1909-04-23

THE NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT.

Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of Mar rine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 152) to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. He said: The object is to give a better definition of the word 'vessel' in the Act. A wrecked vessel is there defined to include merely the keel, hull and machinery, but not the equipment, tackle, cargo, stores and ballast. When a vessel is wrecked, they generally remove at once all that is of value in it, and nothing is left except the hull and machinery, which is most of the time not of much value. Consequently when we call for tenders for the removal of a wreck, we have to deal with an article which is almost of no value and becomes a loss to the country; and the object is to declare that when a vessel is wrecked, the cargo should not be removed but form part of the claim which must exist on the vessel for the cost of removal of the wreckage. We ask also to be allowed to amend the law in order to declare that wrecks shall be removed immediately without the necessity of obtaining a formal order in council, but simply on the order of the minister. The reason for the change is this: When a wreck takes place, it sometimes is absolutely necessary to have it removed without delay, but when we have to go before the Governor in Council some time is lost. It may take a good deal of time before we can get an order in council, and in the meantime navigation may be seriously affected. We are asking also for power to regulate the cables which are
put in rivers for ferry-boats. The request to do this has been made to the government by different provinces and especially by the province of Manitoba. In that province the complaint is made that cables are put in some of its navigable rivers and there is no provision in the law to regulate them. The object is to provide that they shall only be laid in such a way as not to interfere with navigation. We wish also to improve the regulations for the opening and closing of draw-bridges and their operation. This gives power to the government to make some regulations in that connection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Hon.  G. P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 153) respecting the National Transcontinental Railway. He said: This is a very trifling Bill. A bridge has to be constructed over the Red river between the cities of Winnipeg and St. Bonifice by the Transcontinental Commission. These cities are anxious to make some arrangement by which they can construct a bridge for vehicles as well in connection with this bridge. The legislature of Manitoba has given the city of Winnipeg the power to make such an arrangement if it can, and this will allow the Intercolonial Railway Commission to make arrangements, if they think it is advisable, for the construction of a traffic bridge in connection with the railway.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 154) to amend the Act respecting the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal. He said: The object is to ex tend the boundaries of the harbour of Montreal. To-day these boundaries extend from Verdun to Longue Point, and it is proposed to continue them from Longue Point to the extreme north eastern end of the island. We are also seeking power to declare that the port of Montreal shall be in the future under the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The port of Montreal is now that part of the River St. Lawrence which extends from Portneuf to Montreal. That part of the river was declared some years ago the port of Montreal for pilotage purposes. In 1903, a change was made by which the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal ceased to be the pilot-

age authority, and that authority was then vested in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. No change, however, was made in the law itself, and as we are amending the law this year for the purposes that I have just mentioned, I thought it would be just as well to declare that the port of Montreal should, in that respect, cease to be under the control of the Harbour Commissioners. As a matter of fact, that has already been done. However, the right to make the rules of the road on that part of the river has hitherto been exercised by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal. In all other ports of this country, the rules of the road are made by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and it was thought advisable, as the harbour commissioners had ceased to be the pilotage authority, that the rules of the road should be made by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, as is the case in all the other navigable waters. These are the only changes proposed, except a small change declaring beyond doubt that the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal have the right to operate railways within the limits of the harbour.
, Mr. MONK. Are we to understand that the commission itself is to be abolished and the department to take over the entire management of the port?


Mr. BRODEUR.: Oh no, the Bill simply provides that the commissioners will cease to exercise any authority with regard to the rules of the road and pilotage in the port of Montreal; as; to the management of the harbour itself the authority of the existing Harbour Commission will continue.


Mr. MONK.: Is it intended by this resolution to give effect to the report of the Transportation Commission that the port of Montreal be made a national and a free port?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not understand that the Transportation Commission ever asked that it be made a free port. I know it was suggested it should be made a national port, but it is not the intention by this Bill to make any change in that respect.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did the commission not recommend that the port be made a free pori?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not remember that.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: Before the Bill is read the first time I wish to make a suggestion for the consideration of the minister. I would ask him to consider the advisability of extending the jurisdiction of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal to the south side of the St. Lawrence. Their jurisdiction now extends, I believe, only to the centre of the river. The business of Mr. BRODEUR .
the harbour of Montreal has increased so that the harbour is now somewhat congested and the change I suggest would undoubtedly be an advantage. They might be given jurisdiction over the south shore of that part of the river commencing at the Victoria bridge and including St. Lambert, Longueuil and Boucherville. With comparatively little dredging a channel could be provided affording navigation there, and wharfs and probably elevators could be built which would relieve the congestion now existing in the harbour of Montreal. I do not see why we have not navigation upon that side of the St. Lawrence. St. Lambert is a town which is increasing rapidly and so is Longueuil. The minister knows that there are several railways now in those towns. The Delaware and Hudson Railway is building a very important road from Montreal to Quebec. Then we have the Grand Trunk Railway and several American railways besides the Intercolonial Railway, all coming to St. Lambert and an electric railway will soon connect the town with Montreal. That part of the St. Lawrence is fast increasing in importance and I think it would be to the general advantage if jurisdiction over it were vested in the Montreal Harbour Commission. I hope the minister will take this matter into consideration and consult the Harbour Commissioners, who have promised to consider it. Of course I do not make this proposition solely for the advantage of that part of the country; the suggested change would also be of advantage to the port and city of Montreal because it would be very easy to build elevators there which cannot be built on the Montreal side.


Mr. FOSTER.: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we are drifting into a general discussion.


Mr. SPEAKER.: This is the first reading of the Bill.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is perfectly in order.


Victor Geoffrion: The minister has explained his Bill and before he proceeds with it I wish to make a suggestion and to 'explain to him as fully as possible the advantages to be derived from my suggestion. The minister knows that the valleys of the St. Lawrence and the Richelieu are probably the most fertile and prosperous
arts of the province of Quebec and now
e has an opportunity to come to our relief. We have been deprived of all these communications with the city of Montreal and it is thought that if jurisdiction over the south shore was vested in the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal there would very soon be a great change in that part of the country. I need not go further at present as the Bill will come up for discussion in the committee. I hope the minister will be able to favourably consider

my suggestion before the Bill again comes before us.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr.   S.@: SHARPE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 155) to amend the Bank Act. He said: The provisions of this Bill are very simple. It merely provides that the balances that remain in the hands of chartered banks for over six years shall be transferred to the government as trustees and custodians of a fund on behalf of those entitled to them. The Bill is very-simple.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr. LENNOX.: I wish to ask the Minister of Railways about a return referring to tenders, &c., of the Transcontinental Railway which was ordered on March 3, more than a month and a half ago. We wish to have information as to the tenders put in, the estimates in connection with these tenders and generally information as to the estimated cost of the road at the time these tenders were accepted. The minister seems to have lost track of it. We have partial information by this return, which does not appear to be satisfactory, from mere glancing over it. But as to the order made on the 3rd of March, no attempt seems to have been made to comply with it, though it was very specific.


Mr. GRAHAM.: This will be prepared by the Commission of the Transcontinental. They have been asked for it, and I will call their attention to the matter again.


Haughton Lennox: Will the minister instruct us on Monday as to how the matter stands, or tell us when we may expect it?


George Perry Graham: I will have the return if I possibly can. I will give whatever information I can get from the commission.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I would ask the Postmaster General when I may expect an answer to the order which was passed on the 8th of February regarding contracts for carrying the mails which expire in the month of April, 1909, and have been renewed without calling for tenders.'


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I will attend to that this afternoon.


George Eulas Foster: I would call the attention of the minister to the return brought down from the Transcontinental Commissioners with reference to the employments and
employees. There is one schedule they do not fill out, they say it will take two or three weeks to get the information. I would like the minister to inform them that the information is required, and that the return is not satisfactory without that.


George Perry Graham: As to the residences?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, they can get that in about three weeks.



EXPROPRIATION OF LANDS BY RAILWAYS.

Mr. D. D. MACKENZIE (North Cape Breton).: I desire to call to the notice of the Minister of Railways and Canals a matter under the Railway Act that seems to be ground for complaint in several parts of the country, that is, in respect to the powers of expropriation of lands for right of way by railway companies. There is provision in section 122 of the Railway Act which provides that the price of lands taken for right of way shall be the value of the land at the time that certain plans and specifications were filed in the registry of deeds for the district in which the lands lie. It is said that that provision, and that privilege, is being abused by certain railway companies, who put their plans on record and then allow the matter to stand for an indefinite period.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: No debate can take place at this point of our proceedings.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then I would ask the Minister if he thinks that any remedy could be applied, so that the company would be compelled to proceed with the expropriation, as seems to be the intention of the Act, and not be allowed to wait for an indefinite time.


George Perry Graham: That matter has been engaging the attention of the department for some little time. In an amendment to the Railway Act I have introduced, I have a clause dealing with that, which I think will remedy the real evil complained of by my hon. friend.



MONTREAL A FREE PORT.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. L. P. Brodeur) to page 23 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Transportation:
Your commission recommend that Montreal be made by the government a free port along the lines hereinafter set forth in this report.
Perhaps my hon. friend will make some change in his Bill.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I was speaking, of course, subject to correction.



BOARD OF MANAGEMENT FOR THE INTERCOLONIAL.

Mr. EMMERSON.: I desire to ask the Minister of Railways if the Board of Management of the Intercolonial have been appointed, and if so, have they been appointed by order in council, and will he lay upon the table a copy of the order in council, with the instructions defining the powers of the Board of Management?


George Perry Graham: The Board of Management of the Intercolonial have been appointed by order in council. I had intended to give the information to the House when my estimates came up in connection with the working expenses. However, I will lay on the table a copy of the order appointing them, and outlining their duties.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Does the minister not think it would be a proper proceeding to make an announcement of that kind in the House first instead of at a party banquet or function?	,


George Perry Graham: I made the announcement in the House that such a board was to be appointed. I do not think there is anything out of place in making the announcement I did as to the personnel of the board, as, with one exception, that personnel had been announced in the newspapers for two or three weeks.


Robert Laird Borden: I entirely disagree with the view the hon. gentleman has expressed.



LICENSE FOR TAKING LOBSTERS.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he would be good enough to give information, and if necessary bring down the correspondence, if there be correspondence, with reference to the refusal to grant a license for packing lobsters to William Charles Henley, of Spry bay, in the county of Halifax. I ask this because it is alleged that the reason which was given in his case has not been applied to other persons in the county of Halifax. I am speaking only of that county.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not remember the incident. I will be glad to bring down the papers.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the minister make an examination into the circumstances?	*


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the Mr. BRODEUR.
House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.
['I would accept that suggestion.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford).: As a new member of the House I have listened very attentively to the various speeches that have been delivered on this motion. What has struck me most forcibly is the wonderful difference of opinion expressed by hbn. members on both sides of the House. I cannot say I am surprised at that, because we know that it is very seldom indeed that many people agree entirely on any financial matter. That fact proves the absolute necessity of having at the head of the finances of this country a man that we have faith in.
I can certainly say that of the hon. Minister of Finance who has had charge of the finances of this country for the last twelve years. Personally I am willing to acknowledge that it would be difficult to find any other gentleman in the whole country more capable than the present Minister of Finance to look after our finances, both as regards the revenue received and the expenditure. Hence we see the necessity of having a supreme head of the finances in whom we have confidence.
After listening to the criticisms of hon. members on the other side of the House, and leaving out of view the superfluity of words and the extra flow of language which characterized them, they practically amount to two charges, namely, that our expenditure has been too high, and that our loans have cost us too much to float, thereby impairing the credit of Canada. Even the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), if you make deduction of the vivid imagery and dramatic eloquence with which his speech abounded, only added a warning to the Finance Minister that the American people will probably adopt a maximum and a minimum tariff. I would like to look at the cost of the loans for the last few years. I am not going into figures very mudh, because you know the old adage that figures cannot lie, as stated by some wise man in the past, and also the equally old adage that you can prove anything by figures. Therefore, I am going to look at it, as far as I can, from the simple, practical, eveTy day business man's standpoint. The cost of loans since 1897, some hon. gentlemen say, has very much exceeded the cost of loans previous to that time. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has told us, and I think quite correctly, that the loan that was floated in 1897 was an exceptional loan, that it was an exceptional period and all of us who have kept track of the loan market for a number of years will fully agree with him that the period from 1896 really until 1902 inclusive was an exceptional period in the history of the world as far as the interest cost on loans was concerned.

The hon. member for North Toronto has stated that the cost of floating the loans of this government has exceeded the cost of floating the loans of the Conservative government previously in all instances except in that one case. I have, since that speech was made, looked carefully into the cost of floating the loans and I think that the cost is exactly the same as it was at that time, but that the system of making the loans has very materially changed. It would be idle for us to deny, if we have followed the loan market for any length of time, that the system of making loans has changed. No Minister of Finance can regulate that. The fact is that you have to adapt yourself to the system in vogue at the time and, of recent years, the system has been that you have to go to the underwriters. The reason for that is very simple. The loaning public have faith in some underwriter who has made a reputation for himself, and he passes on the loan practically speaking before it goes to the general public. I do not know that that is a wise precaution. I believe it is	but,	in	anyevent, it is the	system	that	is	invogue at the present time and it is a system that has to be followed not only by large corporations, such as railway and loan corporations, but by governments. It is the only system that you can take advantage of. The reason why interest has been so much	dearer	than	it	wasin 1897, is because the loan market has run higher. Under	this system	of	underwriting, loans that are put on the market are scrutinized by the underwriters and the public therefore take hold of them. There is more competition in the loan market and in making a loan on behalf of the country or on behalf of any institution you have to bid against the competition. You have to be governed by that competition. That is no reason to say that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has not done just as well with the loans that he has floated for this country as any person else could have done, and I believe he has done better than could have been done by almost any person else. However, he has done all that could be done and our loans have not suffered in comparison with similar loans that have been floated by other countries. We all know that Japan, Russia, Germany and the great countries of Europe have paid more for their loans than we have paid during the same period. What more could you say to the credit of the Finance Minister in floating these loans?
The hon. member for North Toronto says that the Minister of Finance says that in calculating the cost to the people of this country it is not fair to say that the indebtedness per capita is a proper criterion to take. He says that even if we do calculate on a less rate per dollar it costs $11
per head to live. I think that one of the most creditable things that can be said of the Liberal party in governing this country is that the people had means enough to pay the greater amount, had means enough to purchase sufficient goods which they did at a lower rate on the dollar. Even if the cost were $11 per head as against $6.50 per head it reflects all the more credit upon this party that the people were able to purchase that much more goods. The hon. member for North Toronto says that the wise business man, when he makes his calculations for the year, sits down and figures what goods he is going to require; that is his raw material, I suppose, if he be a manufacturer, and his stock in trade, if he be a merchant. He also figures or estimates the amount of business that he is going to do. The hon. member for North Toronto says that we do not do so. It is quite true that any reasonably decent business man does estimate what the cost of his voods is going to be, does estimate what quantity of goods he is going to require during the next year and what his sales are going to be. But, that is only an estimate after all. He does not absolutely know. There are few business men who know the year before the quantity of goods that they aTe going to put out next year. There are some business men and some manufacturers who have to estimate three and four years ahead what goods or what raw material they are going to require. Supposing that the hard times came would not they also have incurred expense that the hon. member for North Toronto might equally as well say should have been avoided? The Minister of Finance can only make estimates, but there are certain forced expenditures which not only this government, but every other government in the world finds it impossible to foresee. The mother country has been forced to tax more than she would like to tax. Every country in Europe is forced to tax until the people are almost broken down to meet military and naval expenditures. In our country, while we have no military or naval expenditures, look at the transportation that we have to provide for.
Look at the various other expenditures that are absolutely forced upon the government, whether they will or not It is unfair criticism to say that many of the public expenditures ought to have been cut off some years ago, because every intelligent business man knows that you cannot cut off a business in the middle of its operations. Every member of this House who knows anything about business, and I think most of us do, knows that in the year 1907 and the first part of 1908 the great industrial and transportation corporations of the country would like to have cut down their expenditure, but they found it impossible to do so. No matter how prescient

they may have been they could not have foreseen the hard times of 1907 and 1908, and although many of them, as early as July and August, 1907, saw the depression coming, yet they had their output provided for and they had contracts for supplies let and they had to carry on their business as they had been doing in the past. How could the Minister of Finance have foreseen these times of stress any more than the great captains of industry in the commercial world. But, the hon. gentleman did as other prudent men and he now has wisely reduced the public expenditure. The government had made preparations for certain expenditures, just as business people had, and if they had stayed their hand and interrupted the progress of the country to that extent, I can imagine how hon. gentlemen opposite would have raised their voices to Heaven in denunciation of such a policy. The hon. member for North Toronto quoted some figures from a little book published by Mr. Woods of Toronto, and as I remember the figures quoted by the hon. gentleman they went to show that during the last four years $802,000,000 had been the extent of the borrowings all over this country. I have no doubt these figures are perfectly correct, and if the hon. member (Mr. Foster) or any other man had wanted to preach a sermon from the Epistle of Fielding to the Canadians he could not have taken a more appropriate text to prove the prosperity of this country. What enabled the people of this country to borrow that great sum in four years if it was not that the wise policy of the government had firmly established the credit of Canada and of Canadian concerns on the money markets of the world?


