March 18, 1903

?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).

Mr. Speaker, I do not rise for the purpose of engaging in the general debate, for I think that would be out of order, no motion being before the House, and it is only by the courtesy of the House that we are permitted to have this discussion. On the occasion of a formal ministerial explanation, we are properly confined to the constitutional question, and that question has been so fully dealt with by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that I would not think of entering upon it at all. Neither would I

think of following my hon. friend the leader of the opposition in his wide discussion of the fiscal question in which we are all interested. There will be a proper time for the discussion of that question ; but, as my right hon. friend has pointed out, we

can surely all realize that on the occasion of merely formal ministerial explanations, it is not the time for entering into a general discussion of that character. I would not say a single word but that the attitude of my hon. friend and late colleague, the exMinister of Public Works forces me to say a word or two on one point. I have observed that my hon. friend, in defending what we understand to he his mistake, has quoted my speech made in the House of Commons last year as a justification, claiming it as a promise that there was to be a revision in the following session. In the first place, I hold that if he wras right in that it is no vindication of his action, because if there is a promise, as there was not, and if there was to be a revision of the tariff, it does not follow that it would be on the lines which my hon. friend has stated at all. But I want to go beyond that. The speech has been read by the Prime Minister, and also by my hon. friend from St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and no reasonable man who reads it can find in it any promise beyond the engagements of the then present session. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that good judges agree that it is not well to decide anything beyond what is before them ; and, I dealing last sesion with the events of the session, stated- that we had decided that we would make no revision of the tariff that session. What we should do in another session was to be decided when another session came. Whether we -shall make tariff changes this session or not is a question yet to be considered, and it will be dealt with in due course. But there is nothing in the speech of March 17, 1902, to justify the statement of my hon. friend, though I know he makes it in good faith, that it was intended to be a promise. I noticed to-day that, feeling apparently how weak that proposition was, my hon. friend introduced another. He stated that he could find in reports of interviews with deputations the statement made by me that the tariff would be revised this session. I want to tell my hon. friend that he cannot find any such statement; I do not believe it exists, but if it exists, it is a fabrication, for no such statement was ever made. I think hon. gentlemen who know me at all, will believe that I am not in the habit of making statements beyond what the occasion requires. It was known that I was to speak last session of the policy of the government ; but it is never the part of wisdom for any public man to make engagements as to what he will do in the future until he is fortunate enough to have the light of the future to assist him in his judgment. So I stated last session that, for the various reasons set forth, there would be no tariff changes that session. We did not claim that the tariff was perfect; but as the days rolled on, and as matters should be presented to us under changing conditions, 6i

changes might become necessary ; but when those changes should be made, or whether the tariff should be increased or reduced, were questions which were not discussed in that speech at all, and no intelligent person can truthfully say they were. I am just reminded that my hon. friend said that that was Intended to be a pledge for this session. I do not wish to differ from my hon. friend. We have been good friends, and I desire, as no doubt he does also, that we should continue good friends, but I am bound to say that that in that respect he is mistaken,

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

If my hon. friend will allow me, would the Minister of Finance undertake to say that he did not tell several deputations to wait until next year ? Will he deny that it was told to deputations, who came here asking for an increase in the tariff, to wait until next session ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE.

No, I never made any statement which would convey the impression that the government bound itself to do anything with regard to the tariff this year. I have no doubt told deputations that we could not do what they wanted at present, and of course, I knew that they would come back next year, and every other year until they got what they wanted. But if my hon. friend wishes to convey the impression that, either directly or indirectly, speaking either for myself or the government, I ever gave any assurance which would bind the government beyond the then existing session, I am bound to tell him that he is entirely mistaken. The object of any statements of mine was to deal with the occasion as it presented itself, and when the future would come, we would deal with that future in the light then before us.

At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).

Mr. Speaker, in the discussion which took place this afternoon we heard a good deal about the loyalty of a member of the cabinet to his colleagues and to his chief. But there was something else which was not referred to, but which I think is equally important, and that is the loyalty of the head of the cabinet to a former member of his cabinet. If there was ever an exhibition of disloyalty to a former' colleague, that exhibition was made here this afternoon. An attempt was made, in the explanations offered to the House, to show that, in some way the Prime Minister had dismissed a colleague, when the facts go to show that that colleague the late Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) had tendered his resignation to his chief and that the chief had asked him to hold his resignation in abeyance, that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) went on

a journey, and that opportunity was taken to make it appear that he had been dismissed. I think that is one of the most discreditable things in the history of cabinet government of this country. And not only have we seen an exhibition of disloyalty on the part of a chief to his colleague, but we have also seen a case of disloyalty manifested by one member of the cabinet to another. It comes to this, that, as between the late Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) on the question whose view is to be accepted, I am inclined to take the view of the Minister of Public Works instead of that of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding). The late Minister of Public Works has this in his favour-that he resigned to maintain a principle, while the other hon. gentleman holds his position through a lack of principle. There is no possible explanation of his position before us to-day except that he is a free trader by profession and a protectionist by practice. Let me show the evidence on which 1 charge the Minister of Finance with being unfair to the late Minister of Public Works. The late Minister of Public Works says that it was clearly understood in the cabinet when he was a member of it that there was to be a revision in it and that revision was to be on the lines of protection. The hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) says that that is not the case. The late Minister of Public Works makes of his case but he is not the only witness that we can call. We have the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) also. That hon. gentleman himself is not here, but we have his words, and I propose to read these words. On March 21st, last, discussing this very declaration of policy which the leader of the House says is their policy, the hon. member spoke as follows :

Therefore when the Finance Minister speaks of changes, he is not referring to changes brought to his notice by the low tariff friends of the government, and consequently he must refer to those asked for by their high tariff friends

* Those of us then who are In favour of a low tariff are in a serious position, and I would like to say to the Minister of Finance that in making the announcement which he did, in his presentation of the budget, he has placed every supporter of the government, representing a constituency in which the low tariff idea predominates, upon the defensive in his own constituency before his own friends. It is, therefore, necessary on thiS' occasion that members holding that position should make themselves understood, so that whatever misunderstanding there, may be as to the intentions of the government, there should be none as to their position with regard to those proposed changes.

I cite that statement of the hon. member for Alberta as in every way confirmatory of the statement of the late Minister of Public Works. And, above all when we have the fact that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) sacrificed himself for principle

while the man who disputed his position refused to sacrifice himself for principle, the weight of testimony is altogether on the side of the late Minister of Public Works. And, if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are guilty of being unfaithful to a colleague, they are guilty also of this-that they sacrificed a colleague because he was a protectionist. That is a thing that the people of Canada will be interested in and will take into account-namely, that a member of the cabinet was sacrificed because he had declared in favour of a policy of protection. The hon. gentleman, so far as we can gather to-day was sacrificed to duplicity. He was a member of the cabinet in which two views were held-in that cabinet there were both protectionists and free traders. The duplicity with which he was treated is far from creditable to the government, and the people of Canada will not lose sight of it. And what about the Minister of Murine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefon-taine) who has lately come into the cabinet? Is he to be sacrificed also ? If what the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) tells us is correct, the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is liable to be sacrificed any day, for he too professes to be a protectionist. He told the people that he believed in adequate protection. He is not only liable to be dismissed, but he is liable to be treated by the leading paper of the Liberal party as the late Minister of Public Works was-and that paper called the hon. gentleman ' The Busy Izzy of the Cabinet.' And what were the relations of this so-called ' Busy Izzy of the Cabinet ' to the lender of the party ? If ever there was a man who saved his party and carried his province for the support of his leader, it was the late Minister of Public Works. Yet the reward he gets is that he is sacrificed because the charge is laid against him that he is a protectionist. The Prime Minister this afternoon appealed to the record of Mr. Gladstone and to the record of Sir Robert Peel. We know that both these gentlemen changed their opinions on the tariff question. And the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) claimed that he had changed his opinion. But there is this difference-that when Sir Robert Peel changed his opinion or when Mr. Gladstone changed his opinion, the whole world knew exactly where he stood. I defy any man to say where the right hon. gentleman is. I ask any man who sits behind him to-day to say where the right hon. gentleman is, whether he is a protectionist or whether he is a free trader. He is everything, he is both, he is nothing, he is what circumstances happen to require. The government is nothing but a cabinet of latitudes and longitudes. The greatest latitude, apparently, was to be allowed to every man on that question. The late minister took the opportunity to avail himself of that latitude.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN.

