User's Association, were read a first and second time. SHORTEST ROUTE TO EUROPE. Mr. GILLMOR remarked that the report might have been adopted after he left Ottawa, as he left a few days before the close of the session. But he certainly never assented to it, and he understood from the Chairman before he left that he was only going to report the facts. Mr. GILLMOR wished to called attention to the fact that he had just seen the report in print of the Committee on the Shortest Route to Europe, and he wished Hon. Mr. ROBITAILLE-I suppose to say that he had never assented to it. the hon. gentleman was not at the comAs a member of the committee he under-mittee meetings more than three or four stood that it was agreed only to report the times during the whole session. evidence, and give no opinion. He therefore dissented from this report. Mr. MACKAY (Cape Breton) suggested that it would be well for the Chairman of that Committee to make some explana tions. Hon. Mr. ROBITAILLE said he did not know whether the hon. gentleman referred to the report of last session or to some report of this session. If reference was made to the report brought in by him last session as Chairman of that Committee, he could only say that every word of that report was read over to the committee. and adopted by the whole committee. Moreover, the committee authorized him as the Chairman to send out questions to various parties, which he did, and the answers that were received were now in the hands of the printer. Mr. GILLMOR said he attended what he supposed was the last meeting of the committee, and not one word of this report was read at that meeting. The Chairman stated to him that the report would be merely the evidence taken, and that no opinion should be expressed in it. Hon. Mr. ROBITAILLE said the meeting of the committee was put off from day to day till the last day of the session, but the report was regularly adopted. Mr. MACKAY observed that so far as he remembered the report was read over to him, and he assented to it, but with reference to any formal meeting at which the report was adopted his memory did not serve him. He thought the report was brought informally before some members of the Committee, and that they were individually asked to look over it. Mr. CARON said that so far as he remembered the report was read over to every member of the committee. present and heard it read, and if any member agreed to it without hearing it read he had no right now to object to it. Mr. Gillmor. SUITS AGAINST THE CROWN. Mr. IRVING'S Bill to provide for the institution of suits against the Crown by petition of right and respecting procedure in Crown suits, was read the third time and passed. INSPECTION OF STAPLE ARTICLES. The House went into Committee on Mr. FORBES' Bill to amend the Act to make better provision for the inspection of certain staple articles of Canadian produce, (Mr. GOUDGE in the chair.) The committee rose and reported the Bill, which was then read the third time and passed. RAILWAY ACT. Mr. JETTE'S Bill to amend the Railway Act of 1868 was read the second time and referred to the Railway Committee. INTEMPERANCE. Hon. Mr. HOLTON suggested that the House now proceed to the consideration of Government orders, as they had now finished the serious business on the order paper under the head of Public Bills and Orders. Mr. ROSS (West Middlesex) said he had an order on the paper which he did not wish passed over, namely, the order for the House to go again into committee to consider as to measures best calculated to diminish the evils of intemperance. This would not take up much time, as all he wanted now was for the House to affirm the principle of prohibition. That being done, he would be content to allow the question to rest for this session. Hon. Mr. HOLTON—I do not think my hon. friend can make any useful proHe was gress with this order this session. If he got the House into committee on his resolution the balance of the evening would be spent and no good would be done. Mr. ROSS-All I want is to pass this, to be thrown upon the movement, he must resolution through committee. After submit to the inevitable with the assurance that perhaps the question would be in such a position next session that cold water would not so very easily stifle it. Mr. MACDOUGALL (East Elgin) said he hoped the House would assent to the proposition of the hon. member for West Middlesex. He was proceeding to discuss the question when, the full discussion we have already had on Mr. SPEAKER- The member for Centre Wellington has a notice which takes precedence on the Order Paper. Hon. Mr. HOLTON-I move that the House do now pass to the consideration of Government Orders. Mr. ROSS This is treating this important question very cavalierly. Hon. Mr. HOLTON said if there was to be a discussion he would withdraw his motion if the House desired it. (No, no.) He simply wanted to get on with the business. Mr. SPEAKER said the motion could not now be withdrawn without the con Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD-It is sent of the House. throwing cold water upon