Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).

In endeavouring, Mr. Speaker, to discharge our duties to our constituents and the Dominion of Canada at large, it seldom happens, unfortunately, that we can discuss any question upon which the different parties in this House entirely agree, but I feel that in the message conveyed to us by the Minister of Militia to-night, a subject is touched on which both sides of this House are heartily in accord. We all join in sympathy and regret that others had been added to the long list of those from Canada who have sacrificed themselves in South Africa for the empire. But also we rejoice that, while this loss has been sustained, we have the consolation of knowing that again the Canadian soldiers have acquitted themselves well in the field and have won for this country added renown. Casting over in my mind the many prominent statesmen who have adorned this country on both sides of politics, I venture to say that no act of theirs has ever brought Canada to the attention of Great Britain or stirred to the same extent the interest in this country of the people of the motherland, as the loyal response of the Canadian people themselves when England entered upon the present war in South Africa, the ready offer of service by our Canadian boys, and their valiant acts upon the field of battle in that far away land.

But it is my duty, my painful duty, to turn from things like this, to speak of the government of the day in this country. And, speaking of war, I am reminded that war always has a tendency to unite factions. The moment a country or a party is attacked from without, the rancor and hostility within that country or party are likely to yield, for the time, at any rate. To-day we have the Liberal party coming against the mountain, or the mountain coming against them in the person of the hon. mem-Mr. BRODER.

ber from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). The

government, as we all know, was in a rather unpleasant position, as touching that good will which should exist among the members of a government. But there are indications to-night that the attack, the very justifiable attack, which the hon. member for North Norfolk made upon the policy of the government has been having the effect, though slowly, of closing up the ranks of the cabinet, and it may have even affected the desirable change of bringing about comparative harmony. We have indication of it to some extent to-day. Since the 17th of March, we have been discussing this question, and with the exception of the speech of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) we have not heard one word from the government until this afternoon, when the hon. Minister of Agriculture spoke, brought into line, no doubt, by the circumstances I have referred to.

I notice that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce opened his very long and very familiar speech the other night by saying that if he had closed his eyes he could have imagined himself back in the old days of twenty-five years ago, and thought he was listening to the Conservative party of that day. Well, Sir, when he listened to the Conservative party of twenty-five years ago, he listened to as able men as it has ever been the happy lot of Canada to possess. And I am glad to tell my hon. friend, and to tell the Liberal party of Canada, that the policy which Sir John Macdonald originated in 1876-78 was so broad, it was so much more than a mere matter of tariff policy, it was so far-reaching in its operation and effects, that it is a policy upon which a progressive, intelligent and patriotic party can stand to-day. I cannot return the compliment which my hon. friend unwittingly paid to us and say that if we had closed our eyes we could imagine we were listening to the oratory with which the Mackenzie administration was defended in 1876, 1877 and 1878. Anyone who listened to the utterances of the speakers on behalf of the Liberal party from 1874 to 1878, would be a very dull man indeed if he did not mark the contrast afforded by the Liberal party of to-day. There were giants in those days on both sides; but where are the giants on that side to-night ?

Mr. McCarthy. Where, and oh, where 7

Mr. LENNOX.

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

has 'been created by the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk. The position in which the Liberals find themselves by reason of that speech is not at all pleasant for them. We saw the consternation that was depicted on their faces. But we can imagine that when another Sunday has been passed and the whole matter has been thought over, the government leaders to some extent may recover and next week we may hear from them. But, for the time being, the murmur went round, and the voice of the Liberal party was : We brought this man forth to curse the Conservative party, but behold he has altogether blessed them.

Now, 1 come to speak for a moment or two of some statements made this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture. 1 may say at once that I do not propose to take up much time in discussing the relative merits of the census taking of 1891 and of 1901. It is not a question with the people of this country as to how the census of 1891 was taken ; but the people, realizing that they are living in the twentieth century, are asking what the government of the day is doing, not what was done by another government ten or eleven years ago. I wish to remind my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture that by blackening the character of the gentlemen who took the census in 1891, he gives no certificate, either to the gentlemen who took the census in 1901, nor to the minister who presides over the department under which that census was taken. I was struck with the answer that the hon. gentleman gave to the question as to what steps he took for the purpose of ascertaining that the information he got is correct. I venture to say that such evidence as the Minister of Agriculture placed before this House to show the truth of the statements he made, would not be accepted in any law court of 'the land. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture, devoting himself to agricultural pursuits, is not aware of what is required in order to constitute reasonable proof in the minds of the people of this country on that point. But I call his attention and the attention of the House to the fact that there is not at present any verification of the census of 1901 ; but on the other hand, we have evidence that the administration flagrantly transgressed in many instances that have already been brought to the attention of the House, and also in respect to the methods that were adopted in sending out circulars to the census takers. There is great reason to suppose that the statements that he made are of no value whatever, and there is great reason to believe that if an investigation such as he has made was instituted in regard to the census of 1901, an even worse showing would be made than he has made regarding the census of 1891. Now I think the Minister of Agriculture is hardly doing himself justice, or doing justice to the government of which he is a member, in trying to make a mountain over 70

