Mr. J. CLANCY (Bothwell).

Mr. Speaker, I do not imagine that it will be necessary for any hou. gentleman on either side of the House to offer any apology for making some criticism upon the budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance, nor upon the speeches that have followed by lion, gentlemen opposite in support of the position taken by the Minister of Finance. I confess, Sir, as I am sure almost every bon. gentleman in this House must confess, that the speech of the hon. Finance Minister was somewhat disappointing. True, it was not disappointing in that part of it which relates to successful tax gathering, it was not disappointing in regard to enormous and barren expenditures, it was not at all disappointing with regard to the increasing public debt; nor was it wanting in those respects which drew from hon. gentlemen opposite lusty cheers over the inconsistencies of their leaders.

Before I proceed further, I wish to make some remarks about the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He made a very able speech from bis standpoint. The hon. gentleman is well known in this House as an old parliamentarian. a gentleman of admitted ability-I am not quite sure that it has always been well directed. But no one can deny that_ the hon. gentleman is possessed of great ability. I wish in the outset to congratulate the hon. gentleman on maintaining his splendid record of inconsistency, of facing every way

that is known, and in fact of facing ways in advance that no person knows anything of. I am not sure but that the hon. gentleman was selected to make that speech ;

I am informed he was selected by tbe First Minister to speak just at that juncture.

I am not certain but that the hon. gentleman was selected on account of his inconsistency. Under tbe conditions that now obtain in tliis House it was desirable that an hon. gentleman should speak just then so that no matter what he said members on that side of the House could at least quote him against himself, even if he had said something quite the opposite. But the hon. gentleman oceujnes a very important position in this country. Next to being a minister of the Crown, the hon. gentleman probably occupies the most important position of any man in this House in that he was selected by his leader as one of the Canadian delegates to take part in the international commission who had to deal with grave and important affairs affecting Canada. The bon. gentleman served on that commission, I have no doubt, with his usual ability. Now, Sir, I repeat that I have the best reasons for knowing, in fact I do know, that that hon. gentleman was selected to speak at that particular juncture at the special request of the Prime Minister. Whatever may be said of the hon. gentleman's inconsistencies, it must be admitted that the hon. member for North Norfolk, who had been a member of that commission, was not speaking his own mind alone when he addressed this House, the statements he made were not merely his own inventions ; and the country will understand that he spoke the mind of those hon. gentlemen who are his associates, including the mind of the right hon. tbe First Minister.

I shall now, with the permission of the TTrMiejp iiovG something to soy Tvltli rogorcl to the hon. gentleman's attitude upon that and some other questions. He started out with a renewal of the old campaign of unrestricted reciprocity. There is absolutely no mistake as to the position he has taken. He has taken the position that will at least appeal to one section of Canada, whether it appeals to another section or not. In order that I may make no mistake, I will quote some of his words. He declared that when the delegates went to Washington on the reassembling of that commission, their object was to secure, if possible, reciprocity with the United States. The hon. gentleman pointed to the advantages of reciprocity with the United States. What was the very first prominent advantage which he held out to the people of Canada ? It was that the province of British Columbia should look to Oregon and Washington as the places where they could get their supplies. Then, the hon. gentleman turned to the east and told the people of the maritime provinces to look to the state of New York, or to the state of Maine, in order to get their supplies. It is not difficult to translate that language into

plain English and the true translation is that those two sections of Canada were to look to the United States for a market. The hon. gentleman seems to have two schemes. I have no doubt both of his schemes have been thought out and discussed with his leaders, and I am perfectly sure, from the trend of his speech, that they were well and intimately discussed with hon. gentlemen representing the North-west Territoris. One was that the hon. gentleman was to ask for reciprocity with the United States, and failing in that the next course was to be the adoption of a retaliatory tariff. The House, I am sure, is somewhat at a loss as to which of these the hon. gentleman thought would be the more successful, but the one that seemed to please the hon. gentleman most, himself, was that we were to adopt a system of reciprocity. What else did he hold out to these hon. gentlemen from the west ? Let me say here that I have no doubt that of all the speeches delivered in this House during the session, copies of the hon. gentleman's speeches will be printed and distributed amongst hon. members from the Northwest and Manitoba and among the western people moi'e than the speeches of any hon. member.

Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).

Hear, hear. Mr. CLANCY. I hope my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) from down by the sea who says ' hear, hear ' and gives his approval to the ideas of the hon. gentleman will go down and apologize for the opinions of his colleague who sits beside him. I am uot going to say that all of the members from the North-west are going to take the course which I have suggested, but these speeches are delivered for the purpose of appealing to those who are coming into Canada today. We are told that what the farmers of the west want is access to the American market because they could get the best price for their wheat.

Mr. COCHRANE.

Nonsense.

Sir. CLANCY.

