he will look a little abroad he will see that at the mouth of the Welland canal there are gigantic works going on at this moment in order to capture and to direct the grain trade of the Northwest by the way of the St. Lawrence. If he will go to the other end of the St. Lawrence, he will find in the vicinity of Quebec city that the St. Law rence is spanned by a bridge which, in some respects, will be the largest in the world. Sir, are those not big works-if that is what he wants? If the trascontinental railway, if the Quebec bridge, if the works at the mouth of the Welland canal cannot be denominated great public works by these hypercritics opposite, would they give us a definition of what they understand by great public works? Do they expect us to build Egyptian pyramids, or something like the Colossus of Rhodes? It seems to me that in these modern days the building of railways, and bridges, and accommodation for the grain trade are the class of public works which we should expect to have. We have abundance of those works to show for the expenditure that has been made wholly or partially out of the public treasury. So far as that goes, I think the expenditure we have made is a wise one. But there is more than that, we have not only these public works but we have the satisfaction of knowing that they have been of great benefit and advantage to the community. They can go all over the country and they will find post offices and public buildings which are a necessity in our present civilization, they will find wharfs, piers, lighthouses and buoys, all necessary to our system of navigation. Do they object to that expenditure? If they do object now they did not when they were in office, because they made a similar expenditure then. But I care not to take refuge behind an argument of that kind. The works which we have built, be they big or small, have developed trade and commerce, and benefited the toilers of the sea and the toilers on the soil. I do not know that I care to follow my hon. friend in the details of the discursive speech which he has just made; he has gone outside the speech from the Throne in several respects. He said he had no intention to say much with regard to the London election, and he insisted that we should have a more stringent election law. With regard to the London election I have only this to say at the present time, perhaps the matter will come up again. My hon. friend (Mr. Hyman) has thought it advisable to resign his seat in consequence of what occurred in that election. Sir, in the investigation which has taken place in Toronto, after all that has been developed there, everybody is glad to say, and I am proud to say, that not one word has been said against Mr. Hyman. The friends of Mr. Hyman know that he has taken that matter very much to heart, and after weeks of anx icus consideration he came to the conclusion that his sense of honour required him to resign his seat. To the conclusion which he thus reached I, for my part, offered no exception, I thought he acted wisely in doing so. Mr. Hyman was not satisfied with that. As I may inform my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, some few hours ago Mr. Hyman also tendered me his resignation as a member of the cabinet. But I was not prepared to accept it. As he had been a victim, and not an agent, and could not be reproached with any dishonourable act, I felt that he was carrying the thing too far in asking to be relieved of the duties which he was performing, and performing to the great satisfaction of his friends, and I think also to the satisfaction of those who are not his political friends. Therefore I asked Mr. Hyman to consider his determination, the matter is before him, and I expect to have an answer from him before very long. little more. I do not know that much can be said on one side or the other, but I will allude to the examination of Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Gibbons, in his evidence, threw a flood of light upon the whole question of the London election. We know first of all that an election was held which, according to the evidence given in the Toronto police court, was tainted with corruption, and it is somewhat remarkable that no protest was entered against it. What was the reason? Was it because the other side could not g on the election court clean-handed? Was it because they thought it better to have the hatchet buried and not have the matter probed? But, Sir, let us look into this matter a I do not know, but Mr. Gibbons told us that the friends of Mr. Hyman having fought two elections and won fairly and having been deprived of the seat by unfair and fraudulent methods came to the conclusion that they would fight the enemy with the devil's fire. Well, no great mistake could be made if the Grits should undertake to fight the enemy with the devil's fire. I do not know how it is, but it appears that the Tories can always use the devil's fire. They seem to have been made for it. It seems to be congenial to them; they can do it almost with impunity, but when a poor misguided Grit undertakes to deal with the devil's fire, he burns his fingers every time. That is actually what happened in London. The poor Grits undertook to deal with the devil's fire and what do we see to-day? Therefore, it is better for our friends, I say it in all sincerity, that they should not follow those Tory methods, but that they should fight an honest battle. Honesty is the best