1904-06-09

QUESTIONS.


Mr.  E. D.@: SMITH-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
What was the kind of ventilation, if any, last season, in the compartments in which perishable cargo was stored on the steamers ' Livonia,' ' Tritonia ' and ' Devona ' ; and was the system in proper working order in each such compartment when these steamers left the port of Montreal ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: SS. ' Livonia.'
This vessel did not carry perishable cargo from the Port of Montreal last season.
SS. 'Tritonia.'
No. 1 'tween decks . two 24 inch cowl ventilators ; one 11 inch ditto ; and one 36 inch .ventilator with steam driven propeller fan.
Nos. 2 and 3 'tween decks :	one 24 inch
cowl ventilator ; one 24 inch ventilator with steam driven propellor fan ; and one 36 inch ventilator with steam driven propellor fan.
No. 1 orlop deck :	three 12 inch cowl
ventilators; and one 14 inch ventilator with steam driven fan.
No. 1 hold :	2 intakes and 1 outtake.
No. 2 hold : 2 intakes and 2 outtakes.
No. 3 hold : 2 intakes and 1 outtake.
No. 4 hold : 1 intake and 1 outtake.
No. 5 hold : 1 intake and 1 outtake.
SS. ' Devona.'
On this vessel the cold storage and cooled air compartments occupied all the space in the 'tween decks. The holds were ventil-

ated by two steam driven propellor fans, by ten cowl ventilators, and by three trunk ventilators.
The system of ventilation in the steamship ' Tritonia ' and steamship ' Devona ' was on proper working order when these steamers left the port of Montreal.


LORD DUNDONALD'S SPEECH.
Mr. W. S. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to draw the attention of the House to an article that appears in the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of yesterday. The article is not very long and I will read it to the House. It is as follows :	.


A MILITARY SENSATION.
[Stage Direction]
Lord Dundonald's Speech at Windsor Banquet. Deplores the interference of politicians with the appointments to the Canadian volunteer force-The condition, he says, is intolerable.
Toronto, June 7.-The 'World' this morning publishes the following sensational story under an Ottawa date :-
A Montreal officer who was present at the military dinner at the Windsor Saturday, stated here to-day that Lord Dundonald's sensational speech, although carefully written out and intended for publication, had been carefully suppressed by the Montreal newspapers.
This is what the general said :
When a nation is in peril the commanding officer had the supreme control of the military appointments, and he is responsible to his country for its efficiency in war. In time of peace, unhappily, through political intriguers, we are in their web, and appointments are made without regard to military efficiency and to the great peril of the nation's safety. Officers in command of the forces of this country should not be selected because of their particular politics, but unfortunately this is the case.
A most flagrant instance of political interference has recently come before me in connection with the appointment of officers in the new eastern townships cavalry regiment, the Scottish Light Dragoons. The commanding officer of the corps had selected officers because of their apparent fitness from a military point of view. The names reached me and were sent to council, and gentlemen, what do you think happened ? The list having my approval was returned with the name of one officer stricken off, and initialed by the Minister of Agriculture.
The gentleman whose name was stricken from the list was Dr. Pickell, the mayor of Sweetsburg, and warden of the county of Mis-sisquoi, a man chosen of the people and well qualified to serve his King and country. His political colour was not, however, that of the Minister of Agriculture, and consequently he was not considered fit to serve his King in the military force of Canada.
' If,' said Lord Dundonald, ' the Hon. Sydney Fisher has been as well versed in soldiering as in agriculture, he would have better understood the responsibilities ot officers, and this would not have happened.'
Sydney Arthur Fisher: After making a few more remarks, the general said : ' It is intolerable that my recommendations. made in the best interests of the force, should be so grossly interfered with by any minister, not connected with the department.
Lord Dundonald's speech was greeted with tremendous applause.
Lt.-Col. Whibbard also made a speech in which he endeavoured to shield the Minister of Agriculture, saying that it was difficult to suppose that Hon. Mr. Fisher would be guilty of such an act.
It goes without saying that the speech is the talk of both Ottawa and Montreal.
The question I would like to ask is as to whether the government is aware of this article which is published in the ' Citizen.' It is a very serious matter and I think requires some explanation.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I have to inform my hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Maclaren) and the House as well that the government's attention has been called to the reported speech of Lord Dundonald. The matter is a very grave one and I have only to say that to-morrow the government will be prepared to make a communication to the House upon it.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Why not on Monday ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: In answer to the question just put to me by my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) why this matter should not be postponed until Monday instead of to-morrow, I would say to my hon. friend that my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) is under a very serious misapprehension and stricture, and I think it is better that the matter should be cleared up at the earliest possible moment.


CANADIAN FISHING REGULATIONS.
Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: Before the Orders of the Day are called perhaps the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Frefontaine) will make the announcement that he promised to make to the House.


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I received the statement which I intend to lay on the table of the House, but it was too late to submit to my colleagues and I will submit it to the House to-morrew.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding :
That the Speaker do now leave the chair, for the House to go into commitee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.
['162,394\t22\nTrees and plants\t 56,379\t23\nTotal\t$5,756,228\nThe average rate of duty was 18 per cent. What I want to know is, if it is right and proper, and I say it is, that the1 manufacturers of this country should be protected to the extent of 28 per cent, wh y is it not equally right and proper that the farmer, who toils day and night, who earns his money qs hardly as any other people in this country, should also have protection ? I know that hon. gentlemen opposite will\n\nsmile and sneer, and say, of what advantage is it to put a duty on wheat, cheese or butter ? Do we not export enormous quantities of these products, and does not the Liverpool price fix the price in Canada ? Then what is the use of putting a duty upon them ? It would not raise the price a single cent. I say if it does not, put it on ; it cannot do anybody any harm. But I fancy if would have the effect of giving the farmers of this country their home market for these $5,756,000 worth of agricultural products which are now imported, instead of their taking the chances of getting their products damaged and spoiled by sending them across the Atlantic. The home market is the best market. Almost everybody will admit that. Hon. gentlemen opposite, who used to sneer at the idea of a home market for the farmers, are now coming to the conclusion that it is their best market. I want to preserve this home market for the farmers, and it can be preserved for them, by giving them as high a duty on their products as is imposed on things they have to buy. That is fair, surely.\nLet us discuss some of these items separ-; ately. I want to know why the farmers, of this country cannot supply this market with butter, cheese, lard, pork and grain products. Then, I want to speak of another class of goods that are luxuries. However much we may disagree with hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to other things ; however strong protectionists we may be, and however honestly we may hold our coni victions, however consistent we may have been during the last twenty-five years with regard to protection, and however inconsistent these hon. gentlemen may be in that matter; we can, I believe, all agree on one thing ; protectionists, free traders and revenue tariff men will agree that luxuries should be taxed a little higher than the necessaries of life ; and a large proportion of these agricultural products that come to this country are luxuries, and as such, they ought to pay more than 28 per cent. They ought to pay at least 35 per cent, which is a common rate of duty in our tariff. Just consider that we bring in seventy-nine carloads of these green tomatoes which our market-gardeners around our cities and town could grow. They are a, class of men who are industrious, frugal, persevering and hard working. Our market-gardeners and fruit growers are two classes of men who perhaps earn their money as hardly as any other class in the country. Their productions are subject to droughts, frosts, floods and all manner of insect pests, and they have to be continually on the fight. Theirs is a business that calls forth the highest kind of intelligence, and they are a class of citizens who form the backbone of the great agricultural class. Their life is one that necessarily calls forth the high\nest qualities in a man. These men employ a great many men In their business. This government are paying out millions of dollars a year in bonuses.\nI think we have paid up to date over $4,000,000 in direct bounties to establish industries in this country. What are these paid for ? Is it not to give employment in this country ? I think that is the great object; and, if so, there is no class among farmers that employ more men than the market-gardeners and fruit growers. They employ ten times the number of men to the square mile that any other class does outside of manufacturers. These are a class of men who ought to be encouraged. They are engaged in an occupation which is particularly hazardous. They ought, therefore, to have at any rate as much protection as is accorded to other industries, namely, 28 per cent. But, as a matter of fact, they are only getting an average of 18 per cent. But the tomatoes I have referred to are luxuries and ought to be subject to a higher duty than the average. They ought to pay 35 per cent or even 45 per cent; but they have to pay only 19J per cent. No wonder the market-gardeners are complaining every year that they are not properly treated by this government. The wonder is that the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) has not been more powerful-has not raised his sturdy voice in council and before the Minister of Finance from time to time on! their behalf. I am sure that if the hon. gentleman had raised his influential voice on this question in the manner he has done on other questions, he would have convinced the government that 19i per cent protection is not sufficient for the market-gardener. Go over the various items which the market-gardeners grow, and you will find that the\ni.uties are below the average and that these gentlemen have a just grievance against] the government.\nI might take up another department ol these agricultural products-the fruit industry. I find that we imported into this country 28,391 barrels of apples, 200 carloads, and exported some 20,000 carloads. No doubt hon. gentlemen opposite will say : if you export in such large quantities, what gcod would it do you to put a higher duty on the small quantity you import ? It would not raise the price a cent. Well, let us have the duty in any case. We will then get the market and that is what our farmers want. What they want is a market at their doors for the 28,000 barrels which they now have to send across the ocean, but which would be consumed at home if these 28,000 barrels of American apples did not come in. They would have that much less to send across in the magnificent cold storage system, of which hon. gentlemen opposite boast so much and to which I shall refer later. Of dried apples we imported no less than eight carloads, and I suppose we had a thousand carloads last', u"year lying upon the ground which went to waste, for a small portion of which this home market might have been preserved. We imported no less than 1,214,239 pounds of cherries and others of those small fruits, which are absolutely luxuries. Turning to the months in which we imported those articles, I find that they were brought in a few days and weeks before our own could be put on the market. But they took the keen edge off the appetites of the consumers of these luxuries. The men who consume these are men well able to pay a little extra duty. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Finance would not object if there should happen to be a little more money in the treasury. He has a great transcontinental railway scheme on hand, which he will find he will not be able to build for \xa714,000,000. He will find that his surplus of $14,000,000 or $15,000,000 will not be sufficient to build a road which is to cost $150,000,000. He seems to think it will, but in my experience, and I think it is the experience of most business men, when you want to buy a farm, you will not be able to pay for it out of the interest. You will either have to pht down the cash or give a mortgage for the capital sum, and will have to pay the mortgage when it falls due. The hob. minister will find the same thing in the case of his transcontinental line ; and if by raising the duty on those early products, a little more money should go into the treasury, paid by people who can well afford to pay, I am sure he will have no objections. But I am confident a great deal less will come in if the duty is raised, and the keen appetite of the consumers will be preserved for the first products of our own fruit growers and market gardeners. They will be given the opportunity to take advantage of the early market. I may point out that the quality of the fruits produced in Canada is superior to that of any brought a long distance.\nBesides these, we also imported no less than 43 carloads of cranberries. Is there any province in the Dominion where we cannot grow cranberries ? We can grow them in every province, yet we have had to import 43 carloads. And of peaches we imported no less than 150 carloads, also 82 carloads of plums, 294 carloads of driend prunes and 150 carloads of other dried fruits, making a total of 444 carloads of dried fruits. Of canned fruits we imported 40 carloads. I want to say a word with regard to these plums and peaches. Everybody who lives in Ontario, especially in the southern portion, knows that we can grow those products there in superabundance. Not only can we grow enough to supply this Dominion, but to supply another dominion as well if we only had proper encouragement, but there are some things we need. We need better varieties. Those can be secured to a large extent by experimenting, and that can be done by the Mr. E. D. SMITH.\ngovernment a great deal more economically than by several thousands of different fruit growers. We have an experimental farm in British Columbia, two in the Northwest, one in Ottawa and one in Nova Scotia, covering a great variety of climate, but not one is so situated that those in charge of it can do anything in the way of experimenting with regard to the varieties of fruits grown in such quantities in the southern part of Ontario. Not one can grow fall wheat or Indian corn. We want an experimental farm in the southern fruit belt which will enable us to test the various kinds of fruits produced and do something in the way of hybridizing and creating new varieties, which will enable us to discover varieties, that will carry better than those we have at present. But even with the varieties we have we could supply the Northwest with all its requirements, if proper encouragement were given in the way of higher duty. Very large quantities of the fruits imported are a little earlier than our own, but there are very large quantities also which invade our markets when our own fruit can supply them. It may then be asked how is it that we do not do so ? One of the chief reasons is that our plums and peaches, being of a perishable nature, cannot, be set up on the shelves and sold like hardware or groceries or dry goods as the California plums and peaches can. These California fruits can be placed on the shelves and sold almost like turnips, and a good many of them do not taste very much better. Nevertheless they are handsome and have great keeping qualities, and the dealers prefer to handle them, no matter if their quality is not as good as ours, because they will keep longer and occasion no waste. The dealers can put them on the shelves and keep them there from day to clay until somebody comes along and buys them. They know exactly what profit they can get, just as in the case of dry goods and groceries, and have not to take into account any waste, whereas Ontario fruits require a good deal of skill in the handling and a good deal of energy and care. They must be put upon the market immediately, and the dealers must use energy and skill to have their customers take them off their hands quickly. That means trouble and annoyance, which the dealers in the Northwest do not like, and who can blame them ? That is the position in which our fruit growers are to-day. Then the dealers prefer to push these goods, on which they have no loss. They send their travellers all over the country. The wholesale fruit firms in Winnipeg are a very great power in that country, far different from the fruit dealers here. Here fruit is grown around every city, and a large portion of it is handled at retail upon our markets. But, in that great city of Winnipeg almost every pound has to be brought in, and the handling of that fruit is an enormous industry. So, the wholesale fruit merchants are a power. These fruit\n\nmerchants being able to handle this California fruit with so little loss are a powerful force against us. We want the government to come to our rescue and be a powerful force on our side. Surely it is to the interest of the government that this great industry that can be carried on so well in Ontario and in British Columbia should be made magnificently successful. For British Columbia is now coming forward as a fruit growing country. It is well known that in large districts in British Columbia fruit can be grown as perfectly as here, and in some places they grow fruit that will ship better than ours will. It is to the interest of the fruit growers of British Columbia and of Ontario to secure this market in the Northwest. Here, we have the great market of the Northwest, with a splendid fruit section on the coast to supply the western half of it, and another fine fruit section in Ontario to supply the eastern half. All we want is the assistance of the government to get a firm hold on that market. A few years ago, we had no hold upon it, no systematic effort being made on behalf of Ontario fruit-growers or on behalf of British Columbia fruitgrowers to assure Canadian fruit of a place in that market. In British Columbia the fruit-growers business has been, until very lately, in its infancy. You will read in the Winnipeg newspapers that the Ontario fruitgrowers are a lot of fools and do not know how to pack fruit. That is the method the wholesale dealers use to induce the people of the Northwest and Manitoba to believe that Ontario fruits are not the fruits to handle. I do not blame them. It is a matter of business with them, because they can make more money out of California fruit. But a great many people who come from Ontario, especially those now living in Manitoba, want our fruit. If it were not for the retail dealers who come from Ontario and the consumers there who know the fine, luscious quality of our goods, we would not get a little piece of that market, because, as I say we have the wholesale dealers against us. But, as long as we have the retail dealers and consumers on our side, we can capture a considerable portion of that market. We want to get into 'such a position that the Winnipeg merchants will find that they have to handle the Ontario fruit, and when they handle it they will find a way to get it into the hands of the consumer. Here, I say, is a way in which the govern-men can do something for the farmers of this country. They have not done it, but they ought to do it. If some hon. gentlemen opposite who speak in such laudatory terms of the government would spend the same energy in urging upon the leaders of the administration the importance of this method of doing something for the farmers, the fruit-growers and the market gardeners of Canada, they would be accomplishing more than by lauding the government to the\nskies in the speeches they make in this House.\nThese are some of the ways in which the government can help the producers of this country. And I take it that the producers are the class who ought to be helped if any help is given out by the government. Almost everybody is a producer of something to sell ; farmers, manufacturers, miners and lumbermen are all producers, and these give employment to almost the whole population of our country. If the government looks well after the producers, I take it the consumers will be able to take care of themselves. A country in which the producers are making money is one that can afford to pay well persons engaged in professions, or others not producers. The producers of Canada can be assisted in different ways. I have mentioned one, and there is another, and a very important one. It is all very well for us to grow the best products, to manufacture the best goods ; but this will be of little use unless we can get these products and these goods to the market. It is true our home market is our greatest market, that it probably takes nine-tenths of our whole product. Nevertheless we have a surplus. As a great agricultural country, no doubt it will be a great many years before we shall be able to consume in the Dominion all the products of our farms. For many years to come we must have a large surplus to sell. And so, the government can do a great deal to assist us by perfecting the means of transporting our goods to the markets of the world, in the cheapest and most perfect fashion. We know that, in one respect we are situated more favourably than a.ny other country, while, in other respects our situation is not so favourable. We have the advantage of a great system of water transportation, including the magnificent river which carries our cargoes to the seaports. Even large ships can come far up into the interior of our country. But we know that our neighbours to the south, being energetic and determined that they will have, as they have had in times gone by, the major portion of the trade of carrying these goods, are continually improving their transportation facilities. It is the duty of our government to leave no stone unturned by which they can improve our transportation facilities and cheapen the carriage of our goods. I know they have undertaken a gigantic scheme to bring a portion of these western products to the sea-board. For my part I think that a large portion of that scheme will not tend to cheapen the cost of transportation. In no degree can it be shown that this extravagant scheme, calling for the expenditure of an enormous sum of money, and requiring the hauling of the goods for 1,800 or 1,900 miles through a country which is unproductive, can possibly be the cheapest means of carrying those", "goods out of the country. I think if even a small portion of this money were spent upon our great waterways and in the development of that system of transportation, far better results could be obtained than by the expenditure of this enormous amount on the scheme proposed by the government. We find that, in shipping grain from the upper lakes to Montreal, we have an advantage over New York of not less than li cents per bushel. But we find also that, when grain has to be transhipped at Montreal for Liverpool, we lose that 11 cents per bushel. The St. Lawrence route, though shorter than that by New York, is not developed. There are many hindrances, many obstacles, all of which I believe, could be removed by an energetic government. When we are compelled to pay at the port of Montreal so high a rate on goods brought down through our magnificent system of canals, which by the way was inaugurated and nearly completed under a Conservative administration -the advantage which' the country gains from its enterprise and great expenditure is neutralized. I find that last year we exported from the port of Montreal $70,000,000 worth of goods. For instance we exported 24,272,390 bushels of wheat, and on that we were compelled to pay 11 cents a bushel more than would have been paid for the carriage of wheat from Boston or New York. That amounts to $364,085. I. find that we exported from that port 21,182,840 pounds of butter and on that we paid 5 shillings a ton more than we would pay from Boston or New York. That amounted to $12,709.\nWe exported from Montreal 184,494,040 tons of cheese. We paid on that 3s. and 9d. a ton more than we would pay from Boston or New York. That amounted to $83,022.\nOf apples we shipped 800,987 ban-els and paid 10 cents a barrel extra on them. This cost us $80,098. That makes a total of $539,914.\nAt the same ratio, if we took the balance of exports from Montreal and found the in crease-1 have no doubt that the freight rates were in the same proportion-we will find that the total excess freights amounted to $829,920. As the price we received for these export goods, to a large extent, sets the price of the goods sold in this country, there is no doubt that we lost a good deal more than this. It may be safely said that we lost $1,000,000 because the route from Montreal out past the banks of Newfoundland is not in the condition it ought to be in. First of all, the ships have to go slow a large part of the way, and cannot make good time. Then occasionally wrecks take place, and we have in consequence high insurance rates. The port of Montreal has large harbour dues, and ail these things combined with others that might he mentioned go to make up the reason why our steamers have to charge a higher rate of freight from that port notwithstanding that many of them are bonused. We pay out annually Mr. E. D. SMITH.\nsomething between $100,000 and $150,000 to these steamers simply to come to Montreal. Ostensibly this is paid for the carrying of mail matter, but we only sent about thirty-nine tons of mail matter to the old country in the last year, ancl if you quadrupled the rates on ordinary freight the freight on this mail matter would toe only $1,500 ; yet we paid $150,000 to one line of steamers to go to Montreal and St. John, so that we ought to have the very best .service there. Some people say the insurance people have no right to charge the high rates that they do ; that they are discriminating unjustly against our routes. Whether that is so or not I cannot isay, but on looking at the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the past year X find that a considerable number of shipwrecks occurred on the St. Lawrence, and a large portion of those shipwrecks occurred through faults that might have been prevented if the Minister of Marine had in the last three years devoted his energies to thoroughly improving this St. Lawrence route, and if a proper pilotage system had prevailed, most of these shipwrecks could have been averted. Let me read the result of the examination by the commissioner, Mr. O. G. Y. Spain, into some of these ship wrecks,- and What he says in regard to the reasons why they occurred. I come first to the wreck of the steamer ' Oarrigan Head ' :\nThis British steamship grounded opposite No. 3 lightship, Lake St. Peter, River St. Lawrence, on April 24, 1903. A ,formal investigation was held into the casualty at the harbour commissioners' office, Montreal, and the finding of the court was as follows\nThat the captain was not to blame for the disaster. That the officer of the watch was not. to blame for the disaster. That the quartermaster carried out the orders of the pilot. That pilot Angers was not to blame. That the casualty was due to the buoys being out of place.\nWhy were the buoys out of place ? Why is there not a proper patrol over this river to see that the buoys are always in place 1 Surely it is the duty of the Minister of Marine and of the government to see that the buoys are in place. Had this been done the wreck would not have occurred, insurance rates would not be so high, and we would not have to pay such high freight rates on our produce.\nThen there is the wreck of the steamship ' Iberian ' :\nThis British steamship grounded on the south side of the channel, near Isle aux Raisins, River St. Lawrence, on June 6, 1903, and at a formal investigation into the causes which led to the casualty, held at the harbour commissioners' office, Montreal, the court found :-\nThat nothing in the ship or her equipment contributed toward the accident.\nThat the conditions of the weather prevailing at the time of the casualty were favour-\n\n.able, bat navigation was rendered difficult, though not unsafe, by smoke from bush fires, which limited the distance the buoys were visible to about half a mile.\nThat proper precautions were taken with regard to speed, the ship steaming about four (4) knots per hour", u'No wonder we have to pay high rates when ships can only go tour knots an hour. That is a fast Atlantic service. Surely that broad river, one of the most magnificent in the world, ought to be so improved, the channel of it ought to be so wide, so deep, so safe, that a steamer could go, not at i knots an hour, but at full speed night and day. The report proceeds :\n-and a good look-out was kept, the captain, first and third officers being on the bridge as well as the pilot.\nThat no blame is attached to the master or officers for the casualty.\nThe buoys were apparently in their proper position.\nThat the casualty was due to Pilot O. Naud In attempting to pick up the bdoy which marked the south side of the channel-starboarding his helm to avoid a bateau, which he supposed was on the north side of the channel, whereas It was on the south side, and obscuring from View the buoy he was looking for. Owing to this error of judgment the ship ran out of the channel and grounded before it was possible for the pilot to see bis mistake.\nThe court is of the opinion, that the pilot, having proceeded about half the distance between the buoys without seeing the spar buoy he was looking for, should have anchored.\nThe next one is the steamship \' Protector \' :\nThis Norwegian steamship stranded at the mouth of the Saguenay river, on June 4, 1903, subsequently becoming a total loss. At a formal investigation into the case, held at the harbour commissioners\' office, Quebec, the court found : -\nThat the ship was properly equipped and in a good and sea-worthy condition when she left Chicoutimi.\nThat she was supplied with proper and sufficient charts and sailing directions.\nThat the reef on -which she stranded was properly marked on the Admiralty charts.\nThat the entrance to the Saguenay rive\'r is properly and sufficiently buoyed for the purposes of navigation.\nThat some blame attaches to the master for the stranding of the ship, in that he took no steps to ascertain whether the pilot was steering a proper course, in waters that any practical seaman could have navigated without the assistance of a pilot ; the channel being perfectly straight, and at no part less than six (6) cables wide.\nThat the master committed a grave error of judgment in taking no steps towards saving his vessel after stranding by jettisoning cargo from Nos. 1 and 2 holds and the deck cargo forward whereby the strain on the vessel would have been minimized, and the salvors enabled to place and work their pumps on arrival. The court is of the opinion that had\nthese steps been taken the vessel would have been" floated, and saved.\nThat the casualty was caused by the wrongful act of Pilot. Niazaire Delisle in steering an improper course, the evidence going to show that he had never piloted a vessel out of the Saguenay river before, and that ms knowledge of the river was so limited as to be dangerous.\nNow, what I maintain is that no pilot should be retained on that river or allowed to navigate a vessel on the St. Lawrence unless he has a certificate that he is a practical experienced pilot of some standing. The merchandise of Canada is of too great importance and the credit of the St Law rence route, which is shaken and by just such things as this, is of value and importance to be longei l perilled by the employment of P1\'0*\xae\t|1S\nnot the best that can possibly be^obt:aime<b The next wreck reported is that 0\t;\nsteamship \' Stord,\' of which the report says .\nThis British steamship stranded at Ste. Anne des Monts, Gulf of St. Lawrence, on June 10, 1903. The causes which led to this casualty were the subject of a formal investigation, held at the harbour commissioners office, Quebec, and the finding of the court\n"That the ship was properly equipped, and in a good and sea-worthy condition, when she left St. John\'s. Newfoundland.\t.\nThat she was not properly and sufficiently equipped with charts, in th^t there was only a general chart of the Gulf and River St Lawrence (No. 1271) on board ; but that tbe sail ing directions on hoard were sufficient\nThat the coast, in the vicinity of the place where the vessel stranded is Pr\xb0P\xaeJ\'ly sufficiently buoyed and marked for tbe P\n.o a. r..\xab\t\u2122\nstranding of the ship, in that \u2122as a* tempting to navigate his vessel m close prox imity to the land with a general chart . and in that he omitted to study his sailing directions sufficiently to inform himself of the set of the currents in those waters.\nThat the vessel was not proceeding at a safe rate of speed considering the distance Lom the6 land and conditions of the we a then That the master used every possible means to save his vessel after stranding.\nThe court considers that the master committed an error of judgment in attempting to navigate his vessel with a small scale chart, and that he deserves censure for his msum cient study of the sailing directions and for proceeding at an unsafe speed, hut from dealing with his certificate m view of the fact that he was almost constantly deck from St. John\'s, Newfoundland, to tne place of stranding, during trying circumstances when it is necessary to display the greatest caution and judgment ; also owing to his\nnast clean record.\t.\t.\t, _\nIn the evidence taken on the fog-signals along the coast between Cape Magdalen and Matane, suggestions were made for improvements, which the count will take steps to bring before the notice of the authorities at an eal-ry date.', "_ The fog signals were not perfect. There is an opportunity for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to improve that route by establishing some more fog signals. These gentlemen are experienced, and it is their opinion that the route was not properly marked. Then, there is the case of the barque ' Sardhana.' The report of the commissioner appointed to investigate the wreck ot this vessel states :\nThat the aids to navigation-in so far as the fog-signal at Point des Monts iS concerned -were inefficient ; the evidence of various Witnesses going to show that it was impossible to hear the fog-signal, even after the vessel stranded, within a mile and a-half of the lighthouse.\nThese are the results of the examinations of a few of the wrecks that occurred, and they go to show plainly that the fault lies with the government and with the minister who is in charge of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. It shows that he has not devoted his energies during all these long years to the improvement of this great rente, this route by which almost all the products originating west from the port of Montreal find their outlet to the sea. The evidence of these gentlemen appointed by tbe government themselves goes to prove that most of these accidents could have been prevented if proper signals and buoys had been provided. These are some of the things that I desire to call to the attention of the House, and I say that it is the duty of the government to bend their energies in this direction so as to make the St Lawrence route so safe that it will be as easy and as cheap to carry goods bv that route as by any other route1 from the Atlantic coast. There are other things that go to make that route cheap and safe. A large portion of the goods that we send from the port of Montreal are perishable goods. Three of our large exports are butter, cheese and apples. All of these are perishable products and require tbe best of care. It does not matter how much education our butter makers may have, it does not matter how much money may be spent upon educating our factory men to make the best butter that it is possible to make, it does not matter how much energy our farmers may bi mg to tbe work of producing good butter if you cannot carry it across the ocean m perfect condition. From $3,000,000 to $o.000,000 of our butter goes across the ocean and finds a market there. Most of it is sent m cold storage, and if we were to judge from the laudatory remarks which the lion, gentleman who last addressed the House made, we would come to the conclusion that the cold storage system as it at present exists is the most perfect in the world. We would imagine that every ship that sails from the port of Montreal is equipped with cold storage chambers that Mr. E. D. SMITH.\nwill carry every pound of butter across the Atlantic and land it in perfect condition in England where it will bring the highest prices. The cold storage system was inaugurated by the Hon. Mr. Montague when he was Minister of Agriculture, not at all, as the hon. member for West York tried to make this House believe, by the present hon. Minister of Agriculture. That system then inaugurated has no doubt become a great deal better than it was eight oi ten years ago. It would be a curious thing if after eight years of experience the Minister of Agriculture, with the able men lie has in bis employ, with the funds of the government at his disposal with which to equip these steamers as they are equipped except partially by the steamship companies, though the steamers sailing out of Boston and New York provide their own equipment, should not be able to carry out a better system of cold storage than that which previously prevailed. It would be dtrange if there was no improvement. There has been improvement. It would be strange indeed, after the long experience we have had with this very simple matter of cold storage, a thing that has been in operation in Australia and other portions of the world, which has been utilized for the carriage of perishable products to Great Britain for twenty years, a system which is in operation in all our cities and towns where you can place goods in cold storage and maintain them for months, if the government, with ample funds at their disposal, were not able to have a perfect system of cold stoiage. I am sure you will agree witb me that it is not very much to their credit that they have failed to perfect that system. Last year the hon. minister promised a thermograph record would be placed in every one of the chambers in ocean vessels for carrying perishable products. I find, however, that there are only 199 thermo-gi aph records taken, 155 in cold storage chambers, 32 in cooled chambers, and 12 in ordinary storage. Then I find the hon. minister in his report saying that a number of these boats carried butter in cold storage chambers at a temperature, not that which the hon. minister prescribes, but a temperature very far away from that which any experienced man knows they ought to maintain. The hon. minister maintained last year in his report 20 degrees as the proper temperature for the carriage of butter. Tbe butter shippers ask for a temperature of ten degrees. You would think that the boats would carry the butter below 32, the freezing point, but I find in the bon. minister's report that no less than nine boats carried it at an average temperature, not on a single day, but at an average temperature of over 32 degrees, and some of them averaged as higl^ as 40 degrees, 43 degrees, 36 degrees, 35 degrees, 39 degrees, 38 degrees, and so on.\n\nI find on turning up the thermograph records that a very large number carried butter to London at temperatures ranging from below 32 degrees to 45 and 50 degrees. I find that the ' Iona,' sailing September 5, carried apples at a temperature of from 66 to 45 degrees. How could you expect apples, or pears, or any perishable fruits to be landed on the British market after a journey of fourteen days at a temperature of 45 degrees to 66 degrees, confined in a close cold storage chamber ? Then, I find that on the ' Hibernian,' sailing August 22, there was a temperature of from 68 to 42 degree ; on the ' Hurona,' sailing July 12, a temperature of from 50 to 40 degrees ; on the ' Devona,' June 28, a temperature of from 37 to 38 degrees, on the ' Iona,' June 13, a temperature of from 42 and 32 degrees, on the ' Kildona,' a temperature of from 42 and 29 degrees, during their respective voyages across the ocean. All these vessels carried butter at the temperatures which I have mentioned except the first two, which carried apples. Then, taking the Liverpool service, I find that the ' Ionian ' had a temperature of from 41 to 38 degrees, that the ' Kensington ' had a temperature of from 45 degrees to 30 degrees, and that a number of other steamers had temperatures very much higher than they ought to have been for butter. This goes to show that the cold storage system that the hon. member for West York lauded so highly is not the perfect success that the House might have been led to believe if they had accepted that hon. gentleman's remarks as representing accurately the facts of the case. I am not going to say there was not a very large number of boats which carried butter at a proper temperature. Certainly the large majority of them carried it at a proper temperature and there is a very great improvement in this respect, but the point I wish to make is : That after these long years of experience it is astonishing that there should have been a single cargo go out from the port of Montreal shipped in cold storage not carried at a proper temperature. Every one of these cargoes can be carried at a proper temperature. It is only a matter of looking after them properly. It is not that it can not be done, it is simply a matter that requires somebody to attend to it. There should be some body to keep urging it upon the steamship owners, who, I have no doubt would be quite willing if it were continually brought to their attention to see to it that a temperature was maintained to carry butter in a proper condition.\nThe result is that our exports of butter dropped from between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000 worth to between $3,000,000 or $4,000,-, 000 worth. That is largely due to the fact that a great portion of our butter landed in England in a poor condition. Of course the blame was laid on the butter makers. My\nexperience is that if anything goes wrong the blame is put on the producer. He is a long distance off; he is not in parliament to defend himself ; he is not in the public eye, and so he is an easy mark for blame. Now, I doubt that the butter producer is responsible for this. I believe that the butter makers of Canada, with their experience) and intelligence, are able tq put up butter in as good shape as the people of any country in the world. I have no reason whatever to doubt that these cold storage chambers on the steamers with a temperature of 35 or 40 degrees instead of 20 degrees, are the sole and only cause why Canadian butter arrived in a mouldy condition on the English market, and why our exports of butter have decreased by millions of dollars. We were promised at the outset that this government would do a great deal for fruit-growers, and they started in a feeble manner to imitate the policy of Dr. Montague when Minister of Agriculture. Dr. Montague held that it was the duty of the government to see that Canadian fruit and butter were properly looked after in transit, and he could not understand why, if Australian fruit and butter could be carried through the tropics half way around the world in good condition, Canadian fruit and butter should not reach the English market in like manner. Dr. Montague experimented with butter. He bought a certain quantity of butter at 20 cents per pound, sold it in the English market, and proved that Canadian butter could compete with any butter in the world. Our butter export trade which was then practically nothing has since amounted to $5,000,000 and over some seasons. These experiments of Dr. Montague cost the country about $1,000, and I can well remember how the Liberals of that day loudly condemned the Conservative Minister of Agriculture for making this useless expenditure. But when they came to power, as they did in many other cases, they adopted the Conservative policy and swallowed themselves. They started experimental fruit shipments to the old country. They have been at it for eight years, and still without success. Let me point out that the Bartlett pear, one of our best pears, is a fruit that we ought to be able to ship in cold storage. I have kept them in cold storage in this country for several months, and I have taken them out in such sound and hard condition, that I have been obliged to put them in a warm rcom for a few days to ripen them sufficiently for use in the canning factory. Now, after eight years experimenting, the Minister of Agriculture is yet unable to have these Bartlett pears sent to England in good condition. We are voting here thousands and thousands of dollars to the minister and surely he should have sufficient control over his cold storage, to so regulate it that this", 'fruit might be carried for an ocean voyage of ten days and landed in sound condition on the English market. Yet, last year 1 believe there were only two carloads of these pears sent across, and both were an entire loss. In addition to apples, practically the only thing which the fruit-growers can ship in cold storage chambers at the present time, are some of our late fall pears that will keep in good condition in any old sort of place. Hr. Fisher and other gentlemen in the neighbourhood of Burlington have been shipping these pears for a number of years without cold storage, and have been making money out of the business. We can keep our pears in good condition in our own cold storage chambers and yet the Minister of Agriculture, to whom the member for West York gives so much credit and who has costly apparatus at his disposal, cannot arrange that they may be kept for the ocean voyage of ten days. But, Sir, only a comparatively small portion of our perishable goods require to go in cold storage. We export $20,000,000 worth of cheese, and that does not require cold storage. All that it needs is that the air should be constantly changed and kept as cool as the outside air of the ocean. The same thing applies to shipments of apples. On this side of the House I urged on the Minister of Agriculture years ago, that all that is required for cheese and apples was to have the steamer holds properly ventilated, I showed him the enormous loss that we were sustaining by the neglect of this precaution, but he did not heed us. It was at last ascertained, when we came to make a milder kind of cheese that it would not carry under the old conditions, and at last the commissioner appeared before the Agricultural Committee one day, and stated that our cheese had been so damaged during the previous year by being carried in ill ventilated steamship holds, that it had received a black eye in the old country, and he prophesied that for the following year our cheese exports would be reduced by $3,000,000. I thought that in all probability he was right, and I watched the matter closely, and true enough next year our exports of cheese instead of increasing by one and a half million dollars as had been usual, decreased by one million dollars, so that we lost about two and a half million dollars on our cheese exports for that year. I on this side of the House had cautioned the Minister of Agriculture year after year that this would happen; I told him the farmers of Ontario were losing at least a million dollars a year on their apple shipments on account of this fact, but the Minister of Agriculture did nothing. He only woke up when he heard from his commissioner. The minister sent a circular to the steamship owners asking them to Mr. E. D. SMITH.\nprovide that the holds should be ventilated.\nThe hon. minister thought to take a little credit to himself, and what did he do ? He came to this House and asked for a vote of $40,000-not to ventilate the steamers. That was a simple matter. He did not require any vote for that. All that was required was for him to point out to the steamship companies the necessity of the case, and to tell them that if they did not ventilate their holds, and let the agents of the government see that they were properly ventilated, he would report and publish the fact. That would not have cost the country a cent. But that did not suit the hon. gentleman. These hon. gentlemen opposite have come to regard money of so little account, that unless they can come to this House and ask for a vote of $100,000 or some other large amount, they do not think they can do anything for the people. So the hon. minister asked for $40,000, and that vote has been repeated several times, to assist the steamship companies to fit up their steamers with cool air chambers and a refrigerating plant and thus reduce the temperature below that of the ocean air. I had grave doubts at the time whether this would work out as the hon. minister seemed to think it would. I rather imagined that the steamship people, having to pay at any rate a portion of the cost of fitting up the steamers, and having to set apart a considerable amount of space for the refrigerating plant would have to charge a considerable extra rate for the use of them. The minister assured us that the rate would be the same. So the money was voted and the chambers were fitted up in a number of these steamers ; and what do we find ? We find that the temperatures in these cool air chambers are just about the same as in chambers which are properly ventilated. I find, for instance, that on the \' Cervona, \' the temperature of the cold air chamber was 62 to 54, and on the * \' Pretorian\' with ordinary ventilated storage, 65 to 56 ; almost the same temperature. On the \' Kil-dona \' with cool air temperature 56 to 58 ; on the \' Ionian \' without cool air, the temperature was 45 to 62. I might read a dozen or so of reports of temperatures of steamers fitted up with cool air chambers : but I could only read twelve with regard to the ordinary storage, because these were all the hon. gentleman had recorded and it would be found that there is very little difference in this temperature in the cool air chamber and that in a properly ventilated chamber. It was pointed out to the minister last year that the only way to secure the object in view was to have his agents at Montreal, put a thermograph into every storage apartment, and have his agents on the other side examine them and report. This would not cost the country a single cent, as the bon. gentleman has his agents now. In order to see that the holds\n\nare properly ventilated, he should have a compartment on deck or somewhere when the exact temperature of the ocean air would be recorded ; and if the record of that corresponded exactly with the record in the holds where the cargoes were, he would know that the fans were going; otherwise he would not know. It is all very well for him to have his agents go and see that the steamers are provided with the necessary apparatus ; but it is another thing to know that the apparatus is working all the way across the ocean. If it is not, it will not produce any result. In response to a question which I put to the minister last year, he promised that in every one of the holds carrying perishable cargo there would be a thermograph, but I find that they were only put into twelve ; but fortunately even these twelve show the advantage of them. I have examined the record of vessels going from Montreal on the same date and arriving on the other side at the same time. If the fans had been going and the holds had been ventilated, they would have shown exactly the same temperatures. I find that the \' Livonia \' had temperatures ranging from 45 to 60, and for five days the temperature was 50 or lower. I venture to say that in that case the fans were going and the ventilating apparatus was in operation. At the temperature which prevailed during those five days, you could carry summer apples, pears, or any other perishable cargo that goes from this country to the other side, except perhaps butter, and I do not know but you could carry that in a temperature of from 45 to 50, if you were sure of having it all the time. What do I find with regard to the \'Tritonia\' that went at the same time ? She never showed less temperature than 60, and that only when loading, when the \' Livonia \' was about from 57 to 60. The * Tritonia \' showed a rise to 68 at about the same time as the \' Livonia \' showed from 45 to 50, and the temperature rose gradually until it reached 73, when the vessel was across to the other side ; whereas the \' Livonia \' never got above 55, a difference of from 15 to 18 degrees during the whole voyage. This is exactly the result which I wanted the minister to prove. There is the proof that it is absolutely necessary to take some steps to see that these steamers are ventilated. All you have to do is to put a thermograph, which costs $10, into each apartment which carries perishable goods and to put another on the deck. These thermographs will last a number of years, and by their use we could secure absolutely safe carriage for all our apples and cheese across the ocean. But that did not suit the hon. minister. He must put cool air apartments on the steamers at a cost of $100,000. and what has been the result ? That of 2,000,000 barrels of apples exported last year only 8,000 barrels were carried in cool air chambers, and that of 229,000,000 pounds of\ncheese exported only about 3,000,000 pounds were carried in cool air chambers, that is, one cheese in seventy-five. Why was this 7 Because the shippers found that where the ordinary storage is well ventilated, they can carry cheese and apples across in as perfect condition as in the cool air chambers that cost the country $100,000 and in which shippers have to pay 36 cents a barrel extra on apples and ten shillings a ton extra on cheese. The shippers therefore will not ship in them, because they can get as good service without paying these extra charges. Since a large number of steamships have found it to be in their own interest to provide proper ventilation, these cool air chambers are neglected and the $100,000 is thrown away. This service, for which the people have to pay an enormously increased cost, is not required if the minister would do what he is asked to do by members on this side of the House. If the hon, member who preceded me had devoted a little more of his energies in this direction, he would have been of more value to his constituents. I want to make a statement here to show the difference in value to the shipper between ventilated boats and boats not ventilated. On the \' Lake Champlain \' a shipment of 325 barrels of apples last season gave the following results\n139 brls. lar>4ed tight Average price, 12s. 8d. 17 brls. landed slack\n25 barrels slightly wet, average price, 9s.;\nloss of 88 cents per barrel.\n87 barrels wet, average price, 7s. 6d.; loss of $1.32 per barrel.\n28 barrels wasty, average price, 3s. 6d.; loss $2.20 per barrel.\n32 barrels slack and wet, average price, 3s. 6d.; loss of $2.20 per barrel.\nThese apples were evidently carried in a chamber not ventilated, and you had the result, a loss of from 88 cents to $2.20 per barrel upon all those not landed in tight or even slack condition. Compare the shipment by that boat with a shipment by another boat, the \' Ionian \' of 2,190 barrels, last | season :-\t.\n1,803 barrels landed tight\t\t82:4 per cent.\n204\tbarrels\tlanded slack....\t9-3\t"147\tbarrels\tslightly wet\t.. ..\t6\'7\t"36\tbarrels\twet\t\n16\t"\n2,190\nTake a thousand barrels of apples at the prices at which those were sold on the \' Lake Champlain \' and make comparison with a thousand barrels sold at the same prices but landed in codition in which those were that went by the \' Ionian \'-\nBy the * Lake Champlain \'-\n47 per cent tight or slack, at 12s. 8d. $1,428.00\n8 per cent slightly wet, at 9s\t 172.80\n26 per cent wet, at 7s. 6d\t 280.80\n19 per cent wasty, slack and wet, at\n3s 6d\t 159.60']
Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to detain the