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend misapprehended the statement and therefore his argument does not rest on a sound foundation. I did not take it upon myself to say, nor did Mr. Woods, that this country had in eight years borrowed $802,000,000. That would have been a most extraordinary thing.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is what I understood the hon. gentleman to say.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend is mistaken. What Mr. Woods said was that at a certain date, I think the 31st of December, 1908, that was the amount of bonds of three denominations that were now running, but many of them may have been borrowed sixteen or twenty years ago.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have it Stated by a reliable financial authority that Canada borrowed all told $650,000,000 last year, and therefore my argument is still sound, that the high standing of this country has been so established under the wise policy of the Liberal government that the credit of our railway corporations, our industrial corporations, our mining Mr. NESBITT.
companies, and all other concerns, is so high that they were able to borrow this vast sum, and even to become competitors of the Dominion government in the borrowing market. It is not so many years ago since the only loans that could be floated in Canada at any reasonable interest were the loans made by the Dominion government. But now, any reasonable proposition coming from Canada is so highly regarded not only in England but in Germany and France that it can obtain money just as easily as can the Dominion government, or for that matter the British government itself. And why is that? It is because the policy of the Canadian government has been so wise and so progressive that Canadian concerns are no longer confined to the money markets of England, or of the United States, or of Canada, but can go to France or to Germany and raise money with the greatest facility. France is probably the greatest lending country in the world and to-day the stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway is sold in France as readily as in England. This again is a tribute to the policy of the government which has laid so solidly the credit of Canadian business enterprises. One hon. member on the other side told us that a week ago in New York money was loaned at 1} per cent and 15 per cent, but that money was raised on call loans and everybody knows that call loans in New York are sometimes down as low as even 1 per cent. But that is an entirely different proposition from business loans. At the very time when call loans are going at 1 per cent let any man try to float on the same market a time loan for 30 or 40 years, and he will see what he will have to nay for it. One hon. gentleman ormosite cites the instance of a three months' loan which had been floated in New York the other day, but what has that to do with the question? A loan for three months is a very short date loan. Any reasonable ordinary man can say what the money market is going to be for three months; but how many men dare say what the money market is going to be for five years from now, let alone for forty years from now? How many people are going to risk their money in long-time loans when there are more demands for money all the time on things which are absolutely safe, so far as things can be safe in this world, and paying them five or six per cent interest? Do you expect our Minister of Finance to float loans against the demands of other countries or corporations, and float them cheaner than they do? If so, you expect something that no human being can do, and I suppose our Minister of Finance does not claim to be more than human.
The hon. Minister of Finance has been criticised for having floated shoTt-date loans. I submit that that is purely and simply an opinion. I might express the op-

posite opinion. Any gentleman on either side of the House oan express opinions or make assertions, but that does not make them true. During the last few years, while money has been high, I think, with all due deference, that the Finance Minister was wise in not trying to negotiate long-time loans when he did not know the moment the money market would be in a more satisfactory condition. It is all very well to point out that he paid li per cent commission on those loans; but suppose he had paid 2 per cent. That is 2 per cent on only one year, on the face amount of the loan, which means that if he got a loan for 20 years or 30 years, the 2 per cent of cost would be wiped out at i per cent per year in four years, and for the balance of the period there would be a profit to us.
One hon. member, in the effort to show that our credit was impaired, said that the Bank of British North America had, on some day. written off a certain proportion on some bonds of Canada which it held, because they were depreciated in value, but had not written off British consols. Is that a fair criticism? British consols, if they do belong to old England, are on exactly the .same basis as our bonds. If that bank chose to write off our securities, and did not choose to write off British consols, is that any reason why it could not have done so ? That is only the opinion of the manager of one bank; and while I have a great deal of respect for experience and for the opinions of some bank managers, there are others for whose opinions I have not so much respect-and they only have their opinion, after all. So I do* not think that is a fair criticism. If you go back over the last ten or twelve years, and follow Canadian government securities on the British market, you will find that they have not fluctuated as much as British consols; and I have at no time noticed that the securities of any country, of the same class, have been in better demand than the securities of the Dominion of Canada during that time. That is what speaks. _ It is not what we can borrow money for; it is what we can borrow money for in comparison with other people on an equal basis.
This brings me to a suggestion. I believe, with one of the hon. members on the other side of the House, and with my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), in sinking fund loans. I have always believed in them. It is quite true that we are getting value for our money in the promotion of the transportation of this country, and in various public works we are building, and that the future should pay for_ these, at any rate to a large extent. It is also true that the future commences to-morrow. Therefore we should, in my judgment, commence to pay for them, or prepare to pay for them, at least partially, to-morrow. When a loan is floated, we should at once 152



[Stage Direction]
begin to prepare for payment. I do not believe we should borrow money-and if you take the Finance Minister's report, you will find that we do not for building ordinary public works sucn as public buildings. I believe we should pay for these as we go along; but for great public works such as we are forced to build to maintain the progress of the oountry, there is no Teason why posterity should not help to pay; and I believe that every man who has studied finance to any extent at all, will agree with that.
Some hon. members on the other side of the House say that we should not have cut down our expenditures on ordinary public works. There is a good deal in that argument, because during the last two years we could have built very much more cheaply than we did in the previous five or six years. But the hon. Finance Minister did not think it wise, nor did any of his supporters, that that should have been done, and we are perfectly willing to abide by his opinion.
One hon. member the other night said that the Bank of Montreal has refused loans to private corporations because this government had borrowed during 1907 or 1908, $20,000,000. The hon. Finance Minister challenged him at the time to say if he had ever been told that by an authority in the Bank of Montreal. The hon. gentleman did not answer that question. That was a very unfair criticism. I do not think, nor do I believe that he or any other man in this House thinks, that it was because of the borrowings of the Dominion government from the Bank of Montreal that loans were refused to private customers. Every member of this House knows that the reason why the banks refused to advance more money to private customers was that they thought that the manufacturers and merchants of this country were promoting their businesses too rapidly, and that the banks should check them a little-probably a very wise precaution under the circumstances. Everybody knows that it was the actual money itself which was scarce. Everybody knows that the banks were not afraid to make loans but were afraid that the money might be called for. The money however, was not actually taken out of the hands of the Bank of Montreal by the Dominion government. The banks did not think that the money would be taken out and put into the 'minister's pocket or hidden in some cellar. They were not afraid of that, so that I do not believe that the criticism was a fair one.
The hon. gentleman from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) sounded the warning, with reference to the tariff, that the United States will apply their maximum unless we give them the same preference as we give the French. Well, so far as I have seen in I the papers, the question of a maximum

[Stage Direction]
and minimum tariff has not as yet been brought up in the American Senate, and is not at all settled. Was there any particular necessity for the warning? If you take the French treaty and see the articles on which France is given a preference over and above every other country except the mother country, and by the way the hon. gentleman said that they were even given a preference over the British, but if you will go through the schedule carefully, as I have done, you will only find two items of which that can be said, and those are two that we never have imported from Great Britain. You will see that should the United States apply their maximum tariff to us unless we give them the French preference tariff, there are very few items in the preference we give the French which we import from the United States. It is true that the minimum tariff, applied to a great many articles under the French treaty, would affect us to a large extent, if brought in from the United States, but I do not see that there will be any difficulty in arranging with the United States when the time comes for doing so.
Now, with reference to the Finance Minister himself, when we come to consider the pressure brought on him, both by members on the opposite side as on this, to change the tariff in the interest of some particular locality or corporation or individuals, we must give him great credit for the stability he has put into our tariff. And after all we must admit that stability in our tariff is the main thing in keeping faith with the rest of the world. We cannot go on changing our tariff daily, we cannot keep tinkering at it every year, without doing harm to some particular branch of merchandise, but to merchandise in general.
Again, when we come to consider the pressure brought upon the Finance Minister, not alone by members on this side but by members opposite, to incur large public expenditures-and just as much or practically as much does the pressure come from the other side as from this for extraordinary expenditures in various localities-do you not think that it requires a man of steel, let alone of iron, to withstand that pressure? And then when the Finance Minister does yield to pressure, and when expenditures are incurred, we find these hon. gentlemen opposite, who are urging him to spend the money, crying out to high heaven that he is ruining the country.
I believe that our Finance Minister deserves a great deal of credit for firmness and decision and foresight in administering our finances, and that brings me to the fact that my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) told us that next year we would add $70,000,000 to our national
Edward Walter Nesbitt: 
Mr D. HENDERSON (Halton).: Mr. Speaker, in this, the 13th week of the session, it is not my purpose to detain the House at any very great length. The tm-ance Minister (Mr. Fielding) told us, m opening his budget speech, that this was his 13th budget. As we are all aware this is the 13th year of Liberal rule in this country. By the way, I have often heard it said that the number 13 is an unlucky number, and it seems to me that the government, more especially the Finance Minister, must realize that there is some truth in that old saving. The Finance Minister m this, the 13th year of his rule and of the regime of the Liberal party, finds that the national debt of Canada has been increasing by leaps and bounds. The expenditure has been increasing in the same degree, and I have no doubt that the Finance Minister, with his 13 colleagues around him, has had a great deal of worry as to how he was to provide for the hundred and thirteen millions of dollars that he spent in one year, and as to how he was going to satisfy the people of this country that the Grand Tmnk Pacific would be completed at an expense of not more than thirteen millions.


Mr. FIELDING.: That is the unlucky number too.


David Henderson: It seems to me that this unlucky number has been following the hon. gentleman all the way through. Taxation also in this 13th year of Liberal rule is increasing. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) looks at me through his spec-


Mr. PATERSON.: There is perhaps a context.


David Henderson: The hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Sutherland) ridiculed the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr Foster) for having a deficit in the latter years of the reign of the Conservative party. By the way, I may remark here that I am going to make a slight difference in my address from nearly every member on the other side of the House, who has made the hon. member for North Toronto the chief figure or text of his speech. I think the hon. member for North Toronto is perfectly able to take care of himself, and I do not propose, during my remarks, to use him simply as a text. I may say however, that I think the hon. member for North Essex might have been a little more fair with the hon. member for North Toronto. He claimed that in the last three years of the Conservative regime there was a deficit of $5,700,000. I grant that was the case; but it only goes to show the wisdom of the Finance Minister of that day A series of bad times, or a depression I

might call it, was setting in about the year 1891. It was evident that the outlook was not very rosy for some years to come, and the Minister of Finance of that day, acting as a wise statesman, says:	We will remove some of the taxes, and leave the money in the pockets of the people; and by a stroke of his pen he struck off the duties on raw sugar, and relieved the people of Canada, in the five years from 1891 to 1896, of a taxation equal to about $19,000,000. Had the Minister of Finance chosen at that time to continue that taxation, to continue the duties on raw sugar, instead of having a deficit of $5,700,000 in those three years, he would have had a very respectable surplus indeed.
Now I am going to repeat some figures that have been given by previous speakers and that are matters of record. I think it is well that these figures should be repeated time and again, that they should be fairly grounded into the minds of the people, in order that they may realize what the financial position of the country is. Away back in 1893 when the famous platform of the Liberal party was formed, they made the declaration that they viewed with alarm the continual increase of the national debt. In 1896 the debt of the country, when the Conservatives left power, was $258,500,000; in 1909, according to the estimate given us by the Finance Minister, our net debt has increased to $323,960,000, an increase during the regime of the Liberal party of $65,460,000. I wonder if they view that with alarm. Are they going to repeat the old expression, 'We view with alarm the continuous increase of the national debt of the country.' ? I have not heard from one of them that expression during these four days of debate.


William Paterson: We have something to show for it.


David Henderson: The Minister of Customs says that they have something to show for it. Did not the Conservative party have something to show for their national debt? The Conservative party had completed a transcontinental railway, they had purchased a country, they had put through a railway to the Pacific Ocean, and it was in operation. They were not only taking people into that country, but they were bringing out their products. They had something to show for their expenditure, certainly. Now, let me point to this debt in another way, because, as I said, I think it ought to be ground into the minds of the people, and we cannot do it better than by way of illustration. The net debt in 1908 was $40.49 per head of the population of this country. In one year it has risen to $45.72, an increase of nearly $5 per head of the population. Then, as I hear, and as we will no doubt hear from some
hon. members on the other side of the House:	'Wait till you see us next year.'
Now, one word about expenditure. In 1896, the last year of the rule of the Conservative party, the expenditure on capital and consolidated revenue accounts was $44,000,000. In 1898 it reached, within a few thousand dollars of the enormous sum of $113,000,000, an increase of $69,000,000. I doubt very much even if hon. gentlemen sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker, have realized that this ought to be viewed with alarm. Speaking of undue taxation, which they also viewed with alarm in 1893, the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir -Wilfrid Laurier) stated that 'we are a party of low taxation.' The taxation for customs and excise in 1896 was $27,758,285, or $5.46 per head of the population. In 1908, for customs and excise, we paid $73,023,046, or $11.70 per head of the population. I ask hon. gentlemen if this is not a very considerable increase. Is it not enough to cause them to pause and view with alarm the condition to which they are bringing the affairs of this country. But I think a more impressive way still to grind that into the minds of the people of this country, in order that they may realize whither we are drifting, is this: In 1896 the total taxation per family was $27.68, but in 1908 it had increased to $58.88. Let us look at the daily tax. In 1908 the taxation per week was $1,404,289, while it had only been $503,877 in 1896. The taxation per day, Sunday included, on account of customs and excise in 1908 amounted to $200,612, whereas, in 1896, it only amounted to $76,281. I think that the people of this country might well view that with alarm also. But, the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) had another way of telling this story in bygone years. Those of us who were in parliament prior to 1896 did not hear the Minister of Customs speaking of the average rate of taxation on goods coming into the country, dutiable and free, and making a comparison from year to year. He then preferred to make his comparison on the basis of so much per head of the population of the country. In 1896 the customs taxation alone amounted to $3.94 per head, in 1906 it had risen to $7.70, and in 1908 it had risen to $9.26. The Minister of Customs has abandoned that plan of showing the taxation of the country. He found it was telling hard against this government; so, he has fallen back upon another plan, that of taking the average rate of taxation on goods dutiable and free. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark)-I am sorry that I do not see him in his place-


An hon. MEMBER.: He is over there.