policy. It is the only policy that will tell. It has been stated by my hon. friend and stated also by other hon. gentlemen on the floor of the House to-day that the election law present him at the polls. It is sufficient for me to say that upon this occasion my hon. friend did what has been done all over; he signed his powers of attorney in blank knowing nothing as to the names with which they would be filled up. That is what took place upon that occasion, nothing more and nothing less, and I say in sincerity fo my hon. friend that I think he would have been better advised if he had not touched this matter at all. is pretty severe as it is. I do not know that it can be improved, and yet it must be improved. We must make it severer than it is, but it is of no use having severe laws unless there is behind them a strong public opinion to back up and enforce them. All that we have seen in the past is an ample justification of what I say. Though public opinion may not be in this respect as strong as it ought to be, still the duty remains upon us just the same. We have to improve the law and to make wrong-doing My hon. friend was not better advised as difficult as it is possible to make it in when a moment ago he tried to create the crder to have pure elections. There is a impression upon the floor of this House to great difference between the classes of be spread broadcast all over the country, offences which we find by late developments that I had attempted to dictate to the Lieuto to have taken place. Bribery is bad, but tenant Governor of Saskatchewan as whom he should call to his council and as ballot switching is ten times worse, and to whether he should call Mr. Scott, Mr. although it is impossible to have any sym- Haultain or anybody else. The hon. gentlepathy with bribery or the briber, still there is not for them the same contempt that man, if he had read the letter of Mr. Scott there is for the ballot switcher, and if the as it was written, would not have taken law is to be effective it must be made abso-Such a construction from the tenor of that letter. He took from that letter the conlutely severe and provide the severest pen- struction that I had at some time or other alty possible for any one attempting to communicated with the lieutenant governor tamper with the ballots. That is the view and advised him to call, not Mr. Haultain, that I think ought to be taken when we but Mr. Scott. I declare here, and I am come to deal with this matter. sorry that I have to make this statement Now, I must say to my hon. friend that because I do not like to speak about myI was surprised that in the course of the self personally, that I never had a word discursive remarks which he made he should of communication with the Lieutenant-Govhave referred at all to the election in Shel- ernor of Saskatchewan as to the party burne and Queen's. The less said by our whom he should call to his council. But, hon. friends of the Conservative party about the letter of Mr. Scott is very plain, broad this matter the better. The attempt which and legible and its meaning is not at all was made to fasten upon my hon. friend the obscure. What does Mr. Scott say? Mr. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) the Scott says Laurier had been of the opinion penalty for an offence which he had not that Haultain should be called as premier committed, I think was not creditable at all as soon as the province was organized, but to the Conservative party, or at least to the conduct of Haultain, taking the partisan those who had the management of this elec- position he did in regard to the Autonomy tion. I shall not say more upon this. My Bill, in the opinion of Laurier disqualified hon. friend has been vindicated and fully him from such a course as that. That was vindicated by the electors of Shelburne and my opinion. I was not aware of that letter Queen's, in which he has received the sup- from Mr. Scott until it was read last session port not only of his political friends, but of by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. a large body of his political opponents also. Lake). Therefore, I can say here that I had They wanted to testify to him that they been under the impression all along that as had confidence in his integrity and honesty. Mr. Haultain had been premier of the terriBut I was more surprised a moment ago tories he should be called upon to be first when I heard my hon. friend the leader of premier of the province of Saskatchewan or the opposition refer to the fact that my hon. of Alberta but when I saw that Mr. Haulfriend the Minister of Finance, in his last tain was taking such a partisan position, election had given powers of attorney to such a hostile attitude towards the Autopublic officers to represent him at the polls. nomy Bill and the education clauses of the My hon. friend has been too long in public Autonomy Bill, I came to the conclusion life not to know how this happened. Every- that it would not be wise that Mr. Haulbody has done the same thing. My hon, tain should become the premier. But, how friend, myself, and everybody else-every- was that done? Did I give advice to the body who has been a candidate has signed lieutenant governor? There was no lieupowers of attorney in blank to be filled up tenant governor at that time, but I advised and distributed and in probably nine cases my friends who were going into convenout of ten, nay, ninety-nine cases out of a tions to select