House very long and I do not propose to weary it with long arrays of figures. The question of figures and statistics has been dealt with by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and by the hon. gentlemen who have spoken from this side of the House. I propose to deal more generally with the question. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) made a very charming speech. It gave great pleasure to the members on his own side of the House ; and we do not begrudge them that, because it is seldom they have had an occasion since this session open-end to indulge in a little fun or a little laughter. They had some justification for their mirth yesterday, because the figures with regard to our manufacturing industries quoted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce were amusing if they were not correct. The Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that the statement of the Finance Minister, in which he was able to boast of continuous prosperity, must have been gall and wormwood to the members of the opposition. Let me tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he is mistaken there. No matter what party may be in power, the Conservatives of Canada will always be gratified when a Finance Minister in his budget speech is able to present indications that Canada is prosperous, even though mismanaged. The Minister of Trade and Commerce evidently cannot conceive that other men have loftier and more patriotic views than he entertains. The hon. gentleman inferentially took credit to the government that the farmers of Canada are more prosperous to-day than they were some years ago. Let me call his attention to the fact that in the states of the union which some years ago he so ably represented as immigrant agent, in Kansas, the Dakotas and thewestern states generelly, the farmers were in an infinitely more depressed condition than ever were the farmers in any part of Canada. During some years of prosperity the farmers in these states recovered their position, and so keenly did they rejoice at their translation from commercial slavery to freedom, that they made bonfires of the mortgages which they had redeemed and which at one time they thought must swamp them. Providence has sent to these states a bounteous harvest for several years in succession, and as the farmers of Canada have had the same experience of late years they are prosperous in a degree. The Minister of Finance presented a budget which was eminently satisfactory from several points of view. He was able to speak of large revenues, increasing deposits in the banks, progressive trade, and he took credit for that to the wise administration of himself and his colleagues. Well, Sir, the reason of this prosperity is that we have had good crops, higher prices for our produce, and greater areas of virgin soil brought under cultivation ; thus presenting to our people new
sources of wealth which we trust will be of advantage to our country for many years to come. The budget was more remarkable for what it omitted than for what it contained. The Minister of Finance presented a diagram, presumably to show the progress Canada has made since confederation ; but that diagram was remarkable for the omission of any indication as to the imports by Canada from the United States. It is a most extraordinary thing that the Minister of Finance shduld deliberately suppress the one part of that diagram which the government wished the country to be ignorant of. I do not think the Minister of Finance realized what he was doing when he deliberately placed before the country a diagram purporting to show the progress of every branch of our trade, and omitted to show our trade with our most important and largest customer, the United States. Another omission which is unprecedented is that the Minister of Finance made no reference whatever to the anticipated revenue and expenditure for the coming year. I presume we may take it for granted that there is an election to be held before next session, and that the Minister of Finance did not want to bring forward any estimate which might be found to be fallacious. There was another very extraordinary omission from the budget speech. This government has committed the country to an expenditure for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway of anywhere between $120,000,000 and .$170,000,000, adding 50 per cent to our national debt, and yet the Minister of Finance had not a word to say as to how this money would be raised or as to what effect the scheme will have on our future revenue and expenditure. These omissions were apparently made after great thought and deliberation. and evidently with the view of misleading the country. The election is near ; these figures would not be pleasant reading for government supporters in the political campaign, and so they are hidden from the people. The Minister of Finance claims that the debt of this country has not been increased during the eight years this government has been in power. That may lie true if we take as gospel the system of book-keeping which the Finance Minister has adopted, but even according to the minister's own figures he shows that this government has taken an increased taxation from the people of $57,800,000 as compared with the revenue under the Conservative government in like period, and yet the Liberal government has only reduced the debt by $1,084,000.	1 ' would point
out that the Minister of Finance takes credit on revenue account, for payments on account of public lands to the extent of $1,695,000, an item which surely should be credited to capital account, because we are using up the capital in our lands, and by no possible argument could this be credited on the revenue side of the