David Henderson: Delighted. My hon. friend had a good deal to say about cu*

toms taxation and he certainly pronounced himself beyond measure a free trader if there is such a man in this House or in this country. At any rate he gave us the idea that low tariff was his policy and that he could support no policy but that which was low. I wondered if the hon. gentleman had really looked over the tariff of this country. I wondered if he had ever read the tariff. I cannot attribute ignorance to the hon. gentleman because I regard him as an intelligent Scotchman-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. HENDERSON

who came to this
country knowing that by coming he could better his condition.


An hon. MEMBER.: He is not a Scotchman.


David Henderson: Well, if he is not a Scotchman, he is pretty near it, because I know he is a graduate of Edinburgh. He told us about a friend of his in the west yrhom he had induced to vote for him because he was a low tariff man. He said that this was the first time that this friend of his had voted anything but Conservative and, if I mistake not, when this friend comes to know just what is right, it may be the last time he will vote for him. He told us that this friend went out with a gun to shoot rabbits.


Mr. M. CLARK.: That was another party.


David Henderson: Was that not the same friend?


Michael Clark: No.


David Henderson: At all events, there is very little difference. He took his gun and went to shoot rabbits. Did he tell his friend that the duty on guns in Conservative times was 20 per cent and that he was supporting a government that had raised it to 30 per cent? I wonder if he told him that they had even increased the duty on rabbits likewise 5 per cent? It would not make any difference because they were growing their own rabbits there and it was immaterial whether it was a 20 or a 25 per cent duty. But, he enlarged very much on these reduced duties that his friend was enjoying under the present government. Well, I fancy I see his friend coming home, foot-sore and weary from the chase, with a rabbit over his shoulder. He was going to have his dinner. If he had not caught a rabbit he would have had no dinner. I do not believe the country is so poor. I never knew it so poor as that. There were ranches and cattle in that country in abundance and there is no difficulty in getting beef and other meats if you require them. However, the hon. gentleman told us that his friend had no money, that he could not buy a postage stamp. I feel very Mr. HENDERSON.
sorry for the country. I believe that the hon. gentleman is libelling his country.


Michael Clark: That is all changed now.


David Henderson: Yes, that is all changed and it was changed before the hon. gentleman came to this countay. That was changed before the Conservative party went out of power. Why, the Conservative party bought that country and paid for it-no they charged it to capital account which I think was a very good thing. It is not paid for yet. It simply cost us the interest on the money. I believe that was a very good plan. Canada was not as rich in those days as it is now, but the government of that day not only bought the country but built the railway to take the hon. gentleman out theTe and bring his products into the markets for which he ought to be reasonably thankful. If it had not been that the Conservative party was in power before the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clark) came to this country I doubt very much if he would have his 1,000 acres of farm land that he boasts so much of. He ought to be proud that the Conservative party once ruled in this oountry. Now, I want to show the hon. gentleman that he is all wrong, and to do that I will tell him how his friend gets along. His friend comes home weary from work and his wife is preparing the rabbit for supper, and he sits down in a comer of the kitchen to have a smoke and he sees that the plug of tobacco instead of the large plug it was in the Conservative days is very much smaller and is in fact what the people of Nova Scotia cadi the ' Fielding fig.' The government that hon. gentleman from Red Deer supports last year increased the duty on tobacco by over $2,000,000, and is it any wonder that his friend grumbles in the kitchen corner about the small plug. Well, the rabbit is prepared and they sit down to supper and his wife tells him he must be careful about the table linen and napkins because this good government has increased the duty on linen. Then the good wife warns him that he must be satisfied with one spoonful of sugar instead of the two he might have if the Conservatives were in power, because the Liberals have enormously increased the duty on sugar. He finds around him that everything has been increased in duty but at last he says: 'Heaven be thankful that there is no duty on the light.' His good wife points out that he is mistaken and she says to him: 'Why, this government that you sent the member for Red Deer to support actually increased from 15 per cent to 25 per cent the duty on the putty that keeps the glass of the window in its place.' They rise in the morning and their frugal meal is prepared and the good man says:	'There is no duty on oatmeal,'
but his wife tells him that the government

he is supporting, two or three years ago increased the duty on the Scotchman's oatmeal from 20 per cent up to 60 cents per 100 pounds. This tariff is a tariff for revenue only; it may be but it is not a tariff for the settler. After breakfast the friend of the member for Red Deer goes out to the stable to hitch up his horse, and looking at the cement,on the stable floor he finds that this government has increased the duty on cement five cents per barrel, for the benefit of the farmers I suppose. He sees that the duty on his cutter is increased from 25 to 35 per cent, but he can console himself with the thought that the Minister of Finance has advised him to buy his cutters in England when he will get the benefit of the preferential tariff. He remembers that in the west he is a long way from England, that the transportation charges would be pretty high on cutters, and that as the lesser of two evils he had better pay the full duty on them.


William Paterson: They buy their linen in England.


David Henderson: Oh yes, that is where they buy their linen but the linen manufacturer in the old country makes U3 pay for it with an increased price on his linen. Did we not hear the Minister of Finance tell us how they played a trick with the sugar duties, and before I get through I will explain to the Minister of Customs that there is a corresponding actual increase in the cost of linen sent to this country, over what there would be were it not for the preferential tariff. Now, furs are necessary in the west for the farmer and his wife, and they find that for their fur coats and fur mitts and the fur sleigh robe to keep them warm they have to pay an increased duty of five per cent over what they paid in the Conservative days. Then the farmer says: 'what does all this mean?' and the wife tells him just as the member for Red Deer told us:	'It is a tariff for
revenue only.'


William Paterson: And you want it made higher?


David Henderson: When did I say so?


William Paterson: Always.


David Henderson: Before I have finished my speech, I will tell the Minister of Customs what I would like, but in the meantime I prefer to make my own speech.


William Paterson: I beg your pardon.


David Henderson: Why, great heavens, we cannot make the tariff higher on some things than you have got it now. If you import linen from Germany you pay 40 per cent, and if you import cotton from Germany you pay 40 per cent, and I can tell my hon. friend the Minister of Customs
that many of the people in this country have but a small conception of what this tariff for revenue only really is.


William Paterson: Woollens from Germany are 45 per cent.


David Henderson: They possibly are, but we do not bring many of them from Germany; your tariff is too high, we cannot get over it. My hon. friend from Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) told us that the farmers were not worrying. Well, I do not know why they should, because when the Conservative party was in power they gave them a tariff that suited them and that tariff practically remains intact to-day. It has not been greatly disturbed by the peculiar dealings of the present government, and with the exception of two articles, mutton and corn, the tariff just remains about where the Conservative party left it. Now, let me proceed with my illustration. The good farmer says to his wife: 'But has the government done nothing for the farmers?' and she answers, 'Oh yes. cultivators, seed drills, horse rakes, and wagons, have the same duty now as when the Conservatives were in power, but the Liberals have reduced he duty on sickles, and scythes, and snaths, and reaping hooks, and hand rakes, and they have put mushroom spawn and sausage skins and mustard seed on the free list just to please the hon. member for Red Deer who no doubt is duly thankful. 'When the hon. gentleman goes back to Red Deer he had better tell his friends that he will have to change his way of voting if he wants to have a low tariff.


Michael Clark: Will the hon. member permit me to ask him if he was correctly reported in ' Hansard ' as having said a few years ago in the budget debate that if he had fifty majority on that side of the House, he would soon repeal the British preference, which I claim to be something for the benefit of the farmer?


David Henderson: My memory is too short-I have no recollection of having made the statement. If the hon. gentleman says I did make it, I will certainly agree to it. I will give him my views of the preferential tariff before I am through. I know that I have been challenged by the Minister of Finance to say whether I would repeal the British preference or not, and I might have made that statement.
The Minister of Customs clings to the idea that this is a low rate of taxation. He adheres to his plan of measuring the taxation of the country by the average rate of duty. In getting at this, the hon. minister simply takes the table of averages previous to the Conservatives going out of power and the table of averages after the Liberals came into power, but he neglects to arrange these tables on the same basis.

We know that the system of taxation in this country has been very materially changed, in many ways. Last year $2,000,000 was added on tobacco; but that has been collected as excise duty, so that if it does not appear as a customs duty; consequently the impression is given by the minister's statement that the taxation of this country is $2,000,000 less than it really
is.	That is hardly fair. I am not going to attribute anything to the hon. Minister of Customs. He is simply giving a calculation of the customs duties; but the increased excise duty on tobacco should in fairness be included in a comparison of taxation. Then, last year we paid bounties to the extent of $2,286,289. These bounties were given in lieu of duties. The duties on iron and steel, on coal oil and on binder twine were lowered or wiped out, some of them, and then the manufacturers of these articles were given bounties. Can you tell me where the difference is? I fail to see
it.	The one is just as much a matter of taxation as the other. I was challenged a year or two ago by the Finance Minister who said that these bounties were paid out of the money that was collected through customs; but the hon. gentleman was mistaken, because these bounties are not paid out of customs duties. They are charged up to the mortgage, they are added to the delit of the country; but they are taxation against the people of this country all the same. When we find that the total amount of bounties paid since 1896 amounts to $16,326,185, I think they view the condition with alarm.
Another item which I wish to draw attention to in order to bring these tables to a fair basis is the fact that the Minister of Customs takes all the corn coming into this country from the United States, and includes it in the imports for consumption, forgetting that a large amount of that corn simply passes through this country in transit, and ought never to be taken into consideration in calculating the average rate of duties on goods, dutiable and free.
Now, I am going to give my hon. friend the Minister of Customs a table based on the alterations that I have suggested. First I will take the table showing the average rate of duties on goods, dutiable and free, as given in the trade and navigation returns for the last five years of Conservative rule:
Per cent.
In	1892, average rate	
17-56"	1893	"	
17-38"	1894	"	
17-13"	1895	"	
16-.99"	1896	"	
18-28
Add these together and divide by five, and you find that the average for the five years was 17 :46 per cent. These figures are identical with those given in the trade and navigation returns. For the next five years, Mr. HENDERSON.
the first five under the Liberal tariff, I model the table on the basis I suggest, including the bounties and the tobacco duties, and excluding the corn which was imported and simply passed through this country in transit, and we find this result:
Per cent.
In	1898, average rate	
18-34"	1899	"	
18-14"	1900	"	
16-96"	1901	"	
17-25"	1902	"	
16-60
The average is exactly 17-46, the same as in the last five years of Conservative rule. But the taxation is growing. By the last revision there was an increase, and when we add this to the average of 1906 and 1908 we find that it brings it up to 17-54 per cent, showing conclusively that the hon. gentleman is wrong when he says that the rate of taxation has been reduced and not increased. Some years ago the Finance Minister made an important statement in this House. I can excuse the hon. member for Red Deer for not having referred to it, because he was not here and possibly has never had an opportunity of seeing it. He told us practically that his new tariff was simply a readjustment, and he spoke of it thus:
It was of the -utmost importance that we should maintain a strong financial position, and in view of the uncertainties as to the amount of revenue that might be produced by this lower rate of taxation, it became necessary that we should take some steps to make good any possible loss that might result. It was thought that it might fairly be met by providing for the raising of some additional taxation in order to balance or make good the loss occasioned by the reduction of duties. It was necessary to have an increased revenue in certain directions when we were to lose revenue in other directions.
That was the policy on which the Liberal party framed its tariff. Take a little off here, and put a little on there, but always be careful that the revenue is cared for. The people had no interest, they thought, in this matter, the industries of the country were not to be considered, the sole question was to arrange so that we would get as much revenue as we did before or more. But the Minister of Customs will claim that they made a sweeping reduction in corn. I grant you they did, but when they took the duty off corn, and proclaimed throughout that they had given our farmers free corn, they simply transferred it to sugar. They largely increased the duty on sugar. Then, when a farmer went to a railway depot to get his wagon load of corn, he bought it without paying any duty; but when he went to his grocer to buy sugar he found he had two duties to pay-one the duty on corn and the other the duty on the sugar. If hon. members will analyse that statement, they will find

482S
a great deal of truth in it. The duty may not have been exactly double, but no doubt the government were following out their system, and when they took the duty off corn they added it on to the duty on sugar. Our farmers were clamouring for free com, so they said. 'We must give them free corn, but we can fix that in such a way that they will never know, we will add it to the duty on sugar and they will never think of it. We can then tell them, when the elections are on that we gave them free corn and we need not proclaim that we doubled the duty on sugar. Our tariff is a tariff for revenue and we must have the revenue, so that if we lose our revenue on corn, we shall make it up on sugar.' And that satisfied my hon. friend from Red l)eer (Mr. Clark). In the same way they reduced the duty on wines for the benefit of some gentlemen who liked French wines for dinner, they lowered these duties away down, but on tobacco, the poor man's luxury, they put a tax over $2,000,000 in order to make up the loss bv the decrease in the duties on wine. They could not reduce the duties on wine without increasing them on something else. They took the tax off the rich man's luxury and charged it on the solace of the poor man. When my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) goes west let him tell his friend out there that he is paying the duty on the rich man's wine as well as on his own tobacco, let him give his friends an accurate understanding of what is done; but if he does, I think he will find that his friends will not vote the next time as they did on the iast occasion. [DOT]
I notice that the readjustment in the tariff in 1897 was for revenue only. The Liberals always say that their policy is a tariff for revenue. But the tariff of 1897, in very many items, remains unchanged. Our hon. friend who just sat down, (Mr. Nesbitt) said that the farmers were not worrying over the tariff. Let me tell him the reason why. It is because the agricultural schedules were not interfered with. They remained practically where they were, leaving out the two items of corn and mutton. The duty on mutton was increased from 35 per cent to 3 cents a pound, but in many other respects the tariff was not interfered with. The policy of the old Conservative party was to let in free any article which we could not produce in this country. That is the national policy. What we cannot produce, do not tax. My hon. friend shakes his head. In his opinion we should tax everything in order to get revenue. He would tax anything he could lay his hands on so long as he could get revenue. But that is not our policy. I say that what we cannot produce we ought to admit free. Under the old regime we admitted tea and coffee free, and the Liberal party dare not change that. No doubt if they thought the country would submit to it they would
tax these articles and get all the money they could out of them, but tea and coffee are two things they dare not put their hands on. Raw products, such as hides, largely brought from South America and other parts of the world, the raw material for the manufacturer, were admitted free-under the old Conservative policy, also raw ' cotton and fine wools. I am not going to say that the admission of fine wools free is the best policy at present. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) I think, will agree with me when I say that this country can to-day produce fibre wool, similar to Cape wool and Australia wool, which it could not produce 25 years ago. At present we can produce an excellent class of wool in our western country, and if encouragement were given the woollen industry, no doubt our flocks of sheep would- be enormously increased and the production of wool become one of the greatest industries of that great west. Many articles, no doubt, under the revision of the tariff were charged a lower rate, under the British preference, but that produced more revenue.
Some people have the impression that if you want more revenue, you must increase the duties. That is a great mistake. To get more revenue you must reduce the-duties. If you put a duty of 2 cents per pound on bacon and hams, a certain amount will come into this country on-which you will get a revenue. But if you raise the duty to four cents, the probability is you would exclude bacon and hams altogether and consequently get no revenue from them. The preferential tariff was framed along that line-encourage importation and get all the revenue you can even if the Canadian has to pay more for liia goods. I contend that these increased revenues, under the operation of the British preference, are at the cost of the Canadian tax-payer. When that preferential tariff was introduced, it was heralded with delight all over the country. It was heralded as a great boon to Canada. Of course, the people would naturally think that when the duties were lowered by the preference, they would get cheaper goods. But is that the sentiment of the country to-day? I would not like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Customs, because I would not like to make him feel uncomfortable, but if the British preference was t< give us cheaper goods, what means this cry from Halifax to Vancouver that the cost of living has increased. Surely the people expected the cost of living to be reduced by that preference. Suddenly, however, it dawned on them, as matters worked out, that goods went up in price instead of coming down. The cost of living was increasing instead of getting cheaper, and that is the position in which we find ourselves to-day. Let me dwell on that for a moment. I am going to refer to the-

