October 19, 1903 (9th Parliament, 3rd Session)

CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

I am surprised that the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Em-merson) should have dealt in such small politics as to say that any lion, member in this House would make a distincton as between provinces in these matters. I certainly should not have thought of accusing the hon. gentleman ; but he himself has taken a good deal of trouble to make it plain to us that he is ready to deal in that style of politics. I hope that no other member in this House will be so small as to consider what province these votes are going to. If the scheme itself has merits, we need not inquire what particular province it is to benefit. Had I been in the House I would have raised the same question with regard to other subsidies that I ask in this case. I am disappointed in the information we have had, and I am afraid we shall have to insist upon better, whether the railway is one for Ontario. New Brunswick or any other province, for we have a right to information. A company that was voted a subsidy three or four years ago. not having earned that subsidy and desiring its renewal, would naturally be expected to place before the Minister of Finance a complete and detailed statement of the reasons for delay, the chances of going on, and the possibilities of carrying out the work in the future. If the prospects for the future were no better than they were when the subsidies were voted. I think the duty of the Minister of Finance would be to refuse a subsidy. Of course, it is a very ingenious argument to say that the people of the locality arejinxi-ons for this subsidy. But the people as a whole should be protected. There are persons so evil-minded as to say that these

things answer a good purpose in an election. I do not know whether any such idea ever occurred to the Minister of Finance-

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
Full View