account. The erroneous and false method of book-keeping which the Minister of Finance has adopted, is an imitation of the vicious principle which has been followed by the Ontario government and I think by some other provincial governments.
They are crediting year by year to revenue account the money which they derive from sales of timber lands, amounting to enormous sums. They are making no provision to replace the capital which is exhausted from year *to year ; and as time goes on this, instead of being an asset, will turn into a liability. The exports from Canada to the United States in 1896 were $44 -448,000. in 1903 $71,783,000, an increase of $27,000,000. Our imports in 1896 were $58,570,000 and in 1903, $137,000,000. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, while not very sure about it, stated that it was probably a beneficial thing for the imports and exports of a country to be about an even keel ; which is the same as saying that a man who has $1,000 a year and spends the whole of it is about as well off as he would be if he spent only $750 and saved $250 for a rainy day. I find that the products of the forest exported from this country in 1903 amounted to $36,000,000. If we take the value of that timber in the stump, or the capital value belonging to this country, we find that we drew upon our capital last year to the extent of over $7,000,000. which went to swell the exports of the country and to diminish our assets. The expenditure in a growing country is naturally an increasing one', and I would not for a moment suggest that the expenditure to-day should be on the same plane as it was in 1896. But what I do claim is that the expenditure has gone up by leaps and bounds, that it is far in excess of the requirements of the country, and that it has not been caused by necessary works or proper development, but largely by extravagant expenditure and expenditure on useless works. All the work done by this government has been done at a cost vastly in excess of the cost under Conservative rule, while allowing for any increase in wages that may have occurred since 1896. I need only give one instance, that is the cost of taking the census. Any one comparing the cost of that service in 1901 and in 1891 will see at a glance that the extravagance there has been utterly reckless and uncalled for. The government have had at their disposal, without increasing the debt of the country, over $57,000,000. What have they done with it or what have they done for it ? They promised us before they came into power that they would give us a fast Atlantic service ; they promised vastly improved navigation on the St. Lawrence and on the great lakes. They have spent some money on the St. Lawrence, but the navigation has not been improved, as is evident from the increasing number of wrecks. On the great lakes I think I may safely say that nothing has been Mr. OSLER.
done since 1896 to render navigation safer. I do not know of half a dozen lighthouses erected since 1896 on the coasts of the great lakes, where the business is so enormous that we almost wonder where it comes from. If you take a marine map of the LTnited States coast, which also includes our coast, showing the lighthouse stations on the American coast, and then look at what we have, every Canadian should be ashamed of the negligence that has been displayed by Canada in this matter. I know that within the last three weeks vessels coming down and overtaken by fogs have been delayed for days on the coast because of the lack of foghorns and lights. It is claimed by the Finance Minister that the debt of this country lias not been increased, but that the debt per head has decreased. The debt per head in 1896 was $49.08 ; now it is $46.69, a reduction of $2.39 per head ; but the debt is spread over a larger number of people, which makes it smaller per head. The rate of taxation in 1S96 was $5.46 per head; now it is $8.87, or an increase of $3.41 per head, not on the old population on which the debt was figured, but on the increased population, showing the increased taxes per head to be more than the reduction of the debt per head for the whole eight years. Now there is no question that our trade is increasing. Our trade ought to increase. We have a vast area of virgin soil, we have enormous natural resources, and we only require to delve into these from year to year to increase our wealth, without reference to any government, good or bad. But a good government ought to so develop our natural resources and bring them before the people that wealth shall be obtained from them at the lowest possible cost and to the advantage of the greatest number of people. But I claim that the government have been absolutely neglectful of this vast natural wealth. ' Since 1896, when we were just beginning to realize what we had in this country, the government had taken over $57,000,000 out of the people, and what have they done to show to the people what our natural wealth is ? The only item in the whole list of expenditures that shows a decrease is the geological survey. I contend this government would have been wise, and and it would have had the support of every one on this side of the House, had it taken a sum going into the millions, to find out for the people of this country, in detail as far as possible, the extent of our natural resources, and the best way to utilize them. This government have not taken one single step towards that end. We have in this country great water-powers, vast timber resources, and immense deposits of minerals. We do not know any more about a great part of this country than we did two hundred years ago, as we found when the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill and its mountains of information were laid on this table. From Nipigon for hundreds of miles to the east we have only the reports of a few

surveyors and prospectors, who went up and down the rivers. We have no cross surveys and no adequate knowledge of the country. I contend that the first duty of the government, when it came into power, and knowing the strides which this country was making, was to have devoted a large sum of money each year to a systematic exploration of our country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, so that we should have at least some little preliminary knowledge of what we own. We would then have been able to deal intelligently with any scheme that was presented to this House.
People anxious to invest would be able to know where to go with the prospect of finding what they wanted, and we would be in a position to ascertain, to some extent at all events, the value of our national heritage. We are as ignorant of that to-day practically as we were thirty years ago. If England is anxious about her coal supply and is appointing commissions to inquire into the question, and if England put on an export duty on coal to prevent her natural resources in that commodity being depleted, is it not equally the duty of this government to try and arrive at some idea of our natural resources ? We are depleting our timber at a rate which no one in Canada realizes. It is quite true that this timber is more or less under the control of the different provinces, but surely it is in the interests of the country at large that this government should suggest the taking of some steps in order to reach an agreement among the provinces on some plan for the reforestering of the immense tracts which are now being laid bare. The greatest wealth Canada possesses is being exhausted and without our getting practically any return compared with the enormous value we are losing. Although this matter comes not directly under the control of this parliament, surely it is something concerning which this parliament 1 might well take steps to initiate some policy or have some policy adopted by the provinces. If England is anxious about her coal, is it not time that we should be anxious about our timber ? In the United States their timber wealth has been enormously reduced, and the different States of the Union are beginning to realize that the greatest mistake they ever made was in not replanting the forests which were cut down. In the old world one of the most important branches of every government is the preservation of its timber resources, and the cutting of timber is there regarded as almost a sacred thing. That will be the case some day in this country, but the longer you put off dealing with the question, the greater will be our loss.


Mr. WRIGHT.: Suppose we undertook to reforest the province of Ontario, would not the timber become the property of that province, and we won 1 d incur all the expense ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: begins. That process is carried on until the manufacturers regain their level, after perhaps some .years, and we, as being the nearest neighbours, suffer to the greatest extent. That will always happen so long as we have to the south a nation vastly larger than ours. The manufacturers of Canada are fairly prosperous. Two years ago they were prosperous. Last year they were doing fairly well. This year I am bound to say that in three cases out of five they are just making ends meet, and there is no profit. If things continue another year, in the majority of eases the large manufacturers will be running their establishments at a loss.
The policy of this country, surely, should be to realize this and to have what we might call a fixed policy, not a vacillating policy, one that changes with every change of prosperity among our neighbours to the south of us, a policy that provides for contingencies, and as far as possible protects our manufacturers, giving them at all events their home market to the extent that that can be done. Now, we have a very striking illustration of what I mean in connection with one of our largest manufacturing industries, the woollen trade. It was very seriously affected by the preferential tariff. That tariff I contend was a mistake, although the Minister of Finance said that it was hailed by both sides. My contention is that the preference should have been given for a return preference from the other side. Had we kept that in view, and were we now in a position to say to Great Britain : We will give you a preference in consideration of your giving us a preference-Mr. Chamberlain's hands would have been strengthened and he would have been making much greater progress in winning the country to his side, though I believe his ideas will prevail in a short time. We have weakened him materially by giving away for nothing what we ought to have exchanged with our friends on the other side on equal terms. The government saw. three or four years ago, that the preferential tariff bore especially hard upon one of our large industries, the woollen industry. ' The year before last this grumbling grew to a rumbling, and last year to a mighty thundering; and this year, the catastrophe arrived and the largest woollen industry in Canada closed down. During the season the Finance Minister, discussing that very branch of industry, hinted to the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr.. Brock) that he, as representative of one of the largest companies, was closing down his mills for political effect. When these mills were closed the government were up against the fact that a million of capital had been wiped out and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of artisans were thrown out of employment and were leaving the country. Not till then-'* too late to save that capital and to keep ! these people in our country-the government come down with an amended tariff, though Mr. OSLER.
they ought to have known, if they had had an inkling of the opinion of the country or any knowledge of what was going on in the country, that the woollen mills were going to destruction if they kept their tariff in force. They have repented too late ; and I hope they will be severely punished for their long persistence in this sin at all events. Outside of this, the principal item of the proposed amendments to the tariff is the change in the coal oil duty. While not professing to be very well up in the technical details of that industry or able to judge how the tariff will effect one part or another. I venture to say that the change in the tariff which the government have proposed and brought about will have the effect of placing the last remaining wells, and the last native coal oil industries that are owned in Canada, in the hands of the Standard Oil Company. If it were possible to suggest to my friends on the government side a source of campaign funds which they do not already know about, I would tell them that there is no industry upon this continent that has any connection with Canada that can afford to subscribe to their campaign funds in the next election so generously as the Standard Oil Company. We already see how skilfully this change in tariff is being worked. Standard Oil agents in all the towns and villages are advertising : ' In consequence of the change in the tariff, coal oil will be reduced 21 cents per gallon ; come and buy.' That will continue just so long as it suits the Standard Oil Company, or until they can control the balance of the Canadian oil industry. That will not be a very long time. Then, Mr. Speaker, before many months, after next election, you will find that-without any advertisements in the newspaper-the agents of the Standard Oil Company will put up oil half a cent or a cent at a time until the people of Canada will be bled to an enormous extent.


Mr. HEYD.: Nonsense.


Edmund Boyd Osler: We shall see. If the hon. member (Mr. Heyd) will watch the trend of affairs, he will find the same result follow as has followed the abolition of the duties on binder twine, barbed wire, and these other things that are controlled by great monopolies in the country to the south of us.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: What is to prevent the dealer in coal oil at any time going to the United States and ordering coal oil to be imported subject to a duty of 2i cents per gallon, if the Standard Oil Company unreasonably raise prices here ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am sure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) is not serious. Now, there is one principle which, I think, is accepted by political economists without exception ; and that is, that if there is to be a tariff, that tariff should be as simple as it is pos-

sible to make it; it should be so plain that there need be no difficulty in interpreting it, and so simple that it may be brought into effect with as little friction as possible and as little difficulty to both importer and seller. But this extraordinary, bungling tariff that the Minister of Finance has submitted is so complicated that, I will be bound to say, it will have to be changed before the next session. It is almost impossible to define any articles under that tariff. Some importer, let us say, calls the attention of the government to the fact that a certain article is being brought in at a slaughter price. The government have to find out what the market price of that article really is. It may be an article the price of which may suddenly and greatly change, as for instance rails or some other iron product, the fall in the price of which according to our experience may be from twenty to forty per cent within three weeks. In such a case the government will be absolutely unable to deal with the question in such a fashion as to do justice to the parties. This change puts in the hands of the government an arbitrary power, it even puts in the hands of the officials of the government an arbitrary power, to help their friends and put obstacles in the way of men rvho do not agree with them, this difficulty being a clear, gratuitous addition to the ordinary difficulties there are in every case in the carrying out of the details of a tariff policy. The government have, we contend, increased the expenditure of this country without giving value for the money which they have taken out of the pockets of the people. They have not spent money in developing the country in the manner which they promised and which the country would support. They have not taken as efficient steps as they should have taken to ascertain the value of our natural heritage, and they are allowing that heritage to go' to waste because of the lack of information. The government have not given adequate protection, they have not given the protection which is due to the men who have put their money into manufacturing enterprises in this country. They are dealing with these industries from time to time as it may suit them, or as the necessity of the case may be forced upon them, and in that way they are destroying the confidence of the people in the stability of our tariff and the safety of investing money in our enterprises. They resort to any means or any scheme by which they will be able to say : This is not protection. They have resorted to the worst form of protection, that is the bounty. Two years ago, I think it was, they proposed an enormous bounty on our steel, which' would affect principally the works in Nova Scotia. The result was a great rush of speculation, an unhealthy development, which caused a great loss to the people of Canada and the necessity of a reOifganizationi Proper protection would not have brought that about. In addition to
this the government say that bounties are a capital expenditure.
I do not intend to occupy the time of the House longer, but I wish to say a word to show the difference between the two parties. The policy of the government is one of vacillation, of taking advantage of the condition of affairs from day to day, of advocating one policy in one place and at one time and another policy at another place and another time, as it may suit the people whom they address. They have not realized that in this country the first necessity is to have a fixed policy so that every man *who runs may read, and every man who goes into business may know that he is protected and that he is entering that business under certain conditions. Another difference between the two parties is that the Conservative party have always believed in the future of their country. The gentlemen who are now in pow7er. more especially the men who spoke so eloquently and so enthusiastically yesterday, never believed in their country in times of depression, and did all in their power to belittle this country and to destroy its credit, by writing letters to the ' Economist,' to the public press, by advising our men to leave this country-they did all In their power when this country was undergoing a period of depression to belittle It and, in a measure, to throw dirt on it. The Conservatives today are as delighted, as proud of the prosperity of this country as any member on the other side of the House, and I say further that if it should be the misfortune of this country to again drift into a period of depression, no man on this side of the House will be found throwing dirt at the country or decrying its future. The Conservative party have always had, have to-day and will always have, confidence in the country, whether in prosperity or in adversity.


Mr. A. T. THOMPSON (Haldimand).: Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to discuss all the points made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Osier), but I may perhaps be excused for dealing with a few of them before proceeding with the discussion as I had intended. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) argued that inasmuch as we exported from_this country last year lumber which, upon the stump, would have been worth seven millions of dollars, we had thereby, so to speak, exhausted the capital or the assets of this country to that extent. I noticed that, later on, the same gentleman thought that we had not expended sufficient sums in geological surveys of this country for the purpose, I suppose, of ascertaining its mineral and other resources, in order that these might be exploited. Does not the hon. gentleman see that so long as these minerals remain in the land and are not shipped out of Canada, we are not exhausting the assets of Canada ? Does the hon. gentleman not see the danger of his argument in calling for the exploitation of

these natural riches ? If we are losing Canadian wealth in sending our fine timber out of the country, then in like measure we are exhausting her wealth by shipping minerals out of the country. Sir, this is simply to reduce that argument to an absurdity. The fact is, that if we export that timber from this country and get back money return for it, either money or something equally valuable in kind, that money increases the capital of this country, and we are thereby enabled to develop those same mineral resources about which the hon. gentleman has so much anxiety. Then what about the growth of our forests V I have been told that there are already in existence in Canada limits on which the lumbermen are now beginning their second cut after thirty years' of cutting upon them. I had a most interesting conversation with one of the gentlemen chiefly interested in the question of forestry in the province of Ontario. He told me,# Sir-and he is a man of standing-that after careful consideration he was forced to the conclusion that we had in Ontario alone an area of land which, if given over to forestry, and for that it is only lit, would be sufficient to produce in actual growth several million dollars' worth of timber every year. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) went on to say that we should take pains to preserve this enormous wealth and go carefully into the matter of reforestry. I would tell that hon. gentleman that the provincial government in Ontario, with which perhaps, I am somewhat intimately acquainted, has initiated a policy of reforestry which it is constantly expanding. What about the national parks and forest reserves which have been set apart for the preservation of the timber ? What about our forest rangers, whose duty it is to prevent fire among our timber ? What about the recent resolution of the Forestry Association asking this government to see to it that when the new road is built precautions shall be taken to prevent the destruction of forest wealth, so that after the dis tricts have been cut over, the timber may be cut again after some years V I think the hon. junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) is worrying himself needlessly about the destruction of our assets so far as they consist in the timber wealth of this country. He said, too-and I was surprised at the hon. gentleman when he said it-that the Liberals had expended more money on the public works of this country, in proportion to the amount of public work done, than the Conservatives had done. The public works, service for service, had cost them more. Why not V As I understand, the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) is one of the chief managers of that great corporation, the Canadian Pacific Railway. Surely he must know that that railway has to pay more to its wage-earners than it did when the Conservatives were in power. Surely he must know that for materials and Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.
labour that railway has to pay more than when the Conservatives were in power. The prices of both labour and materials have gone up, and to advance the argument that the government is extravagant simply because public works cost more, service for service, than in the days when the Conservative government was in power, is a method of argument which surprises me, coming, as it does, from a gentleman who occupies so conspicuous a place in the financial world of Canada.
Why, Sir, he put a question which I did not intend to answer so soon, but I will do so now. He said that the Liberal surpluses amounted to $57,0017,000, and he asked: What have you to show for this immense amount of money ? I will give the hon. gentleman some of the items. We have spent on the public works of Canada $6,445,766, and of that $2,638,311 was spent upon improving the navigation of the St Lawrence, between the ports of Montreal and Quebec. We have spent upon the Montreal harbour itself $503,535, we have spent upon the harbour of port Colborne $447,440. we have spent on the St. Andrew's rapids $94,350, on the Levis graving dock $96,590, and on the St. Lawrence canals $18,394,220 , and yet the hon. gentleman, patriotic Canadian, as I believe him to be-


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I maintain that the hon. gentleman is a patriotic Canadian.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Yes ; and yet he puts the question :	What have we done
with this money? He goes on to say that we have done practically nothing to improve the water-ways of Canada-a pretty advertisement for us in the old country, where the hon. gentleman is known ; a pretty encouragement to the commerce along the St. Lawrence, which we are all anxious to increase. Yet we have this absolutely unfounded statement in reference to the improvement of that water-way given to the House here. We have spent on the Yukon $1,940,310 of this surplus, and most of that has come back from that same Yukon. On the Ottawa government buildings largely occasioned by the fire, and even hon. gentlemen opposite will freely acquit us of responsibility for that fire, we have spent $457,574. We have spent on the Halifax garrison $2,834,516, and as loyal Canadians and British subjects there is no man amongst us who will cavil at that. The hon. gentleman may ask : What have we to show for that expenditure upon the Halifax garrison ? It is disbanded, the men have returned to their homes, it is true ; but we have to show as a result of that expenditure a record of loyalty which Canada may well be proud of. I maintain that this has been an expenditure which has brought us more in the way of advertising in the old country, if ^e wish

to come down to such a common cash nexus as that, than every dollar of that expenditure which was made at Halifax. We have spent on railway subsidies $11,828,321. The hon. gentleman surely will not cavil at railway subsidies. Possibly he may do so at these particular subsidies, but in the old days I think his voice was silent, as far as protests went, against railway subsidies. I maintain that by the granting of these subsidies we have opened up vast new territories in which have been established ibou-sands of new homesteads in Canada. We have spent for railway subsidies nearly $12,000,000 really, and this shows where some more of the $57,000,000 of surplus has gone. We have spent on iron and steel bounties $2,199,342 ; on Dominion lands, $1,659,040 ; and on militia, $2,402,171. Mr Speaker, I dare not enlarge upon the question of the militia, because it is now ten minutes after four, and at six o'clock I presume you will leave the chair. I shall leave the subject over, for, once I had entered upon it, I believe I would exhaust the balance of my time ; and if I had any comment to offer, it would be, not that this ex penditure has been too much, but that it has been perhaps a great deal too little. Next, on Manitoba school lands grant we have spent $267,029 ; on consolidated fund, transfer and discount, and expenses of loan of 1897, $1,847,908 ; and on government railways, in raising the Intercolonial Railway from a condition which was not much better than that of a tan-bark road to one oi the test equipped and best served railways on this continent, in promoting the efficiency of that road and increasing its mileage from Ldvis to Montreal, we have spent $16,974,203. For the expenditure of this money we have no apology whatever to offer. I have not only accounted for the $57,000,000 in regard to which the hon. gentleman asked the question as to what had become of the money, but if he will add these totals up he will find that I have accounted for $69,392,315 instead of the $57,000,000. But he says more ; he says that the per capita reduction of debt is not very creditable to this government. For the life of me, I cannot see what would be more satisfactory than that. If I owed some creditor a thousand dollars and some solvent man came along and offered to share that with me, and thereby reduce the debt which I had to pay to $500, in consequence I would consider myself very much better off than I was before. The very same argument may as well apply to Dominion finances as to private finances. We have a debt of a certain sum, but if- more people are here to share the burden, the burden is less. Although the debt may not be greatly reduced, we are all glad to know that it is somewhat reduced. Still, if the people who ' are now here to share this debt are greate in number this fact goes to increase the expenditure of this government to provide for
the necessities which they have as citizens of this country. My hon. friend said another thing which struck me with some surprise, and it was that we did not know very much more about Canada to-day than we did 200 years ago. It was only in 1757, which is much less than 200 years ago. that that great man Voltaire, the wise Voltaire, the learned Voltaire, in writing to M. de Moncmf, made the remark that it was a pity indeed that men in the old world should be killing one another because of a few acres of snow. His reference was to Canada. The great Voltaire knew so much of Canada as to describe it as a few acres of snovv in those days, and yet this hon. gentleman says that we know little more about Canada today than we did 200 years ago. I think we know what our area is, what our resources are, at least we are beginning partially to understand, we know that we have the greatest unoccupied area of agricultural land in the world, we know its immense fertility, we know that we have thousands and tens of thousands of miles of the richest agricultural land in the world, we know that we have the greatest timber forests in the world, we know that we have mineral resources, that they are immense, although as yet very largely unexplored, we know that we have fisheries which need take second place to none ; and yet the hon. gentleman has said that in many respects we know little more about Canada than we did 200 years ago, when all we knew of it was that there were some Indians here, who, for a very inferior brand of whisky, would turn over certain valuable furs. I do not know that it would be eminently profitable to further follow the argument of the hon. gentleman. There are certain hon. members on this side of the House who have made a special study of that hon. gentleman. I*am not an expert on the hon. junior member for West Toronto. I am sure that he and I are personally extremely good friends, and I shall turn him over to the tender mercies of those experts who, in the course of further debate, may find it to their advantage to deal with the subsequent portion of the hon. gentleman's remarks. But I will take up one more of his utterances as the foundation for the balance of the remarks which I propose to make, and that is that the expendi tures of this government have been extravagant. I wonder if I have discovered-I almost doubt if-the literary author of 1 Leaflet Number 15,' of that delightful Conservative literature now emanating in such large quantities from the press of this country. It reads as follows. I think this is a production which should be embalmed in ' Hansard ' :
Millions on Millions of the People's money thrown to ' Grafters ' with a lavish hand.
The 1903 session of parliament broke the record for reckless extravagance.

To raise election funds, the Liberal government poured out the people's money into the grafters' ' barrels ' like water.
Read for yourself the official statement of ihe enormous votes the government forced through parliament last session, in spite of the strenuous protests of the opposition.
they will have voted a billion dollars of your money ; people of Canada think of where you are drifting ; do you see your finish ? Such, Sir, I fancy will be their second edition of pamphlet No. 15.


Mr. LOGAN.: An edition de luxe.
Then follow in detail the main estimates, and the supplementary estimates of 1903 and 1904, not confining it to one year. Then we are given the bounties on iron and steel, the bounties on lead, the railway subsidies, and they charge up 8120,000,000 for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway as being voted last session. There is set down 810,000.000 for the Canadian Northern subsidy and 8150,000 for bridges in Quebec. The whole of the Quebec bridge is given as voted last session, amounting to 80,018,200, as well as the guarantee of the Grand Trunk Pacific of $31,000,000. And they make a grand total of-what do you think ? Two hundred and fifty-six million dollars that we voted here last session. Then they go on to say in this doc.u ment:
Remember that the Liberals used to denounce an annual expenditure of $38,000,000 as excessive-
An annual expenditure, Mr. Speaker. Then this so called vote, whicli was not a vote at all, is now reduced to annual expenditure, and they compare this vote so called, which I repeat was never voted, to their expenditure of $3S,000,000, and this pamphlet continues :
-and promised to reduce the expenditure by from $2,000,000 to $7,000,000 per year. That is the way they have kept their promises. If you approve this voting $256,000,000 of your money in seven months

I wonder how much more would have been voted if the session had lasted for twelve months.
-you will keep the present government in power ; If not you will put In the Conservatives who protested against it.
Sir, I fancy that this veracious document should run through many editions. I can picture almost what the second edition will he after this session. The first edition I have read to you ; the second edition will surely run somewhat as follows : ' Millions upon millions ; the people's money poured forth in an increasing stream.' Then they will go on to say : Inasmuch as we have had the Grand Trunk Pacific over again this session there is $171,000,000 voted for the Grand Trunk (since that was the estimate of the leader of the opposition). They will add supplementary estimates of one or two or even three years if necessary ; they will add capital expenditure and consolidated fund, and at the end of it all they will say : ' Why, these Grits voted $256,000,000 last year ; they voted $250,000,000 this year ; they voted over $500,000,000 in the two years, and in two years more at the same average Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Some gentleman says it is an edition de luxe; I hope I have suggested a reductio ad absurdum. I would pass away from this subject interesting though it may be, and I come to the budget speech so ably presented by the Minister of Finance. I may say that so far as the county of Haldimand is concerned, an agricultural county in the main, 1 believe that the' changes in the tariff announced by the Finance Minister will he eminently satisfactory. 1 know that the reduction of the duty on coal oil will be a satisfaction to the people there, because they have been asking for it for years past. I was somewhat surprised to find that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) is opposed to the reduction of the coal oil duties, but then lie lives in a city where they illuminate their houses with electric light and gas, and he has little sympathy -for those of us in the country who have to depend on tallow dips or coal oil. The prohibition of the importation of inferior animals will be welcomed by the farmers of this country, because if there is one thing which the Canadian farmer wishes more than another it is improvement in our herds, and the announcement of the Finance Minister in this respect tells of a movement in that direction. The free importation of animals to improve breeding,-even including the goats about which certain unsympathetic remarks have been made-is also a move in the right direction, as is also the free importation of ferment cultures for butter making.
But, Sir, while my county is au agricultural county in a large measure, it has started on the road of being a manufacturing county as well. We have at Niagara Falls an immense power development going on ; we expect when that is completed that many thousands of horse-power will he distributed ail over the Niagara Peninsula and we hope to get the advantage of cheap power. When that power is distributed among our small towns the people of Haldimand expect a growth in their manufacturing industries. And so, Sir, we view with great satisfaction the announcement of the government that it has said ' stop,' to that dumping process to which no patriotic Canadian can for a moment consent. We are not in my county free traders to a degree, nor protectionists to a degree. We believe in building up Canada ; we believe there should be fair competition. I want to tell hon. gentlemen opposite that so great is the manliness of the people in my section of the country that they do not fear fair competition, but when that competition