Now, last session a very interesting spectacle took place in this House. It has been referred to this afternoon, and I again recall it. It was that celebrated speech' made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It reminded me very much of the circumstances attending the falling of Elijah's mantle upon Elisha. You remember the story. Elijah crosed the river and Elisha followed him. And Elijah said : What would you

have from me ? Elisha answered : I pray that I may have a double portion of your spirit. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was the Elijah, and the Prime Minister was the Elisha, upon whom the mantle was to fall. But we have never yet fouud out whether the Prime Minister desired a double portion of the spirit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to fall upon him. Indeed the Minister of Trade and Commerce was suspicious of his leader, and he took occasion to tell him so in a fatherly way. This is the substance of what he said : Remember-, my boy, you said in Manitoba that protection was corruption, that protection was bondage. Remember that you said the tw-o things must go together, you said! that in Winnipeg ; and remember that I intend to hold you to it. That is what the declaration meant last year, and it was supposed to be the final deliverance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Somehow the ascension which was to take place about that time did not take place. Why it did not, is clear to-day. But the whole country knows that the Minister of Trade and Commerce suspected his colleague, and others in the cabinet suspected him in regard to this matter, and he tried to hold him to the one view or the other. So to-day their position, if it is anything, is that they believe that protection is slavery, that protection is corruption, that protection is not in the interest of the country.

Now. if these hon. gentlemen did not intend to introduce a protectionist policy or to consider the question fully this session, what did they mean ? The late Minister of Public Works certainly thought that they intended to adopt a protectionist policy and to give the country more protection this year. The great question before the people to-day is not one of a constitutional issue, but it is whether there is to be a revision of the tariff, and whether it is to be on protectionist lines. The right hon. gentleman is a lawyer, and like most lawyers he takes refuge in a constitutional issue whenever a question of great public interest is involved. He has always taken refuge in constitutional issues, and always fails to tell the people in clear-cut language what his views are in regard to great public questions of present importance. What do the people of Canada care about the constitutional issue ? The people of Canada care everything about the fiscal policy of this country, and they do not want to hear more talk about constitutional issues, and rebukes of colleagues

for violating constitutional practice so much as they desire to get a clear-cut statement of the intentions of the government upon this great public question.

Now, there are to be a great many deputations visiting this government from now on. We are told the budget speech is soon to be delivered. Are these deputations coming here to be told, as we have been told here to-day, that a protectionist minister cannot continue in the cabinet ? Of what use is it for deputations to come this week, or to come next week, if the only answer they are to get is the one that was given here to-day, that protection is a fraud, that a protectionist minister is deserted by his colleagues and has to be read out of the party ? Hon.\ gentlemen will say that this is a constitutional issue. Sir, the public want more than that, they want a definition. They want more than a statement that there was a constitutional disagreement and that the late minister acted in an unconstitutional way. There is more than a theory, there is an actual fact, involved in this question, and it is incumbent on the right hon. first minister, notwithstanding wliat he said this afternoon, to say whether he is a protectionist or a free trader, whether he desires to promote the interests of the people of this country, or whether he will simply get rid of the responsibility by saying that he believes in free trade as they have it in England. He cannot escape that issue to-day. The people wish to know What the position of the government is in regard to that question, and particularly do they expect from the Prime Minister a statement of his position in regard to it. Now, I have no hesitation in telling this House, and the people of this country, where I am. There is no trouble about the Conservative party here to-day in regard to their policy, both; in regard to protection and in regard to free trade.

The hon. gentleman takes pride in the fact that he has changed his opinion. I thank God that I hold the views my father taught me on this question. He taught me that if a thing is good it is to be adhered to, and to be taught by one man to another, I was taught the principle of protection as being beneficial to this country. No one who holds that view is ashamed to declare it. It is the view that all nations take to-day. The right hon. gentleman makes a nice exhibition of himself when he talks about the humanitarian idea and the brotherhood of man. The principle that rules the world today is the struggle for existence between nations. Life is a struggle, l)Oth as between men and between nations, and so great is that struggle to-day that all the nations of the world are either protectionists or becoming so. England is becoming protectionist, and the greatest statesman in the British empire, the man who is destined to consolidate the British empire, Mr. Chambei'lain, is fixed in the view that the

only way to bind the empire together is by a policy of protection. Mr. Speaker, I believe in protection, I believe in a customs tariff, I believe in bounties, I believe in export duties, I believe in reciprocity of tariffs, I believe in the maximum tariff as applied to nations that are unfair to us and I believe in all these things because I think they will make the nation great. I believe in these things because I think they will build up this country as we expect it to be built up. I believe the principle of protection is good for the English speaking people and that it is good for the French speaking people of this country. I believe it is good for the east, I believe it is good for the west, that it is good for the interior, that it is good for the frontier, that, in short, it is the one kind of fiscal policy that is good for all of the country and will build it up. We have the example of the United States, we have the example of all the rising and great countries to-day and that example is all in the direction of protection. No man need be ashamed of protection, or need be afraid to let the people know where he belongs. No, it is the men who are double-faced on this question, the men who are guilty of duplicity, who are guilty of disloyalty to colleagues by reason of this duplicity, that have not the hardihood and the courage to stand up and declare where they are. We, at least, have clear cut views on this question and the people of this country want clear cut views, an out and out explanation, no such exhibition as we have seen this afternoon and no sucli disagreement as appears to have resulted between the late minister and his colleagues. Hon., gentlemen on this side of the House need never fear any reproach in regard to a question of this kind. It has been a painful exhibition that we have had here this afternoon. I do not think we have often seen a similar spectacle, but it was a painful spectacle to see the right hon. leader of the House try to convey the impression that he dismissed a colleague for being a protectionist, when, as a matter of fact, that colleague offered his resignation and his chief at the next moment asked him to hold it in abeyance and then gave the public to understand that he had dismissed him. The whole public of Canada, under these circumstances, will side with the late Minister of Public Works. The whole public of Canada will see that the Liberal party is not to be relied upon on an issue of this kind, the whole country will see that the late member of the cabinet was sacrificed because he was a protectionist and the new Minister of Marine and Fisheries will see, if he is long in the government, that he is liable to be sacrificed in the same way. Cabals will be formed against him and we have been told that cabals exist. I wonder who is the minister referred to in connection with the cabals. I wonder if he came from the North-west. Perhaps before this discussion Mr. MACLEAN.

is over we will know who really was at the bottom of these cabals and who it was that sacrificed the late Minister of Public Works. I see the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) there and he takes all the responsibility of the statements made by the right hon. the first minister this afternoon. Let me read a short extract from a speech made by the late Minister of Public Works in Toronto, less than a year ago, in connection with the United Boards of Trade. The late minister and the hon. Postmaster General were invited to the dinner as representatives of the government and here is the speech made by the late minister in the presence of his colleague. It was on .Tune 5th, 1902, and it was reported in the papers of June 6th. The late minister said:

We must have a Canadian policy on every line, in every direction. We must have a Canadian tariff. We are not here to discuss the principles of free trade or protection. Free trade may suit certain countries ; it suits England ; another system, the protective system, may suit other countries. I suppose that we have made up our minds to suit ourselves. We have in French a proverb that my friend, Mr. Mulock, who is a French scholar, will understand : ' Charite bien ordonne. commence par sol mfime.'

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
LIB
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN.

Let the hon. Postmaster read it. Here is the translation :

They must fight their opponents with their own weapons. He could not understand why Canadians were obliged to give markets to a people who raised barriers against them. He had been accused of being an inconsistent man, Mr. Tarte went on. He did not care, so long as he was regarded as a practical man. 'Down with theories ; theories are no good. (Applause and laughter). Business is business. (Laughter). That is to say, if my hon. friends and neighbours want to strangle me, my first duty is to prevent them. Canadians must have a tariff to suit themselves, Mr. Tarte went on. If 25 per cent was not enough-speaking for himself alone-he would have no hesitation in raising it to 30 per cent or 40 per cent. 'I don't care.' he said, amid the laughter of the audience.

The hon. Postmaster General never repudiated that speech on that occasion. Why did he not repudiate that speech on that occasion if he did not think his colleagues in the right ? We have not been told by the hon. Postmaster General that one of his colleagues had been driven out because of his heresy on this question and it is quite evident now that what the ex-minister said this afternoon is true that he did nothing but what he had done ail along, that the greatest latitude had been allowed, that he never said anything but what lie had said long before in the presence of the right hon. first minister before he went to England. He had made no change, he had only acted at that time as he had acted in the past. But, he confesses that he had found out that his colleagues were not true to the principle of protection and that he intended

to leave them. That is the serious fact which is presented to this country to-day. That is the fact that will go to the people of Canada from one ocean to the other that a member of this government was sacrificed by free trade colleagues because he was a protectionist, that he was sacrificed because they did not believe in protection and the lesson which this teaches to all those people who are seeking protection in this country and think protection ought to be employed is that the Liberal party are not to be trusted on this question. It also shows that if the people of this country desire a policy of protection they must go to that party which has always been true to the great national policy of this country.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. II. BENNETT (East Simcoe).