these little mattei's which he supported with such frail evidence. When an hon. gentleman occupying a responsible position tries to grow eloquent over such little petty circumstances as he did when he read statistics uncorroborated by any substantial evidence, it makes one feel that there is not much substance in his arguments. When he goes from climax to climax over the fact that in some lower Canadian households there are as many as 18 children, he hardly gauges correctly the intelligence of the members of this House.

But I pass over that question, and proceed to consider some questions that have been raised by other hon. members. The hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Sutherland) gave us the other day a very interesting list of the acts of this government during the six years that they have been in power. Well, I am glad he gave us that list. It is not very much to be proud of, if that is all they can show of what they have been doing for the benefit of this country. He might have told us of some other little things they have been doing, but he was probably endeavouring to make the same excuse that the leader of the government made in Toronto when he said that there was nothing to reform. Among the matters for which I notice the Liberal party are disposed to take credit, is the reduction of the postage, or what is called the Penny Postage Act. Now, Mr. Speaker, why should the Liberal party take credit for this penny postage ? Was there much labour involved in changing the rate of postage from 3 cents to 2 cents ? Did it involve much negotiation upon the part of the ministry ? 1 do not think they claim that it did ; what they claim is that this bright idea originated in the fertile brain of the Postmaster General. But I do not think that claim will stand investigation. If you inquire you will find that the idea originated as far back as 1896 ; when the Chambers of Commerce of the empire met in London, that was one of the articles of their programme which was discussed and endorsed. Coming as it did prominently before the empire in 1896, the year when this government came into power, it is not surprising that the Postmaster General seized upon the opportunity, and that this opportunist government seized upon the opportunity of making the change.

But I desire especially to call attention to some things that this government have not done, and that are matters of extreme urgency indeed. What have they done in regard to the regulation of freight rates ? Has there ever been a greater grievance, a greater iniquity, perpetrated upon the people than the freight rates as they exist today in the Dominion of Canada ? Why, Sir, it is a fact that the shipper for a short haul is compelled to pay, not merely the same as for a long haul, but in many instances even more than a shipper for a long haul. This I is a grievance that calls at once for the in-

terference of the government, and they can offer no reasonable excuse for having allowed that grievance to exist so long.

Take the question of national transportation. If there is a matter upon which the great agricultural classes of this country have set their heart and which is of vital importance to them it is this question of transportation. Looking at it in the broader sense, if there is anything that would tend to secure a permanent advantage to the people, if there is anything wliich is a living question to-day it is the problem, the greatest problem that any one can address himself to, of solving the best means of carrying across this continent and in the direction of the markets of the world the products of the agriculturists and of other producers in this country. The government have practically nothing to do as this session manifestly shows, because the government have nothing to bring down for the consideration of parliament. If there is anything which calls for the attention of parliament, it is this question. Can the hon. gentlemen give us any reason, any excuse, why this matter has not been taken up and discussed by the representatives of the people and parliament, getting upon it the light and intelligence that will result from laying the matter before the public through the newspapers and so bringing to bear upon it the best views of the people ? I know, of course, that there is the scheme of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte).

Mr. LENNO.X.

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

better than the old administration what valid excuse it can give to the people for allowing this matter to remain in statu quo until the present day. Can the government plead a rush of business ? There is nothing in this parliament to do except to pass some private Bills in the interest of the railway companies and other corporations of that kind. It is well enough to serve these companies and incidentally it may be in the interest of the people, but when we come to meet here great public measures should be brought before the representatives of the people and I think it would be hard indeed for the government to find an excuse for its delay in this regard. Even in the matter of legislating with reference to the cattle guards question, they have delayed doing so' without any reasonable excuse. A year ago we were told by the Minister of Railways that he had not had time for consideration, but a year has passed, nothing has been done, and we are again told that there must be another year's delay. I speak of these matters because they more particularly affect the interests of the farming community. There is indeed a long list of things which the government might reform, but which the government has not reformed, and which apparently the government do not intend to reform.