Is not fair, when it becomes assassination in place of trade, then the people I represent will stand for the government which is the first government in the history of the world to have framed legislation to stop that abuse which has crushed out so many infant industries in various other countries. That announcement of the Finance Minister will be received with eminent satisfaction in the part of the country which I represent.
And now taking up more particularly what I intended to deal with, I need not apologize to the House for so doing. That pamphlet No. 15 on the face of it is so absolutely silly, is so absolutely dishonest, that we Liberals, from the party standpoint would rejoice to see it find its way into every house in Canada because we can disprove its statements from end to end, and in doing so we can shake any of the little confidence still re-nahining in the people of Canada in that Conservative party which once was great. But. when a respected member of this House, a man of prominent position in Canada, rises in his place and repeats once more that old unfounded allegation, that the Liberal government is a government of extravagance -in view of the statement made by the Finance Minister, in view of the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce who dealt in a broad and able way with this subjectwhen in face of all that, he repeats the statement that this a government of extravagance ; when his party press through Canada is thundering forth against the prodigals so called at Ottawa ; then I need not apologize to this House for taking up this expenditure item after item as found on page thirteen, part I, of the public accounts of 1903, and discussing these items on the floor of this House by way of proving how utterly false are the charges of extravagance made against us by lion, gentlemen opposite. First, I take up the interest on the public debt. I will not weary the House with all the figures I have here, I will deal with them in round numbers, but for the sake of accuracy, and in order that hon. gentlemen opposite may not be able to question or to refute one word of what I say with regard to these figures, I have carried these figures out in my notes to the very last cent, and with your consent. Mr. Speaker, and the consent of the House I will hand in my notes to ' Hansard ' at the end of my speech in order that these figures may correctly appear in the report.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Hon. gentlemen opposite paid exactly the same. In the same way, for payments on current accounts we allowed the Bank of Montreal a commission of i of one per cent. Hon. gentlemen opposite paid exactly the same. As brokerage for purchases of stock for investment in sinking funds we allow the Bank of Montreal i of 1 per cent. Hon. gentlemen opposite allowed exactly the same. In these three items there has been no change.
We have in Canada seven offices of assistant receiver generals-at Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, St. John, Winnipeg, Victoria, and Charlottetown ; and we find that the expenses of these offices have been decreased by the Liberals in the case of three and increased in the case of four; but the increase in the whole seven amounted to the small sum of $451.90, an average increase of $64.55 per office. Yet the volume of business has vastly increased, the expense of living has increased, and as a consequence the members of the public service have a right to demand some increase in salary, a demand which has been met in many cases. In the same manner we find that the salaries paid in 1903 in the government savings banks still kept open in ths maritime provinces, are exactly the same as those paid by hon. gentlemen opposite in 1895, also in spite of the increased cost of living, on which the public service there might very properly found a demand for an increase of salary.
Hon. gentlemen may think that I am taking an undue amount of time over such' small items as these, but in view of the| strong statement made by the" hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, I propose to take a little time to prove beyond per-adventure that this government is not extravagant. I go on then to two items which alone more than account for the increased expenditure. For printing new notes and cancelling old notes and signing new ones the government spent $54,562.18 more than the Conservatives did in 1895. Is anybody surprised at that ? There is some commerce in Canada now. In the old times there was a lot of swapping of jack knives. Look at the returns, and you will find what an immense volume of business has been done, and how largely in consequence the currency has had to be increased. And naturally, if we increase the currency because of our business requirements, it passes rapidly from hand to hand and in the process gets worn out and destroyed; and it surely would foe most incongruous for this cleanest of all clean governments to retain a dirty currency. So we call in the old paper and issue new paper. We are not going to apologize for that ; and that accounts for over $54,000 of the increase. The balance is due to the increased charges we have paid in London for bill stamps. As you know, we, | in concert with most other colonies of


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Great Britain, go to the London money market for our financial requirements, and are governed by the conditions there obtaining. I believe that it was owing to the South African war that this form of British taxation was increased. That is something over which we had no control, but for which we had to pay $12,713.76 more. If you add these two sums together, you will find that I have more than accounted for that Increase of $67,275.94. Then, we spent $618,277.10 more because we put that much more into the sinking funds. We took it out of one pocket and bought securities with the money, and put them into the other pocket. We are not a dollar worse off, but probably a little better off, because these: securities will probably increase in value as time goes on. There is the $618,277.10 accounted for, then, in less than sixty seconds by the clock.
In premium discount and exchange, we spent less by $51,064.69 than hon. gentlemen opposite. But I want to be perfectly fair and frank in the discussion of this subject, claiming credit for the government only when it is their due, and blaming the Conservatives only when they are deserving of blame. This matter also is controlled by conditions in the money market of Great Britain, over which we have no control, and for which no government, whether Liberal or Conservative, can properly be blamed or praised.
I therefore pass on to the next item, civil government, in which I find an increase of $132,563.75. This is but an increase of 9 per cent in eight years, a little over 1 per cent per year, a very small increase in this item in view of the vast increase in the commerce of the country and in its population, bringings as it always does increased business in the government offices. The public accounts give thirty-three subheadings under this caption, and almost every one of these could be subdivided.
I would not be justified in taking up the time of the House in so minute an analysis ; but if hon. gentlemen will take the time to make it, they will find that the minutest item of expenditure is as justifiable as the largest which I have quoted. Yet I would have you note this fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservatives in tlleir term of office, during Canada's sluggish time, as I may fairly call it, increased the expenditure under civil government by no less than $35,000 a year, while we, in these growing times, have only increased it by $20,000 a year.
To the expenditure for administration of justice the same remarks would very well apply. There is an increase of $204,265.11, but of that $120,400.41 is on account of the Yukon, and the Yukon, as I propose to prove, has paid for the Yukon. We can, therefore deduct that amount. This leaves but $83,865.70 of an increase, and when we think of the increased business before the

courts, that seems a very narrow amount t>y which to have augmented the cost of the administration of justice in this country. 1 will call attention to a further thing. Hon. gentleman after hon. gentleman opposite has risen in this House and recommended that the salaries of the judges in Canada should be materially increased. I must say that in that I think hon. gentlemen opposite are right, for occasionally even they are right. That is not the point under discussion, however. The point is that had the government acceded to their request, this increase in the administration of justice would have been still more largely augmented. That being the case, it does not lie in the mouths of hon. gentlemen opposite to say that we had already increased it too much.
The expenditure under Dominion police has increased by $6,337.21 an increase so small that X would not weary the House with it, but for my desire to be accurate and complete in the statement I am making. We have increased the number of men somewhat. and we have increased their pay somewhat because of changed conditions and the increased amount of work they have to do. I may say that, under the very able command of Lieut.-Colonel Sherwood, of Ottawa, that force has reached a state of efliciency unexcelled on this continent. We have no apologies to make for the Dominion police. Passing on to legislation, I find an actual decrease in the expenditure of SI52,365.72. This is a decrease for which unlike the decrease which I noted under ' premium, discount and exchange, ' we can really claim some credit. How does it come that we have managed so materially to lower the expenditure on legislation ? Xet me give you one item, Sir, which far more than accounts for it. We have abolished, as we promised, that heavy burden, the Franchise Act. In 1895 that Act cost us $239,963.33. But in 1903, because we sent it into the abomination of the scrap heap, the cost is not one cent. Thus by doing away with that cumberous and expensive machinery no less a sum than $239,963.33 was saved at one stroke. If I may be allowed a parenthesis for one moment, I may say that we take credit, not only for having saved that amount of money, but for having abolished something which was almost intolerable. Any hon. gentleman who has worked in the province of Ontario in connection with the voters' lists, under the old Act, knows the difference between then and now. In the old Act there was an income clause requiring that a young Canadian, if not a property owner or a farmer's son. must be in receipt of $150 per annum before he could exercise the privilege of citizenship ; and often did I argue that a youth who was getting $12 per month and washing and mending was entitled to vote, because $12 a month represented $144 a year and surely the washing and mending
represented the other six. But since the Liberals have come into power, the right of a young man to exercise the franchise no longer depends on the value of sewing on his shirt buttons and mending his socks. The days of small things are over. Perhaps my hon. friends opposite will say that they are over in expenditure also. Well, I hope they are, provided the expenditure is a wise and prudent expenditure. I come now to the subject of penitentiaries, which I am sure cannot seriously interest any member of this House. In 1895 our expenditure was $449,599.81 and in 1903 it was $477,839.82, showing a gross increase of $28,241, but we have also increased our revenue by $15,012.56, leaving a net increase of only $13,277.45. That increase is more than accounted for by the purchase of a quarry at Kingston, by putting in brick making plant at St. Vincent de Paul, by increasing the salaries of the wardens and keepers, and by the increased cost of supplies for the maintenance of these institutions. So that the smallness of the increase is an evidence of economy and not of extravagance. In arts and agricultural statistics, there is a large increase of no less than $326,271.73, the expenditure having been in 1895, $216,740.30 and in 1903 $543,012.03. But of this increase $100,000 is due to the increased cost of the census as compared with what hon. gentlemen opposite paid in 1895. I shall not discuss that subject, because it was most ably dealt with by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He put the case in a nutshell, and we say that the reason w,e have paid so much more for our census than our hon. friends opposite did for theirs, is the good, valid and proper one that broadcloth always costs more than shoddy. The next item of increase is that of $59,540.27 on exhibitions. But who will say that these exhibitions, in which we have so prominently and creditably figured for the last few years, have not had a very large share in inducing the great increase of immigration to Canada on which we are to-day congratulating ourselves ? At one time Canada appeared before the eyes of the world as a place of ice and snow, only fit for the habitation of esquimo, but when the people of Paris saw the magnificent crops of peaches and fruits of all varieties that are grown in this country, they naturally said to themselves :	these do not grow in snowbanks. This expenditure therefore has been a very wise one, and is one of the causes of the increased influx of people into this country. We come then to agriculture and dairying, and in this item there is an increase of $177,092.50 over 1895. If I were to go into the details at length, that would lead me into a particular discussion of the question of cold storage. I shall not weary the House by going into that question, because we have dealt with it before and it may come up again in some other shape, but shall confine myself to this point of that

subject. Our bon. friends opposite claim that they inaugurated cold storage. So they did, but it was cold storage of so inefficient a character that Australian butter, which had a much longer distance to go, was bringing at that time from ten to twelve shillings per hundred pounds more than Canadian butter in the British market. But after the present government had perfected the system, the conditions became changed and almost the reverse was the case, which goes to prove that whereas Australia had a perfect system of cold storage, hon. gentlemen opposite had a poor one, not because a good system could not be got, but because they did not know how to get it. 1 pass on to immigration, a subject which has been largely dealt with by previous speakers. The amount of the increased expenditure on immigration is $447,860.77, but I would call attention to the fact that whereas in 1895 we had had but 2,394 homestead entries, in 1903 we had 31,383, and whereas in 1895 we had but 18,790 immigrants, in 1903 we had 128.364. And, of these 128,000, 91,265 were English speaking, the kind we value more than almost any other, except perhaps some from the northern states of Europe. And X would further call attention to this point, that last year these people cost Canada but $5.02 per head, which is a decrease of $2.32 per head compared with the preceding year. This goes to show that Canada is becoming so well known and advertised, through our expenditure that people are flocking to it in increased numbers at a decreased expenditure per head and that the seed generously sown is now giving an equally generous return. Think of 9,387,561 acres of land being acquired by settlers through purchase and free homesteads, or as my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, remarked, more than half the lands of Ontario under plough now in one single year. Think what that is going to mean. In 1895 there were sold but 114,713 acres for $222,489. whereas last year there were 4,229,011 acres sold for $14,651,757. The increase is not only in acreage, but also in the price of the land sold. It represents an advance of fifty per cent in the value of the land per acre in those eight years of Liberal rule. So we might continue ad nauseam, though I fancy a good patriotic Canadian could take a pretty good deal of this splendid progress without feeling sick over it. But time presses. The next item is that of quarantine which shows an increase of $162,010.61. I do not wonder that Conservatives did not spend more than they did in 1895, because our quarantine is composed of two sections-the human quarantine and the quarantine of animals. They had only 18,000 people to look after,-so far as quarantine of immigrants went-whereas we had 128,000. Therefore they did not require to spend so much on human quarantine. That accounts for $70,000 of this increase, and the balance is due to the extreme care and watch-Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.
fulness of the department in keeping disease out of the flocks and herds of Canada. Previous to the advent of the Liberals to office, there was an embargo placed by the United States on Canadian cattle, but the hon. Minister of Agriculture succeeded a few months after he took office, in having that embargo removed.
You will remember, Sir, the immense advantage that was to the people of Canada ; how our exports went up from 4,000 cattle in four and a half years bringing us $50,000 to a number bringing us in hundreds of thousands of dollars to say nothing of the increase in value of cattle on the local market. Our cattle now, I admit, are largely going to the Northwest ; but, even last year, we shipped 10,000 cattle to the United States. That in itself is a considerable item which the farmers in Canada would not like to lose. If we prevent the spread of contagious diseases among our cattle we" keep open the United States market. But, so soon as these diseases become prevalent in Canada the Americans will put on the embargo and we shall And ourselves with the market of the United States shut against us as well as the market of Great Britain which has been closed to us so long and which we have made such efforts to reopen.
In pensions the increase is only $3,575.39. But this is almost a purely automatic increase.
I pass now to superannuation, where there is an increase of $81,033.21. I fancy I hear some gentlemen of the opposition saying, during the general elections which may possibly be upon us in a year's time or less : An increase in superannuation ? We understood you Liberals were going to abolish superannuation. Sir, so far as the future is concerned, we have abolished it But we are reformers, not despoilers. We have no desire to interfere with those civil servants who came in under the old (Superannuation Act. influenced, largely, no doubt in seeking employment in the civil service by the knowledge that their declining years would be taken care of. So, we pay to these people the superannuation guaranteed to them when they entered the civil service. But, we have passed an Act abolishing superannuation since July 1, 1898, so far as regards all those who entered the civil service after that date. So, this increase of $81,033.21 is not our increase, but represents what we are bound to pay because of the contracts of hon. gentlemen opposite. Therefore, we wipe this off the account.
Then, militia calls for an increase of $388,995.62. Of this, $270,231.89 is under the head of pay of staff, permanent force, active militia, allowances, clothing and necessaries. It is a well known fact that this increase was not because of an increase of pay to the men. Many of us thought that the pay to the men should be increased. But the government could not see eye to eye with us

until this session, and so kept the pay at fifty cents per day for the private soldier. What has this increase been expended on ?
I will tell you. For one thing, on the purchase of clothing, equipment and so on. So, while we have spent a larger sum our wardrobe is now fairly well supplied, whereas, in the days of Conservative rule it was meagre in the extreme ; and how we could have fitted out our regiments in case of necessity arising to increase them to a war strength, or anything like it, passes my comprehension. That is an expenditure for which we have the goods in store to show, something that hon. gentlemen opposite will not cavil at. And this accounts for $270,231.89 of this increase.
The coronation contingent cost $02,630.43.
I must assure you, Sir, that the coronation contingent gave excellent value for the money it cost. The British papers were full of favourable comments. We think that that contingent did not disgrace the country that sent it forth ; and we believe that had hon. gentlemen opposite been in power-for we think their loyalty almost equal to our own-they would have despatched such a contingent under similar circumstances.
The Dominion arsenal cost $96,403.99 more. But, then, we are able to turn out three times as many cartridges as we could under hon. gentlemen opposite. And that is an absolute necessity in view of the spread of rifle clubs which require ammunition for their practice. If there is one thing on which hon. members of this House seem to be a unit, it is on the advisability of the organization of these rifle clubs. But you can understand, Mr. Speaker, that a rifle club without cartridges, to shoot would not be good for much. They would be much in the position of a rifleman of whom the story is sometimes told. He aimed at the target several times and failed to hit it : and was told by his commanding officer to fix bayonets and charge it. That would be about the position of rifle clubs without cartridges-they might become proficient in the use of the bayonet but they would never learn to shoot.
In Mounted Police the increase was $343,909.75. Well, why should there not be an increase 7 Look at the number of people going into the west. Would it be surprising | if an increase in expenditure on mounted police were found necessary ? But you will be surprised to learn, Sir,-no, I beg your pardon, you will not be surprised to learn, Mr. Speaker, because you keep yourself well nosted on the questions of the day ; but hon. gentlemen opposite will be surprised to learn-that this increased expenditure on mounted police is not because of the development of western Canada, but it is because of the number of police we have had to send to keep order in the distant district of the Yukon. We find that, as against this increase of $343,909.75 for mounted police no less than $590,702.93, or 144
almost twice the sum is chargeable to the Yukon. And the Yukon has paid for the Yukon. Therefore, instead of having spent more money on the mounted police, there has been a decrease, service for service, as compared with the expenditure of hon. gentlemen opposite, in spite of the great increase in population in the Northwest. That is, because of the better administrative ability shown by the Minister of the Interior, we have actually been able to reduce the expenditure on this service.
On public works chargeable to income the increase is $2,323,236.38-a very large increase, I grant you. But what are the facts? Our total expenditure was only $4,065,553.27 -in this young and lusty and growing country of Canada, requiring the development and improvement of the public works over an enormous area ; half a continent, no less. Why, in 1896, our Conservative friends were prepared to spend-including their main and supplementary estimates the latter of which were printed but not brought down-$3,998,010, or actually, within $60,943 of what we spent this last year. And their income then was $34,000,000 and their expenditure $38,0ou,000, a deficit of $4,000,000, whereas our income is $66,037,068.93 for the year, with a surplus of $14,345,106.17- a very different state of things indeed. But there is, I think, still another reason why this increase is beyond cavil. We Liberals will not object to it, this expenditure of the government to whose support we of the back benches are pledged to the very last man, a government that we honour and venerate, a government that, behind its own closed doors is a happy family. We will not cavil at the increase. And how can hon. gentlemen cavil at it in'View of the fact that it is less by $155,740, than the expenditure of the year before, made under the then Minister of Public Works, the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal (Mr. Tarte) who has since been welcomed to the organization of the Conservative party-welcomed back I must say-the man whom they discovered, they tell us, to have been the custodian of the brains of the Liberal cabinet. His expenditure was no less than $155,740 greater, and he is now declared by our friends opposite to be a great administrator and an able financial genius.
Next, we come to railways and canals. We find there an increase iu the expenditure chargeable to consolidated fund of $75,599.52. Well, we have somewhat increased the mileage of our railways and canals. And, as you increase public works, it necessarily follows that the expenditure upon them must increase, for the greater the quantity you have to look after the higher the expenditure for up-keep must be.
Then, you have mail subsidies and steamship subventions, an increase of $286,017.96. Do not hon. gentlemen opposite know that the increase of our commerce is owing largely to the fact that we ourselves have taken



means to open up new channels of trade. We believe that that is the way to increase trade and we are confident that the people of Canada believe it also. We have no fewer to-day than thirty-three services, as against eighteen in 1S95, under bon. gentlemen opposite. The principal new ones are those to Prance, to Belgium, and to South Africa. And we hope that very shortly indeed a new service will be inaugurated between this country and the great republic of Mexico, with its population twice as great as ours-this service being the result of the so-called junketing tour of that energetic and able gentleman the Postmaster General and Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock).
That junketing tour, Sir, which he took actually at his own expense, if we except possibly the cost of the axle grease on the government car which otherwise would have been rusting on some siding in Canada. He went at his own expense throughout, and, with his eyes open, as always, to the advantage of Canada, he studied existing conditions and we hope and believe that the result will be that he will establish still another steamship service, both on the Atlantic and the Pacific, which will still more largely increase the foreign trade of Canada. I shall refer to some more of the delightful Tory campaign literature. I ask hon. gentlemen if they are proud of leaflet No. 13, which speaks of a minister of the Crown, going on a junketing tour to see the gaisha girls of Japan. It may be a funny thing, it may excite a smile, but is it quite worthy of the party which has rejoiced to call itself the gentlemen's party. I am glad to see that the man who wrote that article has been overruled by his friends in the party and that in the larger page subsequently published that disgraceful reference-for it is nothing else-is omitted and while his trip is mentioned, there is no nasty, low insinuation coupled therewith.
So we pass on to ocean and river service, in which there is an increase of $212,043.91. This expenditure is in the interests of commerce and of this amount we are expending on Dominion steamers, $100,000 more than the Conservatives spent, and for this last year we paid nearly $100,000 as a balance for a steamer to replace the ' Newfield.' The Conservatives had no similar item in 1895. These two items practically account for the increase.
Then we come to lighthouse and coast service. This is almost an incredible case. There is an increase of $488,240.42. Our Conservative friends spent in 1895, $12,219,29 on lighthouses, and we are spending* including a steel lightship for the Lurcher shoals, $397,375.85, almost $400,000. And yet the junior member for West Toronto, (Mr. Osier) was good enough to say that we are neglecting the improvement of navigat-Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.
ion on our waterways, notwithstanding the fact that we are spending $400,000 to their $12,000 in the improvement of our lighthouses/ in Canada. To my mind that fact speaks for itself. The only excuse that can be made for the Conservatives for neglecting the lighthouses is that they had very little commerce to light in the days when they controlled the destinies of this country.
I now pass on to still another heading, to wit, marine hospitals. In that there is an increase of only $10,161.10. I believe that an extra wing was built which accounts for part of this increase, but apart from that I can dispose of this increase quickly and satisfactorily in this manner :	more commerce, more sailors, more sailors, more sick. Surely that is a precise way of dealing with the subject. I suppose that our merchant marine has enormously increased,' and it is reasonable to suppose that with that increase the number of sailors will also increase.
I come now to steamboat inspection in which there was an increase of only $3,786.21. This is a still smaller item wTith which I would not deal at all except for the sake of accuracy, and I might again say : more imports, more steamboats ; more steamboats, more inspection. The revenue from this source has so increased that it almost balances the increased expenditure.
In the item of insurance inspection, there is an increase of $4,929.75, a small item mentioned also for accuracy. Of this amount $3,691.63, nearly the whole amount, came back to us in increased fees.
Then we come to fisheries, in w'hich there was an increase of $84,006.17. Will any lion, member on the opposite side from the maritime provinces-and there are still some remaining, although. Mr. Speaker, if we can read aright the signs of the times, there will shortly be few maritime members on your left-will any of that remnant say to me that this government has spent too much on the fisheries of Canada ? When we remember that of this amount some $37,610 was spent in fish breeding and that $11,331.49 of the small increase was spent for supplying cold storage for bait of deep-sea fishermen, the increase seems very slight. On this service we spent $527,829.12 against a Conservative expenditure of $443.822.95.
On geographical surveys there was an increase of $10,594.85. On this subject the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) himself answered the complaint. We spent but $78,746.26. That hon. gentleman says we should spend millions on it. That show's the consistency of hon. gentlemen opposite. They make wholesale charges of extravagance, and wrhen we come to the items their cry is that we do not spend enough, that we should spend more. I have yet to find an example where hon. gentlemen are not