the leaders of their party hundred he does not know to whom these organization that they could no longer take powers of attorney have been given. My Mr. Haultain, that they must have another hon. friend would convey the impression man and that is why that letter was written that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance by Mr. Scott, advising his friends all over deliberately and voluntarily had given a the province to forego the attitude which power of attorney to a public officer to re- had been taken by them up to that time that Mr. Haultain should be leader of the party. My political friends in the Northwest had been giving their political allegiance to Mr. Haultain before the organization of the territories into provinces, and 1 saw no reason why the same thing should not be continued. They discarded their political differences. They agreed to let them go and have simply an administration which would deal with matters provincial, local and municipal, altogether independent of party. I was of the opinion when we first commenced the discussion of the Autonomy Bill that the same thing might go on, but when I found the attitude of Mr. Haultain in this respect much against my own grain, I had to change my view of the matter. But, Sir, this advice of mine was given to Mr. Scott, was given to Senator Ross and was given to all those who were in the political field, but it was not given to the person to whom it should not be given; that is to say, to the Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan with whom I never had a word of communication. The thing is too plain to admit of discussionwhat else could I do? There was a convention called to select a leader for the party and who should be recommended as their standard bearer. It was upon that occasion and upon no other that I ventured to offer any suggestion at all upon this point. he may have been impulsive, his acts may Mr. NORTHRUP. Particularly money. Sir WILFRID LAURIER. That remark is very unfair to Mr. Preston and absolutely uncalled for. I am surprised that my hon. friend should interject that observation. I repeat that my hon. friend cannot point to anything which is derogatory to Mr. Preston in regard to his honesty or in regard to money matters. I know of no such thing, and I therefore think it is unfair that Mr. Preston should be attacked in that way. At all events we have taken the position that nothing has been proved against Mr. Preston so far as his honesty is concerned. If he has done anything wrong in that respect we abide by the consequences and we challenge our opponents upon it. Mr. Preston has been a good and honest and efficient officer. He may not have been as discreet as he should have been in the discharge of his duties in London. He quarrelled with the staff and as we must have harmony among our employees we asked Mr. Preston to surrender the duties which he was performing and to assume other duties which we have full confidence he will discharge well and to the satisfaction and the credit of Canada. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) has asked me several questions; some pleasant, some jocose, some serious-the pleasant and jocose I can pass by. It is always well to have a little fun, but to carry it too far would not be consistent with the dignity of this House. My hon. friend wants to know what is the position of Mr. Preston and he has a right to get an answer. Mr. Preston has been in the glare of public life for more than 25 years. Before he became a government employee he had been an active politician. He has always assumed a bold front, asking no quarter and giving none, when he was attacked he gave a Roland for an Oliver. He has been attacked not only when he was in public life, but even after he ceased to be in public life. He was bitterly attacked here last session, But to the credit of Mr. Preston it must be said that nothing was ever proven against him derogatory to his honesty or his honour. He was brought here from England and two witnesses were called against him in the full expectation that Mr. Preston would have been shown to be dishonest or something equally bad. I appeal to the fair sense of every man in this House; I appeal to the members of the Public Accounts Committee; I appeal to those who heard Mr. Preston examined, to say that nothing was proven against him which was in dero- As to the public measures which we have gation of his dignity or his honour or his promised in this House we shall deal with honesty. He stood the battle well and he them at the proper time. We have procame out triumphant and exonerated from mised that parliament would be summoned any guilt. He may have been imprudent, in November and parliament has been sum moned in November. We have promised that the business of parliament will be ready and I am proud to say that the public business is ready. I have the authority of the Minister of Finance for saying that the budget speech will be delivered next week; perhaps Tuesday, but certainly not later than Friday. Plunging at once as we have done into the heart of the business we have to deal with-because the revision of the tariff is the heavy work we have to offer to parliament this session-plunging at once into the heart of this business we have reason to expect and believe that we shall have a reasonable measure of assistance from our friends opposite. I say a reasonable measure of assistance. I do not expect any very enthusiastic