I have heard it said a good many times in this House by hon. gentlemen on the other side, that you may protect the manufacturers but that you cannot possibly protect the farmers. Well, gentlemen who make such a statement as that have not carefully considered the matter. If they would only look at the Customs Act they would find a long list of agricultural products that were protected under the Conservative government. and which retain a measure of protection to-day. That fact alone is sufficient evidence that you can protect the agriculturists. You can protect them in a direct way by putting a reasonably high duty, upon the products of the farm, the garden, the orchard ; upon animals and their products, and upon all things generally which farmers have for sale. There is also an indirect protection which you can give to the farmers, and that indirect protection is given in this way. Wherever you place a duty upon an article which is required by Canadian manufacturers, which forms the raw material of their business, and which article can be supplied by the farmers of Canada, then you protect the farmer to a considerable extent.

We therefore have direct protection and indirect protection for the farmer, and if it is found that more protection is required there is no obstacle whatever in the way of the government giving our farming community that adequate protection. It is idle for the government and their supporters to try to make the farmers believe that the reason why they have not done more for 70J

that class of the community, is because they are helpless to protect them. I assert Sir, without fear of successful contradiction, that the government has it in its power to give adequate protection to the Canadian farmer as they can give adequate protection to the Canadian manufacturer.

I shall not take up much time treating of the budget speech because unless you enter into a dry analysis of figures, it is one of those deliverances which do not afford mueh ground for discussion. I call the attention of the government to the fact, that year after year the budget is losing its old time significance as a declaration of the policy of the party in power, as well as being a financial report. It used to be, as hon. gentlemen can ascertain by looking up ' Hansard,' that before this government came into power-under the Mackenzie government and under the Conservative government-we got a clear and explicit declaration of the policy of the party for the coming twelve months at least, either in the budget speech or the Speech from the Throne. But now the Speech from the Throne enunciates no policy of the government, and the budget speech outlines nothing as to the future except an expression of hope by the Finance Minister that prosperity will continue. We could as well discuss the policy of this administration from the public accounts as from any information that is vouchsafed by the Finance Minister of to-day in his annual financial statement. However, let me draw attention to some of the figures which have been placed before the House. The revenue for the fiscal year 1899-1900 was $51,029,994.02, and the revenue for the fiscal year ending 1900-1901 was $52,514,701.01. The increased revenue of the one year over the other was therefore $1,484,707, or 2'91 per cent. One would expect that in these abundant times the expenditure would not increase at all events more rapidly than the revenue, but we find that the expenditure for the year 1899-1900 was $52,717,Kid.81, and the expenditure for the year 1900-1901 was $57,982,866.46, an increased expenditure in the latter year over the former amounting to $5,265,399.62, or 9'98 per cent. Therefore we find ourselves confronted with this result, that our income is increasing at the rate of 3 per cent while our expenditure is increasing at the rate of 10 per cent, in round numbers. And during this prosperous time when the people of the country might reasonably expect that there would be no increase in the public debt, we have the fact staring us in the face that there has been during the fiscal year just closed a net addition of $3,000,000 to the public debt.

We have this promising state of things announced by the Finance Minister, that we may expect by the end of the year which will be closed on the 30th of June next, another $6,000,000 added to the public debt of this country ; and yet the hon. gentleman, who seems to have got into that strain of

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

They have been so far.

Mr. LENNOX.

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

Mr. LENNOX.

eminent would not like to have fully investigated or disclosed ; but when it comes to a general election, and these men have to face public opinion and clearly declare their policy, and say whether they stand for protection or free trade, and give an account of their extravagant expenditure of the people's money, I dare say they will find to their cost that the people are not thankful, but that they will be thankful to have them out.

Now, I am going to read from the ' Monetary Times ' a few lines to show what this non-political journal thinks of this precious budget. Referring to the figures given by the Finance Minister, it says :-