True, it isi nonsense, but nonsense sometimes has an effect. Very often nonsense is more serious than truth because it is more difficult to meet nonseuse than truth. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) has, nevertheless, made use of such language. He has told the farmers that if they could get reciprocity with the United States the wheat market of the United States would be infinitely better for them than the British market. The hon. gentleman tells us that if we had reciprocity with the United States the question of a market for the farmers of the North-west is solved. He knows perfectly well that that country is rapidly settling and that the greater number of settlers who are going in there now are Americans, a class of men whom we all welcome to this country, a class of men who have been brought up and who have lived under institutions similar to our own, but a class of men who are Americans and Mr. CLANCY.

not Canadians. Does the hon. gentleman wish to cultivate a Canadian spirit or an American spirit V Does he mean to say that the people of western Canada are to turn their faces towards the United States? He went so far as to say that geographicallv the west was part of the United States, that it was part of the great Mississippi valley, and he told the people of that country that insofar as they were geographically concerned they did not belong to Canada, but that they belonged to the United States and that they must look to the United States for their supplies, that their wants must not lie supplied by Ontario and the maritime provinces, but by the Americans who live adjacent. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman, when, he is making that appeal to a false and un-Canadian sentiment in this country, when he is endeavouring to tell the people that they are infinitely better off in the United States commercially and politically, perhaps, for all I know, because that is the trend of his argument, what we are improving our waterways for, what are we improving our railways for, what are we spending large sums of money to improve Canadian transportation for, if the great stream of Canadian wheat produced in Manitoba and the North-west Territories is to be diverted to the United States ? Is that expenditure to be of any use if the plans of the hon. gentleman are carried out ? I have very grave doubts if hon. gentlemen opposite are prepared to go so far as to say that we are to have one Canada west of Lake Superior, and another east of Lake Superior. I think no more dangerous doctrine could be euunicated in this country. No man is less affected, perhaps, than I am, by what may be called false sentiment, but, this is no false sentiment; it is a danger to Canada and the hon. gentleman who is giving utterance to such ideas takes upon himself a grave responsibility.

This leads me now to the position of the right lion, leader of the government (lit. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in regard to the re-assembling of the International Commission. Thcj right hon. gentleman has given us. in clear and distinct language, what lie thinks should be, and what I should judge lie very well knows, will be the position of the Canadian delegates when the commission meets. But, is there not a question whether the commission should meet at all ? Is the government in a position now to retrace its steps, to violate the pledge which was solemnly given more than once by the right lion, gentleman to this House ? What was the pledge which the hon. gentleman gave to this House ? Why, Sir, when that commission met and they were unable to agree the House and the country approved of the position which the right hon. gentleman and, his colleagues took upon that occasion. These hon. gentlemen took a course that every true Canadian supported and applauded. AVhat was the position which they took ? The Americans laid down such

16S6

conditions for the settlement of the Alaska houndary question and in regard to other questions at issue, and which were discussed by the commission, as to make it utterly impossible for any self-respecting ministry; in Canada or elsewhere to accept these conditions. What were the conditions ? There were two important and distinct conditions laid down. In one instance the American commissioners insisted that 'f it were found that by friendly negotiation they were unable to come to a conclusion in regard to the Alaska boundary question, and it was left to arbitration there should be six commissioners, three upon each side, and that there should be no umpire. To that the right hon. gentleman stated in this House more than once that he objected, that he thought, and he gave several reasons for his opinion, that it would be impossible to arrive at any decision or to secure a settlement of the question upon that basis. Another condition laid down by the American commissioners was that in the event of the Lynn canal and the establishments being found by the arbitration to be in Canadian territory they were still to remain a part of the United States notwithstanding any such finding. The right hon. gentleman and his colleagues very properly rejected that proposition. Well, Sir, that condition was so absurd, so absolutely at variance with reason and common sense that no man could entertain it for a single moment on any ground whatever, but we are told by the right lion, gentleman that the Americans have receded from that position and that therefore the question, at least so far as that is concerned, has been somewhat solved. I ask the right hon. gentleman if the recession of the American people from the most absurd proposition that was ever made iu regard to any international arbitration is one that will be thought of advantage to Canada in any sense whatever or one that the British government should take advantage of ? Such a contention was absolutely at variance with) any idea of settling such an international question, and there is no thanks to the American government for having abandoned it, because there was never any rhyme nor reason for setting it up. We are to have an Alaskan boundary commission, and I venture to say in advance that there is no possibility of any decision being arrived at. I believe that the American people are simply temporizing in order to find out what the mind of the Canadian people is. And, as to reciprocity with the United States, what was the position of the right hon. the First Minister upon that question in its earlier stages. In 1899 (' Hansard,' page 1061), he said :

My moutli is closed on the subject and I cannot speak but there has been a statement made officially by the foreign office coming from the commission itself which has given to the public why we could not agree. The American commissioners did not want to have an umpire. They wanted to have three commissioners on one side and three on the other side. To this we could not agree because such an arrangement would not give us a definite settlement of the question. They also wanted it agreed that if the establishments they made at the head of the Lynn canal were found to be in Canadian territory they would continue to remain part of their own territory. We could not agree to that.