budget speech of the Minister of Finance to demonstrate this matter. He was very-free in making the statement, which I think will be read with a great deal of interest, that the British preference, instead of diminishing the cost of goods, has practically increased it. He told us that ' the planters in the West Indies refused to sell sugar to Canada at the same price as they sell it to the people of Great Britain. Great Britain is a free market; sugar from the West Indies goes in there without duty and so does sugar from Belgium, Russia or any other country where beet sugar is produced. But, he said, the planters in the West Indies discovered that if they were to simply follow out that rule, it would be a Canadian preference instead of a preference for them, and they, with the aid of their agents and brokers in London, made a calculation of how much it would cost the people of Canada to import sugar from foreign countries. Having done that, they enhanced their price on West India sugar for Canadians to a figure above what they charged to the people of England, knowing that the Canadians would have to pay that enhanced price, plus the preferential duty, so that instead of Canadians benefiting by this preference, in the purchase of West India sugar, they are practically losing through being compelled by the West India planters to pay a higher price. The Finance Minister, referring to the refiners of eastern Canada who were making a complaint that this thing was being done, said:
They say that there is a combination amongst the West Indian planters, among the growers of sugar in the West Indies, through their agents and brokers in London whereby the Canadian refiner is not permitted to buy that West Indian sugar upon the same terms as it is purchased by the British refiner. This question of who shall profit by the preference has been much debated. At one time the West India merchants complained that the refiners in Canada managed to take the whole preference to themselves. Now the accusation is the other way. Our Canadian refiners say that this combination so manages that it will only sell West India sugar at a price which makes the thing of really no more advantage to them than if they were to buy the foreign sugar and pay the higher duty. Of course, no matter what they pay for West Indian .sugar, they would only pay a lower rate of duty. But it is claimed that though they do not pay any more duty they are obliged to pay a higher rioe. They say that the growers in the West ndies, through a broker and agent in London, ascertain just at what price sugar can find admission into the Canadian market, and they only sell at that price, with the net result that while the British refiner who competes with the Canadian refiner in the finished product, practically buys in a free market, the Canadian refiner is only allowed to buy on terms which oblige him to pay in addition to the price of the sugar, the amount of the preferential duty.


David Henderson: The price of sugar referred to in the concluding words of that paragraph of the minister's speech is the enhanced price, the price of the Belgian, German, or Russian beet sugar with the full duty added. The West India planters said: 'You cannot get sugar from us unless you give an enhanced price that leaves just a little margin below the price of foreign sugar plus the full duty, which will be sufficient to induce you to purchase from us.' I ask if that is fair treatment? Is that a Canadian preference? It is a preference for the benefit of the people of the West Indies. I was ignorant enough to think, with many others, that when we1 gave a British preference we would get something out of it, and that when we gave a preference to the West Indian planters, we would derive some little benefit from it, too, but it appears that the West India planters, receive all the benefit and there is nothing in it at all for us.
Let us see how that principle will work out in the ease of linens under the British preference. The Minister of Customs practically says:	'You can buy linen in the
old country and bring it here under the preferential tariff.' Certainly you can, but when you go to the old country you mingle with as shrewd people as are to be found in the world; the linen manufacturers of Great Britain are able to form their combinations just as the Westlndia planters do. They can get together and sav:	'We will
not let the Canadians have the benefit of this preference, it must come to us.' They figure out that we cannot import linens from the United States unless we pay a duty of 30 per cent, and so they shade up the price of linen to nearly what it would cost us to import it from the United States, with 30 per cent added. Thus the British linen manufacturer will not sell to the Canadians as cheaply as they will sell to the people of the United States.
I need not carry this argument further; the same principle can be applied to cottons and to many articles eoming into Canada. The Minister of Finance demonstrated that fact to us only a few years ago. I shall use an illustration of his own, I shall reverse his illustration because it is a very curious rule that will not work both ways. Here is what the Minister of Finance said on March 23, 1900:
When hon. gentlemen desire to know what the tariff reform has been, they must take up the individual items of the tariff.

just as I have been doing, and I would
advise the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) to do the same thing.
Last year, under our tariff, we added materially to the free list.
Sausage skins, mushroom spawn, mustard seed, and some other things. Of course I am only joking in saying that there were other minor reductions.

There were besides, 148 items on which the duties had been reduced on the general tariff.
I gave you an illustration -of some of them, the minor farm implements.
And on every one of these items, in the case of importations from Great Britain, the duty was further reduced to the extent of the preferential rate. I think that will be an indication that there has been some very considerable measure of tariff reform. Then there is another point to be remembered. Even taking your average, you have saved not only 2 -2 per cent on your imports,-
He worked out a table and found that the average rate on goods dutiable and free in that particular year was 2-2 per cent lower than it was in 1896. That was the table of the Minister of Customs. Of course it did not include bounties or increased tobacco duties or anything of the kind. I dare say he included the corn that went through the country in transit.
Even taking your average, you have saved not only 2-2 on your imports but you have saved also 2 -2 on your purchased goods of home manufacture. We all know that as a rule-there are exceptional cases, of course- the price of the home product is influenced by the duty on the foreign article.
I shall take him at his word. He says that the price of the home product is influenced by the duty on the foreign article. That is to say. if there were 35 per cent on foreign cottons, the Canadian manufacturer would shade up his price in order to bring it very close to the figure at which the consumer in Canada could import foreign cottons and pay the duty. I grant that the principal, in fact the only precaution against that was to so increase the manufacture of cotton goods in this country that home competition would prevent a combination and keep down the price. That was the principle of the National Policy, encourage the industry and make it so strong that home competition would maintain a proner level of prices.
On coloured cotton goods coming from foreign countries the duty was much higher than when coming from Great Britain, and the Canadian manufacturer said to himself: 'Canadian consumers cannot get coloured cottons from the United States unless they pay the 35 per cent, consequently we will level up our prices to that margin.' Do you think for a moment that the British manufacturer was asleep? Do you think he was not watching our tariff? I found, when I talked with men in the old country, that they knew about as much of our tariff as we know ourselves. The manufacturer of linen in the old country can say: 'You cannot get linen from the United States or any other country unless you pay 30 per cent. True, you can get it if you buy in Britain, at a lower rate of duty, but before you can get it from us we are going to level up our
prices, we will make you pay more for the goods, and you will find, when you get your linen home, that you might just as well have bought from the United States and paid 30 per cent. 'Do you think that is not possible? I believe it is not only possible but probable. I do not take the British manufacturer to be insane. I do not believe they are doing business for the fun of it, they are doing _ business to make money, and they are going to make money, no matter who pays the piper. They are going to make money out of Canadians just as well as out of the people of other countries, and if we are simple enough to give away our market to them, give them a preference in our market, they are certainly going to take advantage of it, and I have no doubt in the world that they will do so.
What means all this cry over the country that the cost of living has increased? Go where you will, even on articles that do not come from abroad, you will find the cost of living has increased. Why? Out of sympathy. A railway tie will increase in cost as well as a yard of cotton ; it rises in sympathy with the increase in the cost of labour. There is no question in my mind that this is a solution of the whole question why goods have increased in price in Canada. Look at what we had to do for the Civil Service of Canada during the past year. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars had to be paid out to increase their salaries. Why? Because thi3 government had adopted a policy that compelled them to pay more for the requisites of their households, and it was only fair that we should come to their rescue. We had so arranged our tariff as to increase the cost of goods and it was only fair that we should come to their rescue, give them an increased salary in order to enable them to pay their way, to pay for the increased cost of living. I say this is a subject worthy of the consideration of the government. I was foolish enough, in 1897, when this policy was heralded by the government as a boon to Canada, to think it was going to be a boon to Canada. I thought that whilst we called it a British preference, it was going to be a Canadian preference. I have changed my mind. It is not a Canadian preference, it is a British preference pure and simple, and we really have no part or lot in the whole matter. Just as the West India planter says: 'Canadians are not going to get the benefit of this, they appear to have got the benefit for a year or two, but we are going to see to it now that they will not get it any longer.' So the Minister of Finance was compelled the other day to announce a policy by which he would get back for the people of Canada a small modicum of that which they ought to have had under this preference.
I want to deal briefly with another ques-


An hon, MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


David Henderson: ' Hear, hear,' an hon. gentleman says. I do not discredit their capacity for business if they would only undertake it. The trouble is that while they are perfectly capable of doing business it does not seem to me that they are willing, because they have tied themselves down to a fixed policy, a fixed course and they do not seem to be able to get out of it. They have tied themselves down to the miserable policy of importation-import everything you want and get all the revenue you can out of it-tariff for revenue only-instead of saying to the people of this country: 'Produce what you can in the factory and on the farm and import less.' Why not readjust the policy along that line and reduce importation ?
There is one other point that I want to refer to. We were promised when the Liberal party came into power, and even before they came into power, that they would find us new markets. New markets aTe what we want. Have they improved the British market for us? We admit that we gave them the British preference. It was not a Canadian preference. We gave them all that was in it. They can charge us higher prices under our tariff schedules for the goods even although they come in at a lower rate of duty. Have we obtained any better entry into their market? I need not ask the question. We were told yesterday, I think, by the hon. member for Red Deer, that when increased imports came in exports started to go out. If they started to go out they .stopped short very soon because we were $100,000,000 out in our general trade.
Are we going to get any advantage under this maximum and minimum tariff from France? Are the farmers going to get any benefit by being permitted to send an ox into France and pay a duty of $24 or $28 when they can send the same animal across the channel into Great Britain and pay nothing? I doubt very much the advantages that we are going to get from the French treaty even if it is ratified. We see how particular the French people have been, and that they actually refused to ratify the treaty until it was provided that we must not send fat cattle into France. Who wants to send stockers to that country? We have abundance of food to finish these animals at home, but under this treaty we are not allowed to do what is in our best interest in this respect. Where has the government provided any other new market? They have provided Japan with a market in Canada for a great many tilings, amongst others, a market for Japanese, a thing which the western people

do not seem to approve of. Of comse, we have to take the word of the Postmaster General that the Japanese government is going to play the game fair and will not 6end any more Japanese here than they can help.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are playing it fair.


David Henderson: Yes, but wait till you see it next year. We have given the Japanese a market for their silk at a low rate of duty, and I do not know if they manufacture wines.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They do not.


David Henderson: Then the benefit of the low duty on wine is reserved for the French.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is the best wine.


David Henderson: I am not so sure that it is any better than our Canadian wine made out of Canadian grapes grown by the farmers of Ontario. I think our Canadian people are perfectly satisfied with our Canadian wines, and even if they don't come so cheap as the low class French wines we have loyalty enough as Canadians to pay for them; that is those who prefer to use the Canadian article. Formerly we could send wheat and barley and cheese and flax and rye and apples to Germany, but when this Liberal government came into power they disturbed the whole trade between Britain and Germany and Canada, and the people of Germany taking umbrage, by way of retaliation they put their duties up against Canada. I do not know the exact duty on Canadian wheat going into the German market but I do know that it is practically prohibitive. In Ontario, in British Columbia, down in the maritime provinces, we have millions of bushels of apples rotting under the trees and much of these we might have shipped to the German market were it not for the German retaliatory policy brought about by the mismanagement of the Canadian government.


William Paterson: In your judgment were they justified in that?


David Henderson: I leave that for the Minister of Customs to answer.


William Paterson: I would like you to answer it.


David Henderson: I am not making the Canadian tariff and I do not intend to pull the hon. gentleman out of the hole he has got himself into. He will have to crawl out of it as best he may. I perform my duty when I criticise the actions of the hon. gentleman and show that he has acted against the interests of the people of this country; he got into the hole, let him exercise his ingenuity to get out of it.


David Henderson: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about loyalty in Germany?


David Henderson: I do not know.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Loyalty in wine.


David Henderson: My impression is that the German surtax affects the German wines, and if the Postmaster General likes German wine he will have to pay for it. It does not make any difference to me personally because I do not know what German wine tastes like. Perhaps there are some people who indulge in that luxury, and if so the Postmaster General has put a stumbling block in the way of their getting their favourite beverage without paying the high surtax. I trust that the government will take the matters to which I have referred into consideration and give us a truly Canadian preference. I am not begging for a British preference. We were loyal to Britain by giving them that preference which they have enjoyed for 11 years. Cannot the government now do something for Canada?
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 77) respecting a patent of the Submarine Company.-Mr. Proulx. _

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 126) respecting the Joliette and Lake Manuan Colonization Railway Company.-Mr. Dubeau.
Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw).: Mr. Chairman, before voting for the extension of time for this railway I would ask my hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. Dubeau) to kindly explain.