Inclined to go one better and yet they make that general omnibus charge of extravagance against us.
On scientific institutions there was an increase of $-49,512.63. That surely is money well spent. What increases the riches of a country so much as the advancement of science ? What is going to overcome that sad lack under which the provinces of Ontario and Quebec so long laboured, the absence of coal ? The advance of science, the advance of knowledge of electricity by which, taking advantage of our enormous water-powers, we will be able to smelt ores by water-power, through one transforming stage, that of electricity. We know how this enterprising government sent men to the old country to study the question of smelting ores by electricity, and we know also that, smart and clever and businesslike as are our American brethren to the south of us, great as are their resources and enterprise, they never sent a commission abroad to find out this for themselves. 1 hope that as a result of that knowledge which we have obtained by this means, before a great while we will have immense and valuable enterprises in portions of Ontario and Quebec where in the past such development was utterly impossible owing to the fact that we had no coal for smelting.
In subsidies to provinces there was increase of $151,828,42. Why not ? Is that not fixed by statute ? Is that not a matter of population of provinces ? I would not object if it was $1,151,000, because an increase of that amount would mean that our population had grown by leaps and bounds. No apology need be made for such an increase, nor yet for the increase in the item for the poor Indians.
Under the heading of Indians there is an increase of $122,411.24. Time was when possibly politicians might have spent a little more than was . equitably due upon the Indians. That was in the days of hon. gentlemen opposite, when they gave these wards of the government the right to vote. In my part of the country, in Haldimand, and the adjoining constituency of Brant, we have Indian reserves and I am bound to say that when I think over the record of these poor Indians, I am almost inclined to think that perhaps it was cruel to deprive them of the franchise for I know that they were more active voters than white men are. In the famous Coulter and Montague election, I remember that on one of the Indian reserves, before 8.30 in the morning-I will admit with the aid of certain white necromancers and scorcerers-14 dead Indians voted. But who will say that to-day any government will spend too much money upon the Indians since we know they are now devoid of political influence ? The fact is that this government has adopted the very wise policy of educating the Indians so that they may become estimable and valuable 144 i
citizens. We spend a large amount of money to bring people from the old world to the new. Is it not reasonable and decent to spend upon the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, the men who owned it before the foot of white man ever trod its shores, a reasonable amount of money to bring them up to a condition of something like equality with ourselves ?
Then I pass to the government of the Northwest Territories. There was an increase there of $498,839.72. I shall not discuss that for one moment. We know the increased number of people who have gone in. We know the vast amount there is to do in these territories and no man will say that we have spent too much money there. We have to make these incoming settlers comfortable, we have to give them safe and stable government there. Did we not do so, they would write back to their friends, the influx of population would cease and those who had already gone into the country would, as in the days of Conservative rule, leave the country and establish their habitations to the south of the boundary line. We come now to miscellaneous. There is an increase here of $311,396.32. It divides itself into a great number of subheadings. 1 hardly think I dare venture to take up the time of the House in discussing these subheadings.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I shall only mention a few of them. First, there is the Paris agency, $6,500,- a new service entirely. You cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Look at the magnificent trade omelet we have made for this country. One of the eggs that we have broken to get this trade omelet is the Paris agency, which has cost us $6,500, a mere bagatelle compared with the increased commerce we will get from that source in the future. The next is the astronomical observatory and apparatus, $10,497.85. That is a service in the interest of science. The next is the result of the increase in the gold output consequent upon the discovery of gold in the Yukon, being the assay office, tlie increase being $14,993.90.
Hon. gentlemen opposite did not require anything of the sort ; in fact, I do not know that in those days there was really enough gold in Canada to require an assay to be made of it. Then, we return to Messers. Petersen, Tait & Company, the amount of their deposit, $56,940. That was money which they had paid into the treasury. They got it back out of the treasury and there was no loss in the transaction. The next is half-breed claims commission, $2,978.24. Why do I mention such a small sum as this ? Just to emphasize the business-like methods of this government in contradistinction to the unbusiness-like methods of the late government. When these

half-breeds made claims to the present government their claims were submitted to a commission and settled, with the result that these half-breeds are loyal and contented citizens of the Dominion. In the old days these half-breeds had claims, they sent these claims to the Dominion government, the Dominion government pigeon-holed them or threw them into the waste-paper basket and the result was that we had a serious rebellion in the Northwest Territories which cost between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000, to say nothing of the scores of bright young lives which were given up in the service of the country on that occasion. There is something in the association of the ideas and the association of ideas is so strong in this case that I must be pardoned for having brought this item to the attention of the House. The next item is engraving maps of the Dominion and Northwest Territories, $14,096.53. We know how this has increased the knowledge of the Dominion both within the confines of Canada and beyond them. It is part of that advertising which is bringing such rich results in men and money. Hon. gentlemen will not complain of that. Department of Labour-and now I come to some more of that charming campaign literature-$20,471.54. Will hon. gentlemen say they do not want the Department of Labour ? Will they say that if they came into power they would abolish the Department of Labour ? I think not. They dare not do it, however much they might wish to and I do not say they wish to. I have here pamphlet No. 8, headed ' Starvation Wages.' Then follows a schedule of the wages paid on the Intercolonial Railway that hon. gentlemen opposite say are not enough, and that the government think also are not enough, for since the time that those wages were paid they have increased them. This is another example of the hypocrisy of hon. gentlemen opposite in claiming that the expenditure is too great because here is an item in regard to which they want to make it still more. I do not complain so much of that as I do of this which is only second to that pamphlet from which I quoted a short time ago headed ' .Junketing Ministers.' In this pamphlet, No. 8, these hon. gentlemen say :
And this is the government that says the workingmen should be grateful to it because it is paying a ' minister of labour ' $8,000 a year !
Hon. gentlemen opposite very well know the miserable insinuation contained in that clause and the absolute falsity that lies within the four corners of that half truth. They surely know that the Minister of Labour is also the Postmaster General, that ns Postmaster General he draws exactly the salary which his Conservative predecessor, as Postmaster General drew, and that in addition to the salary of the Postmaster Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.
General he does not draw one single cent of pay for the immensely increased amount of labour which he in his generous anxiety for the good of the labouring classes has taken upon his shoulders.
Marconi wireless, $10,000. We led in assisting that young man to whom the great universities of the old world are now stretching forth a hand and upon whom they are showering honours and conferring degrees. We took him in when he was more friendless than he is now and gave him financial aid. His method has proved to be immensely valuable beyond peradventure, and we in Canada have the honour of having been in the forefront in assisting in the development of this modern wonder of science from which we will reap substantial financial benefits far beyond our investment. We have contributed $60,000 toward the Ottawa Improvement fund. Who will cavil at that 1 Not hon. gentlemen opposite. Sir, that vote of the money of the people of Canada for the improvement of Canada's capital is an outward and visible proof that Canada is no longer a number of isolated provinces experimentally strung together by a British Act of parliament, but that Canada is a united nation from ocean to ocean and from the southern boundary to the Artie sea, one and indivisable. Who will abject to the beautifying of our capital as the capitals of all other countries are beautified at the general expense of the people ? For the consolidation of the statutes we spent $12,722.08. Who will say, especially those in the legal profession, that that expenditure has been made before its time ? Alaskan boundary commission, $59,993. That is an expenditure-I may perhaps be pardoned for saying it-on a necessary evil. Hon. gentlemen will be surprised to learn that also in this delightful literature which has furnished us with so much instruction and amusement, the visit of the hon. Minister of the Interior to England last summer, where he worked, as, I suppose few men have ever worked in the interests of Canada, is actually put under the heading * junketing tours.' What do you think of that, Mr. Speaker ? A junketing tour.	That important mission of the
hon. the Minister of the Interior classed as one of the junketing tours ! These sums taken together reach a total of $269,193.14 and by tracing out other and smaller items I could very easily account for the small balance of $60,000. but I shall not attempt to do so as I do not desire to detain the House. Then, upon the Yukon provisional district the government had to provide $807,806.89 that hon. gentlemen did not have to provide, but the Yukon has paid for itself so that nothing is lost by the people of Canada.
Now, I am glad to say that I take up my last bundle of notes, which I shall pass

over as rapidly as possible. The increase in the expenditure on account of the collection of customs was $311,396.32. Is any one surprised at this increase. Frankly, I am very much surprised at the smallness of it, because I notice that we have collected $19,361,260.90 more than hon. gentlemen opposite collected in 1895, that we have actually collected in excess of their collection more than the whole sum which they gathered in customs revenue with an increased expenditure of only $311,396.32. It follows also that while the expenditure in 1895 was $5.13 per $100 of revenue collected, it was only $3.31 per $100 of revenue collected in 1903 by this government. There was an increased expenditure upon excise of $7,119.41, while there was an increase in revenue of $4,208,046.29. Comment is unnecessary in that, although I believe hon. gentlemen opposite are very much concerned to find that they have to pay a little more for their smoking tobacco than they did in the good old days of Tory rule. I do not wonder that they made tobacco cheap in those days. The people had to have a sedative. They were restless. Cheap tobacco was a necessity, but, when we have our pockets full of money we are prepared to pay a little more, we do not resent paying a little more for our tobacco and cigars and we are glad to know that this small increase, which is a considerable increase in the aggregate, is being expended on public works which will be of immense advantage to the people of Canada.
And so while our smoke goes upwards we can see through it as through a glass, darkly, public buildings springing up all through Canada as the result of this expenditure. I am not asking that the price of my smoking material be decreased one jot or tittle. Then, for weights and measures, electric light, and gas, the expenditure in 1895 was $98,173.67 and in 1903 it was $121,575.02, an increase of $23,401,35 ; an increase accounted for by the increased amount of inspecting done in Canada, and indeed I may mention that for some of this increased expenditure we get back an increased revenue. In the expenditure for culling timber there has been a decrease of $6,921; it is unnecessary to comment on that. For the inspection of staples, there is an increase of $63,906.46. But we have added a chief inspector of hides, an inspector of binder twine, and a rattling good one at that; two chief inspectors and several assistants for the inspection of grain, and a warehouse commissioner at Winnipeg. The growing commercial interests of the country, and the increased services demand of the government to meet these growing interests in this regard, that is ample to afford justification for this expenditure. In the matter of the inspection nnd tests to provide against adulteration of food, there is a decreased expenditure of $4,443.31, for which we claim no credit.
Then we come to the post office service, and it shows an increase of $511,531.01. In 1895 the Conservatives spent on the post office service $3,593,647.47 and in 1903 the Liberal government spent on the post office service $4,105,178.18. If there is one thing in Canada which the people now understand it is the magnificent record of this government in connection with the administration of the Post Office Department. The people are so thoroughly acquainted with the splendid administration of that department now, that it absolves me from the duty of explaining this increase. It is an increase of more than half a million dollars, but against that we have an increased revenue from the post office of $1,605,042.87, in spite of the fact that we have a two cent rate of postage where the Conservatives charged three cents for a letter. We have wiped out the old post office yearly deficit of about three-quarters of a million dollars, and we have a surplus in its place of more than one-quarter million dollars. We have, as I stated, a two cent postage rate instead of a three cent postage rate : we have better pay fori the employees ; better service for all ; and we have increased, not before it was time, the salaries of the postmasters throughout Canada.
Then with regard to the expenditure on public works. In 1895 the Conservatives spent $151,698.22, and in 1903 the Liberals spent $562,403.51 an increase of $410,705.29. This is quite a large item but of this amount I find that no less than $281,391.87 was spent on the telegraph lines in the Yukon, and we have already seen that the Yukon has practically cost this country nothing. Then, a large part of the balance of the increase is accounted for by the extension of land and cable telegraph lines in the lower St. Lawrence, where every effort is very properly being made to improve the condition of navigation. I point this out to the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) as one of the increases, and I think he will agree with me in saying that it is a very useful expenditure and not an extravagant one.
Then for the cost of collection of revenue on railways and canals ; there is an increase of $3,517,578.65, the largest increase of all. But let me point out that the revenue from the same sources has increased $3,347,131.52, in spite of a falling off in the canal revenues of $109,676.57, consequent upon the abolition of toils ; an abolition made in the interests of commerce, and but for which there would practically be no increased expense at all in this item, as otherwise the increased receipts would balance the increased expenditure. I need say nothing of the greater facilities which this increased expenditure has given to the merchants of Canada, resulting in an increase of wealth out of all proportion to the net loss on the expenditure. Then in regard

to minor revenues, there Is an increase of $1,073.01 which is a small item and which 1 only mention for the sake of completeness in dealing with the subject. In Dominion lands, there has been an increase of $56,028.30. I do not think we need be very shamefaced over this modest increase, in view of the fact that our income from this source has increased since 1895 by the tidy sum of $1,527,722.05. Then we come to trade and commerce, and there is an increase of $19,619.18 only, in spite of the fact that our foreign trade has increased from $224,420,485 to $407,001,494. Surely, in view of such a showing we need not be ashamed of that increase.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the end of my remarks, and I will ask you whether there is anything surprising in the fact, that after the careful study which I have made of these statistics. I have come to the decision to vote with pleasure in support of a government which is enterprising without being extravagant, and economical without being parsimonious.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: The hon. gentleman from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) has accomplished a very great feat. He has gone through about 305 items, and extracted from about 305 pages of paper probably 365 ideas ; although, what bearing they may have upon the subject we are discussing I fail to see. The practice of the present administration is, that no minister ever defends his department, and that some volunteer has to be pressed into service when defence is offered. The hon. gentleman from Haldimand has done better than all the other volunteers, because he has defended in his own way-I won't say much about the way-not one department but every department of the administration. The hon. gentleman has shown us in this year of grace 19(44, what a real independent member of parliament is. He announced that he was an independent, and it is well that he mentioned it, because any one that has followed his record would never have dreamed it. I do not know that we could expect him to be independent.


George Taylor: He is one of the government whips.


Haughton Lennox: It is not a question of government whips at all. but I think that the plums which have fallen into the mouth of that hon. gentleman are quite sufficient to guarantee his ceaseless support of the government for all time to come ; at least so long as the Liberal party is in power.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I am satisfied.


Haughton Lennox: Y"ou are probably better satisfied than your supporters are. The hon. gentleman is perfectly satisfied with himself.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I am satisfied with the government.


Haughton Lennox: I do not think I ever knew a gentleman who seemed more perfectly satisfied with himself than the hon. member from Haldimand, but the trouble is that the gentlemen who sit on his side of the House are not nearly so satisfied with him as we are. He endeavoured to be amusing but he was not amusing to his friends, although he was to us. Let me remind him that there is a broad distinction between expenditure and extravagance and that when we speak of extravagance we are not uecessarily speaking of large expenditure. So long as expenditure is in the interest of the people we will not complain, but when it descends to reckless extravagance and to squandering the resources of the country to secure votes to bolster up the government, then we on this side of the House do complain. The hon. member for Haldimand said that the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) was inconsistent in complaining, of extravagance while asking for a larger expenditure on the geological survey. The hon. gentleman does not understand the question. What the member for Toronto said is ; that we want rapid development in this country, and if that can be obtained by geological surveys it would be a wise expenditure to strengthen that branch of the public service. It is the same thing with reference to the wages paid to the employees on the Intercolonial Railway. We believe that an honest day's work deserves an honest day's wage, and the Conservative party will stand up, as it always has, for the application of that principle to the working classes of this country.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: What wages did you pay the employees on the Intercolonial Railway?


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman will get a chance to speak when I sit down.


Alexander Johnston: Why don't you answer that question ?


Haughton Lennox: I don't even hear the hon. gentleman. The Conservative party is the party which always took care that there should be fair remuneration for the labour classes in Canada. It was the Conservative party that organized in 1878, that policy which gave employment to the labouring people of Canada, and afforded the means of paying them fair wages.
The hon. gentleman who has been endeavouring to discuss the public questions of the day, although with no great degree of success, referred to what the hon. member for West Toronto had said in reference to our not yet having obtained all the improvements we desire on the St. Lawrence route, and told us that was a pretty encouragement for immigration and a poor class of literature to disseminate in Great Britain. These hon. gentlemen ought to understand that question pretty well. If


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: they will search the records for eighteen years subsequent to 1878, when the hon. gentleman who now occupies the position of Minister of Trade and Commerce was the chief spokesman or chief writer of the party, they will find the kind of encouragement he gave to people to come to this country. They will find that that hon. gentleman did all he could to prevent people coming by spreading broadcast not only through Great Britain but through the United States literature calculated to discourage immigration to Canada in the most effectual way. The hon. member for Haldi-mand complains of some literature that he got in some way. I hope he got it honestly. 1 hope he did not steal it, because they are awfully down on stealing on that side of the Hpuse. I hope too that it will do him some good. But I notice that he has not fully grasped the meaning of that literature. He chooses an isolated sentence, and fails to convey to the House any idea of its meaning. He complains that Mr. Sifton's visit to England should have been spoken of as a junketing tour. Well, X do not think the expression is a happy one. It was at the time parliament was in session that Mr. Sifton was in England and the Minister of Agriculture in Japan, and in consequence we in the House of Commons found it impossible to get a good deal of the information we wanted from time to time from the responsible ministers of the Crown. But I do not think it should be called a junketing expedition. I think we might better call it a pot-latch, which is an Indian term, and no doubt the hon. member for Haldimand is familiar with the Indian language ; for undoubtedly, so far as we can learn, it was a complete and thorough give-way feast on the part of our representatives. The hon. gentleman took a position which I am afraid will destroy his chance of reward for some time to come. It is the unhappy fate of most of the extreme advocates of the government's position never to be rewarded. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who I am sorry is not in his usual form at present, is a conspicuous instance of how extremists are never rewarded. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, with ' whom I sympathize^ is another instance of how the most pronounced and vigorous extremists never come to their reward.


Mr. COCHRANE.: His family gets it.


Haughton Lennox: But that does not compensate him for the fact that in the formation of the cabinet he was overlooked, and that the coveted prize to which he had been looking forward for many years was passed over to the hon. gentleman now sitting beside him, the hon. Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Haldimand has gone so far beyond what is reasonable in defending the government that I am afraid that if another junketing expedition is made to England, he will not be selected to join
it, even if his party continues in power, which is not likely. The hon. gentleman protests too much ; he announces too much; in fact, he says too much in every respect. From the beginning to the end of His speech he boasts of the enormous expenditure of this government, as contrasted with that of the former ad-ministration-which must have been a source of great pain to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, who denounced any advance in the expenditure, and proclaimed that a retrograde movement should be made in the direction of economy and retrenchment, and said that that would prevail if the Reform party got into power. The hon. gentleman tells us of an expenditure by the present administration of $16.000,000 on the Intercolonial Railway, and of $18,000,000 upon the development of our water-ways. That is just where the shoe pinches at the present time. Under a wise and statesmanlike policy of transportation for this country, definitely mapped out, and carried on judiciously, a large expenditure may be justified. But when hon. gentlemen do as this cabinet has done-rush headlong into expenditures, and then suddenly change their whole line of policy, and, instead, of developing the traffic of the west through central Canada to our own ocean ports, put it under the control of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company-then the more they say about that policy under which they spent about $35,000,000 or more, the greater is their condemnation. The hon. gentleman boasted too of railway subsidies. 1 think he may well boast. While he was talking, I looked at the index of 1 Hansard ' of last year, and I found under the heading of subsidies more than eighty subjects classified as being subsidized last session. I think hon. gentlemen opposite have goue mad in the matter of subsidies. Instead of the hon. member for Haldimand boasting of the amount they have spent on subsidies, it would be well for him to call on the government to halt in this matter if they expect to retain their seats, because the people will not stand this subsidy business much longer. As an illustration of the way it works out, I may state that a little while ago the Dominion government granted a money subsidy to the James Bay Railway of $1,500,000. The company went to the Ontario government and got a guarantee of $5,000,000. Immediately after the close of the recent session of the Ontario legislature we had the announcement that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, reviled as it is by hon. gentlemen who support the government, is going to build a parallel line between the same termini without asking a dollar of assistance of any kind from either the Dominion or the Ontario government. This shows that this matter of subsidies is one that requires immediate attention, and I am very much mistaken if the people of Canada do not attend to it at the next general election, whenever
*
4531	COMMONS	4532
hon. gentlemen opposite have the courage to bring that election on.
The hon. gentleman referred to the iron and steel bounties and the lead bounty, but not to the shipping bounty. He did not tell us, of course, that the other day a government official went to Collingwood to ascertain the value of dry-dock facilities, said to have been constructed there by certain gentlemen of that town, and that he valued these at $500,000, and that we are now paying, and will pay for twenty years to come, a subsidy of $15,000 per year as a bounty to that industry alone. And should the present government be returned again to power, no doubt the same gentlemen will exercise the same power over the government as they have been doing lately. How they managed it, I do not know. But the hon. gentleman from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) seems to be able to bring this government to book in some peculiar way, and I wish him luck when he goes to Oro and Vespra and the other townships round about and explains how it has come to pass that these sums are paid by the government into the lap of Collingwood. He is another Independent, and the ways of these independents on that side are past finding out. I am not in harmony with the hon. gentleman when he boasts of these bounties. I remember when not only supporters of the present government outside the cabinet, but even ministers now in the cabinet, taught us that of all subventions, bounties and subsidies were the most odious abominations of protection. I do not know what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) would say now, but I heard him say a couple of years ago that there was no use talking about this dumping business because you could not do anything with it by means of a tariff or a bounty, and that on the other hand it was a blessing in disguise-very thickly disguised I always thought. That, however, was his view then. Hon. gentlemen opposite are fond of taking up the statements of members on this side and holding them out as the policy of the opposition. Well, as I understand it, the opposition policy is the one which our leader announces. It is a policy with which we are in harmony, or it would not be announced. But individual members on this side may express their independent views without committing the party to them. In anything I say in the House, unless it be something on which our leader has pronounced a policy, I am simply enunciating my own views, and I want to put on record here and now my opposition to the scheme of bounties and bonuses and subsidies in Canada. I listened to the glowing language -and it was more glowing than sensible describing the illimitable resources of Canada. I heartily agree with him. But if Canada has such a fertile soil for the teeming populations of other countries, if it offers such a productive field for Mr. LENNOX.
immigration, if it has mines and minerals and fisheries, if its agricultural resources are so great, and if our growing trade and commerce requires greater facilities for the handling of its traffic, then the time has come when we do not need to subsidize these various industries in order that they may live. I am straight and square in favour of adequate protection, or, if you have any better term than ' adequate protection, ' you may substitute it. I am in favour of such duties as will protect our people in the various ranks of industrial life, but I am opposed to subventions and subsidies and devices of that knid. I believe that they are unfair and unequal. They are not fair to one of the great classes, at all events, which should be protected and cared for and whose .rights should be respected in this country. But before I deal specifically with that subject, let me refer for a moment or two to other matters to which the hon. gentleman has referred. He talked of exhibitions aud an hon. gentleman beside me suggests that he made an exhibition of himself. I am not disposed, however, to be severe on the hon. gentleman in his absence. He did not remain to hear the other side, but hastened out of the chamber after he made his speech, and no doubt he remembered the old line He who fights and runs away May live to fight another day.
If our exhibitions generally are conducted on the same lines as the one of which we have had an explanation from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) the other day-. I refer to the permanent exhibition connected with the Colonial Institute which, the minister was compelled to admit, was under charge of the Home Department of Trade and Commerce, into which is thrown every-tliing that nobody else will have anything to do with, and in that respect resembles the Department of Agriculture in Canada- the less we have of them decidedly the better for the people.
With regard to immigration, the hon. gentleman showed that there is no field in the world so favourable for industrial pursuits to-day as Canada, and for those who are seeking permanent homes were they will be comfortably off, the resources of Canada offer inducements to be found nowhere else. In these remarks I entirely concur and am prepared to say that we are to-day receiving back a large portion of those whom the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his-colleagues succeeded in driving from Canada from 1878 to 1896. Now when we have a loyal opposition which does not defame the country, but extols its advantages, which is loyally endeavouring to support the government where it can, we ought to have a larger immigration ; and I venture to say that had it not been for the unfair and disloyal utterances of hon. gentlemen opposite when in opposition, our population would be double to-djiy what it is.

My hon. friend from Haldimand did not tell 'us anything about these little harbours at the mouths of creeks.- I am going to spend a little time In classifying that expenditure, and showing how much money we have frittered away upon public works where there is no justification for the expenditure of even a single dollar-unless it can be a justification by a government to show that they have spent money for the purpose of keeping themselves in power. No one who has followed the discussion of the estimates in this House during the last three or four years can fail to know that in the record there are abundant instances of such expenditure. X do not intend to go into those instances now ; but, before the session closes, I intend to show what the expenditures have been in these cases wherQ there was no justification in the public in terest, 'but where the only object of the expenditure was to offer a sop to a locality to win its favour for the government.
The hon. gentleman Mr. A. T. Thompson! spoke of superannuation. But he did not tell us the important fact that superannuations were made by this government for the purpose of making places for their followers. For that purpose they have superannuated a great number of men who were more capable than are their successors in oflice. Ho says that no superannuation system Obtains now. The hon. gentleman has a bad memory. X think that I remember that last session he himself spoke in favour of the increase of judges' salaries and of the change in the superannuation of judges. What the hon. gentleman means is that if the superannuation is of some civil servant who has been drawing $800, or $1,000, or $1,200 a year, it is an iniquity, but if it is to superannuate a gentleman who has drawn for twenty-five or thirty years a salary of $5,000 or $0,000 a year, then it is a virtue which he will commend. I am not quite in accord with him in that view. There was one remarkable thing about the hon. gentleman's speech, and that is that he talked of everything but the budget. I think he is to be commended for that. I am going to do pretty nearly the same, because there is mighty little to talk about if one confines himself to the budget. The budget has been a vanishing spectacle year by year. W hen I entered this House four years ago and heard my first budget, I thought it was a pretty weak performance-except in the matter of congratulation. That congratulation has been the main point of the budget ever since. But in everything else it has grown weaker year by year, more mixed and muddled year by year. It would be difficult for any hon gentleman to make a speech if he confined himself to that budget, particularly would it be difficult for a supporter of the government. Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House can at least deal with the budget as a negative quantity ; they can criticise it for what it does not contain rather than for
what it does. Even when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) spoke he had to steer clear of the budget-not for lack of ability, for I do not believe anything of that kind-but through lack of material. He had to abandon the budget and take up one of his old speeches delivered on former occasions in this House. However Interesting it was as a reminiscence, still, though he gave it with vigour, it had not at all the effect of novelty. He used about the same language and brought in his points in about the same order as on former occasions.
Now, I have a word or two to say with regard to the proposal of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to grant a bounty of H cents a gallon upon the production of crude oil. I have already said that I am absolutely opposed to the principle of bounties. Bounties serve no purpose except to enrich the few at the expense of the many. They cannot effect the object the hon. minister says he desires. And the hon. gentleman does not think they will effect that object- and X can demonstrate that in a moment. He says that we produced crude oil last year to the amount of over 16,000,000 gallons, and he tells us he is putting on the bounty in order to increase the production of crude oil, so that the refiners may have more employment than before. But when he tries to figure out what his bounty of li cents per gallon will cost, on what does he base his calculation ? Why, on something over 16,000,000 gallons-showing that he does not expect a single gallon of increased production by reason of this bounty that he is offering. The hon. gentleman knows that he is giving a sop to the Standard Oil Company, and wiping out this industry which he is professing to serve. I am opposed to bounties and in favour of adequate protection to all our industries, a protection which will work out so that each industry will be protected in the same degree. In another way the Finance Minister is most misleading in the calculation he puts before the people as to this bounty of 14 cents per gallon on crude oil. He gave us to understand that the people would pay 14 cents per gallon more on coal oil. But, as a matter of fact, it will be 3 cents a gallon on coal oil, because it takes two gallons of crude oil to make one gallon of burning fluid. Did not the bon. gentleman (Mr Fielding) know that, or did he not want to tell the people the truth and the whole truth with regard to this matter ?