Mr. Speaker, in the month of November last past, the newspapers of this country were crowded with information in reference to the withdrawal of the then Minister of Public Works from the cabinet and there was great diversity of opinion as to whether the minister had been dismissed or whether he had by his own free will, quitted the administration. It is quite true that the Liberal press of the country stood to gain by making out that the late minister had been driven from the Laurier government and to that end every means, of course, was taken. In the great province of Quebec, from which both of these hon. gentlemen come, there was a great diversity of opinion as to what the facts really were. I am free to say that after the discussion that has ensued to-day and the statements that have been made by the right hon. leader of the government and the late Minister of Public Works the general public will be as much in the dark to-day as they were then. On the one side there is the clear cut statement of the right hon. leader of the government that having been, as he had been, in the old country, that having been acquainted with certain facts relative to the conduct of the late Minister of Public Works the decision brought about by himself, namely, the dismissal of the minister was arrived at upon his return to this country.

Now, the statement of the Prime Minister is lacking in definiteness. He told us that some one supplied him with newspapers whilst he was in Europe, but he neglected to tell us who they were who were caballing against his colleague (Hon. Mr. Tarte). The Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) were on this side of the water then, and the pointed remarks of the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to-day would lead us to think that he had these two ministers of the cabinet in his eye. It is an accepted theory that there can be no effect without a cause, and considering the relations which have existed between the Minister of Railways and the ex-Minister of Public Works since they were thrown

together in the cabinet, it might fairly be said that these relations were somewhat strained. The Department of Railways is intimately associated with the Idea of transportation in which the great province of Ontario is deeply interested, but I will be bound to say that the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) might promenade through all the towns and cities in Ontario without causing a ripple, while, if the Minister of Public Works appeared anywhere his presence would be the event of the day. From the first there seems to have been animosity between these two gentlemen. We all remember when the Minister of Railways came to the committee in connection with the Kettle River Talley Bill and there announced that the policy of the government was that the Kettle River Company should be granted its charter. But shortly afterwards the Minister of Railways was forced to admit that he could not get the followers of the government to support him-the reason being because the ex-Minister of Public Works was against the policy of the government thus announced and so the Minister of Railways was defeated and his colleague (Hon. Mr. Tarte) triumphed. We saw what happened in connection with the Intercolonial Railway deal. It was first introduced by the Minister of Railways but it was soon dropped by him and relegated to the ex-Minister of Public Works, who took it in hand. I am fairly within the judgment of the House when I say that in regard to the question of transportation which has been engaging the serious attention of the people of Canada, the Minister of Railways played only a second part. Where was the Minister of Railways when the ex-Minister of Public Works announced the policy of the government as to the construction of the canal system by way of the French River V Sir, it is patent to us all that a deep gulf separated the friendly relationship which ought to exist between these two ministers.

Sir, the Minister of the Interior made a certain amount of capital for himself in the North-west by his advocacy of a lower tariff, and while the Minister of the Interior was advocating that gospel in the west the ex-Minister of Public Works was busily engaged propagating the high tariff theory in the east. The Minister of the Interior found it necessary to be interviewed by the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' and in it he announced that his policy would in the end prevail against the policy of his colleague (Hon. Mr. Tarte). But if the Minister of Railways and if the Minister of the Interior wei-e placed in an unenviable position, what have we to say of the humiliating position into which the cabinet ministers from Ontario were placed. Last year after the session, when it was announced to all deputations that came here that they might hope for tariff revision, throughout the whole province of Ontario boards of trade and cor-

porations of one kind and another held meetings at which they wished to obtain the views of ministers upon the most interesting of public questions. My hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Ross) was to have a demonstration in the town of Oshawa in his constituency. In Oshawa there is a large carriage establishment, one of the largest not only in the province but in the whole Dominion, and to the humiliation of the cabinet ministers from Ontario, especially the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), who, one would think, had a special interest in the matter, they were placed aside by the member for South Ontario, they were not invited, and in their stead the member for South Ontario brought forth the Hon. Mr. Tarte, because that minister held a larger place in the public eye. The hon. member (Mr. Ross) passed over the Minister of Customs and the Postmaster General, and he invited the ex-Minister of Public Works to perform the interesting ceremony of laying the corner stone of an addition to the factory of McLaughlin Bros. At the public meeting which was held the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Beith) and the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Ross) were side by side with the ex-Minister of Public Works, and as if to add eclat to the occasion, the Hon. John Dryden, minister of tlie Ontario government, came along also. Now, what passed on that occasion

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER.

Money.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT.

My hon. friend is thinking of Mr. Stratton when he talks about money having passed. This was Mr. Dryden who was present. Here was the exminister (Hou. Mr. Tarte), who was not connected with the Finauce Department or the Customs Department, who was not even an Ontario minister, here he was invited because he was an advanced protectionist and because the member for Soutli Ontario (Mr. Ross) believed that his presence would be acceptable to the people of the constituency. Judging by the report in the local papers and by the report in the ' Globe ' also, the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) made one of his characteristic speeches prophesying high protection, and the newspapers tell us that that speech was cheered to the echo. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) pointed out that .fl,000,000 worth of carriages liad been imported to Canada the preceding year, and he told the people of Oshawa and the people from the rural districts there assembled, that if they had more protection for that industry more hands would be employed and greater prosperity would follow. And then we saw the Hon. John Dryden announcing that although he had been a free trader in the past, the light had come to him at last, and he was thoroughly in accord with every statement made by the Hon. Mr. Tarte-and the member for South Ontario applauded. After that there was to be a demonstration in your town of Goderich, Mr. Deputy Mr. BENNETT.

Speaker, and the Minister of Public Works was invited. I am sure that the gentleman in whose constituency Goderich is had something to do with the invitation which was tendered to the ex-Minister of Public Works. Again the Minister of Customs and the Postmaster General were overlooked. Why ? It was because they occupied such an inferior position in the public eye of their own province, that the hon. gentleman from West Huron (Mr. Plolmes) thought it better to invite the protectionist Minister of Public Works. At the Goderich meeting the Hon. Mr. Tarte was cheered to the echo. Then there was to be a large demonstration in the city of Brantford to advocate protection of the manufacturing industries. On that occasion there sat at his feet the hon member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) applauding every statement to the echo. Why, Sir, these lion, gentlemen all know that their very existence in nine out- of every ten counties in the province of Ontario depends on this very question of protection. This was the unkindest cut of all administered by the citizens of Brantford, for this reason, that the hon. Minister of Customs was a very Islimaelite in that city, having been driven out from it by the electors, and to his mortification he had to suffer the agony of hearing the ex-Minister of Public Works applauded to the echo in the town in which he had lived almost his whole lifetime. But that was not the only place. In the town of Berlin the ex-Minister of Public Works was brought before the public and again applauded. But perhaps it was in the town of Orillia, which is in the riding that I have the honour to represent, that the Minister of Public Works received one of the greatest ovations given to him in the whole province ; and that must have been gall and wormwood to the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock), because he was overlooked and did not appear. Take up the public press of Ontario during the past year, look where you will, and you will find reports of receptions tendered to the ex-Minister of Public Works in almost every county in that great province. One can imagine the painful feelings of the hon. Postmaster General and the hon. Minister of Customs, under these circumstances, in taking up the public prints every morning and seeing how they were being sidetracked by their own supporters, while in almost every public demonstration an opportunity was afforded to the ex-Minister of Public Works to impress himself upon the public as the big. man in the cabinet, the power behind the throne, the one who could wield an influence. What happened ? Not only did they show that they were in accord with him, in public demonstrations, but where demonstrations were not held these gentlemen went out of their way to show that they were in entire harmony with the sentiments he expressed. The hon. Minister of Finance this afternoon tried to make out

that no intimation was given last session that there was to be a revision of the ta riff. Then the ex-Minister of Public Works mast have been extremely dense, because he does not seem to have arrived at a correct iitea of what the change in the tariff was to be. But I am going to read wbriT another hon. gentleman on that side of the House thought was the view of the ad-mi nisi ration and what was the promise made. He is a gentleman whose political existence in this House depends on protection being adopted by the government to a greater extent than it is to-day. The gentleman I refer to is the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). In that hon. gentleman's riding the city of Guelph, a city of considerable proportions, depends for its very breath of life on the continuance of a protective tariff. That hon. gentleman as reported in the ' Globe ' of the 21st of October last, said :

There is no concealing, and there is no use in denying, that the province of Ontario is protectionist. There would be no sense in hurting ourselves by mere blind retaliation against the United States. What we must do is to frame our tariff for our interests, keeping in view the fact that from hard experience we are driven to conclude that our American cousins will hit us without hesitation whenever they think such a course to be for their own advantage. I am satisfied that in saying this I voice the general feeling of Ontario without distinction of party.