Mr. J. A. DUBEAU (Joliette).: to the present time and are still the main impediment to the development of that *country.
It only requires a more glance at the map to see that every other colonization centre in the province of Quebec is intersected with railways. In fact, the Nomin-ique valley, in the county of Labelle,_ is connected with Montreal by the following railways: the Montreal and Western, the Temiscaming, the Temiscaming and Western Ontario, the Gatineau Valley and the Ottawa Northern. We have also the Monford railway which is intended to connect with the Ottawa Northern. All these penetration roads are the very best colonization agents in that part of the country.	The Mantavesia Valley is the
only one without any railway line. Therefore, it is only just that the Joliette and Lake Manuan should be granted the extension of time asked for together with the power to construct a railway through that fertile Mantavesia valley, if we want to extend to the inhabitants of the northern part of the counties of Joliette, Berthier and Maskinonge the advantages we aTe endeavouring to confer to those in the other parts of the country, if we do not want to deprive our country of a source of incalculable wealth.
Having offered these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I ask the House to allow this Bill to pass.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 133) to incorporate the Kootenay and Alberta Railway Company.-Mr. Knowles.
Bill (No. 87) to incorporate the Arnprior and Pontiac Railway Company.-Mr. Hod-gins.
Bill (No. 119) respecting the Qumze and Blanche River Railway Company.-Mr. Mc-Giverin.
Bill (No. 120)) respecting the Windsor Essex and Lake Shore Rapid Railway Company.-Mr. A. H. Clarke.
Bill (No. 121) for the relief of John G. Ridout.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 129) for the relief of Evelyn Martha Kellar.-Mr. Pardee.
Bill (No. 130) for the relief of Frank Parsons.-Mr. Tolmie.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 122), to incorporate the Cabano Railway Company. -Mr. Gauvreau.
Mr. MICHAUD.: Mr. Chairman, this railway is entirely in the county of Temis-Mr. DUBEAU.
eouata. It is a feeder of the National Transcontinental Railway. It is 20 miles in length and is to be built as soon as possible.
Bill reported, read the third time and agreed to.


CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 134) to incorporate the Canadian Medical Association.
On section 1,
Mr. ROCHE.: This is a Dominion Medical Association that has been in existence some years, and is seeking incorporation.


Mr. SPROULE.: It seems to me we are asked to give this association pretty large powers-to make such by-laws and rules, not contrary to law, or to the provisions of this Act, as it may deem necessary for the management of its business affairs, and especially with regard to the qualification, classification, admission and expulsion of members. Now why should an association have any right to set up a standard of qualifications for other men to get in? Suppose they set up a special examination which medical men must undergo before they can join the association, although they may hold degrees. It seems to me this is intended to make a close corporation of a section of the medical profession, and would put in their hands a power which they might use to the detriment of their brother practitioners. Suppose such an association was established in this city, and one-third of the medical men joined it, and they would make onerous laws, and prescribe qualifications which other medical men would be obliged to conform to, otherwise they could not join the society. It might not be inconsistent with the medical law of the country at the present time, but it would give them a power over otheT members of the profession in their locality which I think no association should be allowed to exercise. There must be something behind this which is not very plain. I do not see the object of it, nor do I see the wisdom of putting into the hands of any medical association such a power.


William James Roche: I think my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule") has misconceived the object of this clause. This is an association of medical men of the Dominion of Canada that has been in existence foT the last 40 or 50 years. They already have power to make by-laws to prescribe qualifications of membership. It is voluntary whether a man Joins or not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does not say what qualification, whether professional or otherwise.


William James Roche: You do not have to join the association unless you like, and you

become a party to the qualifications in joining the association. It is not something you are forced to join, it is quite voluntary on the part of medical men to join or not as they choose. I think they can be trusted; certainly I would not fear that they might abuse any powers entrusted to them. They already have the authority which this clause gives them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under what Act?


William James Roche: Under no Act whatever. It is voluntary on the part of medical men. They are seeking incorporation in ordeT to enable them for instance to hold property. They have not that power at the present time. They simply desire to come together for mutual advantage, to hold property, and to be able to issue a medical journal under the authority of the entire profession of the Dominion, to cement together the members ' of the profession of the several provinces. They will have interpTovincial registration, which they have not at the present time. I do not think there are any powers here at all that would be detrimental to the outside medical men. No man is compelled to come in, and if he does, he comes in with his eyes open. There are no powers sought here that the association do not exercise at the present time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If this is the old medical association, that was provincial in its character.


William James Roche: No, this is the Canadian Medical Association for the Dominion, they do not interfere with any provincial association.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not aware of any such body holding regular meetings lately.


William James Roche: It meets this year in the city of Winnipeg, Dr. R. J. Blanchard is president. I am not sure whether it met last year in Winnipeg or Vancouver. It meets in a different province and a different city once a year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If this were a medical association to cover the whole Dominion it would be more desirable and less dangerous. But, if it is only some small association, meeting in Ottawa or Toronto, such as was proposed to be incorporated a few years ago and the aim of which was, in my judgment, not of a very high nature, it would be an entirely different thing. I can see a great deal of good in the organization of the Dominion Medical Association to meet and bring together the medical men of the whole Dominion. As to the right to publish a journal, I think it is most desirable because this association would keep in view the bringing together of the medical men of the whole Dominion and would try to assimilate the laws as to the interchange of registration and such things as that.
153	I
These are all very good objects, but I have not heard of this measure before. We had a Bill of this kind to deal with once before and the fact that this has been-I was going to say-smuggled in from the Senate, makes us all the more suspicious. Very often these Bills, to which they do not want to attract too much attention, get the imprimatur of the Senate by first being put through that House and necessarily we have to look into them more carefully than we otherwise would. If the object is, as I have described, it is probably a good one.
On section 4, existing constitution, bylaws and rules continued till changed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We should have a copy of these by-laws for examination. Surely they might have provided them for the medical men of the House. It is treating them with rather scant courtesy to ask them to pass a thing without having seen it.


William James Roche: This Bill passed the two committees in the Senate and the House of Commons without any question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It must be that the medical men were not over zealous in their watchfulness or they would have asked for a little more information with resnect to it.


Mr. BARR.: I think this is rather a dangerous Bill. Certainly we are going it blind in passing it without further knowledge. There may be some of these by-laws which are very dangerous. I would like more light upon them. These by-laws should be in our hands and we should have time to consider them.	.


William James Roche: I can see no objection to permitting the unincorporated society that we are incorporating, continuing their present by-laws, until, of their own volition and by a majority of the votes, they choose to change them. I do not think there is anything unusual in that clause at all. They must go on with some form of bylaws. If you pass the Bill without approving of the present by-laws they could adopt other by-laws if they chose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, they could make by-laws.


William James Roche: This is to continue the existing by-laws until they are altered.


John Barr: We are now incorporating a close corporation. We are vesting in them large power and we are doing it simply because the Bill comes from the Senate without probably any member of this House knowing whether these by-laws are wise or not. They say they can change them, but the fact is that we are passing them and that probably they are not in the interest of the public at large.



On section 5, executive council and officers to continue in office.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I respectfully decline to accept that unless we have a copy of the by-laws before us. That executive council may be in there for ever, or for any length of time, if such a provision is to be found in the by-laws. But, we have not the bylaws before us and we do not know anything about them. I move that the committee rise and report progress so as to allow whoever is in charge to furnish a copy of the by-laws to the medical" men of the House and let them see what we are passing.


William James Roche: The Bill stands in my name, but I did not think that it would meet with any objection, especially from the medical men.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The medical men do not know anything about it.


William James Roche: Apparently the opposition comes from gentlemen who have not studied very well the history of the Dominion Medical Association. This is the Dominion Medical Association that meets and elects officers every year. Its next meeting will be held in Winnipeg. The officers are most anxious to have this Bill through as soon as possible. Dr. Blanchard, of Winnipeg, is the presidnt. I think it is in the month of July that it meets in Winnipeg It elects its officers annually.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that the executive or the association?


William James Roche: The officers of the association, as I understand, are elected annually.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the executive council or is there a difference between the officers annually elected and the executive council?


William James Roche: No.


John Barr: Are they appointed at the annual meeting?


William James Roche: At the annual meeting.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, there should be no objection to that.


William James Roche: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All right.
On section 6, members not personally liable.	; '


George Perry Graham: Will not that clause have the effect of relieving the incorporated body from liability?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think it would relieve the body.


Robert Laird Borden: This is merely to prevent personal liability on the part of the members.
On section 7, real and personal property.


John Barr: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think this last clause should be amended. It says
Provided however that the annual value of the real estate held by the association shall not exceed the sum of $50,000.
That means the annual rental of the building. A building that would rent for $50,000 would be a very large one. The Medical Association of Ontario had the worst cloud that it could have had over it from the indiscretion of the medical council in committing the association to a large expenditure for the erection of a great hall in Toronto. That was an incubus on it from which it has not yet recovered. It has broken up that unity which ought to exist between the members of the association. If you give power to put up a building of the dimensions and cost provided for in this section, the annual rental value of which would be $50,000 a year, it seems to me that you would be giving entirely too great latitude. For many of these insurance companies we put the annual value at from $10,000 to $15,000 and we think that quite enough. Five per cent on $150,000 would be $7,500. They are likely to be an itinerant body; they meet this year in Winnipeg and next year somewhere else, and if you give them the power to put up a building the annual rental of which would be $50,000 they would have to utilize it in some way to get a return for their money. I think it would be injurious to the profession to pass this clause of the Bill.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman has in mind what took place in Ontario when the medical council expended a large sum of money for a building. The difference is however, that all the medical men of Ontario are compelled to pay their fees in order to keep in good standing in the council and in the opinion of a good many of the profession their representatives unwisely spent too much money in one building. I do not think it is desired by the Canadian Medical Council to put up an expensive building. You will see in the second clause that they get power to publish a medical journal and they will want a printing plant to get out bulletins, for instance, to educate the people in bygiene, and the idea is that all the property tbey may acquire for any purpose shall not exceed the sum mentioned in the clause.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not what the Bill says. I think it would be unwise for the association to erect a very expensive building. When we incorporate religious or educational or fraternal institutions we generally allow $10,000 as the annual value for a building, and that is considered ample.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: Is not the membership in the Medical Association entirely voluntary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, but this enables them to hold too much real estate.


Alfred Henry Clarke: What difference does that make? The general Act respecting companies in Ontario fixes no limitation, and if they choose to put up an expensive building it is their own business.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know what any other law may provide, but when we are passing similar Bills in this parliament we generally limit the sum to $10,000 or $15,000. The fact that the Medical Association of Ontario put up such a large building has ruined the association for years past.


John Barr: The danger is that if such a large sum of money is invested in a building it may prevent medical men who are not very wealthy from joining the association because after they have joined they would be liable for whatever tax was fixed.


William James Roche: I would rather let the Bill stand until we get information than accept the suggestion of the hon. member (Mr. Sproule).


George Perry Graham: There is a difference of opinion and perhaps we should let the Bill stand so that in the meantime these gentlemen can get together and agree.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would accept that suggestion.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding:	' That
Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.'
Mr. H. H. MILLER (South Grey).: good wife says to him:	' How can you
vote for the candidate of a Liberal government who tax the very tobacco you are smoking?' The old man answers:	'Do
they? ' The Minister of Agriculture has brought a man from Europe, and is paying him a salary to instruct the people of British Columbia, of Ontario, and of Quebec, and under these instructions the people of Canada in these three provinces are growing their own tobacco, and we shall very soon have, if we have not now, an excellent brand of Canadian tobacco and will not have to buy the foreign article at all.' As the old gentleman uses sugar in his coffee on the following morning-, his good wife says to him:	They
surely tax you on the sugar.' He says to her:	' Good wife, do you not know that
the Canadian government is encouraging the growing of sugar beets, and in this province of Alberta we have as good a country for growing them as lies beneath the sun? '	' But,' she says, ' the government
tax your light-the very putty in your window.' ' Why, good wife,' says he, ' all the putty that we used in the shack which we lived in when the Conservative government was in power did not cost 25 cents, and all the putty that we have in this fine house of ours did not cost over 75 cents, and what does the duty on that amount to? But talking of light, you know that the Liberal government has taken almost entirely away the duty on the coal oil that gives us light as we sit here comfortably by the fiTe 365 nights a year? 'Oh, then,' she says at the breakfast table, the Liberal government have taxed the oatmeal from which your porridge is made.' He replies, 'It is true, but on the very day the Liberal government increased that tax, a Liberal member of parliament, then representing North Wellington in the Dominion House, and who was an oatmeal miller by trade, wired to his partner in the firm and told him to increase the price paid the farmers for their oats. Does that not apply, not only to North Wellington, but to every other oat growing district in Canada? And out here in Northern Alberta we grow oats with perhaps better success than in any other part of the Dominion. If we lose 5 cents, he said, in the summer by the increased duty on oatmeal, how many additional dollars do we not make in the increased price of the splendid oat crop I have to take to market.' 'But,' she says, 'we shall have to buy a few barrels of cement, with which to cement our cellar, and we shall have to pay an increased duty on that cement imposed by a Liberal government.'
' Yes, Jean' he says' ' some Tories did get the better of the government and induced it to increase the duty on cement, but what has been the result? The usual result^ followed, which always follows the imposition of an unreasonable duty. It Mr. MILLEE.
increased the home production so much, that the cement industry has become nearly ruined, no manufacturer can make money out of it, but we are buying our cemept at less than half we had to pay under the Tory government. ' Ah, but,' she says, ' Mr. Henderson, a friend of mine, who represents the county of Halton a way down in Ontario rather makes fun of the government. He says they have let scythes and sickles in free. Her husband replies: 'Bother Mr. Henderson, why did he not tell you the whole truth that the Liberal government let in reapers, hay tedders, mowers, hay rakes, and all these things at 174 per cent duty, or 2i per cent less than the Tory government charged? And the binder twine which we use in large quantities we get in entirely free of duty. And our fence wire which we require to fence these broad acres, we buy, under the Liberal government, entirely free of duty. My good wife,' he says, ' you wanted me last summer to buy a cream separator.'


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Does the hon. gentleman argue that this government has adopted the principle of protection in these industries?