Well, every7 Canadian will agree in that sentiment. And speaking further the right hon. gentleman said :

We came to the conclusion after giving the matter our best thought that the only rule which could be adopted in the position of things which existed in that distant part of the country were the rules so recently adopted for the settlement of the Venezuelan question.

The right hon. gentleman was firm in liis decision at that date. He went on to say :

I have only to say this, however, that the attitude which we have taken has the approbation of the people of Canada generally and it is an attitude which must and will be maintained to the end.

I ask the right hon. gentleman now, if he proposes to give away the case of Canada. Does he propose to maintain to the end the policy he announced here. Does he not think that it is giving away the case of Canada when he consents to an international commission on which there is to be no umpire, and which in all human probability cannot come to a just decision. I ask the right hon. gentleman if he and his friends are prepared to go to Washington now to negotiate a reciprocity treaty with the United States when he has already declined in expressed terms to do any such thing. In the face of his declaration, I ask the right hon. gentleman if he thinks there is now any use whatever in going to Washington to try and negotiate a reciprocity treaty. I was going to say that the right hon. gentleman is in a humiliating position. Perhaps there is some truth in the statement made by a member in this House a few nights ago when he said that the letters that have passed between the Prime Minister and Mr. Fairbanks are a mere piece of theatricals, and that the whole thing was arranged for the purpose of impressing this country with the view that the Americans were seeking to have the commission reassemble to discuss reciprocity. Read that statement of the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) in connection with the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and in connection with the position of the First Minister when he came back from Washington disappointed as every Canadian was disappointed-not disappointed with the efforts of our Canadian delegates but disappointed with the barren results which must follow any discussion with a set of gentlemen who seem to have no reason on

their side. Let me point to what the right hon. gentleman said about the commission when lie came back in 1899. Here are liis words :

I have no right to speak of what took place in the commission, but I have a right to refer to what is now in the minds of the Canadian people, and if we know the hearts and minds of our people at present I think 1 am not making too wide a statement when I say that the general feeling in Canada to-day is not in favour of reciprocity.

I ask the right hon. gentleman now if lie has changed his mind upon that subject. I ask him what he thinks of the hou. member for Nortli Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who has two policies up bis sleeve, one for a hostile tariff against the United States and the other for reciprocity, and lie is quite indifferent which he gets so long as he gets one of them. Then we have the Minister of Finance facing in another direction and holding out some comfort to the people who are looking for a revision of the tariff. In view of all this, is it not quite apparent to every man who reads between the lines that the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was quite right when he said : That this is all a piece of by play to deceive the public. It is quite evident that (lie government wants to run an election under two flags. They will go to the people of the west and say : We will give you

reciprocity with the United States aud you can sell your wheat in the United States so that you need not be troubled about the congestion of tlie railways which prevents your products from being carried to the market. And then they will make another appeal to the people this side of Lake Superior and they will say to them : There

will be no further concessions made to the United States; England will remove the tax upon breadstuffs in our favour and you will get your goods into the British market on better terms than the people of other countries. Is that not a fair reading of the whole subject, that bon. gentlemen stand in tlie position to-day of refusing to go either forward or backward, but are simply asking tlie people to wait for a revision of tlie tariff ? But there is danger of the people of this country being deceived on that subject now as they have been deceived in the past. When we have hon. gentlemen opposite supporting the government in all their contradictory positions, may we not conclude that that will be continued ? We have ministers of the Crown charged in this House by one who was but recently tlieir colleague, with haviug deliberately gone to the manufacturers in Montreal in 1896. with the consent of the First Minister and his colleagues, and telling them in unmistakable terms that they need not fear any tariff revision that would injure them, but that they would have such a tariff revision as would give them greater advantages than they had at that time. That

Mr. CLANCY.

charge was made by a gentleman who holds not an inconsequential position in this country, but by one who knows the hearts and minds of hon. gentlemen opposite, the late Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). He did not mention names, though he said that some of them were in the House when he spoke, but the names are well known. When that charge of duplicity was made against ministers, what did we find ? We found the right hon. First Minister, instead of rising in his place and repudiating the charge, asking my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) to get up and make a speech on reciprocity. Do hon. gentlemen pretend to ignore a charge of so serious a kind ? The hon. member for St. Mary's Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said : There

are gentlemen sitting on this side of the House (meaning the ministerial side) who have written me letters, who have discussed the matter with me, who have stated to me that they are in favour of my views. And the hon. gentleman even went farther, and alluded to my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson). I am glad to see my hon. friend in his place to-day, and I ask him if lie repudiates the charge made by an hon. gentleman who was a few days ago a colleague of his, that he was in league with those who went to the city of Montreal for the purpose of pacifying the manufacturers, and that he was a protectionist and had done everything in his power to maintain the protection which existed when he came into office. I ask the hon. gentleman if he now repudiates that statement, or is willing to stand convicted of having committed himself along with his colleagues to a position which is scarcely creditable to any set of men in this country.