It will be for the hon. member for South Wellington to explain why he gave utterance to such an expression of opinion as this. Was it due to the fact that he had received an intimation, or had understood, as the ex-Minister of Public Works did, that there was to be a revision of the tariff ? If the cabinet intended that there should be no change in the tariff in the present year, would it not have been more honest and more decent on their part to have told the manufacturers long ago that they need not come here asking for changes ? That would have put an end to the whole business. But, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance to-day, the government stand convicted of giving those people to believe that they were going to make some changes in the tariff, while they intended to do nothing of the kind. Now, until this question is settled by a change of front on the part of either the first minister or the ex-Minister of Public Works, there must continue to be a strong doubt on the public mind as to which of these gentlemen is making statements in accord with the facts. The statement of the ex-Minister of Public Works is that there was a cabal instituted against him in the cabinet, that it has existed for a long time, and that it became so acute in the month of September last that he determined to sever his connection with the government. That statement is corroborated by a statement made by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon.

Mr. Prefontaine) in an interview with a reporter of the Montreal ' Herald,' which I will now read. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries said :

I unhesitatingly say that the removal of Mr. Tarte will make for the strengthening of the party, and especially in this province, where I verily believe Mr. Tarte has not a single partisan. You may remember the time that Mr. Tarte was taken into the cabinet. Well, I have been all my life on the best of terms with the financial and industrial interests of this country as a public man should who desired the prosperity of the country. When the Liberals were returned to power in 1896 these interests, or the representatives of these interests-expressed no me this feeling : ' We respect Sir Wilfrid, we believe him honest ; but there are certain elements in the cabinet which we distrust ; and this distrust has never ceased.'"

From this statement I think it is plain that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was caballing against the ex-Minister of Public Works ; and I have seen a statement in 1 La Patrie,' charging the Minister of Marine and Fisheries with having without cessation done all in his power to destroy the influence of the ex-Minister of Public Works in that province. Taking the extrinsic evidence, I think it is plain that there did exist a cabal or mutiny against the hon. ex-minister in the province of Quebec. But be that as it may, there is no doubt that in the cabinet last fall there was not displayed that loyalty or fairness towards one member of the administration which he had a right to expect, and the right hon. first minister owes it not merely to the ex-minister, but to the House and the country to state exactly who the members of the cabinet were who made the complaint to himself with respect to the conduct of the ex-minister. Times have changed very greatly the relations between the first minister and the ex-Minister of Public Works. It will be in the recollection of the public, more particularly in the province of Quebec, that a strong bond of friendship formerly existed between these gentlemen. One recalls an attack made on the ex-Minister of Public Works some years ago by a certain club in the city of Montreal, I think the Letellier Club, which demanded the ex-minister's head. I think it was the Letellier Club which demanded the head of the Minister of Public Works. What did the right hon. the first minister reply ? He replied unhesitatingly that if Mr. Tarte had to go out of the cabinet, he would go too. 1-Ie raised no question then as to whether the Minister of Public Works was in accord with him or not, but made that reply without reserve. To-day the hon. member for St. Mary's Division (Mr. Tarte) has declared that a state of affairs was existing which the public will readily believe did exist. He declared that nearly a year ago at the Manufacturers' banquet at Montreal, he made a strong pro-

tectionist speech, and that the ideas and policy he then enunciated were not disproved by the right hon. gentleman, who was present. If the ex-Minister of Public Works committed an offence last year in making strong protectionist speeches throughout the country, why did not the other members of the cabinet bring these speeches to the attention of the first minister. Was it not their duty to have done so and had not the first minister a right to complain of this omission on their part ? The public were left in the dark last fall as to the reasons why the ex-Minister of Public Works left the cabinet, and their doubts will certainly not be dispelled by the ministerial explanations given to-day. They will have to look to the extrinsic evidence for a solution of the question. On the one hand, we have the antagonism existing between the ex-Minister of Public Works and certain members of the cabinet, and on the other hand we have the fact that these discontented colleagues took the premier by the throat and compelled him to give up the head of the ex-minister. But there is this to be said to the credit of the hon. member for St. Mary's Division, that when he found his chief to be in a poor state of health on his return, he acted towards him in a much more decent and commendable manner than did these other gentlemen. The ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) had under his control the party affairs in the province of Quebec and possession of the state secrets of his party. Not one of those secrets has he divulged to the public, but in every way has preserved them inviolate and respected his honour. But there is no doubt in the mind of anybody that, if he chose, he could bring before the public certain facts regarding the government which would damn it in public opinion. Here we have evidence of the loyalty of the ex-minister as contrasted with the braggadocia and swagger of those mutineers who went to the first minister and threatened that if the hon. member for St. Mary's Division did not go out of the cabinet they would no longer remain in it; and to relieve the first minister of the dilemma in which he was placed, the hon. member for St. Mary's Division handed in his portfolio to the right hon. gentleman. The enmity shown towards the ex-Minister of Public Works emanated, I believe, chiefly from Ontario. If it did not, there was certainly abundant reason for it, because if ministers were ever humiliated it must have been the Minister of Customs and the Postmaster General, both from the great province of Ontario, who were tabooed in every city of that province, while the exMinister of Public WTorks was brought into the field in their place and occupied a position far higher than these two gentlemen did together.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).

I doubt very much if the explanation given Mr. BENNETT.

this afternoon from the treasury benches will satisfy public opinion. It will not certainly in the great province from which I come. Will you allow me, Mr. Speaker, to say to the right hon. gentleman who leads this House that if he has passed the age of green boys, as he told us this afternoon, there are many green boys in the province of Quebec who will require something more than the explanation given by the Prime Minister to account for the retirement of the ex-Minister of Public Works. Let me briefly call attention to one phase of this singular question which was glided over very quickly by the right hon. gentleman, and to which none of his colleagues saw fit to allude. At the time when the dismissal or the resignation of the ex-Minister of Public Works was being prepared, the right lion., gentleman was in Europe. Who were those who denounced the ex-minister to the right hon. gentleman ? They were surely not men sitting on this side, and I would ask my hon. friends opposite, who are not on the treasury benches, if they will be content to remain silent under the suspicion of having, during the absence of the right hon. the first minister, unknown to the exMinister of Public Works, denounced his conduct to their leader, and denounced it so artfully and cunningly that the first minister, on his arrival in this country, came to the conclusion that a great constitutional principle had been openly violated by the hon. member for St. Mary's Division, which demanded his immediate dismissal. I doubt whether the public at large will accept the superficial explanations given this afternoon. They will believe that within the cabinet there were men who were plotting the destruction of the ex-Minister of Public Works. And what we are entitled to Know is who are those members of the cabinet who denounced the ex-minister. Who are those who, without giving the ex-minister a word or warning, saw fit, by correspondence and obscure denunciation-the secret of which we have not even now learned-to bring about his dismissal. Who are those men and why have they not to-day the frankness to explain their position and conduct ? The ex-Minister of Public, Works was not always in my province a persona grata with the mass of the Liberal party. My hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) was never very favourable to him, and my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prcfontaine) has been on such terms with the ex-Minister of Public Works for a long tune that he was known as one of those who anxiously desired his downfall. Is it in the province of Quebec, is it amongst certain clubs encouraged, maintained, helped along by hon. gentlemen opposite who occupy high positions in the Liberal party that this conspiracy was begun ? Or is it in the province of Ontario, where I find my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) the present

occupant of that position ? Is it through the influence of the ' Globe ' ? Is it through the influence of the Postmaster Genei'al (Hon. Sir William Muloek) ? Or is it possible that the heart of that conspiracy exists in the province of Manitoba and the Northwest, where, it is well known, by every means at his disposal, the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) sought to bring about the downfall and dismissal of liis colleague. Or must we leave the immediate vicinity of Montreal and go down to the city of Quebec, where, as is well known throughout my own province, the present Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) was ready to join those who were willing to make efforts to obtain the effacemeut of the Minister of Public Works. Surely, when the right hon. the Prime Minister tells us that he acted upon denunciations received by him when abroad and verified by documents sent him, we are entitled to know who are the members of this House who played the part of spies and informers on that occasion. After all, will it be propounded seriously here that the utterances of my hon. friend from St. Mary's division (Hon'. Mr. Tarte) were of such a character at that time as to make him so greatly at fault in regard to the constitution, to place him so gravely in error, that nothing but his immediate resignation upon the return of the Prime Minister could satisfy the ends of justice ? Why, Sir, what utterance have we had from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) ? Has not the latter of these gentlemen, time and again in the west, in public meetings and in the newspapers which served him as organs of publicity, declared that the tariff was out of politics and that it was not to be increased ? What authority had he for that declaration ? Have we not, quite recently, the speech delivered in British Columbia by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) declaring his approval of a scheme for a new transcontinental railway ? And yet have we the declaration from that hon. gentleman that, at the time he made that important declaration he had the authority of the Prime Minister or the cabinet ? I venture to assert, without fear of being contradicted, that, if we turn up the utterances of the Minister of Finance since he introduced the tariff in 1897, we shall find, year after year, in almost precisely similar language, declarations by that right hon. gentleman that for that year at any rate there would be no increase in the tariff. And, if we couple that circumstance with the facts that have been declared here to-day, and not contradicted as far as I am aware, that when that hon. gentleman as the minister particularly charged with the fiscal policy of the government, received a deputation he postponed till another session the satisfaction of their claims, can we blame the ex-Minister of Public Works for

having, when invited by his own political friends in the province of Ontario and elsewhere, proclaimed what was well known as his firm opinion, that the policy which he believed in was the one which was believed in in my own province, the policy of Canada for the Canadians and a tariff sufficiently strong and sufficiently high to prevent our being engulfed and ruined by our powerful competitors to the south and other countries ? Can we blame him, under these circumstances for having expressed his own opinion ? And will anybody familiar with the British constitution as it is to-day contend that under the circumstances of indecision wrhich have existed on the treasury benches for many years past and with the reasons which hon. gentlemen have given us this afternoon, he was not entitled constitutionally and equitably to make these declarations of his own belief ? No, Mr. Speaker, I think we must go a little further for the real cause which brought about the expulsion-if it was an expulsion-or the resignation-for they are two totally

different things, and the resignation was explained to us this afternoon by that hon. member-we must look a little further than the province of Quebec, and, no doubt, than the province of Ontario. We will look a little further for the real, true, and acting causes of that important movement.

