I shall have to be empowered by the House to have it done.
Now, what does he ask the House to have done? Instead of asking the House for permission to report from day to day, he reports to the House in this fashion:
Your committee recommend that their proceedings and any evidence taken by them be printed from day to day, and that rule 72 be suspended in reference thereto.
After having had the written motion before him, after having read the motion, and after having discussed the matter in the committee with the member who made the motion, he carefully omits these words: 'and reported to the House.' Now, that report is before the House; the chairman who made that report is here to-day, and he is the man who should have stated at once, when the omission was brought to his attention, that he would correct the report, make it in accordance with the facts, and do justice to the three hon. members who for some time have been deprived of certain rights and privileges thereby. But is that all the evidence that he was aware of the nature of this report? We have this fact, that at the meeting of the committee following the meeting at which that motion was carried, it is stated: 'The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed.' So that you have the cumulative evidence of three statements, which put it beyond peradventure that the chairman of the committee knew of the motion, discussed the motion, and confirmed the motion; but when it came to doing his duty and reporting truthfully to this House, we have these important words,
'and reported to the House,' omitted. If it was a layman who did a thing of that kind you might say it was a mistake, but where it is a man of high standing in the legal profession he cannot shield himself before this House or the public on the plea of having made that mistake with the facts before him in writing. Is there any member on that side of the House who believes that was an innocent mistake? How can he believe it in the face of such evidence? Would any jury in this country, whether it be composed of Liberals or Conservatives, if they had these facts, the written motion, the discussion by the judge, as it were, with the witness, that is the person making the motion, the confirmation the following day ol that motion, and then the report with the essential part of it left out presented afterwards. Would any jury believe that was done innocently when the effect of it is and continues to be that three hon. gentlemen are deprived of an opportunity of explaining to this House in respect of a matter vitally affecting their honour and their duty to the House and to the country, and so long as the report is permitted to stand in this shape they are debarred from and deprived of certain rights and privileges dear to every member. They are gagged and stand gagged, and the Prime Minister allows his chairman, who admits the mistake and who, when he found the box he had put himself in, presented the spectacle of suddenly saying: Oh, if it is so. Did any one ever see anything more ridiculous, a lawyer of his standing getting up and hedging with 'ifs' and 'ands' and shiftings. The thing is ridiculous, it is a spectacle I am sorry to see in this House, and I trust that the right hon. gentleman and the gentleman who is chairman of this committee will see that what is just and fair and right is done in this matter without delay.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Amendment of Mr. Taylor that the debate be now adjourned, negatived.
I beg to move that this item, No. 113, for the Trent canal construction be reduced by the sum of $150,000, said amount being the intended expenditure upon the Newmarxet canal. I
move this in the absence of my hon. friend from Centre York (Mr. Wallace) who is unable to be present for a few minutes, but we hope to have him here before this debate is over. I object to this expenditure for various reasons In the first place, i believe that all the members of this House, with the exception, perhaps, of the hon. Minister of Justice, are strongly of the opinion that this expenditure is not advantageous to the people of Canada in any degree. I realize that the Minister of Justice may think that it has been advantageous to some people in Canada, because it is the general impression throughout the country and in this House that through the promises with regard to this Newmarket canal, and in consequence of the amount of work that was done, it was railroaded, or canalled, or boated, through this House, and gives him the position here that is so objectionable to this side of the House. I object to it also-I am pleased to see that the First Minister has arrived-I object to it very largely on account of what the First Minister said last year when this matter was under discussion. If I am correct, and if I am not, I want the right hon. gentleman to correct me. he gave as an excuse for the expenditure on this Newmarket ditch that a number of Tories, with a few Liberals, I presume, had come to him as a delegation and asked for the work. I think I am fairly representing what the First Minister said, and I would like to ask him if I am right?
I am proud that for once, in the opinion of the First Minister,
I am right. That was the excuse that he vouchsafed to this House last year-he granted the expenditure on this ditch because some Tories asked for it. But, Sir, he did not tell this House that all they asked for was $43,000, or $47,000 at the outside, which the engineer said the'work would cost. He forgot also to tell the House that it was not for a canal, Dr a ditch, whether the Aylesworth or the Newmarket ditch, or anything else, that they asked for this expenditure, but it was to deepen the Holland river from Lake Sim-coe up to Newmarket. That is what they asked for. I think that when it comes to expenditures of vast sums of money, hon. members on the government side ought to be able to get up and forget their politics and._ vote as men, forget that they are partisans and vote for what they know is right. Every hon. gentleman on that side of the House who knows anything about this Newmarket ditch, knows that it is an absolute waste of money, and no reason other than a partisan reason can be given Mr. CAMPBELL.
for it. I defy any man to get up and honestly say that I am wrong in what I am saying. The First Minister knows that I am right, and he is ashamed of the fact that I am right. I heard the argument used last year, when he whipped his followers into line, that they had already expended so much money on that canal that it would be a tower of folly, and that they must now go on and complete the work, even though it would be of no use. But they were whipped into line last year to vote for a continuance of the folly. I trust now that we have seen the last of partisanship in that connection, and that the First Minister will not use that little influence he has over his followers to induce them to vote for this item, knowing as he does, and as every one of them does, that it is against their conscience. Seldom have we seen a project criticised so adversely by the press of Canada. I think it is time for this House to forget partisanship and do the proper thing, and relegate this Newmarket ditch to the scrap heap. No hon. gentleman on the government side can get up _ and show by facts and figures that elevations, and quantities of water, and all the necessary requirements to a canal service are present in this case and will justify the House in voting this item. Even if the canal were built, and even if there was any need of a canal, no hon. gentleman can show that there is any boat service there at present, nor can they show in pounds and tonnage that there is ever likely to be navigation sufficient to justify the expenditure of this money.
I regret that he is not here because, were he here he would put before this House very much more clearly and more succinctly the various points in regard to this matter than I can do; but in his absence, I ask the House to forget that last year hon. gentlemen were whipped into line, and made to vote against honest sincere wishes in this regard. It may be said by some one who will follow me that that is not so, but I say it absolutely knowing that it is true, because I heard many of the members of this House say, before the vote came on that they would not vote for it because they did not believe it right. But, they voted for it because they had to. Surely it is time that we forgot this party-ism, and that in matters that pertain to the public interest we should vote honestly and decently.
House divided on the amendment (Mr. Campbell):
Lor tie, Macdonell, McCall, Maddin,
Borden (Halifax), Bradbury,
Chisholm (Huron), Clare,
Currie (Simcoe), Donnelly,
Goode ve, ,
Gordon (Nipissing), Haggart (Winnipeg), Lake,
Reid (Grenville), Roche,
Sharpe (Ontario), Stanfield,
Taylor (Leeds), Thornton,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox (Essex), Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Wright.-46.
That towards making good a supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1910, the sum of $70,000 be granted out of the consolidated funds of Canada.
That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1911, the sum of $42,333,023.58 be granted out of the consolidated fund of Canada.
He said: This is the sum which the committee has voted, as made up by the clerks of the House in the usual way.
This is to carry out an arrangement for encouraging the exportation of foreign silver, both for the convenience and improvement of our own currency, and also because there is a profit involved in silver coinage which we might as well have in our treasury as to leave in the treasuries of other countries.
Post Office Department, contingencies-* sundries-further amount required, $1,500.