Henry Horton Miller: I shall allow my hon. friend to gather from the facts whatever inferences and conclusions he desires. The farmer said to his good wife, ' did you not last summer want me to buy a cream separator? I did buy one and paid $80 for it. Now, if the Liberal government at Ottawa had imposed a duty on cream separators, as many Conservatives tried to get them to do, that separator would have cost me $100 or $110.' 'Do you know,' he added, 'I have been an old Tory all my days but I have come to believe it is true that the present government at Ottawa is imposing a tariff for revenue only.' His good wife retorted: 'What difference does it make what you call the tariff, it is there just the same, and they collect a large amount of duty under it.' He said: 'Perfectly true, Jean, but do you not know that Mr. Borden has been going all oyer the country, except in the prairie provinces, advocating adequate protection. Now, if that means anything, it means to the manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec that if his party were in power, they would increase the tariff and give them greater protection, and where then would you be ' ? 'After all,' he continued, 'I have been doing some thinking. The old Conservatives used to laud themselves as being the loyal party, and they were never tired shouting for ' the old man, the old policy, and the old flag.' Now, the old man is dead and has left no successor. The old policy, I used to think was a pretty good policy, but after I found the new policy of the Liberal party working in this country for thirteen years, I concluded that I had been

entirely mistaken. You have to judge a policy as a man, by what it does; and looking at the policy of the Liberal government sanely, as a sane man should, I cannot help but conclude that the new policy is better than the old one. Then, as to the old flag, they used to wave the old flag and boast of their loyalty, but, Jean, you and I are from old Scotland, we are loyal to Britain; and the Liberal party, which used to be called the party of rebels, have introduced the British preference. And there goes your friend Henderson, representing the county of Halton, saying that if he had 50 of a majority in the Dominion House, he would repeal the British preference.' 'Why,' Jean, ' your friend says that the British preference does not give any preference at all to Canada but to Britain, and he would abolish it because it gives benefit to Britain without giving any to us.' He says: 'Jeani, {can you just consider the philosophy of that man Henderson and say where he is at, anyhow? He says that if you increase the duty on meal and putty you have to pay more for it, but if you reduce the duties by giving a lower tariff to Britain you do not get your goods any cheaper. Is it not a poor rule that does not work both ways? Let me tell you, Jean, he said, another thing. If the Tory party get into power, just as sure as fate, the Hon. Geo. E. Foster will be Finance Minister again, and you know what that means. The old lady says: 'Well, Jock, my father was a Tory, my grandfather was a Tory and I have been a Tory all my days, and you and your people have always been Tories, but I believe after all you are right, and I will never ask you to give a Tory vote again especially when you have as capable a candidate on the Liberal side as Dr. Clark, of Red Deer. More than that,' she says, 'I want you to vote Grit and will try to get the boys to vote the same way.'
This budget debate has dragged along for some days and has ceased perhaps to be very interesting. Figures and facts are dry things. The government has been attacked, as it always has been, on many lines. It has been attacked because of the increased cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental Railway. Hon. gentlemen opposite say, and say truly, that the railway has cost this country a great deal more than was anticipated. The hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Per-ley) pointed out, as others also have done, that the cost greatly exceeded the estimate. That is perfectly true. But it is not the first time any great public undertaking or a great private undertaking or even that a small private undertaking has cost a great deal moTe than the estimate. No one, however, has undertaken to point out that the increased cost has been due to any mismanagement, lack of integrity, or fault on
the part of the government. I ask my hon. friends opposite to argue fairly. The hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley), following the example of other hon. members, mixes up the cash paid by the government for the construction of the railway with the guarantees they have given. _
I contend that it is not fair, I contend that when you bulk together the cash that this country pays for the building of a railway and add to that the amount guaranteed by the government for other people, it is not a fair way to state the case to the Canadian public. ' If I pay for a certain undertaking, for a certain property, or for the doing of certain work, which when completed is to be mine that is one thing; if I guarantee the cost of the doing by some other party of another piece of work that is to be directly to his benefit and directly and indirectly to my benefit, and I guarantee his paper for the amount, taking what I believe to be adequate security, that is quite another thing.
The hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) is usually broad-minded. He is a business man with business ideas and he is usually fair. I do not think that he did himself justice nor that another hon. gentleman who spoke this afternoon did himself justice in stating that the Liberal party or the leader of the Liberal party said to the people of Canada that that undertaking would not cost the country more than $13,000,000. I have read from beginning to end the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister, and while I will admit that if you take out one single sentence from that speech it does appear to say that the cost of the road to the people of Canada will not exceed $13,000,000, yet no intelligent man, no man with half a mind, can read that speech of the Prime Minister and make it say anything of that kind.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), speaking of the government undertaking the building of the railway, endeavoured-I will not say that but his words were calculated to mislead the people of this country who might listen to or read that speech. He spoke of the government going into the building of this railway
On estimates made by themselves or by some others for them.
He said the members of the government were not experienced, not engineers and had gone into this thing carelessly and without proper information. Then he said they had gone into it on estimates made by themselves or by others for them. The words are perfectly true, the idea sought to be conveyed is entirely incorrect. No man who proposes to build a house or other building, unless he be an expert architect, will do it upon his own estimates, he will secure estimates by an expert architect. No railway company will undertake to build

a railway line without first obtaining the estimates of a capable engineer, and that capable engineer will be the ' other person ' to whom the hon. gentleman refers. When the government made up their minds to build a government transcontinental railway, they did so on estimates made for them by another person and that other person was Mr. Collingwood Schreiber, the government engineer, who had also been the government engineer under the Conservative party. I shall not further discuss the National Transcontinental Railway now as it will form the subject of further debate on the loan of $10,000,000 to the Grand Trunk Pacific.
The government are also assailed because of the increase of the public debt. Here again I wish to Tefer to words spoken by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and in this I differ from the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) who said he would not take the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as his text. I will take him foT my text for a little while and if I make a bad speech I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will attribute it to the choosing of a bad text. The hon. member for North Toronto admitted that the Conservative party in ten years from 1886 to 1896 had increased the public debt by $35,000,000. But then he argued that while they had increased the public debt by $35,000,000, for $10,000,000 of that they had received 7,500,000 acres of land, and he said if that 7,500,000 acres be woTth $3 an acre, it makes a total of $22,000,000 to be deducted from the $35,000,000 by which they had increased the debt. But he maintained that the land was worth more than $3 an acre, he said: 'If you calculate its value at $6 an acre, it makes $45,000,000 which will exceed the whole addition to the public debt. I am perfectly willing that the hon. member should make that argument, I am perfectly willing to accept his figures and his statement, but I would ask him, were he here, where the lands came from that they purchased for $10,000,000. He would state that the 7,500,000 acres was part of 25,000,000 acres that the Conservative government had given to the Canadian Pacific Railway for nothing at all. I would say to him: I am perfectly willing that you should give your party credit at $6 an acre for the 7,500,000 acres you thus obtained, but if I do you must be willing to be charged at the same Tate with the 46,000,000 acres that your government gave away while in power to persons other than actual settlers, and so while I credit you with $42,000,000, I charge you with $276,000,000, and I do not think the hon. member would make the account look any better for his party. The hon. member for North Toronto sought again to ms^ke it appear to the people of Canada that we had increased the nublic debt to a greater extent than we Mr. MILLER.
had any right to increase it, and in order to drive home that idea and to make out his case he made a comparison with the public debt of the United States and said: If you will go to the United States with its 80,000,000 or 90,000,000 of people you will find its public debt per capita is very much less of a burden. I wish to show the House that in 1889, when the hon. member for North Toronto was making his first budget speech as Finance Minister of Canada, he entertained a different opinion as to the fairness of a comparison of the public debt of Canada with the public debt of the United States. I would ask the patience of the House while I read the hon. gentleman's words, because as you will see from the words I read, it was at that time a matter of very great importance. He said:
It is a common error to take the debt of Canada and compare it with the federal debt of the United States in order to make a point as against Canada and in favour of the United States, or, to speak more truly, to make a point against the government which is now in power on account of its alleged extravagance in increasing the public debt.
Listen now to his words:
I do not know that a more unfair comparison could be instituted than a comparison between the federal debt of the United States and the federal debt of the Dominion of Canada.
Then he proceeds to give his reasons which I shall read. What I want to point out is that an argument which the hon. gentleman considers to be a fair and proper argument to advance in 1909, with his party in opposition, is the very argument which he said he thought was the worst possible argument when he was the Finance Minister and a member of the government in power. It is this very habit which the hon. gentleman has of arguing one way at one time under one set of circumstances and arguing another way at another time when the circumstances are entirely different, that robs him of the confidence which the people might otherwise have in him, which makes him a political impossibility, and robs him entirely of the influence with the country that a man of his educational advantages, his oratorical powers and long parliamentary experience would otherwise be entitled to enjoy. Proceeding with his argument to show why this is a wrong argument to advance he says:
I do not know that a more unfair comparison could be instituted than a comparison between the federal debt of the United States and the federal debt of the Dominion of Canada. Broadly stated the comparer says: Look at the United States; to-day it has a debt of $20.42 per head of its population. Look at the Dominion of Canada; to-day it has a debt of $47.16 per head of its population. And the comparison always tends, as these financial comparisons must, to prejudice the minds of those who do not see through it in favour

of the country which, seemingly, has a lighter debt and against the country which, seemingly, has a heavier debt.
That is exactly the position the hon. gentleman puts himself in during this present debate.
Now, if by a simple statement to-day, I can set, to a certain extent, at rest and dispose of this comparison of two things so dissimilar,
I shall feel that I have performed a duty, not only to the party in power, but to this House and to the country as well.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. gentleman was performing a public duty in stating that argument to the House in 1889, I am surely performing a like duty when I repeat his language in 1909:
The constitution of the United States and the constitution of Canada are very different, so far as financial matters are concerned which lead to publio debts and to public expenditures.
Then the hon. gentleman proceeds to show the difference between the constitution of Canada and that of the United States. He points out:
The United States, in the first place, assumes no debts of its different states. The Dominion of Canada has assumed the debts of its provinces to the amount of $109,430,148.69. The United States pays no subsidies to its different states. The Dominion of Canada has paid in subsidies to its different provinces, Bince confederation, $72,306,029.95.
Then he points out that the federal government in the United States does not pay any large part of the cost of the administration of justice, but that in the Dominion of Canada the federal government pays a very large part of the cost of that administration. He says:
In regard to immigration and quarantine, we find that we have paid $5,571,631.81 since confederation. The United States government paid little or nothing for immigration and quarantine. For militia and defence, this government has paid $21,851,635.50 since confederation. In the United States they keep up West Point Academy and_ a small standing army, but the militia throughout that vast country is kept up at the expense of the different states, _ so that if Canada had been in the same position as to these matters as the United States, it would have saved at least one-half of that sum. For penitentiaries, we have expended since confederation, $5,611,696.54. The penitentiaries in the United States are supported, not at the charge of the federal power, but at the charge of the different states. Then we have expended for the salaries of governors, $2,250,643.01. In the country to the south of us the salaries of the governors are paid by the states and not by the federal power.
Then the hon. gentleman concludes in this way:
If Canada had set out on the same basis as the United States, she would have saved
the assumed debts of the provinces, the subsidies paid to the provinces, the interest paid on the deht assumed from the provinces, the amount paid out for penitentiaries, the amount paid for the salaries of governors, at least half the amount she has paid for militia and defence, at least half the amount paid for the administration of justice, and the whole amount paid for immigration and quarantine, amounting in all to no less a sum than $309,860,987.40. The net debt of Canada to-day is $234,531,358; so that if Canada had set out from the first on the same basis as the United States, and had made no payments that the federal government in that country does not make, she not only would have had no debt at present, but would have had a surplus of $75,329,629.40.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


George Eulas Foster: Hon. gentlemen may treat this as a good joke, but from their point of view it is no joke, for, as soon as this gets before the people and into the minds of the people, a stock argument of the hon. gentlemen opposite will be for ever taken from them, which is their comparison on an unfair basis of the debt of the United States with ours, and always to the advantage of the United States and to our disadvantage.
Now I say again, Mr. Speaker, that if that was good argument away back in 1889, it is a fair argument to-day; and it is a very strange thing that the hon. member for North Toronto should have so completely changed his mind according as circumstances have happened to change.
Our friends on the opposite side of the House have questioned the expenditure of the government in building the Grand Trunk Pacific. I was reading lately in one of the financial journals of Canada that there would probably be opposition in this House to the Grand Trunk Pacific, but there would not be any opposition outside the House. Our friends object to the Quebec bridge, not to the cost of the bridge nor as to its necessity, but because the bridge fell down. Any fair-minded gentleman in this House who has followed the history of the Quebec bridge, and knows anything of its construction or of the disaster which happened to it, will know that the very best bridge engineers on the continent of America were employed to design and to superintend the construction of that bridge, and that when the bridge fell it was considered to be a mystery by all the bridge building engineers of the continent, who could not understand why it should have fallen and where there was any fault in its construction.
Our friends on the other side of the House are very fond of making jeering and sneering references to the Newmarket canal, which they have chosen to dub the Aylesworth ditch. One hon. gentleman on the other side of the House challenged the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) last night because he had not censured the government in his speech yesterday for building the Newmarket canal. I venture to say

that the member of this House who challenged the hon. member for Red Deer, had never seen the Newmarket canal, that he had no knowledge of the geography of the country through which it is being built; and I venture to say that he knows nothing whatever about the necessities of the country, or the possibilities of the canal. I, Mr. Speaker, did not vote against the appropriation of $1,000,000 for the completion of that canal. From personal knowledge I do not know whether it is a wise or an unwise expenditure. But I reasoned with myself in this way: It has been stated in this House that a number of gentlemen belonging to both sides of politics came down from the neighbourhood in which the Newmarket canal was being constructed, and asked that the work be undertaken. Now what object could these gentlemen have had in asking for a great public work if it were not needed ? If it were not to be a benefit to the localitv, it would be a monument of the folly, not only of the government that built it, but of the folly of the people who asked for it.


Mr. WALLACE.: Did the delegation that came down here from North York ask for the building of a canal from Lake Simcoe to Newmarket, or did they ask for the deepening of the Holland river from Lake Simcoe to Holland Landing?


Henry Horton Miller: That is a question that I frankly admit I am not able to answer. It has been stated in the House that gentlemen came down from the neighbourhood in which this canal was to be built and asked for its construction; whether there is any difference in detail I am not aware. But I reasoned with myself in this way: If intelligent and sane business men, one of them a Conservative member of the Ontario legislature, came down and asked for a work of this kind, what could have been their object? If it had been for some great public building, I might have thought: Now this building will not be of any particular use, but these gentlemen would like to point it out as an ornament, to the locality in which they lived.


Thomas George Wallace: Did the hon. gentleman say a member of the local legislature came down here?


Henry Horton Miller: I trust I am not mistaken.
I understood Mr. Lennox came down, or had signed a petition.


Thomas George Wallace: I do not think he was a member of the local legislature at that time.