I now wish to direct my remarks to some of the hon. members from the North-west Territories, and I ask what was the position of the Minister of tlie Interior (lion. Mr. Sifton) ? Why, Sir, liis position was that after these lion, gentlemen had made tlie bargain that I have referred to with the manufacturers in the city of Montreal, after they had, as it were, secretly sold out the people of this country, he told liis people that he loyally accepted the position taken by the government on the tariff. He said they had had a revision of the tariff, but had not lowered it; on the contrary, they had left it generally where it was before. Yet we find some of these lion, gentlemen from tlie North-west Territories, like the hon. membgr for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) crying out against a possible revision of the tariff, feeling and knowing that it is higher in some respects than it was before. Notwithstanding this these hon. gentlemen have no word to say in denunciation of the present tariff as they did of the tariff of 1896. I ask these lion, gentlemen what they have been doing all tlie lime they have been in this House. Has there been one honest or courageous enough to rise in liis

place arid show that he was earnest or serious on the subject by moving a resolution that the tariff should be reduced ? Not one of them lias made any attempt to put himself on record in this way.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose, with the permission of the House, to deal shortly with the tariff.

Mr. CAMPBELL.

Hear, hear.

Mr. CLANCY.

My hon. friend from West York who says 'hear, hear,' not many years ago thought it would be better to blow up the bridges at Niagara and the tunnel crossing from Sarnia to Port Huron, and to stop all the possible means of comunication between this country and the United States, than to continue the state of affairs that existed when he wanted unrestricted reciprocity. The same bon. gentleman, who is a worthy colleague of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), made an eloquent speech only a few days ago, with tears in his heart and in his voice for the market gardeners and their sufferings under the tariff ; yet we find that lion, gentleman voting religiously against what he had said, and declaring by that vote that he was humbugging the market gardeners, and was just as earnest in that speech as he lias ever been. He turned his back on them without any regard for his professions or his utterances.

Now, we are told that Canada is very prosperous. Well, I am sure nobody will marvel at that. Would it not be an astonishing thing if Canada were not prosperous, if Canada were not caught in the whirlpool of expansion which has spread all over the world. Would it not be a wonderful thing if even the evil position taken by the hon. gentlemen opposite could be the means of preventing that ? Hon. gentlemen have taken to themselves credit for having borne some part in bringing about that prosperity; but the fact is that they have been no factor in the case at all ; they have been lost sight of ; they have been as powerless to do good as to do harm. The hon. gentlemen were no factors in it. No matter what position they took, it did not make any difference. But we are told that they have changed the times in this country. We are told by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce that we have a new state of affairs and that all the circumstances that once justified his extreme utterances in this House have ceased to exist. There was a time when the hon. gentlemen opposite, who now applaud an expenditure of $64,000,000, cried out against an expenditure of $40,000,000. It is only six years ago, in 1S96, when these same gentlemen denounced a Conservative government, which took from the people in round numbers $36,000,000, and to-day they laud to the skies a government which is taking from the people $65,000,000. We find those same hon. gentlemen who, in 1896, bewailed the sad position of Canada, labouring under a debt

of $158,000,000. which they described as a national mortgage, now wildly cheering a debt of $271,000,000.

But we are told that our trade has vastly increased. True, Mr. Speaker, it has. But why has our trade increased ? Both sides will concede that Canada is in a prosperous condition. The Conservative party has never put itself in a false position and will never, for the sake of a momentary or paltry party gain, seek to decry the condition of the country. But in discussing the increase of trade, let us compare the record of the two parties. We fortunately are in a position to do so. We had a Liberal government in power from 1873 to 1878 and a Conservative government from 1878 to 1896, and we have had a Liberal government in office in the last six years. And I may preface this comparison by remarking that we should not attach too much importance to the policy of a government-whether Liberal or Conservative- when considering the progress or otherwise of the country in matters of trade. Our aggregate trade;-and I want to call the attention of the hon. member for North Norfolk to this-in 1873 was $217,000,000, and in 1878, after the Liberal government had been five years in office, it was only $170,000,000. In other words, our aggregate trade decreased under the Liberal regime, $47,000.000 during five years. Perhaps the hon. member from North Norfolk -will find some means of explaining this decrease to the advantage of Liberal administration.

We then had the Conservative party coming into office in 1878 with an aggregate trade of $170,400,000, and we find that at the end of the next five years, that aggregate trade has increased to $221,000,0000, showing an increase of $51,000,000, which I consider was a very fair showing. In 1S97, the Liberal party came into office with an aggregate trade of $249,000,000, which in five years was increased to $414,000,000, being an increase of $105,000,000. There have been of course in Canada, as everywhere else, periods of depression. The Conservative party had to pass through two periods of depression during their regime of eighteen years. The Liberal party had but one period while it was in office. If we are to attribute anything to the policies of political parties, we have the record of the Liberal party, which was in power live years, from 1873 to 1878, during which the aggregate trade of Canada decreased to the extent of $45,000,000, and immediately following that we had five years of Conservative policy and administration, during which our aggregate trade increased $51,000,000. We must bear in mind that our aggregate trade is one which does not depend entirely on the policy of the government. The trade within our own country, our domestic trade, is dependent in a great measure on that policy, but our aggregate trade is one over which, save as regards the offering of facilities for transportation-the government has