measure of assistance from them, but if we have a reasonable measure of assistance there is no reason in the world why we should not end this session early next spring. Last year I had occasion to say at the opening of the session that I thought we would conclude our labours by the time of the maple sap. I was grievously mistaken as to that for the maple sap had gone and the apples were almost ripe when we came to the blessing of prorogation. But this year I venture to say that if we have no undue obstruction from our friends opposite we might perhaps prorogue in the early spring-well, about the time when the robins return home again. have made very substantial progress towards that early termination of the session which my right hon. friend so poetically desires namely, at the time the robin's first note is heard in the land. Well, my right hon. friend started out with a strange disquisition on natural phenomena. During the past year everything seemed to be abnormal. Last winter was not what winters generally were or in fact ought to be; the summer developed some thing even more abnormal, and the autumn extended through more than three months of unparalleled weather. I could not help thinking, when my right hon. friend was speaking, that he was making out a case for coming down a little later with a proposal to have a commission apointed to examine into the ways of Providence and find out if possible why last year was such an abnormal year as it turned out to be. But the year was remarkable in a great many other respects. Thus I noticed that my hon. friend who moved the address (Mr. Pardee) and who did it so well from his point of view, and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister in his speech, both steered clear, very wisely and prudently, of details. My right hon. friend was a little more venturesome than the mover of the address. He pointed out some works which, in the language of the speech, had contributed to the prosperity of this country. To my mind Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER (North To- it is only a completed work which can conronto). The remarks made by the right tribute to the prosperity and development hon. gentleman will not call from me any of the country. A work in progress may conlengthy observations, although there are tribute something to the prosperity of the two or three points I would like to refer to. contractors; but a work has to be absolutely He will find that His Majesty's loyal oppo- finished and in operation before it can be sition will, as they have always done, aid fairly argued that it has an influence on the government. Probably the most effec- the general progress and prosperity of the tive aid that can be given this present gov- country. Every work which my right hon. ernment is that we should not be very friend in his short analysis mentioned is a enthusiastically in favour of the measures work that has just been begun or is still they bring down, but rather that we should far from completion; or if one or two have endeavour by wise counsel to keep them been completed for a short time, that fact from making mistakes and to steer them can have no appreciable influence on the as far as it is possible in the right path. general progress and prosperity of the counIn this respect the opposition will do what is try. It is a very delusive idea, as he himbest for the country during the coming ses- self endeavoured to state, that because so sion. My right hon. friend says that he much was spent at one time and so much promised to call the session in November at another time, a simple comparison of and he did call it in November. He did; the respective amounts goes to the root of by a very narrow squeak. I thought his, the matter. It does not go to the root of promise was that the session would be called in the fall, but if he ever did promise to call it in November he certainly carried out his promise by the very narrowest margin. In fact, the new venture that we have started in does not have a fair chance to commend itself practically to the people of the country so far as this year is concerned. We should have met as near the first day of November as possible instead of as near the last of November as possible, taking into account that there are certain holidays which will interfere with the continuity of the work. If we had met on the first of the month instead of at present, we should the matter. But it is a still more illusory idea for the right hon. gentleman to put forward that because the country has progressed, therefore $78,000,000 spent to-day is no more than what is right in comparison with $40,000,000 spent ten years ago; and, to add to that, what the right hon. gentleman had the temerity to do, that all this expenditure was wisely and economically administered, although a little more detail would have been instructive to this House and the country. There was a public work which with a great flourish of trumpets was begun and carried on and ended in the city of St. John, N.B. For the elevator of that city, with its fittings and connections, probably $150,000 or $200,000 was spent, and it has stood there ever since for the sun to shine upon and the rains to beat upon and the snow to fall upon in the winter season; and that work has stood practically idle for all these years, having no influence great or small on the prosperity and development of the country. There is a wharf, I believe, somewhere in