Mr. FIELDING.: Will the bounty be paid on the crude or on the refined V


Haughton Lennox: It will be paid on the crude.


William Stevens Fielding: Why, then, should the calculation be made on the refined ?


Haughton Lennox: For this reason-that the people do not burn crude oil, but refined

oil. But lion, gentlemen opposite probably think that the people should burn something else. The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. A. T. Thompson) thought, if I understood him aright, that the tallow dip was good enough for the common people. Perhaps the Minister of Finance thinks that unrefined oil would be good enough for the hulk of the people in the country. The cost of his bounty will be 3 cents a gallon on the refined oil.
Now, I am requested to read for the benefit of the House what the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) said. I have here the Ottawa ' Free Press ' of this day


George Taylor: Is that a Liberal paper ?


Haughton Lennox: I believe so.


An hon. MEMBER.: The Liberal organ in this city.


Haughton Lennox: The ' Free Press ' says :
It was a reminder of the days when Sir Richard dealt his blows with the force of a mental giant and when every blow left its mark on the adversary. The havoc he wrought with those blows of his explains why Sir Richard is not very popular on the opposition side of the House to-day.
That is enough for an introduction. 1 think you will say that,they are doing him justice-unless they are making him ridiculous. The ' Free Press ' goes on :
Be that as it may, Sir Richard had been charged with having been recusant to free trade, but he was able to show that the idea was a figment of the imagination. He had never in his life been a free trader.
As a protectionist he had taken part in the campaign of 1878, and he had championed the cause on every hustings from that day to this.
Sir Richard made avowal that he had once delivered a lecture on speculative free trade, but in the opening paragraph he had expressly declared that it had no reference to practical free trade as a policy for Canada.
Surely there was no apostacy to principle here. And then came the pungent drollery, the caustic humour with which he showed how first one and then another on the opposition side, who had at an earlier period of their life appeared on free trade platforms assailing protection as the Scottish Calvinists used to assail the papacy, and forsaken the faith to which they had pledged themselves.
Now I shall read a few lines here from an excellent authority :
A bounty is merely the means of making a present to the manufacturer at the expense of the people at large. It creates no wealth iri the country. It is a means of transferring money from the pocket of one man to the pocket of another : it is a means of compelling the people generally to enhance the profits of the manufacturer, to put into his pocket money that he never earned.
I would be very sorry to nave it understood by the great agricultural classes of this country, I was in favour of bounties in any Mr. LENNOX.
shape or form. I am not in favour of them, because I recognize that the system is unfair to the great agricultural class of this country.
I have heard nothing which is better sense or more concise than the statement made in this passage by the hon. member for South Simcoe at the last session and so I have read it to the House. I think it will be received as containing a very considerable amount of wisdom.
The hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. A. T. Thompson) spoke on every available subject, except the interest of the rural constituency which he represents. I want to say that although it may be in the interest of some classes to have a bounty imposed, to be taken out of the pockets of the people, yet it can never be in the interest of the great agricultural class of this country, and whatever other interest we may be able to serve, I for one, so long as I represent a rural constituency, aye, and even if I should represent a city constituency, will feel that the first interest to be considered in this country, having due regard to all other interests as well, is the interest of agriculture.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ARCH CAMPBELL (West York).: The budget debate always excites a great deal of interest not only in this House but also in the country. It is, I suppose, the most important debate we ever have had in parliament. It is time, I think I may say, of stock taking, a time when we review the affairs of the country for the past year and make an estimate of those affairs for the coming year. By that means we ascertain where we are, where we stand, whether we are progressing or retrograding. Any man who does not at a certain time of the year take stock of his affairs to find out whether he is going ahead or behind, is not a good business man. So in parliament if we do not as a nation take stock once a year and ascertain how we are standing, we are not conducting the affairs of the country as we should. The budget speech which was delivered the other day has excited great interest throughout the country. It was one of the most important speeches that has ever been delivered in this House. It must he exceedingly gratifying to the people of this country to read the record of the progress and advancement of this Dominion of Canada. The gentlemen to your left who have preceded me have found it a very hard road to travel, and their speeches have been the shortest that I have ever listened to in a budget debate. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) occupied only twenty-five or thirty minutes. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) hardly came up to

that time ; in about twenty five minutes he said all he could say. It is an evidence that they can find very little to criticise in the position of the country and the manner in which its affairs have been conducted in the past year. One can scarcely credit the state of affairs that has been revealed by the Finance Minister. If we did not know it was true, we could scarcely realize that this Dominion is making such tremendous progress as it has been making within the last few years. The story of the extraordinary advancement of this Dominion reads almost like a fairy tale, and is exceedingly gratifying to every well wisher of the country. There are two ways in which we can ascertain the progress of a country, just as in the case of an individual. If a merchant or a farmer or a trader is increasing his sales from year to year, selling more goods, doing a greater business, it is an evidence that he is prospering and is adding to his estate, and so with a nation. We find_ that this Dominion has made wonderful progress within the last few years when compared with the record of previous years. What we buy and what we sell is of great interest to us. I remember that when our Conservative friends were in power, they boasted very often of the progress the country was making. They pointed to an increase in the trade of this Dominion of $3,500,000 per year. That was the average during the eighteen years they were in power. The trade of this country increased from $172,000,000 in 1878 to $229,000,000 in 1896, an increase of $66,000,000 or about $3,-
500,000	per year.
It is a matter of record that our hon. friends on the Conservative side were exceedingly gratified with the progress that had been made. If you look over the speeches of the late Minister of Finance you will find that he pointed with pride and satisfaction to the record of the increased trade of the country as an evidence of a wise administration of the affairs of the country under his rule. Now. Sir, taking that as a criterion, we may judge of the progress of the country during the seven years that it has been under the guidance of the Liberal party, and we find that the trade of the country increased from $239,000,000 in 1896 to no less a sum than $467,000,000 in 1903, that the trade of the country increased not at the rate of $3,500,000 a year, but at the rate of nearly $32^ 000,000 a year. 1 think that if we look with pride and gratification to the fact that under the regime of our Conservative friends the foreign trade of this country was increased by $3,500,000 a year it must be exceedingly gratifying to them now to find that that trade has gone up to the extent of about $32,000,000 a year. We find also that the increase in trade has been largely in Canadian products! We find rthat the total exports of Canadian products for the seven
years previous to the advent of the Liberal administration, from 1890 to 1896. were, in round numbers $696*000,0001 Comparing that with the last seven years of the Liberal administration, from 1897 to 1903, we find that the total exports of Canadian products were $1,166,000,000, or an increase In these seven years over the previous seven years when the Conservative party ruled, of no less than $470,000,000. You can hardly realize that that $470,000,000 has gone into the pockets largely of the farmers and producer of this country.
It is interesting to ascertain how this increase has occurred. We find that of products of the miue, from 1890 to 1896. we exported $42,730,000. During the last seven years this was increased to $170,000,000, or an increase in these seven years over the previous seven years of $127,000,000. Then, we have the fisheries. Our exports of the products of the fisheries for the seven years previous to 1896 were $69,468,000. During the latter seven year period they Increased to $78,898,000. or an increase in these seven years of about $9,000,000. Of the products of the forest the exports increased from $176,000,000 during the first seven year period to $213,000,000 during the last seven year period, or an increase of $37,000,000. Then we come to the products of the farm. The exports of the products of the farm show a wonderful increase, an increase from $331,000,000 for the previous seven years to no less than $573,000,000 for the last seven years, or an increase of $240,000,000 for the last seven years over the previous seven years. Then, I am also glad to know that the exports of manufactures have increased from $51,000,000 to $100,000,000 or an increase of $50,000,000. These facts are exceedingly gratifying to us. They show that our products are being sold to good advantage and that we are reaping enormous profits from them.
If we examine the list of exports we find that we can pick out some items in that trade of particular interest to the farmers of this country. We find that the exports of butter rose from $6,140,000 during the seven years previous to 1896 to nearly $29,000,000 during the last seven years, or an increase of $22,000,000. Then, take cheese. The exports of cheese during the seven years previous to 1896 amounted to $87,000,000. whereas, for the last seven years they amounted to $133,978,000, or an increase of $46,000,000 in that one article alone. We may take hams, bacon, and pork, the exports of which increased from $15,-
572,000	to $77,558,000 or an increase of $62,000,000.
It is well to ask the reason why it is that we have made such astonishing progress in these lines, that we have been able to sell so much more of these goods during the last seven years than we were dur-

ing tlie previous seven years. Tlie rain fell and the sun shone, during the first seven years the same as during the last seven years. The crops grew and Providence blessed this country during the seven years between 1890 and 1896 the same as Providence has blessed this land from 1897 to 1903 and it is interesting to know how it is that we have made such wonderful progress and that we have been able to sell so much more in the last seven years than we were in the seven years previously. It is an advantage to have added to the wealth of this country the enormous sum of money that has gone into the pockets of the people. Our hon. friends say, as they have been saying to-day, that this is largely owing to Providence. They give no credit to the government of this country at all, but I think a little investigation will show that under the wise direction of this government the farmers have been enabled to take advantage of the opportunities presented to them in very many ways. For instance, let me point to a few of the reasons why this increase has taken place. We all remember that when the government took charge of the affairs of this country in 1896 our cattle could not go into the United States without being quarantined for a certain length of time at the border. What was the result of that ? In the four and a half years during which that quarantine was in force we only sent to the United States 3,762 head of cattle at a valuation of $52,000, in round numbers. What did this government do ? The Hon. Sydney A. Fisher, the practical businesslike intelligent farmer who was placed at the head of the Department of Agriculture, a man who knew what this country demanded, a man who understood what the farmers wanted, a man who realized the responsibilities of his position, immediately set himself to work to effect a remedy. With the Hon. John Dryden, Minister of Agriculture in the province of Ontario, he went to Washington and there, like business men, they brought this matter to the attention of the American government, the state of affairs was explained and by bringing their business ability to bear upon the authorities at Washington, they secured the removal of this quar-antine that had proved so disastrous to the interests of the farmers of Canada. What was the result in the next four and a half years ? In the next four and a half years after the quarantine was removed instead of sending 3,762 head of cattle to the United States, we sent no less than 349,393 at a valuation not of $52,000, but at a valuation, getting it back in good Canadian money, of no less than $5,329,000. Will any man say that that was not one act which contributed largely to the welfare of the great agricultural classes of this country? Ever since, the exportation to the United States of our cattle has been going on. We have Mr. CAMPBELL.
a great many cattle that we cannot send across the ocean. It does not pay to send them 3,000 miles to market. We find that in the great cities of the United States, such as New York and Boston, where there are millions and millions of people, a market for these cattle, and the result is that the farmers of this country sent in four and a half years after these quarantine restrictions were removed no less than 349,000 head of cattle at a valuation of $5,329,000.
The system of cold storage, brought to perfection by this government, has also contributed in a large degree to our prosperity because before cold storage was brought to a successful development our perishable produce could not be sent to the markets of the world in proper condition. The late government started with a crude system of cold storage, filling the steamers with ice that was melted before the vessels got to the ocean, with the result that the goods arrived in the old country in a worse condition than they were in when they started on the voyage. Under the present Minister of Agriculture, who understands' his business, the cold storage system was perfected. He first established the system on the railways throughout the Dominion, giving the railway companies a bonus to induce them to fit up their cars so that the perishable products could be carried from the farmers' door to the world's markets. Then, cold storage warehouses were erected in Montreal, and the minister made arrangements with the steamship companies to fit up mechanical appliances in their vessels so that our products could be properly cared for on the ocean voyage. In the first year of the experiment, 17 ocean steamers fitted with cold storage sailed from Montreal, and last year there were 35 steamers so fitted. Last year there were 144 sailings from the port of Montreal alone, of ships furnished with mechanical cold storage of the most modern and approved type. As the result of these experiments, the export of our butter and cheese and poultry and eggs has enormously increased; and the farmers have been enabled to realize a higher price than heretofore. That has contributed in large degree to the prosperity of the farmers of Canada. That is the reason why our farmers got $470,000,000 more for their products in the last seven years than they did before. But that it not all. The Minister of Agriculture established in ail the provinces of this Dominion dairying schools to edjicate the people in the best methods of manufacturing butter and cheese. Our exports of butter have largely increased, but we are yet only at the beginning of that trade. There is a market in the old country for ten times the quantity of butter we now export, and with a continuation of the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture we hope to capture that market.

Some people may say that while our products have increased, the people of Canada have not got the money, but let us see how that pans out. Is not this a pretty sure criterion. In 1878 the deposits in the banks of this country amounted to $79,000,000, and in 1896 they amounted to $245,000,000, an increase in eighteen years of $165,831,000. But what has been the story since 1896? Instead of having $245,000,000 on deposit in the banks as we had then, the people of Canada had in the year 1903 no less than $461,000,000, or an increase in these seven years of $216,000,000 against an increase of only $165,000,000 during the long eighteen years of Tory rule. That is remarkable progress. It redounds largely to the credit of this government of wise and practical men, who oy the methods they have adopted to encourage and facilitate the manufacture and transportation of our pi'oducts, added to the general prosperity of the Dominion. Another test we might make, can be taken from the post office returns. The correspondence of a prosperous and progressive nation is constantly increasing. The postal record shows us that in 1878 we posted 44,000,000 letters ; in 1896 116,000.000 letters, or an increase in eighteen years of 72,000.000 letters. But what has been the wonderful record since 1896 ? Last year we posted 235,000,000 letters, or an increase of 119,000.000 over 1896, as against an increase of only 72,000,000 in the eighteen years of Conservative government. These are strong, convincing, and indisputable proofs of the progress we have made.
And, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to know that the manufacturing interests of this Dominion, which we all know are a great factor in the welfare of a country, have shared in the general prosperity. Our manufacturing industries during the last seven years have made far more progress than during the eighteen years of Conservative rule. In 1896 we exported $9,365,000 worth of manufactured products, and in 1903 that rose to over $21,000,000 worth, an increase ia seven years of over $11,000,000 worth.
Compare that with the previous record, from 1878 to 1896. The increase was only a little over $5,000,000 in eighteen years under the national policy, which according to its advocates was going to build up this Dominion, which was designed especially for the benefit of the manufacturing interests oh Canada, which hon. gentlemen opposite have never ceased to laud and which they claim had laid the foundations, broad and deep, of the future prosperity of the manufacturing interests of this Dominion ; and yet under that national policy, during the eighteen years of its continuance, our exports of manufactured goods only increased $5,237,000. Since the abolition of the national policy, since the tariff was revised by practical men on business lines, the manufacturers of this Dominion have gone on
increasing by leaps and bounds, so that during the last seven years they have increased their exports by $11,259,000, against an increase of $5,000,000 under the national policy in eighteen years.
Now, I believe the manufacturing establishments of this Dominion should receive wise encouragement from the Dominion government. I think the welfare of this country largely depends on the success of its manufacturing establishments. You can see them in the neighbourhood of our towns and cities, employing from 500 to
1,000	men, adding to the population, increasing the value of land all round, giving value to the products of the farm, and the market garden. So I say it is a wise thing for the government to encourage the building up of manufacturing establishments in every way they possibly can ; and the revision of the tariff made in 1897 contributed in a large degree to the building up of the manufactures of this country and making them as prosperous as they are to-day.
Let me point out one or two ways in which the tariff has been revised. You can revise the tariff in such a way as to paralyze the industries of this Dominion. The government in 1897 went about their work in a businesslike way. They reduced the duties on the natural raw products of this country. Take, for instance, iron and steel, the great raw product that enters into the manufacture of every implement used on the farm, of every ship that sails on our seas, and of every railway train that passes over the land. Under the national policy which our Conservative friends have so lauded, this raw product, so necessary to the commercial life of the country, was taxed to the extent of about 60 per cent. This government came into power and cut that duty in two, with the result that our manufacturing establishments throughout this Dominion have been enlarging their plants, increasing their output, and sending their goods to all parts of the world. There is a factory in my own county which has doubled and trebled its production in the last seven years-the Dominion Radiator Company, of Toronto, which is now sending its goods to all parts of the wide world. Even the public buildings in far-off Russia are heated by radiators made in the city of Toronto. These works were not prospering under the old system, when they had to pay that enormous duty on their raw material. Their output was curtailed, they could not compete with other manufacturers, and they were not able to make a profit. But since then they have grown and have extended their works, until now their goods are going to all parts of the world. Take the Massey-Harris Company, who use from twenty-five to thirty tons of metal every day, paying an enormous duty upon it. They were handicapped and unable to send their goods abroad ; but as soon as the duty was reduced, they were able to compete with

their neighbours, enlarge their plant, double their output, employ double the number of men and largely Increase the wages of those men. They have grown and have extended their works until now the whole world is their market. And recently we have had the Deerlng Company established in the city of Hamilton, investing millions of capital, employing, X am told, 10,000 men, and prepared to manufacture agricultural implements and send them to all parts of the world. I could point in the same way to other manufacturing establishments. Go to Ottawa, Montreal, Hamilton, Peterborough, Halifax or anywhere else in this wide Dominion, and you will find that the manufacturing establishments have increased and prospered, doubled their output, and given employment to more men and at increased wages. I do not say that the tariff is perfect. I have thought that certain revisions of the tariff could be made, some reductions and possibly some increases, that would still further bring prosperity to our manufacturing establishments ; and X am glad to know that the government have wisely decided to give some redress by placing some goods on the free list, and thus placing the establishments in a better position to manufacture their product at a lower price than before, and to supply the consumers not only of Canada but of the wide world.
In this connection I might point to the revision of the coal oil duties. That seems to me to be a sensible change. At present we have five cents a gallon on refined oil and five cents a gallon on crude oil. It takes two gallons of crude oil to make one gallon of refined ; so that we have this anomaly, that there is a duty practically of ten cents a gallon on the raw product and only five cents a gallon on the finished article. In the revision of the tariff the sensible thing has been done ; the duty on the refined has been reduced to 2-1 cents a gallon, the benefit of which will be enjoyed by the consumers of oil throughout this Dominion ; and crude oil has been placed on the free list, which I hope and believe will result in every single gallon of the 16,000,000 gallons or whatever quantity of oil is used in Canada, being refined in the Dominion. Our refiners get their crude oil in free, and have 2i cents a gallon of protection on the refined. So that we will compel all the refiners of this Dominion, I believe, to refine the entire product of this Dominion in this country itself. That will give employment to double the quantity of men now engaged in that industry. We only produce in Canada one-half the quantity of oil we consume, so that if we refine the whole product in Canada, we will employ just about double the quantity of men and at the same time give the consumers their coal oil cheaper. Therefore I think that provision is wise and sensible and will promote the interests of the people.


Archibald Campbell: The results of this development, the effect of the prosperous times we have had, brought about largely by the wise legislation of this government, are seen in another direction. We have an enormous territory in the Northwest, and what we require above all in Canada is people. It is almost incredible that in this great Dominion, so rich in natural products, mineral treasures and other resources, with the Canadian Pacific Railway running through from end to end and with branch lines extending in every direction-it is almost inconceivable that for ten years we did nothing but mark time and not only did not add to our population, but could not keep the immigration we brought in. Instead of there being in the country, the 860.000 people which the returns show were brought in previously to 1896, it was found that we had not retained our natural increase and that those whom we brought in had gone out of the country again to the United States. We found also in the eastern states Canadian boys and girls who had fled from this Dominion to the busy centres of trade on the other side of the line. At the head of the American banks and other great establishments, you will find Canadian boys, who had been born and raised and educated in Canada and had gone to this foreign country, and who, by their enterprise, ability, industry and integrity had raised themselves step by step until they had reached the highest positions. Was it not lamentable that all these bright young men and women should have been forced to leave our country ? and under the regulations which then existed, we find that in the decade previous to 1896, of the immigrants who had come in and who had cost this country a large amount, nearly all had gone to the United States. But when the present government came into power, under the wise administration of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), who knew the situation and who knew the Northwest, a new departure was made. Immigration agents were sent not only to Europe but to the United States, to Michigan, Kansas, Dakota, Illinois and the western states, and by means of the literature they distributed and the information they were able to give, the stream of immigration was turned back again and every year since, that stream flowing into Canada has increased and continues to grow as the years roll on. What does the last year show ? Why, from 1890 to 1896, only 271,216 immigrants were brought into Canada, and the public returns of the census showed that these immigrants did not remain in Canada. But from 1897 to 1903 no less than 366,916 immigrants came into Canada, or an increase in those seven years of 95,730. In those seven years the settlers' effects that were brought in were nearly a million dolldrs more than they were in the previous seven years ? Our Conservative friends may say that those immigrants did

not remain in Canada, but we have a test which will show that they did. Take the returns of the homestead entries and what do we find ? In 1896 there were only 1,857, whereas in 1903 they amounted to 31,330. From 1890 to 1896, there were only 22,845 homestead entries, and in the last seven years they increased to 75,530, showing an increase of 52,685. Why, we increased the homestead entries more in the last seven years by nearly 13,000 than they amounted to in the whole eighteen years of Tory rule. We have proved conclusively that the immigrants we are now bringing in are remaining in the country and helping to build it up, and it is exceedingly gratifying to know that the class of immigrants we are getting is of the very best character. Last year 80 to 90 per cent of those who came were the very best class we could desire- from the United States, Great Britain and Scandinavia. The inferior class, which we do not desire, went to the United States. I think that this record of prosperity must be exceedingly gratifying to the people, and that the government, in adopting the regulations they have made, in the perfecting of the system of cold storage, and in the encouragement and improvement of the making of butter and cheese, have contributed to a great extent in bringing this about.
The government have also been wise in other directions. They have not confined their legislation to the farmers and manufacturers, but have been looking particularly after the interests of the great labour *and artisan classes. I say that the man who works behind the plough, the girl who sweeps out the office, are the class which any government should protect. They are the helpless ones who need aid, support and encouragement. The wealthy men and rich corporations can look after themselves, but the man who is alone in the field, the man who shoves the plane and guides the plough is the man the government should look after and protect. What has this government done in that direction ? One of the first things they did was to abolish the sweating-system. Of all the iniquities that ever disgraced the annals of any country, the most disgraceful, was the condition which existed under the late government in the sweating system. It has been proved beyond doubt by the commission which was appointed to investigate this system, that in Montreal and Toronto the big contractors who had secured contracts for supplying clothing to the militia and who were given big prices, sub-let those contracts to others, who in turn again sub-let them, and it was proven beyond a doubt that poor women in Montreal and Toronto were forced to work the whole day long making this clothing at the rate of 25 cents a day.
This great Dominion of Canada, though paying out large sums for the manufacture of these goods, did not regard the rights of the poor people, but neglected their interests and so enabled the contractors to fleece
them, to reduce their wages to a starvation level. This government at once abolished that system ; they provided that every contractor, no matter what his colour, nationality or creed might be, should pay the current rate of wages to every persou working on the job. Whether the co'ntract -was for the building of a post office, the construction of a wharf, dock or pier, the making of a railway, the digging of a canal or the manufacture of clothing required for the army and navy, every person engaged in the work must be paid the current rate of wages, whatever that might be. And so, this government has looked after the interests of those who, above all others needed the government's guidance and support and protection. I remember when, but a few years ago, a scandalous case arose which was discussed at some length in this House. The contractor who was building a railway- I think it was the Toronto, Hamilton and Burlington-sub-let his contract to an American. The American sub-contractor came over here, employed a large number of men, and set them to work on the railway. A progress estimate, was made of the work done, and the sub-contractor was given his pay, with which he cleared out, and not one of these men received from him pay for the work they had done. Some time after, application was made to this parliament for an amendment to the charter of the company. And, under this government, a stipulation was made that before that legislation was passed and the amendment made, a settlement had to be made with the men who had done the work on the railway but had not been paid for it. I remember another case in the western part of Ontario. The government let a contract, and the contractors sub-let the work, and the sub-contractors defrauded the men out of their wages. But this government stopped all that. Under the present system, they can say to the contractor :	It does not matter
to us whether you sublet your contract or not ; but if you do sublet it we will not pay you a single dollar until every man on the job has received his just wage. Is not that what a government ought to do ? It is to the credit of this government that they had this law enacted since they came into power and that they have carried it out so efficiently. Then, they have brought into force a Conciliation Act with a view to avoiding those strikes and lock-outs arising out of difficulties between manufacturers or contractors and their employees ; and I am glad to say that, under the efficient administration of the Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock) this Act has been the means of avoiding a great many strikes and settling a great many difficulties that would have been an injury both to the men and their employers. So, in these cases-and many more might be cited-the government have shown themselves to be progressive; they have moved forward with the times ; they have