absolutely no control. Let me now take up the question of expenditure. I would like to ask the lion. Minister of Customs, who is an authority on the trade question, if he will, before this debate is through, point to us any great public work in Canada resulting from that expenditure 1 We have had immense expenditures in this country and great public works constructed, but not by any Liberal administration. We have nothing to look forward to and nothing to look back upon, to put to the credit of this enormous increase in our public expenditure which has been the result of the present administration. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite if they can point to any compensation for that immense expenditure ? I have no doubt that these hon. gentlemen will endeavour to evade the point by replying to my challenge in vague and airy generalities. Let me go more into detail. A good deal has been said with regard to receipts and expenditures of the Post Office Department. Our hon. friend the Postmaster General-who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place-has shown an extreme anxiety to convince the country that he is going to balance the two sides of the ledger. His chief ambition sems to be to wipe out a deficit, without any regard to the efficiency of the service. The efficiency of the service seems to be with him a very secondary consideration. Well, I do not think that in a sparsely settled country such as this, where new territories are being continually opened up, there need be any necessity for any Postmaster General to apologize for having a deficit in the management of his department. If he does not show a large deficit, he is not giving the people an efficient service. Let me point out in detail how the hon. gentleman has managed his department. Take the number of post offices, which existed in 1890, just six years before the Conservative party went out of power. In order to be frank and fair, I shall compare the six years' period of Conservative administration with six years under the present government. First let me give the increase under the Conservative government. The number of post offices existing in 1890 was 7,913 ; six years later, in 1896, it had increased to 9,103, an increase within those six years of 1,190. Now, the increase under the present government is paraded as a proof of the splendid administration of this economical minister, this hon. gentleman who wants to balance the ledger. But what is he able to show at the end of six years, in a period of great expansion, when Canada was making greater strides than ever before in her history, when the need for post office expansion was most keenly felt ? Surely, if the hon. gentleman had thought of anything except having eulogiums pronounced upon himself through his own mediums, the labour journals, the percentage of increase should have been infinitely greater than before. But we find that the number of post Mr. CLANCY.

offices under his administration increased from 9,103 in 189G to 9,958 in 1902, an increase of 855 post offices. This is all that the hon. Postmaster General can show in a period of unexampled development-an increase of 855 post offices against an increase of 1,190 in the previous six years. The hon. gentleman speaks of having wiped out the deficit. I am ashamed to think that the hon. gentleman was so anxious to wipe off this deficit that he resorted to methods that were neither more nor less than a shameless repudiation of the country's obligations. Taking advantage of the outbust of patriotism which marked the great Victorian Jubilee, the hon. gentleman issued jubilee stamps of large- denominations. Under the influence of the prevailing patriotic fervour, men instantly bought these stamps, supposing that they were as good as the bills issued by the Treasury department, believing that they represented so much money and that Canada would redeem them. But the hon. gentleman refused to redeem these stamps, and so wiped out nearly half a million of dollars and came nearer to balancing the ledger than he ever did before. A great deal is made of the pretension that the hon. gentlemau has reduced the postage. The Postmaster General tells us that he has given the people great concessions by the reduction of the domestic letter postage from three cents to two cents, and of the imperial postage also to two cents. Now, in the first place, I may tell the hon. gentleman and his friends that this move is not in the interest of the general taxpayer of Canada. There may be a time when the government which happens to be in power, whether Conservative or Liberal, can make the reduction of the postage to the advantage of the mass of the common people. But this reduction which the hon. gentleman has made, as I say, is no benefit to the ordinary taxpayer. It is idle for the hon. gentleman to say that all who choose to do so can avail themselves of this reduction. But to put upon the statute-book a law, or to make any move on the part of the government, is no benefit to the people if the people are not in a position to take advantage of it. Besides, it must not be forgotten that, while the hon. gentleman has made his spectacular reduction in the rate of letter postage, he has made very substantial increases in the rates on other postal matter. The newspapers are a very Important element in the life of our people, for Canadians are careful renders. To enable the people to keep abreast of public questions they should have their newspapers furnished them as cheaply as possible. Formerly newspapers mailed from the office of publication were carried free. Under the changed rates brought into force under the present Postmaster General, newspapers sent outside a radius of twenty miles are charged one-half cent per pound. Of course, the publisher of a newspaper cannot afford to pay this, he must add it to

liis subscription rate. For instance, it iny lion, friend from Nova Scotia (Hon. air. Ross) receives a paper from Ontario he must pay postage on it. But he is so loyal a party man that, I venture to say, he will applaud the Postmaster General for this addition to the postal rates.

Hon. air. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.). Not a bit of it.

Mr. CLANCY.