it. Mr. ROSS-I beg to offer an amendment. Mr. SPEAKER-The motion to proceed to Government Orders is equivalent to moving the previous question and does not admit of an amendment. The motion was then carried. On motion of the Hon. Mr. CART. WRIGHT the House went into Committee of Supply on Supplementary Estimates for the financial year ending 30th June, 1876; Mr. SCATCHERD in the chair. Items 1 and 2 were passed without discussion. On item 3; $60,000 to provide for further amount estimated to be required in connection with the Philadelphia Exhibition, As a Mr. ROSS said he would then speak to the motion. The question of a Prohibitory Liquor Law was attracting a very considerable amount of public attention, and in his judgement the proposition that the House affirm in a very general way the principle of prohibition was a reason- Mr. JONES (South Leeds) said that the able one. It was a step which might have Imperial Parliament only voted £28,000 been taken earlier in the session had it for the Vienna Expesition, £50,000 for the not been for the resolutions moved in Paris Exposition, and were discouraging amendment to his resolution. They were as much as possible expenditures on exhinow asked to stave off this question for bitions, and yet the Government of this this session. He could assure his hon. country were prepared to expend $100,000 friend that this course would avail very on the Philadelphia Exhibition. little, for he proposed next session to take manufacturer, he did not think that the this matter up again. It would not be allow-fact of Canadian manufactures being ed to rest in this way. He had hoped to have got Parliament to affirm the principle this session, and he was free to admit that had this been done it would have been agreeable to himself personally. because some people supposed that on account of some alliance, that he need not refer to here, he had willingly and rather dishonestly to his temperance friends in the country allowed this matter to be covered up. He would take this opportunity to repudiate that insinuation. It was no fault of his that they had not made greater progress with this question. However, if it was to be disposed of in this cavalier style, if, as the right hon. member for Kingston said cold water was Mr. Ross. represented there would benefit our industries. The Government was launching out into expenditures beyond those made by any previous Government of this country. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said it was important that Canada should be represented in a satisfactory manner at the American Centennial Exhibition, as undoubtedly an immense number of people from all quarters of the world would assemble at Philadelphia, He would prefer that the Dominion should not be represented at all than that, being represented, it should be represented in such a manner as to appear to great disadvantage with the States of the neighboring Repub lic. The general policy as to whether this country should or should not be represented at that exhibition was a fair subject for discusssion, but every one would attach importance to our presenting a good appearance before the eyes of those who attended and in the eyes of England, and if, therefore, we put in an appearance, the Government must take powers which would enable us to appear creditably. The Local Legislatures would co-operate with the Government in making a succssful representation of Canadian industry. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said that we could only send to the Philadelphia Exhibition agricultural products or manufactures. We did not need to send the former, because everybody knew exactly what Canada could produce. Certainly every one in the United States knew all about the agricultural products of the Dominion; and as to sending our manufactures, this, a young manufacturing country, could not by any possibility assume a satisfactory position among the manufac tures of the United States. It occurred to him that we would be altogether throwing away our money. If we did make a decent show of manufactured goods in spite of the protection duties of the United States which acted as a prohibition to the importation of Canadian goods, the circumstance would operate against the Reciprocity Treaty which his hon. friends opposite still intended to negotiate whenever they could do so. Hon. Mr. HOLTON said the hon. member for South Leeds did not represent the feeling of manufacturers generally, in relation to this matter. He was quite satisfied that the manufacturers of Montreal were exceedingly anxious that the manufactures of Canada should be well represented at the Philadelphia Exhibition. He was aware that the Government had been exposed to very strong pressure from that class in Montreal, which every one would admit was the chief manufacturing city of the Dominion; but he had also reason to believe that manufacturers in Toronto, Hamilton, Bowmanville and other towns had made similar representations to the Goverment. The propriety of having Canada well represented at the Philadelphia Exhibition had moreover