Will you, Mr. Speaker, consider, and will this House consider, for a moment, what a strange position this administration occupies ? The very man who was called upon to replace the hon. member for St. Mary's division in the cabinet, in the constituency which he chose as the one in which he wished to be elected-the Maisonneuve division of the city of Montreal-in words of the very clearest character, in speeches reported verbatim in the paper which supported him in that contest, declared that, so far as the tariff was concerned, his position was too well known to require definition, that he was a protectionist and, if the tariff in its present form was not acceptable to those who had at heart the great industrial interests of our country, he pledged him-self-and I believe pledged himself in writ-ing-that he would be prepared to give a sufficient extension to that tariff to completely assure the protection required by our manufacturers in the city of Montreal. What kind of logic is there in such a position as that ? When we take the circumstance that, as stated this afternoon by the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte)-and, as we all know, for it is a matter of notoriety-that, as stated by my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) when he visited the province of Ontario a simultaneous campaign was begun against him by the ' Globe ' newspaper, the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' and the Montreal ' Herald,' I tell you, Sir, it will be very difficult for the public at large to believe that it was the speeches of that hon. gentleman and nothing more that

brought upon him the visitation referred to this afternoon by the right hon. premier in giving his explanation. There is something in all this that cannot be joined logically and legitimately under the circumstances. Why, Sir, the right hon. gentleman, in returning from Europe, never, by reproof, by admonition or in any other way, called upon that gentleman to restrict his utterances or to give some explanation of them ; but, according to the statement made to us this afternoon, immediately asked for his resignation. The public at large will believe, as we all believe on this side of the House, that beyond that trifling circumstance-because I think I can qualify it as such-there were in the cabinet a set of men, and perhaps some others outside of the cabinet, I who had determined that on account of his public profession of these views the late Minister of Public Works should disappear. Sir, they went about it in a very singular manner ; and to the public at large I venture to say that it will appear strange that these men, whom we can suspect but whom we do not know, because they will not declare themselves-these men, instead of warning their colleague, instead of jointly calling upon him to moderate his utterances until the return of the Prime Minister, adopted instead a silent and hidden way of securing such a result that happened the moment the right hon. gentleman returned from Europe. I say that to a large section of the population it will appear that these men, who are probably better known on the other side than on this side, in proceeding in that singular manner, had something else in view than the preservation of a great constitutional principle.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).

Whether the change of portfolios that followed the return of the right hon. the Prime Minister from the motherland, be for the weal or for the woe of this country, at all events I think that on this side of the House we can congratulate hon. gentlemen opposite and congratulate the country that to-day, through this discussion, we for the first time since 1896, have been able to form a fairly intelligent opinion as to the fiscal policy of hon. gentlemen opposite. When the Prime Minister was speaking this afternoon, and when the Minister of Finance also spoke, for the first time I think we got an accurate definition, not only of what their policy was not, but also of what it is, when we were told that the government had not come to any definite decision as to the future, and that therefore the late Minister of Public t\ orks was wrong in discussing fiscal questions before the country. We were informed by the Prime Minister that after six years tenure of office the party in power have not yet come to any conclusion as to whether protection or free trade is the proper fiscal policy for this countrv, and therefore they had not formed any

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

plans for the future. Sir, when the right hon. premier, a little later, told us, pointing dramatically to the Hansard of last year, that there, in the speech of the Finance Minister, was embodied the policy of the government, then we at least knew what-that policy was. For, Sir, I defy any man to read the speech of the Minister of Finance last session and come to any other conclusion than that the only policy so laid down was that policy of masterly inactivity of lying behind the lines of Torres Vedras, of which lion, gentlemen have been accused before. Why, Sir, the Minister of Finance did not even pretend to shed the faintest light on the vexed question as to whether or not, when the government did come to revise the tariff, they would do it in the interest of protection or of free trade. He told us nothing would be done last year, he told us something would be done in the future, be intimated very clearly that this year is the year that it would be done, because, from the reasons which he gave showing why they could not revise the tariff last year, the only possible conclusion to be drawn was that they would revise it this year. But beyond that opinion, not a word of information did he give. So we find that hon. gentlemen opposite are in this position, that to-day, in the seventh year of their office, they have no other policy than that of masterly inactivity, waiting like Micaw-ber, for something to turn up.

Now, Sir, when the right hon. gentleman was speaking of his policy being embalmed in that speech of the Finance Minister, it did seem to me there was a striking illustration of the difference between the policies of the two parties. The Conservative party, go back as far as you will, has had a policy, be it right or be it wrong, so clearly defined, that every man in this country from one end to the other, knew what it was. Hon. gentlemen opposite not only have failed to decide on any policy, but they seem to think, from the premier down, that the word ' policy ' means something entirely different from the meaning attached to it in all times gone by. I venture to say they pay a poor compliment to the intelligence of the people of this country when they refuse to deal with pressing questions, and there is none more important than the fiscal question. Yet they expect these people will go on year after year, and election after election, supporting sixteen or seventeen gentlemen who do not pay sufficient respect to tlie remaining five or six million people in this country even to tell them whether, when they come to revise the tariff, they will do it on protective or non-protective lines. Let me say this, for the information of hon. gentlemen opposite, who seem to be ignorant of the meaning of protection, that hon. gentlemen opposite to-day, in consequence of the lack of policy, which has characterized their legislation for years, are not in a position to give protection to the people

of this country even if they wished. For in protection there are two factors: There is the measure of protection, and there is the stability of protection. Hon. gentlemen opposite can give as large a measure of protection as they like, but in view of the dismissal from office of the late Minister of Public Works because of his advocacy of protective principles, it must be evident that ho matter how great a measure of protection they may give the manufacturers of this country, that so-called protection must lack the element of stability, which is just as important a factor as the measure of protection itself. And if we are to see this country grow as we would like to see it grow, if we are to see capital unlocked and expended in promoting the various industries of which this country is capable, it is just as essential that the stability of the tariff should be assured as that protection should be given.

Now, I was rather surprised to hear the Prime Minister defend himself for his change of views by saying that when he was young and green he was a protectionist. If language has any meaning, if the people of this country who are deprived of the right which they should possess of hearing directly from the lips of the Prime Minister what his views are on fiscal questions, if they are obliged to do the best they can with the information given them, surely they can draw but one conclusion from such a description of protection as that, namely, that the Prime Minister is not a protectionist, and that therefore, so far as he has gone to-day, he has adopted the views expressed by the Minister of Customs in the debate last year when he said : We stand for a revenue tariff; and the views expressed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the same debate last year when he said that honesty and protection were simply incompatible in the administration of public affairs.

Now, Sir, when the Prime Minister referred to two great statesmen of the motherland, it occurred to me that we might draw both a lesson and a warning from the history of those two statesmen. In speaking of the propriety of a public man changing his views, he referred to the fact that W. E. Gladstone and Sir Robert Peel had themselves changed their views. Mr. Gladstone commenced life a Tory, and he ended life a Liberal. Sir Robert Peel commenced life a Tory and ended it outside the party ranks. As I said before, I think there is both a lesson and a warning in the history of these two great statesmen. When Mr. Gladstone went down to his grave he went down as the idol of his party, leaving a name honoured throughout the length and breadth of the empire; a name which the proudest families in the motherland might be proud to bear. And it is to be said of W. E. Gladstone when we come to read his epitaph, that if he had anything to say he so expressed himself that from the beginning to the end of his career the people knew where W. E. Gladstone stood. There was another statesman, Sir Robert Peel, who began his life a Tory and who ended it in the ranks of tiie opposition party. He left a name very different from that of W. E. Gladstone; he left a name, which, it is agreed by every historian of every school we have in Great Britain, was tarnished and disgraced by his conduct at the time he changed his political views. Sir Robert Peel had a perfect right, as we all will admit, after beginning life as a Conservative protectionist to change his views. If he honestly changed his views it was his right to do so, following up his new information and new light upon the subject, but, Sir Robert Peel did this : Sir Robert Peel, a Conservative, went to the people of Great Britain, asking their support, on the ground that he was a protectionist, and having come into power as a protectionist, he used the power and authority he had got on-that ground to introduce an entirely different policy. Will the right hon. Prime Minister study the history of Sir Robert Peel, will the Prime Minister remember the fate that befell a British statesman who, appealing to the people on the ground that he was a protectionist, when he came into power betrayed those who had placed him in office on the ground of his being a protectionist, and will the Prime Minister remember that in this not distant part of the empire, having appealed to the people on the ground that :

We denounce the principle of protection as radically unsound and unjust to the masses of the people, and we declare our conviction that any tariff changes based upon that principle must fail to afford any substantial relief from the burdens under which the country labours-

And having come into power and finding a protective tariff in which there are 448 items, leaves 244 untouched, increases 54 and decreases 34-will he ponder over the history, the promises, the faithlessness and the fall of Sir Robert Peel.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
CON

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).