I am glad that the hon. gentleman (Hon. air. Ross) takes that position. What does the hon. gentleman think of the other increases that have been made ? For instance, newspapers and periodicals posted elsewhere than at the place of publication were formerly sent for one cent for four ounces. That rate lias been doubled, and now the charge is one cent for two ounces. Newspapers, single copies weighing not more than one ounce, were one-lialf cent, now they are one cent. Books, printed books of instruction, music and drawing books were one cent per four ounces, now they are one cent for two ounces. Pamphlets, circulars, hand-bills, packages of seeds, plants, grafts, &c., were one cent for four ounces, now one cent for two ounces. Maps, drawings, lithographs, photographs, sheet music, deeds, wills, mortgages, chattel mortgages, insurance policies, voters' lists, assessment rolls, municipal returns, patterns, samples of merchandise, and all that class of matter, which goes through tlie mails in large quantities, were formerly one cent for two ounces, now they are two cents for four ounces, four ounces being the minimum, a doubling of the rates. What do these increases represent ? We find, for Instance, that the increase in the number of newspapers and (periodicals posted elsewhere than at the place of publication was from 24,000,000 in 1S90 to 34,000,000 in 1901. Circulars, samples, patterns, &c., increased from 3,672,000 in 1896 to 7,364,000 in 1901. The effect of all this is that the ordinary taxpayer in Canada pays more for the postal service to-day than he did in 1896. This is proved by the fact that, whereas the total expenditure on the post office represented an average of 93 cents per head for the people of Canada in 1896, the expenditure in 1901 amounted to an average of 96 cents per head. Notwithstanding the withholding from the people of a proper postal service, notwithstanding that the service is starved in every direction, notwithstanding these professions of reduction in the rates, we find that the people actually pay more for the postal service to-day than they did in 1896. But that is not all. The bon. gentleman is guilty of concealment in the making up of his accounts. He is so anxious to have the ledger balance, so anxious to be able to declare that he has for once wiped out a deficit and gained a surplus, that he has resorted to what I believe to be discreditable tactics and has deceived the public by his manner of keeping his accounts. The lion Minister of Finance told us that there was a surplus, he believed, in the Post Office department. But he felt called upon to make apology and to make known the truth that there was, after all, a deficit. The expenditure for the whole Post Office department, according to the Public Accounts for 1902, was $4,023,000, while the revenue was $3,918,000, a deficit in round figures of $105,000. AVhy did not the Postmaster General, why did not the Minister of Finance tell the House the truth with no concealment ? But the hon. gentleman says : Wre had a service in the Yukon which cost us $117,000, and we only received $30,000. There was a deficit there of nearly $100,000, or, to be quite accurate, $87,485. Does the hon. gentleman think the Yukon is no part of Canada ? Why should he make an exception in that case, unless he wished to deceive the House and the country ? I repeat, Sir, such arguments are scarcely worthy a minister of the Crown, and are scarcely such as might be expected by the people of this country.

Now there is another matter, that with regard< to the Intercolonial Railway. I do not see the Minister of Railways in his place. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it has been your painful experience to notice that wo have no ministers of the Crown in their places in the House upon occasions of this kind when they ought to be here to defend the charges that are made against them. These are not merely empty charges, they are charges sufficiently serious to require that those hon. gentlemen should be present to defend themselves. But they show an utter disregard of these matters, and exhibit a most unedifying complacency when they happen to be in their places and are confronted with most damaging facts. Still, they sit there speechless, and receive the plaudits of their friends sitting behind them.

The Minister of Finance made a reference to the record of the Intercolonial Railway. Well, now, Mr. Speaker, I propose with your permission to deal with this question. I want to bring to the attention of the House the records of the two parties in managing that railway. That has always been a difficult business to administer; and I am prepared to admit that it always will be a difficult business to manage, and to manage with, success. But the hon. gentleman tried to make the country believe that at last they had found a solution of all the difficulties in connection with the Intercolonial Railway. Now, Sir, I will show you the results of the administration of that road during two periods of equal length, one under the Conservative government and one under the Liberal government. Take tlie six years from 1891 to 1896 inclusive, and what do we find ? The Minister of Railways in the Conservative government expended $20,651,000 on what is called working expenses; on capital account he expended

$2,698,000, or in all for those six years lie expended $23,350,000, in round numbers. Now, wlint was tlie revenue that came back to tlie people of Canada during that period? The revenue during those six years amounted to $19,020,000, in round numbers, or a deficit taken out of the pockets of the people-for I am prepared to admit that it had to] be taken out of the pockets of tlie people-of $4,320,000. That was the result during the six years preceding the advent of the Liberal government. Now the expenditure from 1897 to 1902 inclusive under the Liberal regime,! was, for working expenses, $26,048,000, and for capital expenditure $13,485,000, or a total expenditure of $40,133,000. The revenue during the six years period was $26,071,000, leaving a deficit that Canada must lose of $14,422,000 as against a deficit of $4,000,000 during the Conservative period. Is that, Mr. Speaker, a record to be boasted of by lion, gentlemen opposite ? During a period of great depression in Canada, wheu business was stagnant, not only in Canada but throughout the whole world, our friends administered that railway at a loss of only $4,000,000; but as soon as lion, gentlemen opposite came into power, during a period of the greatest expansion Canada lias ever known, when the Intercolonial Railway and every other road should have been making money, and most of them did make money, we have the spectacle presented by these lion, gentlemen of sinking $14,000,000 of the people's money in the Intercolonial Railway, t ask lion, gentlemen who sit opposite if they approve of a record of that kind ?