been strongly urged in the House. It would be altogether a mistake if we, occupying the position we Hon. Mr. Cartwright. did on this continent, failed to fyle an appearance at that Industrial Exposition. Mr. JONES (South Leeds) desired to hear from the Government how they proposed to expend that sum of $100,000. Weremanufacturers to be paid for sending their goods to Philadelphia, or was the amount to be expended in paying Commissioners. If manufacturers desired to be represented they would forward their goods without being paid for doing so by the Government. If he, as a manufacturer, intended to send goods, he would not ask that the freight be paid out of the Dominion Treasury. As to Montreal being the head and front of our manufacturing interests, he thought it was not exactly the Hub of this country. It was proposed to hold an exhibition in that city, and the manufacturers of Ontario were asked to send their goods there. This, however, they did not desire to do, and the people of Ontario had a right to be consulted in this matter. Mr. DYMOND said it was very strange that the hon. gentlemen opposite, who especially claimed to be the friend of the manufacturer, should attempt to deny him this, perhaps the best opportunity that would be afforded in our own time to advertise his products to all the world. Two and a half years ago the right hon. member for Kingston stumped Ontario as the friend of manufacturer. Where was he now? Why denouncing a grant of money which the country would not miss, in order to allow those very manufacturers an opportunity of placing themselves in competition before the whole world with the manufactnrers of other countries. He (MR. DYMOND) ventured to think that the manufacturers of this country would not at all thank the right hon. gentleman, or the hon. member for South Leeds for the speeches they had delivered to-night. In agricultural implements, tweeds, sewing machines, boots and shoes, and many other articles it was notorious we would be able to compete with American manufacturers. He (Mr. DYMOND) was a friend of manufacturers, although they did not always know it, and in that respect a humble follower of his hon. friend the member for Hamilton (Mr. WooD) who would tell the hon. gentleman what the manufacturers wanted. It must always be remembered that we were not going to Philadelphia merely to show American manufacturers what we could do, but to show the whole people of America what we could do. And who ruled America? Was it the manufacturers, or the "rings" at Washington who labored to prevent the free introduction of our manufactures into the United States, that governed that great country, or was it the people of America, every man of whom had a voice in the affairs of the nation? He desired to send to the Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia those products of Canada which would convince the people of the United States that there was no country in the world with which it could trade to greater advantage than with this Dominion. That was the view of the Government, he imagined, in asking for $100,000 for that purpose. The amount asked was trifling, when compared with the results which would be obtained, and those manufacturers distressed brethren as they professed to be would obtain a first class advertisement for their goods, while the expense would not be felt when divided over the whole Dominion. He imagined there would come from England and the Continent buyers representing all the great importing houses, and the $100,000 spent by Canada would be recouped in the shape of advantages to this country to an extent beyond computation. A wise liberality was after all the wisest sort of economy. It was very easy for gentlemen to return to their constituencies, especially when rather hard run at an election, and endeavor to secure a few votes by professions of economy; but he believed the country would not lose mush if it spent an equal snm to be rid of such economists. we were doing, the manufacturers of Hamilton held the opposite opinion, and in the article of sewing machines they would astonish the Americans with the remarkable progress made during the last ten years: Mr. JONES (South Leeds) pressed for ah answer to his inquiry as to how the Government would expend the money. Mr, WOOD said the Government would not appoint paid Commissioners to attend an exhibition at which Canadian products were not represented, as did the late Government in the case of the Vienna exhibition. Hon. Mr, MACKENZIE said in reply to the hon. member for Leeds, that the Government did not expect to expend any considerable portion of the amount in paying Commissioners, but they did anticipate having to spend a considerable sum in fitting up the Canadian Department. England had taken a large space, and Canada was invited to occupy space next to England, and if the Government had refused to acquiesce they would have severed one of the last links which the hon. member for Kingston was charging the Government with being always about to sever. That hon. member when driven into a corner always