not only protected and encouraged, as I said, the great agricultural classes and the manufacturing classes, but they have also looked after the rights and interests of the artisans and labourers, who so much need the assistance of the government.
Looking over the government's record, I cannot but believe that the tariff revision next year which they have announced will be one that will help the great industries of this country as well as the great body of consumers. The government have shown their ability in the past to solve the difficult questions involved in a tariff policy, and to do it in such a way as to bring about great prosperity to the Dominion. And so I believe that, when the revision of the tariff takes place next year, changes that are needed will be found to be wisely made. There are some articles the duty on which could be advantageously increased, while on * some others a reduction would be in the interest of the country. You can afford protection to manufacturers in either of two ways-by increasing the duties on what they manufacture, or reducing the duties on their raw material. A reduction of the cost of raw material enables them to sell their goods at lower prices than before, and so to increase their sales and relatively reduce the cost of their manufacture. This was largely the plan adopted by the government in 1897, and I feel sure that when the revision takes place next year it will be made on broad lines that will prove the wisdom of the administration.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) who preceded me said that the expenditure of the Dominion had largely increased. That is quite true. It is also true that when we were in opposition we condemned the expenditure of the then Conservative administration. But we not only condemned the expenditure ; we pointed out instances of sheer waste of public money. It is no argument to say that the expenditure has increased and to infer at once that this is conclusive proof of the extravagance of the government. This government has been spending more money it is true ; but the country has been growing and more expenditure has been necessary. Take any corporation or any firm in a large way of business, and you will find that their expenditure is very much larger than it was seven years ago. This government has done a business of $467,000,000, against a business of $239,000,000 seven years ago. It would be absurd to expect this increase in business to be effected without an increase of expenditure. When we were in opposition, we condemned the publie expenditure, which was then about $37,000,000 or $38,000,000. But we also pointed out specific cases in which public money might have been saved ? We pointed to the Curran bridge in Montreal, where $470,000 of the people's money was thrown away. We showed that we had here a Minister of Railways and Canals, a deputy Mr. CAMPBELL.
minister, a chief engineer and all the necessary staff, and yet, within telephone and telegraph communication, within 120 miles, of the city of Ottawa a work was carried out that cost the people $470,000 more than it should have cost. We pointed to the Tay Canal, where $500,000 of the people's money had been spent. We showed that it cost to operate that canal $3,000 a year and that the total receipts were $127.76. We pointed to the Langevin block, on which $400,000 was expended uselessly. We showed that the government had let a contract for that building, and that it was afterwards found that the contract was so loosely and carelessly drawn that the contractor was not obliged to put a roof on the building, and so a new contract had to be made for the. roof.
In that way we pointed out case after ease where the money of this country was squandered in many ways and enormous sums spent uselessly. If our Conservative friends could point to the same conditions to-day, if they could show where money is being wasted as we showed before 1896, then I think they could make a case against us. They are not justified in pointing to the increased expenditure when they know that when they left office they had started the deepening of the St. Lawrence and Welland canals, had let contracts for these works, and that it was necessary for this government to go on and complete them. If 1 remember coryectly, we have expended more than $11,000,000 in carrying out and completing work started under their regime. The Trent Valley canal was started under them-$1,000,000 were spent upon it, contracts were let, and it was absolutely necessary for the new government to go on and complete that work. Thus we have spent a great deal of money upon it. We have extended the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal. That extension was fought and opposed at every stage in this House by our Conservative friends. It was called the Drummond County deal and the Drummond County steal, and all the opprobrious names they could think of. Now, realizing their mistake, they want to extend the Intercolonial Railway to Georgian bay. We wisely spent $1,000,000 or $1,500,000 in extending it to Montreal. The Intercolonial Railway before that stopped at Levis, although the great metropolis of Canada (was almost within a stone's throw of the end of the line. The Intercolonial Railway was obliged to take whatever rates the Grand Trunk would give them on freight that went to the maritime provinces, but immediately the line was extended to Montreal it was in direct competition with the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canada Atlantic, and all the enormous traffic that came down the Welland canal. In consequence the receipts of the Intercolonial Railway have more than doubled in the last seven years and are increasing year by year. It is true that we have spent a great deal

of money on the Intercolonial Railway, out that was absolutely necessary. The enormous development that took place in Sydney made it necessary that the road should be laid with heavier rails from Port Mulgrave to Sydney. That stretch of road had been laid with rails of only 45 pounds to the yard. It was absolutely necessary that a new steamer should be bought. The old ferry took over one car at a time and then came back and got another. That would do in Conservative times, when the country was standing still, but when the country began to move forward by leaps and bounds, when the life blood of this nation was running at a higher rate of speed than ever before, when new life permeated this whole Dominion, then we had to move forward. It was necessary to provide a steamer to carry trains across the Straits of Oan-so. It was necessary that that section of the road should be laid with heavy 90-pound rails, and this was done. The terminal facilities at Sydney were altogether too small, and the same conditions prevailed in Halifax and St. John. New cars had to be obtained, the bridges had to be strengthened, rails had to be relaid, locomotives had to be replaced, the little tu'penny-halfpenny- one-horse locomotives that could only haul half a dozen cars would do all right when this country was governed by the Tory party , but when a new party came in, then it was necessary that we should move forward with the times and improve our position. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway have spent millions of money in the last seven years in providing new cars, in increasing their locomotive equipment, in relaying tracks, in strengthening bridges and replacing wooden bridges with iron and steel structures. The Intercolonial had to do the same thing. We have spent large sums of money on the Intercolonial Railway, but to-day we are reaping the benefit from that expenditure. I believe that this expenditure has now almost ceased, and we shall reap a large revenue from the Intercolonial, I have no doubt, within the next few years.
Then the government has also expended a large amount for the construction of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. The development taking place in the Kootenay district made it absolutely necessary that a line of railway should be extended into that country, and the Crow's Nest Pass road was built. The government had the choice of either building the road themselves or subsidizing the Canadian Pacific Railway for building it. It was thought that if the government built that road they would have a piece of road with no connections to the east or west, and would be absolutely at the dictation of the Canadian Pacific Railway, or any other road or roads, in the matter of freight rates of freight they might get over it. Thus the government wisely concluded that it was better to subsidize the Canadian 145
Pacific Railway to build that line. But they took great care to protect the rights and interests of the people of Canada. They said to the Canadian Pacific Railway : You must give to the Dominion of Canada a fee simple to 50,000 acres of coal lands. The Dominion of Canada have to-day a deed in fee simple to 50,000 acres of the best coal lands there as a guarantee that the obligations of the Canadian Pacific Railway will be carried out. They stipulated, in order to avoid the discouragement or embarrassment to manufacturers or smelting works that might start there, that there should be no monopoly on coal. The government stipulated that coal should be furnished to those who required it at a fixed rate of $2 a ton at the pit's mouth, and, as a guarantee that they would carry that out, they were to deed to the government 50,000 acres of coal lands, so that if they should disregard their obligation, we have this enormous reservoir of coal which we can open up and so control the markets and the price. Not only that, but they stipulated that the Canadian Pacific Railway should give running powers to any other road that is now built or that may be built in Canada over the Crow's Nest Pass for all time .to come. As long as the sun shines and the rain falls that road will be under the qontrol of the Dominion of Canada, and the government can give running powers over it to any road upon terms to be settled by the Governor in Council. They also stipulated that the Canadian Pacific Railway should give reduced rates between the east and the west, and it was estimated that the concessions made by the Canadian Pacific Railway to the people of this Dominion would amount to between $600,000 and $700,000 every single year. That estimate was based on the amount of freight handled at that time, and, of eourse: the figures would be very much greater now7. In five years the people of Canada got back every single dollar of the subsidy given to the Crow's Nest Pass in the reduced rates on traffic both ways between the east and the west. These concessions will still go on all along the years, so that the bargain made by the government was a wise one. But, of course, it takes a considerable amount of money. We cannot have our cake and eat it, too ; but it was a wise thing to do, it was a wise expenditure, and I have always taken the position that I do not care what the expenditure is, $25,000,000, or $50,000,000, or $75,000,000 a year, so long as we get value for it. If it gives good returns to this country it is a wise expenditure. This government, by their wise administration, have been able to go on with great works, have been able to deepen the canals, to extend the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal, to subsidize the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, to subsidize all the different railways running all over this Dominion and to construct public works necessary to the convenience and prosperity of the people in the mari-

time provinces. My hon., friend from Sim-coe (Mr. Lennox) pointed to the fact that little wharfs and piers were built where there were very few settlers. It is the life and salvation of these fishermen down east that these wharfs shall be provided for them and the government have, by meeting the wishes of the people and providing all these necessary conveniences, aided, encouraged and increased the happiness of the people to a very great degree. Not only have they done that, but owing to the wise care which they have exercised in the management of the affairs of this country, notwithstanding the large expenditure they have made on the public works of this Dominion, in subsidizing railways, in deepening our canals, in extending the Intercolonial Eailway to Montreal, at the end of seven years we find the public debt of this Dominion $1,000,000 less than it was in 1890. Contrast that with the record of our Conservative friends. For the eighteen years they were in power they added $6,700,000 every single year to the debt of this Dominion. Not one single year passed by in the whole of the eighteen years during which they did not add $6,700,000 to the public debt and in the eighteen years that they were in power they increased the public debt by $118,000,000 while this government have been able to carry on the public works and improve the conditions of the people, increase their comfortsf facilitate and improve transportation and open up the canals, doing all this work and at the same time relieving the people at the end of seven years by reducing the debt to the extent of $1,000,000. This is a record that any government might be proud of. I am sure it is a record that the people of this Dominion will look upon as one of the best records that was ever made by any government. It is a record I am sure will meet with the approval of the people and when the elections come on, be it sooner or be it later, I have no doubt that from one end of this broad Dominion to the other the people will say: Well done, good and faithful servants ; enter ye into another seven years of power.


Mr. E. D. SMITH (South Wentworth).: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that we on this side of the House are not able to please hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to the length of* our speeches. If an hon. gentleman rises, on this side of the House to make a lengthyj speech some hon. gentlemen opposite is sure to say that the time of the House is being wasted. But the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Campbell) found fault rather with the shortness of the speeches which have been delivered on this side of the House. He evi-dent'lv wants quantity rather than quality, and I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that he has set a worthy example in that respect during the last hour and a half. It is true that the hon. gen-Mr. CAMPBELL.
tleman went over a great deal of ground, and I am sure that hon. members who have been longer in this House than I have been, must admit that they have heard a great deal of that speech once or twice before ; an hon. gentleman beside me says six times. The chief argument throughout the hon. gentleman's speech was, that, this country being exceedingly prosperous, the government in power at the present time are entitled to the credit for that prosperity. Last night we had an excelient speech from the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd). But that hon. gentleman was more modest. He was willing to give Providence credit for at least some small portion of the prosperity we have had in this country during the last few years. But, the hon. member for West York was not at all satisfied with the statement of the hon. member for South Brant because he was willing apparently to take credit on behalf of the government for all of the bountiful harvests that we have had for the last five years. The money value of these harvests, or of the good crops that we have had during the last five years, I am informed on good authority, is something like $500,000,000 greater than it was in the previous seven years. I do not know whether the hon. member for West York is willing or not to say in public that the government has had anything to do with the raising of these magnificent crops. But, it is evident from the tone of his remarks that he thinks it has. The hon. gentleman, as usual, takes a great deal of credit to the government because of the increase in our exports and imports and he wishes to gauge the prosperity of the country on that basis. In regard to our exports and imports he lays a considerable amount of stress upon our exports of agricultural implements. He scores the government that preceded this one on the ground that during the time it was in control of the affairs of this country our agricultural implement manufacturers were not exporting large quantities of agricultural implements while at the present time they were exporting to the extent of $2,228,000 a year. The hon. gentleman might have gone a little farther. He might have stated, if he had desired to be absolutely fair, that in 1896 we did export $593,464 worth of agricultural implements. The business of manufacturing agricultural implements in this country only got on its feet some twelve or fifteen years ago. After the national policy had been put in operation the effect was immediately manifest. The larger proportion of the agricultural implements used in Canada were made in this country and the manufacturers got into the position of being able to export a large quantity of these products. This export in 1896 amounted to no less than $593,464. But, that was not all. At that time the manufacturers of these implements gave employment to our own good Canadians who made almost all of the imple-

ments that we used in this country. We imported only $304,000 worth. What is happening to-day ? Although we exported $2,228,000 worth we imported $3,255,000 worth under this magnificent tariff which is now in operation. Of course that goes to swell the export and import total and the hon. gentleman takes credit for that condition of affairs. I am sure the people are not satisfied with the fact that three and a quarter million dollars worth of agricultural implements were made across the line that should have been made in Canada. The hon. gentleman who spoke previously, said that a protective tariff of twenty per cent had brought these large factories to the city of Hamilton that are locating there at the present time. I am bound to say that even a twenty per cent protective tariff will in some cases bring industries into this country-not in all cases. Here is an example. For a great many years the International Harvester Company, the McCormicks, the Deerings, and other large manufacturers of agricultural implements on the other side of the line consented to pay that twenty per cent duty, brought their implements into this country and sold them in competition with those of our own manufacturers. It is true that they charged a little higher prices, but twenty per cent when the implement is invoiced at not more than $50 is not a very serious item and they were able not only to maintain their position on equal terms with the Canadian manufacturers but they were able to retain a foothold in the market in the hope relying upon the assurances of hon. gentlemen opposite that when they got into power they would have a free trade government or that they would have unrestricted reciprocity and that they would then be able to bring their implements in free. But, when this government had been in power a number of years and when these manufacturers found that these hon. gentlemen were not prepared to carry out the principles upon which they had appealed to the people previously to the election, they came to the conclusion that both political parties in this country were determined to maintain some sort of protective tariff, and that the only thing they could do was to come across the line. But, this was not until after the lapse of a long number of years and until after we had imported into this country scores of millions of dollars worth of these agricultural implements the manufacture of which had given employment in the United States to thousands of men. At last this low tariff brought this industry to this country. What would have been the consequence if instead, a twenty-five or thirty per cent tariff had been put on and that tariff had been maintained all these years and that the Liberal leaders had not preached free trade 1 The implement manufacturers on the other side of the line would not have believed from the assurances of these hon. gentlemen 145*
while in opposition that there might be a change in the policy of this country but they would have known that protection was the fixed policy of this country with the result that these industries would have been brought into this country fifteen years ago instead of now.
Had that been done then, we would have been saved from sending out of this country millions of dollars in capital, and thousands of Canadians to work in the factories of the United States. The hon. gentleman claimed that these industries were brought to Canada on account of the present tariff, but he did not say that it is absolutely the same tariff now as under the Conservative regime so far as agricultural implements are concerned. The hon. gentleman tried to show that our prosperity was in some way due to the Minister of Agriculture, who, being a horny-handed son of toil, and knowing everything about agriculture, set to work to revolutionize matters when he took charge of the department. Well, one of the first things the Minister of Agriculture did was to go to Washington with the Hon. John Dryden to induce the Americans to do away with the cattle quarantine. That was a wonderful accomplishment of the minister. The Conservative government maintained a quarantine against American cattle for years, so that Canadian live cattle might be allowed to enter into the United kingdom. It was admitted by the English government that our cattle were free from disease, but the embargo was maintained as a matter of protection to the British farmer. However, when Mr. Fisher came into power, he got the cattle quarantine between Canada and the United States removed, and so he gave up all hope for ever of having our cattle admitted into the English market. Last year we exported to the United States 10,432 head of cattle, valued at $292,000, or an average of $27.90 cents per head. Well, any farmer who would send an animal worth only $27.90 to be fattened in the United States is not a good farmer. The good farmer is the farmer who will fatten his cattle at home. Did not this government remove the duty on American corn, to compel the Canadian farmer not to grow corn himself, but to buy foreign corn in order to fatten his cattle ? However that may be, a few farmers sent cattle to the United States last year to the value of $292,000. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) did not say a word about the fact that last year we imported $497,000 worth of American cattle into Canada. The hon. gentleman is quite satisfied to let the Americans send in half a million dollars worth of cattle, if he can only find a market in the United States for $292,000 worth of calves and lean animals. But, our cattle trade with Great Britain is not a trade in lean cattle and calves. It is a trade in fat cattle, as will be seen from

the fact that last year we exported to the British market 161,170 head worth $10,842,000, or an average of $67 a head. These were fat cattle fattened on Canadian farms, and exported to the British market in their finished state, as they should be exported by good farmers. Gentleman on the other side of the House boast year after year that they have taken down the cattle quarantine regulations so as to enable us to send $292,000 of calves and lean cattle to the United States, forgetting to state that American cattle to double that value were imported here. What have they done to open up the British market for our cattle ? Nothing. What have they done to open up the German market for our own produce ? A few years ago we did a trade with Germany amounting to $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 worth of agricultural products more than we do to-day. But that trade has disappeared. I will not say the government did wrong in putting the surtax on German goods, but I do say that if they claim credit because we sell $292,000 worth of cattle to the United States, they must also have the discredit of destroying that large and profitable market which we had in Germany.


Archibald Campbell: Why do the farmers send their cattle to the United States ?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: 
Hops ..: 162,394	22
Trees and plants	 56,379	23
Total	$5,756,228
The average rate of duty was 18 per cent. What I want to know is, if it is right and proper, and I say it is, that the1 manufacturers of this country should be protected to the extent of 28 per cent, wh y is it not equally right and proper that the farmer, who toils day and night, who earns his money qs hardly as any other people in this country, should also have protection ? I know that hon. gentlemen opposite will

smile and sneer, and say, of what advantage is it to put a duty on wheat, cheese or butter ? Do we not export enormous quantities of these products, and does not the Liverpool price fix the price in Canada ? Then what is the use of putting a duty upon them ? It would not raise the price a single cent. I say if it does not, put it on ; it cannot do anybody any harm. But I fancy if would have the effect of giving the farmers of this country their home market for these $5,756,000 worth of agricultural products which are now imported, instead of their taking the chances of getting their products damaged and spoiled by sending them across the Atlantic. The home market is the best market. Almost everybody will admit that. Hon. gentlemen opposite, who used to sneer at the idea of a home market for the farmers, are now coming to the conclusion that it is their best market. I want to preserve this home market for the farmers, and it can be preserved for them, by giving them as high a duty on their products as is imposed on things they have to buy. That is fair, surely.
Let us discuss some of these items separ-; ately. I want to know why the farmers, of this country cannot supply this market with butter, cheese, lard, pork and grain products. Then, I want to speak of another class of goods that are luxuries. However much we may disagree with hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to other things ; however strong protectionists we may be, and however honestly we may hold our coni victions, however consistent we may have been during the last twenty-five years with regard to protection, and however inconsistent these hon. gentlemen may be in that matter; we can, I believe, all agree on one thing ; protectionists, free traders and revenue tariff men will agree that luxuries should be taxed a little higher than the necessaries of life ; and a large proportion of these agricultural products that come to this country are luxuries, and as such, they ought to pay more than 28 per cent. They ought to pay at least 35 per cent, which is a common rate of duty in our tariff. Just consider that we bring in seventy-nine carloads of these green tomatoes which our market-gardeners around our cities and town could grow. They are a, class of men who are industrious, frugal, persevering and hard working. Our market-gardeners and fruit growers are two classes of men who perhaps earn their money as hardly as any other class in the country. Their productions are subject to droughts, frosts, floods and all manner of insect pests, and they have to be continually on the fight. Theirs is a business that calls forth the highest kind of intelligence, and they are a class of citizens who form the backbone of the great agricultural class. Their life is one that necessarily calls forth the high
est qualities in a man. These men employ a great many men In their business. This government are paying out millions of dollars a year in bonuses.
I think we have paid up to date over $4,000,000 in direct bounties to establish industries in this country. What are these paid for ? Is it not to give employment in this country ? I think that is the great object; and, if so, there is no class among farmers that employ more men than the market-gardeners and fruit growers. They employ ten times the number of men to the square mile that any other class does outside of manufacturers. These are a class of men who ought to be encouraged. They are engaged in an occupation which is particularly hazardous. They ought, therefore, to have at any rate as much protection as is accorded to other industries, namely, 28 per cent. But, as a matter of fact, they are only getting an average of 18 per cent. But the tomatoes I have referred to are luxuries and ought to be subject to a higher duty than the average. They ought to pay 35 per cent or even 45 per cent; but they have to pay only 19J per cent. No wonder the market-gardeners are complaining every year that they are not properly treated by this government. The wonder is that the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) has not been more powerful-has not raised his sturdy voice in council and before the Minister of Finance from time to time on! their behalf. I am sure that if the hon. gentleman had raised his influential voice on this question in the manner he has done on other questions, he would have convinced the government that 19i per cent protection is not sufficient for the market-gardener. Go over the various items which the market-gardeners grow, and you will find that the
i.uties are below the average and that these gentlemen have a just grievance against] the government.
I might take up another department ol these agricultural products-the fruit industry. I find that we imported into this country 28,391 barrels of apples, 200 carloads, and exported some 20,000 carloads. No doubt hon. gentlemen opposite will say : if you export in such large quantities, what gcod would it do you to put a higher duty on the small quantity you import ? It would not raise the price a cent. Well, let us have the duty in any case. We will then get the market and that is what our farmers want. What they want is a market at their doors for the 28,000 barrels which they now have to send across the ocean, but which would be consumed at home if these 28,000 barrels of American apples did not come in. They would have that much less to send across in the magnificent cold storage system, of which hon. gentlemen opposite boast so much and to which I shall refer later. Of dried apples we imported no less than eight carloads, and I suppose we had a thousand carloads last

goods out of the country. I think if even a small portion of this money were spent upon our great waterways and in the development of that system of transportation, far better results could be obtained than by the expenditure of this enormous amount on the scheme proposed by the government. We find that, in shipping grain from the upper lakes to Montreal, we have an advantage over New York of not less than li cents per bushel. But we find also that, when grain has to be transhipped at Montreal for Liverpool, we lose that 11 cents per bushel. The St. Lawrence route, though shorter than that by New York, is not developed. There are many hindrances, many obstacles, all of which I believe, could be removed by an energetic government. When we are compelled to pay at the port of Montreal so high a rate on goods brought down through our magnificent system of canals, which by the way was inaugurated and nearly completed under a Conservative administration -the advantage which' the country gains from its enterprise and great expenditure is neutralized. I find that last year we exported from the port of Montreal $70,000,000 worth of goods. For instance we exported 24,272,390 bushels of wheat, and on that we were compelled to pay 11 cents a bushel more than would have been paid for the carriage of wheat from Boston or New York. That amounts to $364,085. I. find that we exported from that port 21,182,840 pounds of butter and on that we paid 5 shillings a ton more than we would pay from Boston or New York. That amounted to $12,709.
We exported from Montreal 184,494,040 tons of cheese. We paid on that 3s. and 9d. a ton more than we would pay from Boston or New York. That amounted to $83,022.
Of apples we shipped 800,987 ban-els and paid 10 cents a barrel extra on them. This cost us $80,098. That makes a total of $539,914.
At the same ratio, if we took the balance of exports from Montreal and found the in crease-1 have no doubt that the freight rates were in the same proportion-we will find that the total excess freights amounted to $829,920. As the price we received for these export goods, to a large extent, sets the price of the goods sold in this country, there is no doubt that we lost a good deal more than this. It may be safely said that we lost $1,000,000 because the route from Montreal out past the banks of Newfoundland is not in the condition it ought to be in. First of all, the ships have to go slow a large part of the way, and cannot make good time. Then occasionally wrecks take place, and we have in consequence high insurance rates. The port of Montreal has large harbour dues, and ail these things combined with others that might he mentioned go to make up the reason why our steamers have to charge a higher rate of freight from that port notwithstanding that many of them are bonused. We pay out annually Mr. E. D. SMITH.
something between $100,000 and $150,000 to these steamers simply to come to Montreal. Ostensibly this is paid for the carrying of mail matter, but we only sent about thirty-nine tons of mail matter to the old country in the last year, ancl if you quadrupled the rates on ordinary freight the freight on this mail matter would toe only $1,500 ; yet we paid $150,000 to one line of steamers to go to Montreal and St. John, so that we ought to have the very best .service there. Some people say the insurance people have no right to charge the high rates that they do ; that they are discriminating unjustly against our routes. Whether that is so or not I cannot isay, but on looking at the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the past year X find that a considerable number of shipwrecks occurred on the St. Lawrence, and a large portion of those shipwrecks occurred through faults that might have been prevented if the Minister of Marine had in the last three years devoted his energies to thoroughly improving this St. Lawrence route, and if a proper pilotage system had prevailed, most of these shipwrecks could have been averted. Let me read the result of the examination by the commissioner, Mr. O. G. Y. Spain, into some of these ship wrecks,- and What he says in regard to the reasons why they occurred. I come first to the wreck of the steamer ' Oarrigan Head ' :
This British steamship grounded opposite No. 3 lightship, Lake St. Peter, River St. Lawrence, on April 24, 1903. A ,formal investigation was held into the casualty at the harbour commissioners' office, Montreal, and the finding of the court was as follows
That the captain was not to blame for the disaster. That the officer of the watch was not. to blame for the disaster. That the quartermaster carried out the orders of the pilot. That pilot Angers was not to blame. That the casualty was due to the buoys being out of place.
Why were the buoys out of place ? Why is there not a proper patrol over this river to see that the buoys are always in place 1 Surely it is the duty of the Minister of Marine and of the government to see that the buoys are in place. Had this been done the wreck would not have occurred, insurance rates would not be so high, and we would not have to pay such high freight rates on our produce.
Then there is the wreck of the steamship ' Iberian ' :
This British steamship grounded on the south side of the channel, near Isle aux Raisins, River St. Lawrence, on June 6, 1903, and at a formal investigation into the causes which led to the casualty, held at the harbour commissioners' office, Montreal, the court found :-
That nothing in the ship or her equipment contributed toward the accident.
That the conditions of the weather prevailing at the time of the casualty were favour-