Now let me go a little further into details. Hon. gentlemen may say: Well, we have something to show for our expenditure, the public are getting a benefit from it, we have made that a paying institution, and tlie people are going to get their money back. Well, let us see what foundation they have upon which to base such a statement. There must be something radically wrong with the management of that institution. In the first place, we have a gentleman taken from the ranks of the Liberal party, a very able lawyer in the province from which he came, but a gentleman who has not shown any ability as) a railway manager, a gentleman who lias sunk millions of public money, who lias made of the Intercolonial Railway a dismal failure, who has made for himself a record as a railway manager that no man in this country will envy. Now. I want to make a fair comparison, and I think it will bo fair to make a comparison between the Intercolonial Railway on the one hand and the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway on the other. What do we find in 1896 ? In 1896 the earnings per train mile on the Canadian Pacific Railway were $1.40, and in 1901, five years later, the earnings were a little over $1.71 per train mile. On the Grand Trunk Railway in 1896, the earnings per train mile were $1. and ibis was a time, bear in mind, of great de-Mr. CLANC7.

pression. In 1901 the earnings of the Grand Trunkv Railway per train mile increased to $1.26. The average earnings per train mile on all the railroads in Canada for 1896 were $1.17; in 1901 they were $1.44. Now, Sir. what do you suppose were the earnings of the Intercolonial Railway in 1896 ? Why they were 76 cents per train mile, and in 1901 they were 79 cents, as against $1.71 on the Canadian Pacific Railway, $1.26 on the Grand Trunk Railway, and $1.44 on all the railways in Canada.

That is a splendid showing of the bon. Minister of Railways and Canals, that is the return the people are getting for this loss of $14,000,000 to which I have referred. But, there are other tests that I desire to refer to. The proportion of expenses to receipts is another test. The Canadian Pacific Railway, in 1896, had to pay out 60'05 per cent of its earnings for the purpose of carrying on its affairs and in 1901 it paid put 60'08 per cent. The Grand Trunk Railway paid out in 1896, 69-09 per cent of its earnings, while in 1901 it paid out 63-71 per cent of its earnings, or of its revenue. All the railways in Canada except the Intercolonial Railway, paid out 67 per cent of their earnings in 1896, and 65-92 per cent, or 66 cents practically, in 1901. What is the position of the Intercolonial Railway ? In this period of great expansion, when railways have had earnings jper train mile, in 1896, of $1.40, and in 1901 of $1.71, what is the record which we find in regard to the Intercolonial Railway ? Why, Sir, instead of comparing with the Canadian Pacific Railway system, with 60 per cent of its earnings being paid out, or with the Grand Trunk Railway system, with 63 per cent of its earnings being paid out, or with all the railways of Canada, except the Intercolonial Railway, with 65 per cent of its earnings being paid out, we find that the Intercolonial paid out, in 1896, 104-03 per cent, or 4 cents more than it earned, and that in 1901 it paid 110-76 per cent, or 11 cents more than it earned. That is the record of the Intercolonial Railway. Some lion, gentlemen say : Well, the Intercolonial Railway was built in the interest of the people of Canada. We have carried freight at reduced rates, we have given the money back to the people, they have it in their pockets and if there is a disparity between the two sides of the ledger it lias arisen by reason of the fact of giving the people special freights and other special advantages. Let me call the attention of the House to this point for a moment, and then I shall conclude : The revenue per ton per mile in 1896 for all freight carried over the Intercolonial Railway, was 1 -297 cents, nearly 2 cents, as you will see, and in 1901 it was 1-478 cents. Therefore, the people have not had any compensation for the increased taxation; they have paid higher rates of freight than before and we have the lamentable spectacle of the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals having sunk large sums of money

and having the credit of having managed the Intercolonial Railway worse than any other railway in Canada has been managed, and I venture to say, worse than any other railway on the continent of America.