This fairly takes away one's breath, the sums are so vast, and the increase so rapid. Yet it is not recorded that Sir Richard Cartwright either swooned or swore, or that any of the old advocates of economy and reduction did else than cheer the minister as he placidly made these announcements on the authority and with (he sanction of a Liberal government. And yet, apart from the change of front indicated in the party, these figures challenge the serious attention of every thoughtful citizen. Granted that the country is prosperous, is it wise to set so rapid a pace, and raise to such a height the scale of expenditures, which once raised it will be found almost impossible to lower ? It is well to remember that as the prices of staples rise-and there have bean marked1 advances in price in many lines of recent years-the amount received from customs taxation rises, for it is largely ad valorem. Then, when prices fall, the amount of customs revenue falls. In prosperous times, with a buoyant revenue, is it prudent to spend it all and add so many millions besides to a debt already too large ? For $13 per head or $65 per family for one year's government is a tremendous charge. Giving all due force to the contention that we are a growing country, and must needs provide generously for the public services, this headlong rush forward in taxation and expenditure, seemingly unchecked by bit or bridle, invites reflection on the part of business men and thoughtful citizens. These piping times will not always continue, and the overdrain of to-day hastens the exhaustion of to-morrow. We cry a warning and a halt

before the rush has become a rout in which moderation and prudence lose their meaning and their force. At this rate we know not where we shall end, for, though the minister hints at limits to the tide of prosperity, he apparently sets none to the volume of expenditure.

I call the attention of the members of the government to this fact, that although the Minister of Finance, in his budget this year, seems rather more hopeful than he was last year of a continuance of good times, if we consult the great organs of public opinion or the great financiers, we will not find them sharing that opinion. On the contrary, there are indications that the good times are not likely to continue for very long ; that we are just about coming to the crest of the wave which the Finance Minister spoke of last year, and that we ought to prepare for the time, perhaps before 12 months pass round, when we shall be face to face with another state of affairs.

The London ' Times,' a valuable oi'gan of public opinion, points out that Germany, France and Russia are already beginning to be sensible of a change, and suggests to tlie people of Britain whether there is not good reason to believe that a change for the worse is likely to set in there as well. Let me call the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance to the story of Joseph. *1 would not like to follow in the lead of the First Minister of the province of Ontario and mutilate the Bible, but it seems to me that an edition of special copies of the story of Joseph would be beneficial to the government of this country. That story was not written originally for private circulation or for the Egyptians or Israelites alone, but as a warning to all. It was written for the members of this government as well, in order to give them a lesson of prudence, in order to warn them to lay up in the years of plenty provision for the years of scarcity that are bound to follow. And the government would do well to lay this lesson to heart so as to meet the change which is bound to come very soon; and when that change does come, this country will view the course of the government in a far different spirit from that in which they may be disposed to regard it to-day.

I hear hon. gentlemen on the other side frequently ask what our policy is, as if they did not know. Again we hear hon. gentlemen on that side say that they know all about it. Well, I am not an experienced member of the House and do not propose to outline a policy for the government; and if I did and the government should adopt it, 1 fear, from the experience we have had that they would not give me the credit, but would assume the authorship themselves. I would like, however, to call attention to certain characteristics of policy and certain conditions which must obtain in this country to form the primitive elements of prosperity. Our great point first should be to get capital and labour. You may analyse all the various elements which go to make up prosperity, and you will find that the basis of them all is capital and labour. These are at the foundation of all commercial prosperity. A policy to be successful must be one which will have the effect of attracting capital and labour. There can be no complete development or utilization of our resources without what is called in the resolution of the hon. the leader of the opposition, a declared policy, and one which will attract sufficient capital and labour into this country to develop our latent resources. And in order to attract capital and labour, you must have two things constantly in yottr policy. It must contain a reasonable promise of gain and a reasonable assurance of stability. These were wanting in the policy which was in force during the Mackenzie regime. It failed to afford a reasonable return for investment and a reasonable reward for labour, in consequence of which the country was not able to pay

its way. Under those conditions it appeared to many, and among other-as we now have it from the hon. member for North Norfolk-to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that some remedy should be adopted to assist the exchequer and afford relief to the suffering people of this country. Unfortunately, however, in their budget of 1876, although they declared that the condition of. the country was bad, although they said that the government was not able to pay its way, they refused to make any change. The result was that soon afterwards, they lost the reins of government and a better state of things was inaugurated. The late Sir John Macdonald was the man of the moment. He was the one statesman who, according to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) was able in the course of some two hours, between six o'clock in the afternoon and eight o'clock, when the House reassembled after recess, to frame, devise and frame the first of a series of celebrated resolutions. That resolution which he then submitted to the House was in these words : ,

I move that the Speaker do not now leave the Chair, but that it be resolved that this House regrets His Excellency the Governor General has not teen advised to recommend to parliament a measure for a readjustment of the tariff, which would not only aid in alleviating the stagnation of business, deplored in the gracious speech from the Throne, but would also afford fitting encouragement and protection to the struggling manufacturing industries, as well as to the agricultural products of the country.

As it has been understood, Mr. Speaker, that I should not complete my remarks tonight, I would now move that the debate be adjourned.