the woollen business suffer to any greater extent than it does today. I suppose that is one of the industries to which he wishes to give added protection, but I wish to point out that when a million dollars worth of woollen goods are made in Canada, as compared with a million dollars worth produced in Great Britain, the manufacturer of this country still has an opportunity to sell that million dollars worth for $1,233,000 under the preferential tariff.

Sir, the hon. gentleman proposes to frame a policy for this country, and I was thinking the other day that possibly when he takes a bird's eye view of half a continent, and looks at those resources of Canada which must be the backbone of our prosperity in the future, the four great natural industries : The mining and fishing of

British Columbia, the farming of the Northwest, the fishing, farming, lumbering and mining of Ontario, the fishing, farming, and lumbering of Quebec, and the similar industries of the maritime provinces ; and when he looks into the future and thinks which of the industries at present in existence are most likely to build up the country, can he doubt what is the best policy for us to,pursue ? It is best to pursue a policy of developing the great natural in-

dustries, of the country, or a policy of fostering a number of manufactures which can scarcely be expected ever to stand alone ? Now, there are some manufacturing industries in this country that can stand alone, and one of these is the manufacture of agricultural implements. I have heard statements made by one of the men prominent in that business that to-day they are practically independent, that to-day they can take certain of their implements and sell them in Australia and in Europe in competition with similar implements from- the United States ; that as a matter of fact they are not able to-day to supply the home market, and that a number of American implements come in here for the reason that our implements can be sold in Europe to better advantage than they can be sold at home. That statement was made to me not fifty feet from where I stand, a few days ago, by a gentleman who knows as much about the business, I presume, as most any one. There are a number of manufacturing industries in this country that are almost as independent as those of fishing and agriculture. Sir, I say that the great natural industries of this country are those to which we can direct our energies the most profitably. I am sure that in the province from which the hon. gentleman comes he can find scarcely an industry that is likely to be benefited by a higher protective tariff than the present one.

Let me say that being a free trader in principle, I agree that the present tariff is merely a tentative measure. I believe that the present is a better tariff than the one that formerly existed, yet It is not the best system, though perhaps it is the best which is within practical politics to-day. I beileve that with the system that prevails in Great Britain, a system of direct taxation on all incomes over $750, the great bulk of our people would be better off than they are today. I make the statement that the burden of taxation falls on the shoulders of the people who have to earn their living by the sweat of their brow, and that the rich people of this country are escaping more and more their fair share of taxation. I point to the fact that in Great Britain no man pays a penny on income until he earns over $750 a year, unless he pays it on his spirits, and tobacco, and a few other articles of luxury. His food, his clothing and the materials with which he must work and gain a livelihood, are as free as they can be got anywhere in the world. I believe that system is one which would work in this country, although I admit that it is not within practical politics. I would advocate that system also as a tentative measure, because I'believe there is another system of taxation even better, and that is the single tax, or the land tax, but this form of taxation will probably originate in civic and municipal politics.

Now, Sir, before sitting down I wish to say that I defy hon. gentlemen opposite to

Mr. KENDALL.

show me whereby a protective tariff can help the fishermen of this country, whereby it will help the fruit-growers of this country, the miners of this country, or to any great extent the lumbermen or the pulp producers of this country, and the agriculturists of this country, except it may be the market gardeners who produce a few bundles of rhubarb and bunches of summer savory. I say that the great natural industries of this country that depend upon foreign markets and which are the backbone of this country, can in no way be benefited by protection. I accept it as a tentative measure, and only for the present, when we find it difficult to keep our population at home. I accept the present system in order to keep the population in the country, until such time as we will have a number of manufactures well established, not rooted in protection, but rooted in the solid and successful development of the natural industries of this country.

Mr. B. ROSAMOND (North Lanark).

I have no desire to emulate the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall) who has just taken his seat, in making a lengthy speech. He has spoken about two hours and three quarters by the clock, While I am sorry that I cannot compliment him on the brevity of his speech, I regret also that I cannot compliment him upon having given us any new ideas. He has given us a long and rambling speech without saying anything noticeable upon the budget. He told us just before sitting down that he had no desire to injure the woollen industry. Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we ought to be very thankful to him for that much. One would have supposed, if he had been in a patriotic mood, that he would have desired to benefit the woollen industry, but I suppose we must feel grateful to him that at least he has nodesire to injure that industry. He was unable to see any light in the amendment which has been moved by the hon. leader of the opposition. I am reminded of the old saying that none are so blind as those who will not see. I think if the hon. gentleman had read that amendment properly and if he had carefully listened to the speech of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), he would have seen a great deal of light and would have been benefited by it. In the early part of his speech he said that some woollen manufacturer in the province of Nova Scotia told him that he could not get wool enough to run his mill. Well, with my knowledge of the facts, the only conclusion I can come to is that gentlemen must have been having a little amusement wlth( the hon. gentleman.