I am very glad that the Minister of Finance hai corrected that, because for the short time I have been Mr. BROCK.
in the House, I have endeavoured never t make a statement that I did not think tva absolutely correct, and when I made tn statement yesterday, that the woollen nm of this country were closing, and that ce tain of them were closed, I knew exact , what I was talking about, and I knew tn that statement was absolutely correct, was surprised when the Minister of ^1 , ance interrupted me, and said, that he n a circular which stated in express 11 guage that they were not closed. Now, has not. that circular ; he never had tn circular, and he cannot produce that c cular, because no such circular as that; in existence. The Minister of FinaI should not have interrupted me, and should not have attempted to have R broadcast throughout the country T these mills had sent forth a circular j which they said they were not closed, am very glad that this explanation
I would nKe,y^. say to my hon. friend from London ^ ^
Hyman) whose reference was appai'e j, to myself, that when I spoke the other ' ^ of that difference between unrevised revised ' Hansard,' I acted according to best of my belief, and I was supported ^e a letter which I to-day read before Orders of the Day were called.
I would remind the hon. member for Cornwall that he has already spoken twice. It seems to me that it would be much more conducive to the proper order of this House if on a matter in the nature of personal explanation the "on. genUeman would content himself with lia\ mg *'P twice.
\r,. PRINGLE. The indulgence of this House was granted to the hon. Minister of
Finance to make an explanation. I accept your ruling at once, and will not ask for the same indulgence that was granted to him. I would ask one of my friends to read the advertisement of these mills that are for sale.
The hon member for Cornwall had a right to speak twice without any favour from the chair, and the hon. Minister of Finance had a right to speak once, but was given the indulgence of the House to speak again. I think the same indulgence should be extended to the hon. member for Cornwall.
Mr. Speaker, as soon as you are able to keep the other side of the House in order, I will read this statement from the Toronto * Globe ' :
Woollen mills tor sale. The Canada Woollen Mills, Limited, having in contemplation the sale of some or all of their property and supplies, invite sealed tenders (to be opened by the board of directors on the 12th day of May next) for the purchase of the same, either en bloc or separately. Terms cash, &c.
The following are the properties :-
1. Woollen mill at Hespeler, in the county of Waterloo. 2. .Woollen mill at Waterloo, in the comity of Waterloo. 2. Woollen mill at Carleton Place, in the county of Lanark. 4. Woollen mill at Carleton Place.
(Sgd.) GEO. DAVIDSON,
110 Wellington St., West, Toronto.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that will prove conclusively that what the hon. member for Cornwall stated was correct, that the woollen mills of this country are not in a prosperous condition.
I might invite the attention of the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) to the fact that the Conservative party during the last four sessions have warned the* government that this condition of things would come to pass in this country if a change in the tariff was not made. The hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House paid no attention to these warnings. They claimed that the woollen industry and other industries in this country were in a prosperous condition, and that the tariff which was introduced in 1897 was everything that this country required. They have paid no attention until the condition of the woollen industry has become such as to compel these gentlemen to offer for sale on the 1st of May !fl,000,000 worth of mill property in the different parts of Canada. In the county which I have the honour to represent there is a woollen mill which, in the eary days, employed 125 hands. That mill has gone down and down-
As a very considerable number of different subjects have been introduced into this motion to adjourn and a number of very specific statements made, it will he quite in order I presume to meet those statements and not allow them to pass unchallenged. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), asked what effect the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific could possibly have m reducing the rates between eastern and western Canada. I am very much surprised that a gentleman of his standing and experience should have put such a question, because the answer must be as evident to him as it is to every other member of the House.