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 :