Mr. Speaker, naturally, both the House and the country had a great deal of interest in finding out if possible-and I suppose that is the reason why ministerial explanations are a recognized feature in parliamentary life-why our friend the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) left the government of the right hon. leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I have listened with a very great deal of care to the speeches made in the course of this debate, I have heard the statements made by the right hon. leader of the House and the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works, and I must admit, that, so far as I am concerned, I am yet at a loss to understand why the hon. ex-Minister of Public j Works has been required to leave the government. I think, generally speaking, that 1 the country, after reading the report of this

debate, and even after a careful perusal of every word of this debate, will come to the conclusion that the true reason for the change in the government has scarcely been unfolded to the House when the Prime Minister has stated that in this matter he was vindicating the proper principle upon which parliamentary government by cabinet can alone be carried on, and that is that no member of a cabinet can, in the country or in the House, advocate views which are inconsistent with the general opinion of the cabinet. Now, that would be a very satisfactory answer and explanation of the matter if it could be made to lit in with all the facts, but, here, we have, in the course of this debate, discovered that not only the lion. ex-Minister of Public Works gave utterance to views in the country or elsewhere inconsistent with the course laid down by the government, but that other representatives of the administration have done the same thing and that while the lion. ex-Minister of Public Works'has been called upon to resign on account of these utterances, others, notably the bon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Siftou) and the hon. gentleman who at present fills the position of Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prf'foutline) are still remaining in the cabinet, although, so far as I can understand, their offence, if offence it be, is precisely the same as that of the lion. ex-Minister of Public Works. Now, that being the case, 1 am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that the explanation given by the right lion, leader of the government is not sufficient to explain all the circumstances. We know that members of the government and members of the party in the House are very much troubled to understand an expression that has been used by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) when he speaks of 'adequate protection.' It seems to afford these hon. gentlemen an immense amount of difficulty to understand what ' adequate means. I think we have in the course of the explanation made here to-day an excellent opportunity of learning what * adequate ' means; that is by its contrary, because, it appears, so far as I am concerned, that the explanations given by the right hon. gentleman are not adequate. They do not explain all the conditions of the circumstances leading up to the last circumstance why one member of the administration is compelled to withdraw from his position in the administration for doing precisely what other ministers are allowed to do without punishment of any kind whatever. The offence of the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works was, that, being a member of the administration and it at that time being determined upon doing nothing in the manner of tariff, he continued to advocate an increase of tariff. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) who filled his place, did not require to run an election; but the position of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was made vacant Mr. BELL.

and the hon. gentleman who had to go to the people in order to have his seat given back to him, committed precisely the same offence, if offence it be, as that charged against the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works. In the course of the contest which was necessary in order to reintroduce him to the cabinet he took the same course which had been followed by the ex-Minister of Public Works. He secured a seat in Ma? sonneuve as an advocate of increased protection and he sits in the cabinet to-day, having, even at the time when the right hon. gentleman tells us the government had come to the conclusion upon this subject to do nothing, advocated increased protection to the same extent although not, perhaps, quite as frequently, as did the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works. Can it be possible for us to believe that there is nothing more in this matter than these utterances of the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works, or are we not forced to come to the conclusion that the retirement of the hon. ex-Minister was owing to a struggle that had arisen in the cabinet, or in the portion of the cabinet which was left in Canada during the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister, resulting in the Prime Minister being called upon to make his choice between the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works and the other members of the cabinet who had determined no longer to remain in the cabinet with that hon. gentleman ? We know perfectly well, it has been stated in the most open fashion, it has been circulated everywhere in the press, that a demand was made on the Prime Minister for the scalp of the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works, and I must say, so far as the discussion to-day has gone, that I think every reasonable man who listens to the arguments and statements that have been made here to-day will come to the conclusion that it is the true explanation that a struggle had arisen in the cabinet in which one party or the other had to be defeated, and that the Prime Minister, being compelled to make a choice, did make a choice which resulted in the effacement for the time being, or for a long time, I dare say, of the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works. There is another explanation which may be possible; here, we have the case of a minister, the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, advocating protection at a time when the government is said to have decided upon a position of inertia, or stability, by maintaining its present position on the tariff without change; the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is left unharmed while the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works, on the other hand, for precisely the same offence, is called upon to retire from the administration. The offence is the same; the punishment is different. Why is it ? It is believed that the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works was marked out for destruction, or else that there must be some difference between the quality of the offence in the hon. ex-Minis-

ter of Public Works and tbe bon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It may be that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not mean what he was saying and the fact was recognized at the time that he was using the license which members of the administration are using all the time by saying that they are protectionists or free traders, as the case may be, and as required for the purpose of carrying elections. A license is apparently given to them for that purpose. On the other hand it may have been believed that the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was honestly saying what he meant, that he was a staunch advocate of protection and that being in earnest lie was introducing into the political arena a question which it was inconvenient for the administration to have discussed at that time. It was realized that the Minister of Marine (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) was ready to talk protection to-day and free trade tomorrow, but that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) might be relied upon to 'continue his crusade for the protection of Canadian industries.

There has been in the course of this discussion a wide difference of opinion between the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding). The ex-minister pretends that he had every reason to believe that the announcement which was made by the Minister of 1 inance last session was an indication that changes were to be made this session in the direction of a higher tariff. The Minister of Finance explicitly stated to-day that no such intention exists, but so far as the opinions formed by hon. members are concerned-at least on this side of the House-they are in.accord with the construction placed by the ex-minister on the language of the Finance Minister. A great many circumstances which arose in the course of last session indicated that we were to have tariff changes this year. Early in the session the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who has a close relationship with the cabinet, reviewed our commercial position and pointed out that our fiscal policy placed us at a tremendous disadvantage in doing business with the United States. His speech led us to the conclusion, that so far as he could influence the policy of the administration he would persevere in a course which would lead the government of the day to adopt a higher tariff. For some reason, possibly because of an understanding with the premier, the resolution was not pressed to a vote but it might fairly be looked upon as a feeler to discover what was the sentiment of the House and of the country. Here was a member of the Joint High Commission, associated with members of the government to negotiate a reciprocity treaty with the United States, a gentleman who is in the next rank to that of a cabinet minister ; a gentleman who enjoys the confidence of the Prime Minister ; here was that gentleman

arguing to show that there was in the Liberal party a strong impression that the present tariff was not sufficiently high to enable us to maintain our position in competition with the neighbouring republic. Then we had the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) advocating increased protection for the industries in which he and his constituents were interested. A thousand times over voices came from that side of the House during that session showing that pressure was brought to bear on the administration not to continue the existing conditions, but to give us higher protection. Deputations came without number, and we had the assurance of the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that these deputations were merely imt off for the time, were given to understand that the government was not opposed to an increase in the tariff but might under certain circumstances grant it, and were not dismissed hopelessly with a refusal. The impression created on the public mind throughout the country was entirely in favour of the construction placed on the words of the Minister of Finance by the ex-minister. It is abundantly clear therefore that the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was absolutely justified in every utterance he made during the recess, which went to show that the intention of the government was to frame a higher tariff at this session. It seems to me therefore that he did not travel outside of a course consistent with perfect loyalty to his leader and to his party, when he tried to bring forward rapidly the day when a policy of high protection would be entered upon.