the vicinity of Hull which has cost a large amount of money. Will the right hon. gentleman inform this House how much business has been done from that wharf or has been stimulated by the expenditure of that money? $60,000 or more was spent in building a wharf for a private party somewhere down in the province of Quebec in order to enable him to sell a timber limit which he had. Has that very greatly developed the prosperity of the general public whose money was thus spent, and does it stand to the account of my right hon. friend as money that was economically expended? The Arctic' expedition, which went, stayed and came back, really performed no service of any moment at all for this country, and cost a large amount of money. Was that a wise expenditure? Badly conceived, worse managed, and ending in an investigation in this House, it reflected no credit on its originators or those who carried it out. There stands an expenditure which the people of this country have had to foot-how much has it done for the progress and development of this country, how much has it added to the wages of the workers or to the benefit and happiness of the farmers on the western prairies or anywhere else in the country? So that you have to come down to the items and discuss them one by one. The right hon. gentleman forgot, what was shown last session in the investigations, what is shown in the London investigation as well, that in these expenditures a rake-off goes to the gobetween, the party who stands between the government and the work going on or the supplies that are required. Does my hon. friend say that this was all proper expenditure, all economic management? I think these are things which must be gone into before we can come to any general conclusion as to the wisdom and economy of any exepnditure. A moment with reference to the progress of the country. We all grant this progress; we are all glad of it. We are all glad to know that the outside world is progressing as well as Canada. It would not be difficult to show that all the great countries of the world are enjoying a period of almost unexampled prosperity, and part of Canada's prosperity is due to this world-wide prosperity in which Canada is participating. Happily Canada is so situated that it may last longer here under proper management than it probably will in most of these other countries. I think myself that the future of Canada, economically and industrially considered, is a bright and happy one, and calculated to inspire the greatest confidence in the citizens of Canada and also in the creditors of Canada. But it is folly to compare the per capita foreign commerce of a population of 6,000,000 with that of a people of 80,000,000, for instance, to the south, and from these two items to deduce anything that is of any value at all with reference to their comparative prosperity. The foreign commerce of a great country is but a flea bite in comparison with its commerce among its own people and within its own confines. And that has to be taken into account and the simple per capita illustration while it does not cause us any feeling other than delight is not to be taken as a very strong index either one way or the other. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) referred to London. He referred also to the election laws. I have a word or two that I would like to say with reference to that. The generalities of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) are not always as true and reliable as they might be. He flies to the defence of his friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) for appointing officials under the election law to represent him who were officials of the government and he says: Oh, but the minister did it in blank and therefore is to be excused. If there is any moral to be derived from that it is: You may do evil if you like, but be always careful that you do it in blank. Whether the man who signs be the Minister of Finance or a humble individual like myself, he is responsible, and if there is such a declaration and resolution of parliament the minister was no stranger to the discussion on that very subject last session, and he should have been careful to have given his instructions, as he appears to have been careful to give instructions this time that no illegitimate means should be used, that officials of the government should be kept out of the fray and should not have been appointed as scrutineers and agents. If that had been done the minister would have saved himself any trouble on this score. But there you have the right hon. gentleman's statement, an apology, or rather a defence, that because it is done by many therefore there is no harm in its being done. What did the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Pardee) say to the government? One of his most pregnant sentences was that it was from the example of men high in political authority that lessons were learned by the general public, and therefore it was the bounden duty of men high in authority to set an example of perfect obedience to the law and perfect scrupulousness with reference to it. But the Minister of Finance did not seem to do that, and my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) apologized on the ground that he did it in blank. That apology will not save him from flying in the face of the declaration of this House and his own declaration in support of the declaration of this House. He says that |