Henry Horton Miller: Possibly not at that time, but it is the same gentleman. I reasoned with myself in this way: These gentlemen might have asked for the construction of a large public building which might not be necessary, but would be an ornament to the locality in which they lived. But a canal Mr. MILLER.
would be an entirely different thing. A canal, if it was not to be a useful thing, would be an eyesore rather than anything that would beautify the country through which it passed. I will say further that within two weeks before the vote was taken in the House, I met on the train a resident of the riding that my hon. friend from South York represents.
The gentleman whom I met was an honourable man; he was an intelligent man; he was a man_ wdth no personal interest, and I said to him: Tell me now confidentially what is your opinion as to the building of the Newmarket canal. That gentleman stated: Well, while I do not look with any particular degree of favour upon the building of any part of the Trent Valley canal, the Newmarket section of the canal will be just as useful as any other part of the system. I know that, as to that question, men may differ in opinion. The hon. member for Centre York may believe it to be a useless expenditure, but other men of good judgment believe it as useful as any other part of the Trent canal which was undertaken by our Conservative friends.
If fault is found with the expenditure under the .present government, if we are told that our public debt has increased more quickly and to a greater extent than it ought to have increased, let me ask my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House and let me ask the people of Canada what they think wmuld have been the state of affairs if our good Conservative friends had been returned to power? Turn to the Halifax platform, and. we have the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) advocating-did he not?-the government ownership of railways. Perhaps he did not exactly do so in definite terms, but he did advocate the government ownership of telegraph and telephone lines, and I leave the people to judge what it would have cost the government to have purchased the telegraph and telephone lines from one end of the Dominion to the other. The hon. leader of the opposition told the people of British Columbia that if he had been returned to power he would have given an increased subsidy to British Columbia, and I contend that if he had done that he would before long have been obliged to have given an increased subsidy to every province in the Dominion. It is a part of the Halifax platform that rural free mail delivery should be extended and made general throughout Canada. Then the leader of the opposition, at the time that this government were planning to build the Transcontinental Railway, said that if he were in power he would not build the Transcontinental Railway as they proposed to build it, but he did not say that he would not expend any money at all. Far from it. He said he would extend the Intercolonial Railway

from Montreal to a point on the Georgian bay; from a point on the Georgian bay to the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway; that he would buy the Canadian Pacific Railway main line from North Bay to Fort William; that he would assist the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern, or at least one of these lines, to improve their grades from FoTt William to Winnipeg; that he would help the Grand Trunk Pacific to build their road from Winnipeg to the mountains; that he would build as a government railway a road through the mountains, and that, if it proved to be necessary and in the interest of the people, he would, as a government undertaking, extend the Intercolonial Railway from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast. Then we had the hon. and gallant member for Victoria and Halibur-ton (Mr. Hughes) advocating at that time not the cutting out of the Newmarket canal, but the spending of $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 additional in improving and enlarging the Trent Valley canal. He advocated the building of the Georgian Bay canal and the spending of large sums of money for improving the navigation of the Saskatchewan and Assiniboine rivers. Then the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), at that time while not in favour of building the Transcontinental Railway as the government proposed to build it, was in favour of building the Hudson Bay Railway. Then the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart), though not in favour of building the Transcontinental Railway as it was then proposed to build it. was in favour of building the Georgian Bay canal that would have cost $125,000,000. The hon. member for North Toronto, speaking at Prince Edward Island, said that if his party were returned to power they would undertake, at the cost of many millions, the building of the Prince Edward Island tunnel. So, I say that if all these promises, which are only some of the promises made by our friends in -the opposition prior to the election, had been fulfilled, and if they had been returned to power our national debt would have increased, not as -it has increased, but by many millions more and if our plight to-day be a bad plight, it would have been a very much worse plight.
The hon. member for North Toronto does not to-day favour the system of bookkeeping that is in vogue under the party in power, and that has been practised not only by this government since 1896, but by the preceding government and by all governments since confederation. My hon. friend from Essex (Mr. Sutherland), in a very -able speech in this debate, pointed out that whilo the hon. member for North Toronto, who formerly himself practised the very same system of bookkeeping which is now practised by our government to-day, condemns that system, Mr. Cortelyou, the ex-
Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, is advocating that the people of the United States shall cease to maintain their system of bookkeeping and adopt the system that is in vogue to-day in the Dominion of Canada. But, Sir, I not only put the opinion of Mr. Cortelyou against the opinion of the hon. member for North Toronto, but I put against the present opinion of the hon. member for North Toronto the opinion of the hon. gentleman who was Minister of Finance, the Hon. Ge-o. E. Foster, in the old Tory days. If you will look at 'Hansard' for 1894, when the hon. gentleman who now represents North Toronto was Minister of Finance, you will find his statement -of the surplus that he claimed to have at the end of that financial year. The hon. gentleman, speaking in this House on the 27th March, 1894, said:
I stated about a year ago, or a little more, that my estimate of expenditure for the year 1892-3 was $36,500,000, whereas the actual expenditure was $36,814,052. The income was $38,168,608, so that the total expenditures on consolidated fund account taken from the total revenue on consolidated fund account, leaves, what has been a pleasant and recurring experience in the administration of the present government, a tidy surplus of $1,354,556.
While the Minister of Finance of that day estimated $1,300,000 to be, as he said, a tidy surplus, and he -had that surplus by the very same system of bookkeeping that is in vogue to-day, he stood up in this House last week an-d despised a surplus of $1,500,000, a couple of hundred thousand dollars more than his, and arrived at in the very same way. In the year 1894, when the then Minister of Finance claimed a surplus of $1,300,000, the net increase in the public debt was $549,605. The year before the actual increase in the debt of the country had been $3,332,000, and for the year following-1895-it was a still larger sum. The h-on. member for North Toronto has rather ridiculed the Finance Minister because of what the hon. member for North Toronto claims to be the late date at w'hich he asks hon. members on both sides of the House to assist him in bringing about economy. I want to show to the House that in 1894 the position of the then Minister of Finance, now the hon. member for North Toronto, was identically the same. Speaking in the same debate the hon. gentleman said:
Though this country stood remarkably well the stress of the hard times and the commercial disturbances which the world experienced in 1892 and 1893, and seemed to have passed through them without visible effect upon our trade or revenue, we are now feeling the reflex or dying influences of that world-wide depression and period of low prices, and it has had and is having the effect in Canada-for a period short as yet, and which I believe will not be of long duration-of making people

prudent in expenditure and careful and conservative in their purchases.
These reasons lead me to think that the revenues will be considerably less during the year 1893-94 than the revenue which accrued m 1892-93, and from present appearances 1 do not anticipate more than thirty-six and a half or thirty-six and three-quarter million of dollars. If the expenditure from the lflth of March to the end of the year should be normal, that would leave us with a deficit; but this government has come to the conclusion-a wise conclusion, which I think will be echoed by this House, and in which the government will have the co-operation and cordial help of the House-to endeavour to live during this year within our income, and, if our income is less, to resolutely keep down the expenditure.
Here we have the hon. member arguing in 1894 that the country was suffering because of business depression in 1892 and 1893, and he said that the revenues of the country had fallen off, that he was faced with a deficit, and as the present Minister of Finance has done, he appealed to both sides of the House to assist him in retrenchment and economy so as to lower the expenditure.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) seeks to make capital out of the fact that we are now paying a higher interest on our loans than we were a few years ago and he endeavours to argue that the credit of Canada in the money market of England is not as good as it formerly was. Well, the price of wheat is higher in Canada now than it has been for many years, and he might just as well blame the government, or praise the government as you will, for the high price of wheat as for the high price of money. The price of wheat is governed by the wheat markets of the world; the price of money is governed by the money markets of the world. We all know that during the last few years if a private person wants to borrow money he has had to pay a higher rate of interest than before that period, and so it is with the government, because money is scarcer and its value greater. Let me make a comparison of the borrowings of Canada from the British money lenders. In 1908 the Dominion government and the several provincial governments of Canada issued bonds to the amount of $77,598,500; municipal bonds were issued in Canada that year to the extent of $47,433,911 and bonds of Canadian financial and industrial concerns were issued to the extent of $71,325,000; the combined loans of municipalities and1 Industrial corporations totalling $118,758,000 as against $77,598,000 total borrowings of the Dominion and provincial governments. The grand total of Canadian bonds issued in 1908, was $196,357,411. Now, in the year 1907 t,he_ total borrowings on Dominion and provincial and municipal and industrial cor-Mr. MILLER.
poration bonds, in piace of being $196,000,000 was only $82,635,741, and if in 1908 we were able to borrow in the markets of Britain a good deal more than twice what we borrowed in the preceding year it certainly is not any evidence that the credit of Canada is getting worse. Of our total borrowings in 1908, governmental, municipal, and otherwise, Canada took 121 per cent of the amount, the United States took 31 per cent and Great Britain took 841 per cent.
Let me say a few words here about the rate of interest on post office savings bank deposits. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) referring to the action of the present Minister of Finance in this connection said:
Why, Sir, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance also takes some rank as scalping the thrifty depositors of this country of a part of their interest on their deposits in order to swell that vaunted surplus of his which he must have. If he cannot get it by changing two millions from current account to capital account he can take two or three million dollars by docking the depositors in the savings banks of one-half of one per cent.
Well, if it was a crime for the Liberal government to reduce the rate of interest on savings bank deposits by one-half per cent, was it any less a crime when the savings bank deposit rate was cut down in former years by a Conservative government. On the 12th of May, 1888, Sir Charles Tup-per being Finance Minister, chapter 8 of 51 Vic., was passed, providing that the then Conservative government might by order in council fix the interest on deposits in the government savings bank at such rate not exceeding four per cent as might be declared by the Governor in Council. The interests on deposits had been four per cent and no change was made in 1888, but in 1889 when the Hon. Mr. Foster was Minister of Finance the rate was reduced from four per cent to three and one-half. If it was a vice and a crime to reduce the rate of interest one-half per cent on savings bank deposits when the Liberals did it, was it a virtue when the Hon. George E. Foster reduced the rate in 1889?
Then, the hon. gentleman from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) as well, referred to the payment by the present government of bounties upon iron and steel and upon sugar, and these hon. gentlemen referred to this matter in order to try to make the people of Canada believe that the paying of bounties by the government is wasteful and extravagant, and wrong. When Mr. Foster was Minister of Finance in 1894 he delivered a speech in this House on the question of iron bounties, and I quote his words from 'Hansard':
On the one hand the duties on iron have been and are relatively high, on the other hand

there is the patent fact that unless there be a sufficient inducement in the way of protection or bounty given for the manufacture of iron, it will he impossible in this country, as it has been found impossible in all other countries, ever to rise from the production of raw ores which abound in this country to an independent and self-contained manufacture of the larger portion of the iron needed for the consumption of the country.
Again, he says:
We must bear in mind that although the national policy dates from 1878 there was nothing but a revenue tariff upon iron from 1878 to 1887. It was at that period, and only six year sago that parliament assented to a scheme which had for its object the development of the iron industry by a system of protection and bounty.
So that we see that bounties were first paid on iron and steel, not by a Liberal government, but by a Conservative government. Now, the payment of bounties on iron and steel is right or it is wrong. If it is right, it is not necessary for us to say any more about it. If it is wrong, it surely is not more wrong to-day than it was when it was instituted by our hon. [DOT]friends on the other side in 1894. It is true, this government is paying a bounty on the production of beet root sugar, and this bounty was established by a Conservative government in 1891, by chapter 31 of the Dominion statutes of that year. That bounty was renewed by a Conservative government in 1895, by chapter 6 of the statutes of that year, in a Bill introduced into the House by the hon. member for North Toronto himself; and with regard to that I say, as with regard to bounties on iron and steel, if it was right to pay that bounty in 1891 and right that the hon. member for North Toronto should renew that bounty in 1895, it is right that this government should continue it in 1909.
The hon. member for North Toronto, in his budget speech in 1895, the last he delivered as Finance Minister in this House, endeavoured to prove that this was a prosperous country because our bank deposits were increasing. Speaking of the increase of deposits in the government savings hanks and in the chartered banks, the hon. gentleman said:
Another evidence of the condition of Canada is to he found in its savings.
Mr. (MILLS (Bothwell). Hear, hear. 4


George Eulas Foster: The hon. member for Both-w ell says ' hear, hear.' He does not (believe that such is the case-he treats the idea with contempt. But when his colleague was Minister of Finance from 11874-78 he did not treat an argument like that with contempt; he put it forward as a very strong point in favour of a better condition of affairs than some of his opponents argued as existing. The hon. gentleman thinks a great deal of Liberal traditions, of Liberal precedents and Liberal principles as they are exemplified by
the present government in Great Britain, and he has only to read the telegraphic despatches of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday to find that he went into an elaborate argument to show that the position of Great Britain was not so bad as had been stated, and the argument on which he relied was the increase in the savings of the people. Without doubt it is an argument whicb has weight.
If the increase in the deposits of the people in the chartered banks and the government savings banks be a strong evidence of the prosperity of the country, let us compare the figures. The hon. gentleman stated that in the five years preceding his statement, that is, previous to 1895, the total deposits had increased to the extent of $41,271,908. If the argument was a good argument then, it is a good argument now. and what are the facts? In the five years ending with 1908 the increase in the savings of the people in the banks amounted to $239,826,679. If the hon. gentleman's statement proved that the people of Canada at that time were a prosperous people, then, on the same kind of evidence, the Canada of to-day is six times as prosperous as was the Canada of that day.
But the hon. gentleman had another argument in 1895. He said that he would prove that the country was in a prosperous condition because of the increase of the railway mileage, which had increased in the preceding five years from 12,628 miles to 15,620 miles, an increase of 2,992 miles. But in the last five years, from 1903 to 1908 the railway mileage has increased from 18,988 to 22,966, or a total increase of 3,978 miles. The Wall Street ' Journal ' in a recent article, says that * the farmer's work and harvest have had the benefit of more varied knowledge and more effective intelligence, his life and living have undergone transformations which increasingly make the farm preferable to the town.' These words were uttered with reference to the United States; but if they are true and applicable as to the United States, they are equally true and applicable as to the Dominion of Canada. The prosperity of Canada must ever depend very largely on the prosperity of the Canadian farmer, and if his work and harvest have had the benefit of more varied knowledge and more effective intelligence, this means great things for the future of this country. The varied knowledge and more effective intelligence of the Canadian farmer have increased because of various things-the general advance of the people, the advance in education, better mail facilities, cheaper and better literature, especially literature pertaining to the farm, and also largely because of the help and assistance of governments, Dominion and provincial, under both political parties; and, Sir, I believe that the condition of the Canadian farmer has been vastly improved during the last


Mr. GLEN CAMPBELL (Dauphin).: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the budget has been so comprehensive that at this stage little remains for me to add. There are still, however, a few subjects that may be of some little interest which I would like to hring to the attention of the House. One thing that has struck me very forcibly, and possibly it has struck other new members, is the bouquets that have made their appearance at different times in the House. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) and the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. W. McIntyre) on their return to the House from little political trips into their several provinces were presented with bouquets. I wondered at the time the meaning of those bouquets. It struck me at first that they were marks of appreciation on the part of their fellow members who were of their peculiar persuasion in politics; marks of especial esteem and regard; tributes to some good work accomplished by these gentlemen. But that could not have been the reason as these gentle-mn had broken the rule laid down by Liberals in my own province and in the province of Ontario. Instructions were given in these provinces to election speakers at the