Then as to the manner in which the resignation was received or the dismissal accomplished. The hon. ex-minister said, and the premier did not deny it, that he had twice tendered his resignation and that his leader asked him to leave the matter in abeyance until he returned from Toronto. We find however from the premier's own words that so soon as his colleague had left for Toronto he put himself in communication with the Governor General in order to secure His Excellency's consent to his asking the minister for his portfolio. That is almost entirely a personal consideration, and it may be left for settlement to these gentlemen themselves. But there was one statement made by the ex-minister which struck me as of great importance. He stated, and repeated the statement, that if at any time when he was advocating increased protection he had received a request or an order from his leader he would have desisted. He even told the House that if the acting premier had given to him the slightest suggestion that his course was looked upon unfavourably by the cabinet, he would have stopped his advocacy of a high protective tariff. How can we doubt for one moment that when the ex-minister and the premier met in Ottawa the ex-minister did not state to the premier as he tells us he did state : If the

course I have followed in your absence lias been inconsistent with your views of my duty to you ; if I have said or done anything other than I have said or done in your presence before you left Canada I am here now honestly holding these opinions but ready to desist from the further expression of them, and should I find it impossible to remain a member of your cabinet after giving up that propaganda, I am prepared to retire from your cabinet in an honourable manner. I think, Sir, that this much ought to have been granted by the premier to his colleague ; a colleague who has supported him as we have reason to believe with the greatest power, success and ability-it does seem that the premier should have 'given this colleague some decent length of time in which to make his exit in a dignified manner instead of pitch-forking him out of the cabinet as he did. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that he repudiated the idea that when the term of a lieutenant governor expired his successor should be appointed immediately as if the administration was anxious to get rid of him. Apparently, a lieutenant governor is to have months or even years to make a dignified exit from, government house, but a gentleman who has been of the utmost service to the administration, who has probably done more than any member of the cabinet to preserve Canada %om that destruction and luin which an interruption of the National Policy would have brought on all its interests ; a gentleman, who, if I am not mistaken, has been an advocate of protection from the time he entered the cabinet, whose hand may be traced in every word of that tariff under which these gentlemen claim Canada has attained such prosperity-such a gentleman is to be pitch-forked out of the administration in the most unceremonious fashion, and even in violation of a courteous request made to him by his premier that the matter of his resignation should be left in abeyance until he returned from Toronto t) the Capital. These, however, are largely personal matters. It strikes me that all we have heard in the course of this discussion tends to convince any reasonable man who has listened carefully to it, and who tries to make all the facts of the case fit in with the explanation offered by the Prime Minister, that we have not had the true reason given for the dismissal of the ex-minister, but it is an evidence of the fact that on this occasion at least, in the absence of the Premier, the members of the cabinet not only fought like blazes, but the end of it was that one of the combatants suffered very serious damage.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
CON

Rufus Henry Pope

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RUFUS H. POPE (Compton).

Mr. Speaker, coming from the province of Quebec, I take particular interest in the shuffle that has taken place in the cabinet and in the difficulty that has arisen between the Prime Minister and the ex-Minister of Pub-Mr. BELL.

lie Works. Since the days of confederation, the great Department of Public Works has been entrusted to a member from the province of Quebec, and as a rule if not invariably to one of French Canadian origin. Living among the French Canadian people, I can well understand that no kick would come from them on narrow lines ; but it is important to that province, as one of the large provinces of the Dominion, that it should have its fair share of the administration and of the patronage in the government of Canada ; and without wishing to raise the question on narrow lines, I simply wish to enter my protest against the removal of the portfolio of Public Works from the province of Quebec to another province, especially as the first minister called to his aid a man who is supposed to be well versed in public works, who has had large experience in the great city of Montreal, as mayor and leading alderman in that city for many years. Possibly the Prime Minister may have discovered in the administration of those public works in the city of Montreal some cause why he did not care to entrust that hon. gentleman with the larger public works of Canada. Of course, that is not for me to say ; but with the numerous applicants which the right hon. gentleman had for the vacant portfolio, he certainly was not confined to the hon. gentleman who now occupies the position of Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine). And it was humiliating to observe that after the services of the ex-Minister of Public Works were dispensed with in such a summary manner, it took something like three weeks to find a man to take his place, so great a factor had he been in the administration ; and after they had discovered him, they felt that they dare not trust him with the portfolio which had been vacated, but they took some of the patronage of the Department of Public Works, and by reconstruction patched up a special portfolio for the new minister. As the ex-Minister of Public Works says himself, he has made some mistakes ; but in my judgment, after hearing the speeches to-day, and casting my memory back over the record of the Liberal party in Canada for 25 or 30 years, I am convinced that the greatest mistake he ever made in all his life was when he joined that gang opposite. I venture to say that if the hon. gentleman could stand up in this parliament untramelled by his oath of office as a member of that government, he could tell a round of stories that would prove that statement to be correct. It is not my intention to take up much time in this discussion. The question has been threshed out very thoroughly, but very unsatisfactorily so far as the explanation of the first minister is concerned. We are left practically in the dark ; but what are we to expect ? The other day the right hon. gentleman made this astonishing statement in parliament, and to the country. He said :

What is my position ? I am first minister in what kind of a camp ? Part of it protectionist and part of it free trade. What is my great duty ? It is to conciliate-to maintain power at all costs by acts of conciliation. True you should have a bold national policy, a great policy of protection ; but 1 cannot give it to you and retain power. 1 am not here to lead public opinion. The time has gone by when it is regarded as the duty of a great statesman who is Prime Minister to lead public opinion. Instead of that, it is his duty to knuckle down to it, and reconcile the factions as best he can, in the hope of retaining power in this country at any cost. That is the confession of the Prime Minister, and under these circumstances you cannot expect to get from him a very clear statement of the reasons why he chose to decapitate the exMinister of Public Works. While I do not wish to enter into the family troubles of hon. gentlemen opposite, to any great extent, it is well to recognize that the ex-Minister of Public Works was of great service to the right hon. gentleman in the hour when he needed great services, when it was not " Laurier and luck " that carried the day, but when he needed an organizer in the province of Quebec for his special benefit. When I first read the letter which the right hon. gentleman addressed to the ex-Minister of Public Works, I said, it is ingratitude, such as I did not expect from him. The first minister must know better than I do the obligations he was under to the exminister. We regretted to see that the right hon. first minister, when he returned to this country, did not enjoy the health which we are all glad to see him enjoying at this moment. He was suffering extreme weakness, and I think he must have been visited in that hour of weakness by that miserable combination who had decided that the ex-Minister of Public Works must go. What did they care about their leader provided they themselves got rid of the hon. gentleman and secured the position he occupied and all the influence that goes with it. As has been shown over and over again, it was not the speeches made by the exMinister of Public Works which brought about his resignation. Why, last session we had speech after speech from the other side to exactly the same purport. We had only one free trade speech among the lot, and that was made by a gentleman who has since gone to the Senate to receive his reward as a free trader. He has passed from our midst and gone up above to remain there until he goes still higher. We had a good many speeches from these hon. gentlemen opposite and but one free trade speech among them all. There was not an hon. gentleman on that side, with the exception of the one I have just mentioned, who did not have a jack-knife or harness or carriage

factory or horses in the great west or silver mines in British Columbia, or something else down by the sea, which wanted protection. All along the line we had protectionist speeches, not one of these men has been read out of the party, and yet we are asked to believe that the ex-Minister of Public Works lost his position because he attended public meetings at the request of these very men and delivered speeches along the same lines as those to which they had themselves given utterance in parliament. Such an explanation lacks honesty and frankness and is an insult to the intelligence of a democratically governed ' country like Canada. As to the future policy of the government, that will be precisely of the same indeterminate character as its present policy. You have got a cabinet composed of men holding the most contradictory views upon the vital question of protection. The right hon. first minister has told us that he has protectionists and free traders behind him in about equal numbers. Prom a government composed of such discordant elements, what else can you expect but a weak policy? And the manufacturers of Canada, the men who are interested in our natural deposits, the men who are waiting for government encouragement in order to develop our natural resources-these men will wait in vain. True, they may now and then get a little something but they will only get a half-hearted policy. We are to-day receiving hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the United States as well as from other parts of the world. There has been no time since confederation when wideawake, energetic, broad-minded men were more necessary at the helm of state. There has been no time when a strong resolute policy was more required. We must not forget that these people are going into our North-west and that our great North-west is separated from eastern Canada by the rock bound shores of Lake Superior for about 1,000 miles. One would imagine that these were intended to be the divisions of two separate nationalities, and if we are to bring the west and the east into close unity, we in the east will have to adopt a broad national policy. What do these Americans tell us, who are going into our country ? Do they tell us that they have left then-own because they are dissatisfied with it ? Not at all, they say that they are proud of the United States, and if they are leaving, it is because they can sell their farms in the United States at $50 an acre and buy farms in Canada at $5 an acre. How comes it that they are able to sell their farms at $40 or $50 an acre ? It is due to the industrial policy of the American government, and if we wish to satisfy these men, if we are to give a similar increase in value to our land in the west, we will have to adopt a similar policy, we will have to adopt a

policy that will build up industries in Canada which will rival those that a protective policy has developed in the United States.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
CON

Edmund Boyd Osler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).

2Q0.

Lancaster, Wilmot,

Lang, Wilson and

Lauri'er (L'Assomption),Wright-182.

And that the Quorum of the said Committee do" consist of Twenty-five members.