Now, we come to the canals. These lion, gentlemen are telling us what they have done for the country. I shall only detain the House for a moment to call attention to the period in which the Conservatives were in power and in . which they spent nearly as much upon the canals as did lion, gentlemen after they came into office. During the period from 1892 to 1890 the Conservatives spent $14,828,981. The Liberal government, during the period from 1897 to 1901, spent $17,635,377, or a yearly increase of something like half a million-actually $561,000. We are told of the splendid results, and of the great expansion that has taken place since they came into power. They try to account for their magnificent expenditures, as they call them, by saying : We have gone to work and completed the canals, we have given facilities for transportation, we have aided Canada in every manner possible. What do we find has been the result of the completion of these canals of which these hon. gentlemen speak so much ? The revenue from these canals in 1896 was $339,539, and in 1901, $315,426, a decrease in that period of great expansion of $24,113. In that period, when we were all looking forward to our canal system as one which would be of great assistance in the transportation of commodities, when so much was being said about our waterways, we find that instead of our expectation being realized the very reverse was the fact. Let us take the traffic passing through these canals. In the period during which these hon. gentlemen expended this large amount of money, the period which they hold up to our view, we find the traffic returns to be as follows : In 1896 the total number of tons that passed through the canals was 5,033,869. In 1901, 2,408,985 tons passed through, or a decrease of more than one-half, a decrease of 2,624,884 tons. How have these hon. gentlemen compensated the people for these expenditures ? I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Finance is not in his place but I shall ask the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) to be kind enough to tell him about the Yukon. When that hon. gentleman was addressing this House and displaying the splendid achievements of the Liberal party in 1901, he had this to say about the Yukon, as given in ' Hansard ' of 1901, page 1455 :

Now, it is the policy of the government at the beginning, to use an expression which has become current, to make the Yukon pay for the Yukon, and that has been carried out.

Well, nothing was said about the Yukon paying for the Yukon this year. What have we instead ? I will tell the hon. gentleman the secret. I am sure he has been let into it before, because it was so very palpable.

However I will tell him again. The total expenditure for 1902 was $2,474,419, and the revenue was $1,559,259, so that there was a deficit of $914,960. That is the reason nothing was said about the Yukon. Some hon. gentlemen will perhaps say : Well, it has gone back but the Yukon has paid for the Yukon. The Yukon has not paid for the Yukon. The total expenditure for the whole period during which these hon. gentlemen have been in office has been $8,437,597, and the total revenue $8,267,826, so that there has been a deficit on the whole transaction of $169,771.

Mr. TAYLOR.

Some of them made more than that out of it.

Mr. CLANCY.

I am not including the pickings. I wish to call the attention of hon. gentlemen to what will be put forward as the reason for that. We will be told, no doubt, by hon. gentlemen who are to address this House in future that the royalties have been reduced and that therefore by reason of the reduction of royalties the people in that country have had some benefit from the reduction and that if the Yukon did not really pay for the Yukon, at least, the people, have the money in their pockets. AVell there was a reduction. The whole revenue from that source in 1901 was $1,237,000, and in 1902 it was $849,720, or a decrease of $387,000. I admit that was a reduction ini the right direction. It was a reduction wrung from the government by the efforts of the miners backed up by the strong effort made by the Conservative party in this House, and though the government at first refused to make the reduction they were forced to go back on their policy in that respect, as in many other respects. But although the reduction was $387,000, the deficit was $520,000, so that when the Finance Minister makes his next budget speech he will have to revise his statement that the Yukon pays for the Yukon.

I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is not here, because I have something to say to him. We hear that he is attending banquets and wearing pig tails, and having degrees conferred upon him. and hobnobbing with their Oriental Majesties, and that he will leave for home on the first of May. That will prevent him arriving in time to hear what I have to say.

Hear, hear.

Air. CLANCY.

Well, perhaps the Minister of Agriculture may be excused under the circumstances. We have been told often what the Liberals have done for the farmers in this country in the matter of cold storage, and how when the Liberals came into power they gave life to this system which was allowed to die for want of energy on the part of their predecessors in office. And when the First Minister was recently telling the people what his party had done for Canada, he mentioned this amongst other things :

Who asked that question ?

Mr. CLANCY.

I asked the question myself and this is what the Minister of Agriculture replied, and this is the discussion that resulted from that question:

Mr. FISHER.

In a general way the products which have gone forward in cold storage have been butter of which practically the whole export of Canada goes in that way, and poultry meat of which practically the whole export of Canada to Great Britain, not to the United States, goes in cold storage.

Mr. CLANCY.

What are the quantities ?

Mr. FISHER.

I have not got the quantities. About two hundred tons of poultry meat went last fall to Great Britain by cold storage. Tender fruits, such as pears, peaches and grapes went forward in mechanical cold storage chambers (but these are about all). Cheese has not gone forward to any great extent in cold storage chambers. Some shipments of apples had gone in cold storage, but as a general rule the shippers of apples say, In the first place, that too large quantities go at one time to get the accommodation. And in the second place they do not think it will be worth while to pay the extra storage accommodation.

Mr. CLANCY.

What was the value of the small fruits, and the value of the poultry sent forward in cold storage ?

Mr. FISHER.

I have not got the figures of the exact quantities or the values of the fruit or the poultry.

The Minister of Agriculture was not able to answer the question as to the value of the fruit or the poultry, but I will answer it for him, ancl I take my figures from the Trade and Navigation Returns published by the government. For the year 1000, the" total exports of poultry dressed and undressed amounted to $210,822 including all in cold storage or not. In 1901 that had dropped to $145,158, and in 1902 it only reached the comparatively small sum of $238,047. Now, let us take the small fruits to which the hon. gentleman lias referred. I include what was sent in cold storage and otherwise