.able, bat navigation was rendered difficult, though not unsafe, by smoke from bush fires, which limited the distance the buoys were visible to about half a mile.
That proper precautions were taken with regard to speed, the ship steaming about four (4) knots per hour

_ The fog signals were not perfect. There is an opportunity for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to improve that route by establishing some more fog signals. These gentlemen are experienced, and it is their opinion that the route was not properly marked. Then, there is the case of the barque ' Sardhana.' The report of the commissioner appointed to investigate the wreck ot this vessel states :
That the aids to navigation-in so far as the fog-signal at Point des Monts iS concerned -were inefficient ; the evidence of various Witnesses going to show that it was impossible to hear the fog-signal, even after the vessel stranded, within a mile and a-half of the lighthouse.
These are the results of the examinations of a few of the wrecks that occurred, and they go to show plainly that the fault lies with the government and with the minister who is in charge of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. It shows that he has not devoted his energies during all these long years to the improvement of this great rente, this route by which almost all the products originating west from the port of Montreal find their outlet to the sea. The evidence of these gentlemen appointed by tbe government themselves goes to prove that most of these accidents could have been prevented if proper signals and buoys had been provided. These are some of the things that I desire to call to the attention of the House, and I say that it is the duty of the government to bend their energies in this direction so as to make the St Lawrence route so safe that it will be as easy and as cheap to carry goods bv that route as by any other route1 from the Atlantic coast. There are other things that go to make that route cheap and safe. A large portion of the goods that we send from the port of Montreal are perishable goods. Three of our large exports are butter, cheese and apples. All of these are perishable products and require tbe best of care. It does not matter how much education our butter makers may have, it does not matter how much money may be spent upon educating our factory men to make the best butter that it is possible to make, it does not matter how much energy our farmers may bi mg to tbe work of producing good butter if you cannot carry it across the ocean m perfect condition. From $3,000,000 to $o.000,000 of our butter goes across the ocean and finds a market there. Most of it is sent m cold storage, and if we were to judge from the laudatory remarks which the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House made, we would come to the conclusion that the cold storage system as it at present exists is the most perfect in the world. We would imagine that every ship that sails from the port of Montreal is equipped with cold storage chambers that Mr. E. D. SMITH.
will carry every pound of butter across the Atlantic and land it in perfect condition in England where it will bring the highest prices. The cold storage system was inaugurated by the Hon. Mr. Montague when he was Minister of Agriculture, not at all, as the hon. member for West York tried to make this House believe, by the present hon. Minister of Agriculture. That system then inaugurated has no doubt become a great deal better than it was eight oi ten years ago. It would be a curious thing if after eight years of experience the Minister of Agriculture, with the able men lie has in bis employ, with the funds of the government at his disposal with which to equip these steamers as they are equipped except partially by the steamship companies, though the steamers sailing out of Boston and New York provide their own equipment, should not be able to carry out a better system of cold storage than that which previously prevailed. It would be dtrange if there was no improvement. There has been improvement. It would be strange indeed, after the long experience we have had with this very simple matter of cold storage, a thing that has been in operation in Australia and other portions of the world, which has been utilized for the carriage of perishable products to Great Britain for twenty years, a system which is in operation in all our cities and towns where you can place goods in cold storage and maintain them for months, if the government, with ample funds at their disposal, were not able to have a perfect system of cold stoiage. I am sure you will agree witb me that it is not very much to their credit that they have failed to perfect that system. Last year the hon. minister promised a thermograph record would be placed in every one of the chambers in ocean vessels for carrying perishable products. I find, however, that there are only 199 thermo-gi aph records taken, 155 in cold storage chambers, 32 in cooled chambers, and 12 in ordinary storage. Then I find the hon. minister in his report saying that a number of these boats carried butter in cold storage chambers at a temperature, not that which the hon. minister prescribes, but a temperature very far away from that which any experienced man knows they ought to maintain. The hon. minister maintained last year in his report 20 degrees as the proper temperature for the carriage of butter. Tbe butter shippers ask for a temperature of ten degrees. You would think that the boats would carry the butter below 32, the freezing point, but I find in the bon. minister's report that no less than nine boats carried it at an average temperature, not on a single day, but at an average temperature of over 32 degrees, and some of them averaged as higl^ as 40 degrees, 43 degrees, 36 degrees, 35 degrees, 39 degrees, 38 degrees, and so on.

I find on turning up the thermograph records that a very large number carried butter to London at temperatures ranging from below 32 degrees to 45 and 50 degrees. I find that the ' Iona,' sailing September 5, carried apples at a temperature of from 66 to 45 degrees. How could you expect apples, or pears, or any perishable fruits to be landed on the British market after a journey of fourteen days at a temperature of 45 degrees to 66 degrees, confined in a close cold storage chamber ? Then, I find that on the ' Hibernian,' sailing August 22, there was a temperature of from 68 to 42 degree ; on the ' Hurona,' sailing July 12, a temperature of from 50 to 40 degrees ; on the ' Devona,' June 28, a temperature of from 37 to 38 degrees, on the ' Iona,' June 13, a temperature of from 42 and 32 degrees, on the ' Kildona,' a temperature of from 42 and 29 degrees, during their respective voyages across the ocean. All these vessels carried butter at the temperatures which I have mentioned except the first two, which carried apples. Then, taking the Liverpool service, I find that the ' Ionian ' had a temperature of from 41 to 38 degrees, that the ' Kensington ' had a temperature of from 45 degrees to 30 degrees, and that a number of other steamers had temperatures very much higher than they ought to have been for butter. This goes to show that the cold storage system that the hon. member for West York lauded so highly is not the perfect success that the House might have been led to believe if they had accepted that hon. gentleman's remarks as representing accurately the facts of the case. I am not going to say there was not a very large number of boats which carried butter at a proper temperature. Certainly the large majority of them carried it at a proper temperature and there is a very great improvement in this respect, but the point I wish to make is : That after these long years of experience it is astonishing that there should have been a single cargo go out from the port of Montreal shipped in cold storage not carried at a proper temperature. Every one of these cargoes can be carried at a proper temperature. It is only a matter of looking after them properly. It is not that it can not be done, it is simply a matter that requires somebody to attend to it. There should be some body to keep urging it upon the steamship owners, who, I have no doubt would be quite willing if it were continually brought to their attention to see to it that a temperature was maintained to carry butter in a proper condition.
The result is that our exports of butter dropped from between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000 worth to between $3,000,000 or $4,000,-, 000 worth. That is largely due to the fact that a great portion of our butter landed in England in a poor condition. Of course the blame was laid on the butter makers. My
experience is that if anything goes wrong the blame is put on the producer. He is a long distance off; he is not in parliament to defend himself ; he is not in the public eye, and so he is an easy mark for blame. Now, I doubt that the butter producer is responsible for this. I believe that the butter makers of Canada, with their experience) and intelligence, are able tq put up butter in as good shape as the people of any country in the world. I have no reason whatever to doubt that these cold storage chambers on the steamers with a temperature of 35 or 40 degrees instead of 20 degrees, are the sole and only cause why Canadian butter arrived in a mouldy condition on the English market, and why our exports of butter have decreased by millions of dollars. We were promised at the outset that this government would do a great deal for fruit-growers, and they started in a feeble manner to imitate the policy of Dr. Montague when Minister of Agriculture. Dr. Montague held that it was the duty of the government to see that Canadian fruit and butter were properly looked after in transit, and he could not understand why, if Australian fruit and butter could be carried through the tropics half way around the world in good condition, Canadian fruit and butter should not reach the English market in like manner. Dr. Montague experimented with butter. He bought a certain quantity of butter at 20 cents per pound, sold it in the English market, and proved that Canadian butter could compete with any butter in the world. Our butter export trade which was then practically nothing has since amounted to $5,000,000 and over some seasons. These experiments of Dr. Montague cost the country about $1,000, and I can well remember how the Liberals of that day loudly condemned the Conservative Minister of Agriculture for making this useless expenditure. But when they came to power, as they did in many other cases, they adopted the Conservative policy and swallowed themselves. They started experimental fruit shipments to the old country. They have been at it for eight years, and still without success. Let me point out that the Bartlett pear, one of our best pears, is a fruit that we ought to be able to ship in cold storage. I have kept them in cold storage in this country for several months, and I have taken them out in such sound and hard condition, that I have been obliged to put them in a warm rcom for a few days to ripen them sufficiently for use in the canning factory. Now, after eight years experimenting, the Minister of Agriculture is yet unable to have these Bartlett pears sent to England in good condition. We are voting here thousands and thousands of dollars to the minister and surely he should have sufficient control over his cold storage, to so regulate it that this

fruit might be carried for an ocean voyage of ten days and landed in sound condition on the English market. Yet, last year 1 believe there were only two carloads of these pears sent across, and both were an entire loss. In addition to apples, practically the only thing which the fruit-growers can ship in cold storage chambers at the present time, are some of our late fall pears that will keep in good condition in any old sort of place. Hr. Fisher and other gentlemen in the neighbourhood of Burlington have been shipping these pears for a number of years without cold storage, and have been making money out of the business. We can keep our pears in good condition in our own cold storage chambers and yet the Minister of Agriculture, to whom the member for West York gives so much credit and who has costly apparatus at his disposal, cannot arrange that they may be kept for the ocean voyage of ten days. But, Sir, only a comparatively small portion of our perishable goods require to go in cold storage. We export $20,000,000 worth of cheese, and that does not require cold storage. All that it needs is that the air should be constantly changed and kept as cool as the outside air of the ocean. The same thing applies to shipments of apples. On this side of the House I urged on the Minister of Agriculture years ago, that all that is required for cheese and apples was to have the steamer holds properly ventilated, I showed him the enormous loss that we were sustaining by the neglect of this precaution, but he did not heed us. It was at last ascertained, when we came to make a milder kind of cheese that it would not carry under the old conditions, and at last the commissioner appeared before the Agricultural Committee one day, and stated that our cheese had been so damaged during the previous year by being carried in ill ventilated steamship holds, that it had received a black eye in the old country, and he prophesied that for the following year our cheese exports would be reduced by $3,000,000. I thought that in all probability he was right, and I watched the matter closely, and true enough next year our exports of cheese instead of increasing by one and a half million dollars as had been usual, decreased by one million dollars, so that we lost about two and a half million dollars on our cheese exports for that year. I on this side of the House had cautioned the Minister of Agriculture year after year that this would happen; I told him the farmers of Ontario were losing at least a million dollars a year on their apple shipments on account of this fact, but the Minister of Agriculture did nothing. He only woke up when he heard from his commissioner. The minister sent a circular to the steamship owners asking them to Mr. E. D. SMITH.
provide that the holds should be ventilated.
The hon. minister thought to take a little credit to himself, and what did he do ? He came to this House and asked for a vote of $40,000-not to ventilate the steamers. That was a simple matter. He did not require any vote for that. All that was required was for him to point out to the steamship companies the necessity of the case, and to tell them that if they did not ventilate their holds, and let the agents of the government see that they were properly ventilated, he would report and publish the fact. That would not have cost the country a cent. But that did not suit the hon. gentleman. These hon. gentlemen opposite have come to regard money of so little account, that unless they can come to this House and ask for a vote of $100,000 or some other large amount, they do not think they can do anything for the people. So the hon. minister asked for $40,000, and that vote has been repeated several times, to assist the steamship companies to fit up their steamers with cool air chambers and a refrigerating plant and thus reduce the temperature below that of the ocean air. I had grave doubts at the time whether this would work out as the hon. minister seemed to think it would. I rather imagined that the steamship people, having to pay at any rate a portion of the cost of fitting up the steamers, and having to set apart a considerable amount of space for the refrigerating plant would have to charge a considerable extra rate for the use of them. The minister assured us that the rate would be the same. So the money was voted and the chambers were fitted up in a number of these steamers ; and what do we find ? We find that the temperatures in these cool air chambers are just about the same as in chambers which are properly ventilated. I find, for instance, that on the ' Cervona, ' the temperature of the cold air chamber was 62 to 54, and on the * ' Pretorian' with ordinary ventilated storage, 65 to 56 ; almost the same temperature. On the ' Kil-dona ' with cool air temperature 56 to 58 ; on the ' Ionian ' without cool air, the temperature was 45 to 62. I might read a dozen or so of reports of temperatures of steamers fitted up with cool air chambers : but I could only read twelve with regard to the ordinary storage, because these were all the hon. gentleman had recorded and it would be found that there is very little difference in this temperature in the cool air chamber and that in a properly ventilated chamber. It was pointed out to the minister last year that the only way to secure the object in view was to have his agents at Montreal, put a thermograph into every storage apartment, and have his agents on the other side examine them and report. This would not cost the country a single cent, as the bon. gentleman has his agents now. In order to see that the holds

are properly ventilated, he should have a compartment on deck or somewhere when the exact temperature of the ocean air would be recorded ; and if the record of that corresponded exactly with the record in the holds where the cargoes were, he would know that the fans were going; otherwise he would not know. It is all very well for him to have his agents go and see that the steamers are provided with the necessary apparatus ; but it is another thing to know that the apparatus is working all the way across the ocean. If it is not, it will not produce any result. In response to a question which I put to the minister last year, he promised that in every one of the holds carrying perishable cargo there would be a thermograph, but I find that they were only put into twelve ; but fortunately even these twelve show the advantage of them. I have examined the record of vessels going from Montreal on the same date and arriving on the other side at the same time. If the fans had been going and the holds had been ventilated, they would have shown exactly the same temperatures. I find that the ' Livonia ' had temperatures ranging from 45 to 60, and for five days the temperature was 50 or lower. I venture to say that in that case the fans were going and the ventilating apparatus was in operation. At the temperature which prevailed during those five days, you could carry summer apples, pears, or any other perishable cargo that goes from this country to the other side, except perhaps butter, and I do not know but you could carry that in a temperature of from 45 to 50, if you were sure of having it all the time. What do I find with regard to the 'Tritonia' that went at the same time ? She never showed less temperature than 60, and that only when loading, when the ' Livonia ' was about from 57 to 60. The * Tritonia ' showed a rise to 68 at about the same time as the ' Livonia ' showed from 45 to 50, and the temperature rose gradually until it reached 73, when the vessel was across to the other side ; whereas the ' Livonia ' never got above 55, a difference of from 15 to 18 degrees during the whole voyage. This is exactly the result which I wanted the minister to prove. There is the proof that it is absolutely necessary to take some steps to see that these steamers are ventilated. All you have to do is to put a thermograph, which costs $10, into each apartment which carries perishable goods and to put another on the deck. These thermographs will last a number of years, and by their use we could secure absolutely safe carriage for all our apples and cheese across the ocean. But that did not suit the hon. minister. He must put cool air apartments on the steamers at a cost of $100,000. and what has been the result ? That of 2,000,000 barrels of apples exported last year only 8,000 barrels were carried in cool air chambers, and that of 229,000,000 pounds of
cheese exported only about 3,000,000 pounds were carried in cool air chambers, that is, one cheese in seventy-five. Why was this 7 Because the shippers found that where the ordinary storage is well ventilated, they can carry cheese and apples across in as perfect condition as in the cool air chambers that cost the country $100,000 and in which shippers have to pay 36 cents a barrel extra on apples and ten shillings a ton extra on cheese. The shippers therefore will not ship in them, because they can get as good service without paying these extra charges. Since a large number of steamships have found it to be in their own interest to provide proper ventilation, these cool air chambers are neglected and the $100,000 is thrown away. This service, for which the people have to pay an enormously increased cost, is not required if the minister would do what he is asked to do by members on this side of the House. If the hon, member who preceded me had devoted a little more of his energies in this direction, he would have been of more value to his constituents. I want to make a statement here to show the difference in value to the shipper between ventilated boats and boats not ventilated. On the ' Lake Champlain ' a shipment of 325 barrels of apples last season gave the following results
139 brls. lar>4ed tight Average price, 12s. 8d. 17 brls. landed slack
25 barrels slightly wet, average price, 9s.;
loss of 88 cents per barrel.
87 barrels wet, average price, 7s. 6d.; loss of $1.32 per barrel.
28 barrels wasty, average price, 3s. 6d.; loss $2.20 per barrel.
32 barrels slack and wet, average price, 3s. 6d.; loss of $2.20 per barrel.
These apples were evidently carried in a chamber not ventilated, and you had the result, a loss of from 88 cents to $2.20 per barrel upon all those not landed in tight or even slack condition. Compare the shipment by that boat with a shipment by another boat, the ' Ionian ' of 2,190 barrels, last | season :-	.
1,803 barrels landed tight		82:4 per cent.
204	barrels	landed slack....	9-3	"147	barrels	slightly wet	.. ..	6'7	"36	barrels	wet	
16	"
2,190
Take a thousand barrels of apples at the prices at which those were sold on the ' Lake Champlain ' and make comparison with a thousand barrels sold at the same prices but landed in codition in which those were that went by the ' Ionian '-
By the * Lake Champlain '-
47 per cent tight or slack, at 12s. 8d. $1,428.00
8 per cent slightly wet, at 9s	 172.80
26 per cent wet, at 7s. 6d	 280.80
19 per cent wasty, slack and wet, at
3s 6d	 159.60



[Stage Direction]
Those apples, if sold at the same prices, and if they arrived in the same condition as those shipped on the 'Ionian,' would bring the following results :-
91'7 per cent tight and slack, at same
prices as per 'Ionian'	$2,787.68
6'7 per cent slightly wet	 144.72
T6 per cent wet	 28.80
Total per 'Ionian'	$2,961.20
'Lake Champlain'... 2,041.20
[Stage Direction]
That shows $920 realized more on a thousand barrels landed in the condition in which those sent on the ' Ionian ' were landed than would be realized on a similar quantity shipped by the ' Lake Champlain.' What does that mean ? That would mean on our exports of apples last year alone to the old country, some 2,000,000 barrels, a million dollars ; and 2,000,000 barrels is only a small portion of the products of this country. According to the Bureau of Statistics and Industry, the apple crop of Ontario alone was 50,000,000 bushels. If the price at Liverpool sets the price in this country-as no doubt it does to a very large extent on No. 1 at any rate and to some extent on No. 2-this million dollars would only represent a small portion of the loss. This is a matter of paramount importance. I do not say that a million dollars loss occurred on the apples we shipped, but I say that if they were carried in the conditions in which they were carried on the ' Lake Champlain '-and that was the condition almost in every boat before these ships were ventilated-that would have been our loss. That only shows what can be achieved by a proper system of ventilation upon these boats. I think I have talked long enough. I think that the government could do a great deal, if they liked, for the people of this country, and I have pointed out two things they ought to do. The cargoes to which I am just referring were carried last season, 1903.
In referring to the enormous prosperity of the country during the past year, the hon. gentleman who preceded me found of course, as do all the speakers on the opposite side, a great deal of comfort in the great expansion of our exports and imports, and they take credit to themselves to a very great extent for this expansion. In this connection, the hon. gentleman might have mentioned the article of binder twine, for instance. Last year I find that we imported 14,204,000 pounds of binder twine. Before these hon, gentlemen came into power, we imported 3,364,000 pounds. What does that mean ? It means simply that under the late administration we manufactured all our own binder twine except the small amount of 3,000,000 pounds, whereas now we are importing the larger portions. But of course that 14,000,000 pounds imported swells the trade and navigation returns. It keeps up the figures of trade and Mr. E. D. SMITH.
commerce, but none the less it threw out of employment a large number of Canadians. Hon. gentlemen opposite however do not take this into consideration. They do not seem to think it is of any moment that a large number of Canadians have not found employment. They say the country asl prosperous and the people busily employed. But, Sir, if that be the case, to what is it due ? It is due simply to the fact that the policy which was inaugurated by the Conservative party has, to a very large extent, been left alone. Why have our large industries prospered if it be not because the protection they enjoyed in the past has been continued ? But where are our binder twine factories and our barbed wire factories ? These are industries that the hon. gentlemen opposite did meddle with and these have disappeared. All the industries which are flourishing to-day are flourishing, not because of what these hon. gentlemen did. but because of what they did not do. And what about the industries that they did meddle with ? I have mentioned two, but I might mention others ? I might mention the woollen industry, in respect of which they partially carried out their promise of free trade, revenue tariff and so on, which they had been promulgating for eighteen years, and what was the result ? Last year we imported $13,516,915 worth of wol-len goods, whereas in 1897 we only imported $7,125,148 worth. There was an increase in our imports of over $6,000,000, which of course made the trade and navigation returns look bigger. But these hon. gentlemen found out that after all to swell the trade and navigation returns was not the best policy. They found out that the platform laid down by the Conservative party twenty-five years ago of adequate protection to our native industries is the only policy under which these industries will thrive. They found that, whenever they interfered with that policy, whenever they attempted to carry out the promises and fulfil the pledges they had been making for eighteen years, while they increased the trade and navigation returns, they injured and demolished our industries. And so it has come to pass that, whereas eight years ago practically no hon. gentlemen of the other side would dare on the public platform to avow themselves protectionists, we find them now, one by one and two by two, coming forward frankly as believers in the protectionist doctrine. This session we find the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) openly avowing himself an out-and-out protectionist. Last year he made a speech which abundantly showed that he was a protectionist, but he took care not to avow it. The year before that he made a speech which was not quite so strongly protectionist as the one of last year. And so, year by year, they are showing themselves more and more convinced that the policy of the Conservative party is the policy for this country. Even
4577	.

the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding), who has been a life-long free trader, who, on platform after platform, has denounced protection and declared that a revenue tariff was the proper tariff for this country, now proposes, not a reduction in the woollen duties, hut an increase in those duties, the object being, not to get more revenue, but to give more protection. And he was quite right. But he has been a long time in learning what was right. If the hon. minister had taken the advice of members on this side, he would not have reduced those duties so low as to make this late increase necessary. Had he taken that advice we should not have imported $13,000,000 of woollen goods ; the figures in our trade and navigation return would not have been so large, but we should have had woollen mills in full operation that are closed to-day, and hundreds of operatives at work in Canada that to-day are out of employment. We should have had an industry thriving that is seriously injured to-day, and will take a long time to revive even with the protection he now at. this late hour affords it. But it is a consolation to us to know that the platform that we on this side have advocated for twenty-seven years, ever since 1878 and before, is at last recognized by hon. members opposite as the policy for this country. It is true that, not believing in that policy, they do not carry it out scientifically. How could you expect them to ? How can you expect men to carry out efficiently a policy that they adopt, not from conviction, but as a matter of political expediency ? The men to carry out a policy are the men who believe in it thoroughly. And, until the people of this country come to the conclusion that they had better put the Conservative party in power, they will never have a protective policy carried out in its entirety. Hon. gentlemen opposite have taken many steps in our direction ; I prophesy that it will not be many years before they come a step further. Their adoption of our policy, as 1 said before, is a matter of congratulation to the country and of satisfaction to us But however efficacious it may be in keeping these hon. gentlemen in power, however large the number of the votes it may secure for them, it is a matter of congratulation for us that at last they have come to believe in the policy that we have so long believed in and so strongly advocated. But, as I have said, they must come a step further. I trust that the Finance Minister will take that step even before the close of this session. I have pointed out how our farmers are suffering, and I need not say that the farmers have a right to be treated in as fair, as generous and as liberal a manner as any other class. The hon. Minister of Finance has an opportunity-for this session is not yet closed-to right the wrong under which they labour. I am sure that the hon. gentleman, knowing that he is not infallible, will be glad of the opportunity to change his
mind ; and I trust that before this session is over he will concede to the farmers, the fruit-growers and gardeners of this country the protection which, in view of the importance of their industry, they well deserve.
Mr. ROBERT HOLME'S (West Huron! moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 10, 1904.