No. 4-ON MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messieurs :

Kidd,

LaRivi&re,

Lavell,

Lavergne,

LeBlanc,

Lemieux,

Logan,

Loy,

Macdonald,

MacKinnon,

Maclean,

McCool,

McCreary,

McGugan,

Marcil (Bagot), Meigs,

Mignault,

Monet,

Monk,

Morin,

Morrison,

Pope,

Power,

Pringle,

Proulx,

Puttee,

Roddick,

Rosamond,

Ross (Victoria), Russell,

Schell,

Stephens,

Stewart,

Sutherland (Essex), Sutherland (Oxford), Tobin,

Tolton,

Tucker,

.Turgeon and Wade.-78.

Alcorn,

Avery,

Ball,

Beland,

Belcourt,

Bell,

Bennett,

Birkett,

Bourbonnais,

Brock,

Brodeur,

Bruce,

Bruneau,

Calvert,

Carroll,

Carscallen,

Casgrain,

Cochrane,

Cowan,

Culbert,

Desjardins,

Douglas,

Dugas,

Dyment,

Earle,

Ethier,

Fitzpatrick,

Fraser,

Galliher,

Gauvreau,

Gibson,

Gilmour,

Girard,

Guthrie,

Hackett,

Harty,

Hughes (King's),

Johnston (Cape Breton)

Kaulbach,

Kendall,

And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of ten Members.

No. 5.-ON STANDING ORDERS.

Messieurs :

Ball,

Bazinet,

Brown,

Cargill,

Clancy,

Clare,

Copp,

Davis,

Demers (Lfivis),

Demers (St. John), Douglas,

Erb,

Fortier,

Gallery,

Grant,

Guthrie,

Halliday,

Hughes (Victoria), Ingram,

Johnston (Cape Breton) Kaulbach,

Kendall,

Lefurgey,

Mackie,

McEwen,

McGugan,

Marcil (Bagot), Matheson,

Morin,

Puttee,

Reid (Restigouche), Richardson,

Roche (Marquette), Ross (Rimouski), Sherritt,

Smith (Vancouver), Stewart,

Tolmie,

Tolton,

Tup per (Sir Charles Hibbert),

.Turgeon,

Vrooman,

Wilmot,

Lancaster, Wilson and

Lang, Wright.-49.

Laurier (L'Assomption),

And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Seven Members.

No. 6.-JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.

(Members to act on the part of the Commons).

Messieurs :

Bennett,

Casgrain,

Clarke,

Davis,

Holmes,

Hughes (Victoria), Hyman,

McColl,

Marcil (Bonaventure), Oliver,

Parmelee,

Prefontaine.

Richardson,

Scott,

Johnston (Cape Breton)Sut.herland (Oxford) Johnston (Lambton), Taylor

La Rivifire, Lavergne, Loy,

Maclean,

Thompson (Haldimand and Monck) and Tisdale.-24.

No. 7.-ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Messieurs :

Barker,

Beith,

Bell, Bennett, Bickerdike Birkett, Blain, Blair,

Lancaster,

Laurier (L'Assomption), LeBlanc,

Lennox,

Leonard,

Loy,

MacKinnon,

Maclaren (Huntingdon),

Borden (Sir Frederick),Macpherson, Campbell, McColl,

Carbonneau, McCreary

Carroll, Mclsaac,

Cartwright (Sir Richard)Madore, Champagne,

Clancy,

Clarke,

Cochrane.

Costigan,

Cowan,

Demers (St. John),

Desjardins,

Emmerson,

Fielding,

Fitzpatrick,

Fowler,

Fraser,

Ganong,

Geoffrion,

German,

Gould,

Gourley,

Haggart,

Henderson.

Holmes,

Hughes (King's), Hughes (Victoria), Hyman,

Kemp,

Malouin,

Monk,

Morrison,

Murray,

Northrup,

Oliver,

Porter,

Pringle,

Riley, '

Roche (Halifax),

Ross (Ontario),

Ross (Yukon),

Sifton,

Smith (Wentworth), Sproule,

Tarte,

Taylor,

Thompson (Haldimand and Monck),

Thomson (North Grey), Tupper (Sir C. Hibbert), Turcot,

Wade,

Ward and Wilson.-74.

And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Twenty-one Members.

No. 8.-ON BANKING AND COMMERCE. Messieurs :

Kaulbach,

Kemp,

Kendall,

Kendrey,

Lang,

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier (L'Assomption), Lavell,

Angers,

Archambault,

Avery,

Barker,

Beith,

BSland,

Bell,

Bennett,

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

201 MARCH 19, 1903 202Bernier, Law, Calvin, Marcil (Bagot),Bickerdike, Lefurgey, Carbonneau, Martineau,Birkett, Lewis, Cargill, Matheson,Biain, Lovell, Carscallen, Mayrand,Borden (Halifax), Loy, Charlton, Meigs,Borden (Sir Frederick),Maclaren (Huntingdon), Clancy, Morin,Bourassa, McCarthy, Clare, Muloclc (Sir William),Boyd, McCormick, Cochrane, Oliver,Brock, McEwen, Davis, Parmelee,Brown, Mclsaac, Delisle. Pope,Bruce, McLennan, Douglas, Proulx,Bruneau, Madore, Dugas, Reid (Grenville),Bureau, Malouin, Dyment, Reid (Restigouche),Calvert, Marcil (Bonaventure), Erb, Richardson,Calvin, Mignault, Ethier, Robinson (Elgin),Campbell, Monk, Farquharson, Robinson (Northumber-Carbonneau, Morin, Fisher, land),Cargill, Murray, Fortier, Roche (Marquette),Carscallen, Osier, Galliher, Rosamond,Cartwright (Sir Richard(Paterson, Gauvreau, Ross (Ontario),Casgrain, Pope, Gilmour, Ross (Victoria),Champagne, Porter, Girard, Rousseau,Charlton, Power, Gould, Schell,Christie, Prefontaine, Grant, Seagram,Clancy, Puttee, Guthrie, Sherritt,Clarke, Reid (Grenville), Hackett, Simmons,Cochrane, Reid (Restigouche), Halliday, Smith (Vancouver),Copp, Richardson, Harwood, Smith (Wentworth),Costigan, Riley, Henderson, Sproule, [DOT]Cowan, Roche (Halifax), Heyd, Stephens,Culbert, Rosamond, Hughes (King's), Stewart,Delisle, Ross (Ontario), Hughes (Victoria), Talbot,Demers (LSvis), Ross (Rimouski), Ingram, Taylor,Demers (St. John). Ross (Victoria), Johnston (Cardwell), Thomson (North Grey),Earle, Ross (Yukon), Johnston (Lambton), Tobin,Emmerson, Rousseau, Kendall, Tolmie,Ethier, Russell, Kidd, Tolton,Farquharson, Schell, Lang, Tucker,Fielding, Smith (Wentworth), LaRiviere, Turcot,Fowler, Sproule, Laurier (L'Assomption),Turgeon, Fraser, Stephens, LeBlanc, Vrooman,Gallery, Sutherland (Oxford), Lennox, Wade,Galliher, Talbot, Leonard, Wilmot,Ganong, Tarte, Lewis, Wilson andGeoffrion, Taylor, Logan, Wright.-119.Gibson. Thompson (Haldimand Lovell, Gould, Gourley, Haggart, and Monek), Thomson (North Grey), Tisdale, And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Twelve Members. Harty, Tobin, The PRIME MINISTER moved: Henderson, Tolmie, Heyd, Tupper (Sir C. Hibbert), That the report of the special committee ap- Holmes, Wade, pointed to prepare and report lists of members Hughes (King's), Ward, ' to compose the Select Standing Committees ofHughes (Victoria), Wilmot, this House be concurred in. Hvman, Motion agreed to. Ingram, Wright.-130. Johnston (Cape Breton), And that the Quorum of the said Committee do DRAINAGE ON AND ACROSS RAILWAY consist of Twenty- one Members. PROPERTY. No. 9- ON AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZA- TION. Mr. M. K. COWAN (South Essex) moved Messieurs : for leave to introduce Bill (No. 19) respect- Angers, Loy, ing drainage on and across the property of Ball, Macdonald, railway companies. Bazinet, Ma ckie, Beith, MacLaren (Perth), Some hon. MEMBERS. Explain. Bell, Macpherson, Bernier, McColl, Mr. COWAN. . This is practically a copy Biain, McCool, of the Bill which I introduced last sessionBourassa, McCormick, and which I explained on that occasion. I Bourbonnais, Boyd. Broder, McCreary, McEwen, McGowan, prefer to defer further explanation until the second reading of the Bill. Brown, Bureau, McGugan, McIntosh, Motion agreed to, and Bill read the firstCalvert, McLennan, time.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WILFRID LAURIER.
Permalink

COMMON'S WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT-AMENDMENT.


Mr. ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL (West York) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 20) to amend the Weights and Measures Act.


?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Explain.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   COMMON'S WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT-AMENDMENT.
Permalink

March 18, 1903