said something about the last link having just been broken: and this would have been one of the links. The Government had accepted the invitation so that it would not be possible to impugn our loyalty, and the Government proposed to expend whatever might be necessary in order to procure a creditable exhibition of Canadian products. It would be a mistake to make any exhibition unless we did it well; and he was satisfied it could be well done. The Government were very modest in asking the first vote and were pressed by hon. gentlemen to take a larger grant if they expected to do any good with it. They, therefore, asked for a supplementary vote, but if the House thought it should not be granted hon. members had only to state the fact. Mr. JONES (South Leeds)—Is it intended to purchase articles from manu Mr. WOOD desired on behalf of the manufacturers of Hamilton to thank the Government for the wise and liberal measure which they had introduced to-night. He was surprised that the hon. member for Leeds, himself a manufacturer, should have objected to it, especially when, if the vote had not been asked, he would have been foremost in complaining of the omission. Merchants advertised in newspapers in order that the people of Canada | facturers? might know what they had to dispose of, and manufacturers would send their goods to the American Exhibition to show the Mr. BOWELL said that the intenworld what the Dominion can do in manu- tion of the Government appeared facturing. If some manufacturers did to be to pay the expense of not desire other countries to know what sending articles to the exhibition Mr. Dymond. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-We won't purchase a spade or shovel. to be placed in competition with the goods of other countries, and he had no objection to that expenditure. On the contrary, he thought the action of the Government was such as the people would justify. He understood the position taker by the hon. member for Leeds to be this, that he was prepared, as a manufacturer, if he desired to exhibit his goods at Philadelphia, to do so at his own cost. The difference in the two principles was this -some hon. members-Liberals-wanted the Government to be liberal enough to take money out of the public treasury to pay the expense of advertising their articles at the Philadelphia Exehibition, while the hon. member for South Leeds, a Tory, was prepared to do his advertising at his own cost. The item was passed. Item 4 was passed without discussion. On item 5, $30,000 for drill sheds for militia, Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT explained that the vote was taken to enable the Government to meet the wishes of a considerable number of persons who were interested in drill sheds throughout the country, some of whom had offered to contribute liberally towards the erection of such buildings, if the Government would meet them half way. The amount asked to be voted would prove sufficiently large to assist in most of those cases where persons were prepared to contribute liberally towards the erection of those buildings. The item was passed. On item 6, $13,000 for improvement of navigat e rivers, Sir JOHN MACDONALD asked for explanations of the sum of $5,000 for the removal of rocks in Detroit River, which was included in the item. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE, in reply, said that at a point fifteen miles below Detroit the channel was purely on the Canadian side. An American Engineer had examined the river during the last two seasons, and in his report recommended that application should be made to the Canadian Government to join the United States Government in improving the rivers at a cost of three millions of dollars. The Government replied that they would have no objection to spend a small sum to obtain the depth of water required for our vessels at the present time, Mr. Bowell. and as the Engineer had recommended that a depth of sixteen feet should be obtained, they would have no objection to the United States Government operating in our channel, as it was the only channel available at that particular place. He had asked for that vote to pay the proportion payable by the Dominion, towards the cost of deepening the river at the place indicated. The item was passed. On item 7, $25,000 to aid in building a bridge at Winnipeg, Mr. SCHULTZ asked when the amount would be expended, and where ? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said a sum of $50,000 appeared in previous estimates for building a bridge at Fort Garry, which amount was not expended by the Government because they doubted whether the propriety of making the expenditure. If the Government built a bridge over the river at Winnipeg, it must have a draw and they would be under the expense of working the bridge in the future. Instead of adopting that policy, the Government proposed to vote $25,000 in aid of building a bridge at that point, and if the local authorities, either the Local Government or the Municipality, would build the bridge that sum would go towards paying the cost of the work. |