time of provincial elections to say to the elctors :	Do not vote for a Liberal candidate because he is a Liberal, but vote for a Liberal candidate so as to strengthen the opposition against this Conseravtive government which is so strongly entrenched in power in order to secure good government. We heard that motto on every platform in Manitoba; that was their method of trying to wiggle in another member against the government. That policy is followed also in Ontario, but evidently when members of this federal House go to Nova Scotia and Alberta, they return here with laurels after having broken that rule laid down by the Liberals, having further strengthened the governments already too strong in those provinces. That was evidently looked upon by Liberals in this House as a reason for congratulating these members. I think it a most invidious thing that bouquets are handed out to some gentlemen and not to others. We saw an hon. gentleman who had wended his weary way from British Columbia come heTe weary and sad and worn from the efforts that he had put forward to obtain a seat by acclamation. No bouquet was handed to him. The seat he now occupies had been won in a manly way by a gentleman of the name of Sloan, but for reasons, which I fancy will appear a little later, Mr. Sloan retired in favour of the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue and Mines (Mr. Temple-man). I myself feel like handing that hon. minister a bouquet and I would suggest a bouquet of roses as the most suitable. Roses in their beauty and fragrance would remind him of the city of Victoria which had turned him down in favour of an untried warrior on the Conservative side, even with all his prestige as minister. I would further suggest roses because with every rose go a few thorns, and these thorns in the bouquet I would give him would remind him of his feelings on the evening of the 26th of October last. The thorns might also remind the First Minister of his feelings when he heard the sorry tidings from British Columbia on that evening. The thorns also ought to have a little prick for the man from Nanaimo (Mr. R. Smith) when he remembers that he went out, fought and won his fight, and came here the accredited representative of the people, but was not thought good enough to take a portfolio as a representative in the cabinet for British Columbia. When I look at the hon. gentleman who represents British Columbia in the cabinet and think of him and his position in the government. I am reminded of a story of Richard Croker, the Tammany leader. When American horses were first run on the race courses in England Mr. Croker was very much interested. If you remember the Americans took with them to the old country their own jockey, Mr. CAMPBELL.
Todd Sloan. Sloan rode the first horse that won a race in England. The race was won by a neck, and Richard Croker was heard to exclaim:	Thank God for Sloan. Those
few wolds of thanks to the great Being, I feel sure, are reiterated most heartily by the hon. gentleman who now represents Comox-Atlin.
With the permission of the House I would like to refer to some extent to some previous debates. On the evening of March 23, the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made a solmen statement which I would like to read to this House. I must say I regret exceedingly that that right hon. gentleman is not here, because it is to him personally, perhaps, more than to the House that I would like to address my remarks. While discussing a matter that was in debate the First Minister said:
I am sorry to say that is another evidence that we are not to trust Conservatives when they pledge themselves to us as members of the House or a9 a delegation.
In other words, he stated from his place in the House that Conservatives were not worthy of credit. Now, Sir, I am a kind of a Conservative myself, and I felt at that time, as I feel now, that it was a harsh remark for the First Minister to make with regard to any loyal gentleman in this House, even though they differ with him politically. I could assure the right hon. gentleman, if he were here, that he can always trust me most implicitly, trust me to fight him as long as I have breath, as long as he follows his present methods of conducting the affairs of this country, as long as he prostitutes the great and heaven-born gifts that he possesses, a flowery language and a silver tongue, to whip, as he did on that occasion, his most unwilling followers into voting a grant of the people's hard earned money to a most useless work called the Aylesworth ditch, down which to float, or to wheel, as events will show, the Minister of Justice into his seat in this House. He can always trust me to oppose him in such projects as that, and I think I am safe in making the same promise on behalf of other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House as long as he carries on a policy of wanton waste of the public moneys that we have seen him pursuing in this House, despite all that the members of the opposition can say in the way of protest. I refer, for instance, to the buildings that were put up at Kingston for some servants of the officers there-$112,-000 for 16 houses for under-strappers of some kind of officers. Why, Sir, I want to tell you that we have some 9,000 farmers in my own riding, and they are living in houses costing from $150 to perhaps $500 or $600; and the minister who is in charge of that department asks the people's representatives, who are here tak-

ing care of the people's interests, to vote their hard earned money to build some palaces for flunkeys, and bung-starters, and I know not what. Those are some of the expenditures that I take objection to. Another thing I take objection to is the enormous waste of public money that we see voted from time to time in this House, for instance, for towers for public buildings. In one breath, the minister in charge of the department says, Canada is hard up, and we are retrenching; the next moment he asks us to vote $2,000 $3,000 or $4,000 for a tower to make a public building in Glencoe, or somewhere else, look a little better. No sooner do we vote that tower, but he asks us to vote a clock for the tower costing several thousands of dollars of the people's money; and no sooner have we voted the clock than he asks us to vote $300 or $400 to pay some fellow to wind the clock. I want to say that in matters of that kind the First Minister can absolutely and always count upon me to oppose him. He can trust me to vote against him as long as he follows his present policy of expediency instead of trying to fulfil some of his pledges.
The right hon. gentleman is credited with having a very short memory. I would like to remind him of some of the pledges he got from Conservatives, which were fulfilled, and the fulfilment of which resulted in his attaining to the position he now holds as leader of this government;
I refer to the pledges that Conservatives made to him in 1896. I am much mistaken if some of the erstwhile Conservatives who at that time made him those promises do not sit behind him now, and form part of his majority. I would ask the right hon. gentleman, if he were here, to look to his own honesty in the matter of his promises. Let him carry his memory back to 1894, I think it was, when he came to Winnipeg as leader of the great Liberal party of Canada. He told them that he came with a message to the people of the west, a message that had great bearing on the approaching election that we were all looking forward to. He made them a certain promise, a promise that I feel sure my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) would have appreciated had he been there. He got up on a public platform in Winnipeg and said to the people: I come to the west bearing you a message, I come to you preaching a gospel, a new gospel, a gospel of free trade as they have it in England. Where is it? It is gone with the breath he used in uttering these words. And still owing his position of Premier of Canada to the pledges he received from Conservatives, which were fulfilled, and to pledges he gave himself, which were unfortunately not fulfilled, he had his nerve with him, when he dared to get up and accuse Conservatives of want of credibility.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He did not say it. You had better read the whole article.


Glenlyon Campbell: The hon. gentleman can read it for himself, it is here in the 'Hansard', I will give the page. The whole article absolutely bears; out what I said.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He didn't say it at all.


Glenlyon Campbell: -I heard, on a previous occasion in this House, a gentleman who went even further than my hon. friend who now speaks; he refused to allow the House to credit the words that were marked in his own name. I heard the Minister of Finance, in his speech the other day, refer to the grand old policy we hear so much of, the land for the settler, as being the policy of the Liberal party. He spoke of the fact that the Conservatives had given land grants to railways, and that his government had ceased to do so. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten that there is a railroad built up through Manitoba and the IMorthwest Territories called the Canadian Northern? Has he forgotten that, from time to time since this government has been in power, that railway company has come here for an extension of time for its charters, and other extensions of rights which those charters gave it? Has he forgotten that some million acres of land have been given to the Canadian Northern by this government, because that is an absolute fact, and he cannot deny it, nor can any one deny it with truth. Has he forgotten, Sir, with regard to his policy of the land for the settler, a fact which is fairly well known and has been fairly well advertised that his government gave 250,000 acres of land to a company principally of Americans for $1 an acre? When that deal was consummated the poor settler, the man who gives the land value, had to pay from $5 to $15 an acre for the same land and the quality of which- had not changed in any way although the land had changed from the ownership of the people to the ownership of a band of American speculators. He has perhaps forgotten all that was said at that time with respect to the politicians who took an active part in putting through the deal. It was stated and it is believed in the west that a certain politician who still has a seat in this House received from the Saskatchewan Valley and Manitoba Land Company a certificate of stock to the amount of $50,000 signed in blank and handed to him for his share in putting the deal through.


Glenlyon Campbell: I do not think that a charge of that kind can be made against a member of this House.


Glenlyon Campbell: I would have very much preferred to have made the remark in the presence of the gentleman I specially refer to.

Mr.' FIELDING. The hon. gentleman would not be at liberty to make it in the absence of the gentleman referred to. He can make an accusation against a gentleman and have it tried out, but be cannot make such a remark in the way he suggests.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the language which he has used is quite permissible. He says that it has been said. We often hear what is current rumour quoted in this House.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I dissent from that


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think he is quite within the rules in using the language he has used.


William Stevens Fielding: I must dissent from the view of my hon. friend (Mr. SpTOule) that we can justify a statement by the remark 'it is said.' There is no justification for anything of the kind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, rumour is quoted
very often in the House.


Glenlyon Campbell: Perhaps it would meet the views of the hon. Minister of Finance if I would say that it is common report among the people.


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: A charge of that kind cannot be made against a member of the House. It will have to be withdrawn. Unless it is made in the regular course prescribed by parliament.


Glenlyon Campbell: I suppose it is possible for me to withdraw the words without withdrawing the meaning?


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: No, the hon. member must withdraw entirely because a charge of that kind is unparliamentary.


Glenlyon Campbell: I bow to the ruling of the chair. However, that only applies to a gentleman who has the honour of having & seat in this House?


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: Yes.


Glenlyon Campbell: At the same time that these charges were current in regard to the hon. gentleman I spoke of there were other charges made, they were made so late as last summer on the public platform in Saskatchewan and they were made by one of the late directors of the company to the effect that the man I now speak of, whose name I have no object in concealing-his name is Walter Scott-when he was a member of this House, accepted, for his efforts on behalf of putting that Bill through, a certificate of stock of the Saskatchewan Valley and Manitoba Land Company signed in blank to the extent of $10,000. That is common report. It was said on every public platform in Saskatchewan that I had the felicity to be on. It was denied, it is true by the Hon. Walter Mr. CAMPBELL.
Scott, but he took very good care never to deny that accusation when made by the man that I have mentioned. I repeat, it was common report. I think that possibly every minister in this House knew the report. But, I can say more than that. I know the man who handed the stock to Walter Scott, and I saw all the evidence in the matter. This government, through its Finance Minister, says that is good business. The Finance Minister says it is good business to give land belonging to the people to American speculators for $1 an acre, and whatever perquisites can be got from them on the side. He says it is good business to let these American speculators come into Canada, exploit the country and sell to the poor farmer, for from $5 to $15 an acre, land which they are able to get for $1 an acre. Then, this hon. gentleman goes around the country saying: the land for the people, not the speculators, is our motto. I would point out further to hon. gentlemen on that side of the House, and I would bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance, that for years and years the Manitoba government had a claim upon what is called the Manitoba and North Western Eailway lands lying between Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg. They were to get every odd numbered section in every odd numbered township in every odd numbered range until they got the full complement of 250,000 acres. For years and years the Manitoba government applied to get that land so that they could do something with it, so that it would be an available asset, but they could not get one acre of it surveyed and they could not get any right to it until it was surveyed. Finally, the Canadian Northern people-I do not know whether they called themselves the Canadian Northern Eailway Company or Mackenzie & Mann, or under what name they operated-came to the Manitoba government and said: We will give you $400,000 cash for your claim to that land which you cannot get. They simply had to sell their equity to Mackenzie & Mann. Mackenzie & Mann came down to this government, and within a few months this government handed over to them, in lieu of the land which is very poor, for the most part, being covered with water, scrub and stone though there are some townships of first class land admixed	through	it, the best
land that Mackenzie & Mann could select out in Saskatchewan. Yet, my hon. friend says :	The land for the people.
Who are the people ? In that case the people were Mann & Mackenzie. The hon. gentleman says that their policy is not to give land to the railway companies, that their policy is to keep the land for the settler. Is he not aware that his own government gave 20 square miles for every

mile of road constructed by the Canadian Northern Railway Company from Erwood to the Pas Mission amounting to over a million acres? Instead of giving them wild land there of comparatively little value, they gave Mann & Mackenzie the same right in that case as they did in the other to pick out their land in Saskatchewan. Yet the hon. gentleman says: 'The land for the settler.'
Frequent reference has been made to the land grant given to the Canadian Pacific Railway by the Conservative government, and at this late hour I shall not enter into a lengthy discussion of that question. There has been a great deal said about the fact that the Conservative government did a great deal for the Canadian Pacific Railway and no one can deny that it gave that railway company a tremendous land grant. But in those days the land was worth comparatively nothing and had not the Canadian Pacific Railway built into that western country the land never would have been worth anything. A few years before the Canadian Pacific Railway went into Winnipeg you could have bought the whole town site for $5,000, but to-day it is worth millions and millions. It was the advent of the Canadian Pacific Railway into that country that made the land worth anything whatever. And, Sir, speaking of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I am reminded of the question brought up by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) in connection with the permission given that company by the government recently to increase their borrowing powers. In that regard let me say that the opinion voiced by the hon. member (Mr. Maclean) and by the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. McIntyre) and by the hon. member for Assin-iboia (Mr. Turiff) is the opinion held by 99 per cent of the people of the west. The Minister of Justice told us that the contract made between the government and the Canadian Pacific Railway was vastly in favour of the railway company and against the people, but he said:	'I hold that a
contract is a sacred thing and so long as its true intent and meaning is lived up to it cannot be infringed upon. 'Well, I believe that no sane man who was in this House in 1881 when that contract was made, believed anything else than that the exemption clause was to expire in twenty years from the date of the contract and 'Hansard' shows that every member of parliament at that date believed that such was the true intent and meaning of the contract, outside perhaps of lawyers' quibbles. That being so, this government was remiss_ in its duty to the people when on the various occasions that the Canadian Pacific Railway came asking for favours it did not say to the Canadian Pacific Railway : ' This is the true intent and meaning of your contract; we want you to abrogate that ex-154
eruption even though you have perhaps a legal right to it; you are asking something from us now and we will not give it to you unless you show the people of the west that their interest is your interest, and that you will not shelter yourselves behind a legal quibble with regard to this contract.' The government did not do that, and the government was remiss in its duty. As my hon. friend from Strathcona well said: 'How would any man in the east like if he were compelled not only to pay his own taxes, but to pay the taxes of his neighbour,' and that is absolutely the condition in every settlement in the west where Canadian Pacific Railway lands are located in any quantity. The Canadian Pacific Railway refuses to pay taxes, it refuses to do any road work, its land grows in value from day to day through the toil of the poor farmers in the neighbourhood, and as guardians of the public interest the government was more than remiss in its duty to those people that it did not insist on a quid pro quo from the Canadian Pacific Railway when it came seeking favours. Now. Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to another matter, and I am going to refer to it largely because, like every Scotchman, I hate to be dared to do or not to do anything. The hon. gentleman from Regina (Mr. Martin) speaking with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific loan, said there was no member from the west who dare oppose it. Well, were he here to-night I would let him know that I dare oppose it and I will tell him why. The primary reason is that the Grand Trunk Pacific has not lived up to its contract with the government, and to prove that I will quote from the remarks of the supporters of the government when the contract was under discussion.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I call the attention of tHe hon. member to the fact that the question is still on the Order Paper for the second reading of the Bill to authorize a loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. There is great latitude allowed in the budget debate, but it is not permitted to discuss a question which is still on the Order Paper.


Glenlyon Campbell: I bow to your decision, Sir, but I had to tell your deputy on one occasion that what was flesh for one ought to be flesh for another; and so far, other members who have taken part in this debate have been allowed to refer to this subject. However, I do not wish to insist against your ruling.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I would not like the hon. member to think that I am unjust to him.


Glenlyon Campbell: I do not think that at all, Mr. Speaker.


William Stevens Fielding: There have been various reference to the Grand Trunk project during the debate, but I do not think any hon. gentleman has discussed the loan.


Robert Laird Borden: It is clearly in order that my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) should point out in this debate that the Grand Trunk Pacific have not carried out their contract, which is a different thing altogether from discussing the loan.


Glenlyon Campbell: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will have much pleasure in leaving the loan alone for the present, and I only wish that you would rule that the government also should leave it alone. I was going to point out that the hon. member for Brandon said :
We make a clear-cut proposition embodied in a contract signed and sealed with a reputable corporation of great resources which is going ahead with this work as rapidly as possible.
In his opinion the Grand Trunk Pacific Company was a reputable corporation of great resources. The hon. Minister of Finance, if I may quote him, referring to the Grand Trunk corporation, said:
We have not been content that they should stand behind it. We have required, and they have readily consented, that they shall be in it and of it and form the whole thing.
I want to point out that they are very much in it-that they need $5,000,000 in their own business to pay themselves. That is why they are in it. They are looked upon as a company of great resources, and because they are in it and of it and form the whole thing, therefore Canada should respond to their call when they do call. I would point out to those gentlemen who think so highly of the resources of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, this fact, that these people, who are in it and of it and the whole thing, owe Canada, and have owed Canada for years, $50,000,000, with interest, and Canada cannot get a cent; and still we are asked to bank for these people. I think perhaps the fact that they owe that $50,000,000, with interest, has something to do with their trouble in financing for themselves. My opinion of the trouble with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and their failure to carry out their contract with the people of this country, is this. It was pointed out by the First Minister, by his aides and his general help, that this was a colonization road-that when it got into the western country it was going to open up new country. What has it done in that respect? In the province of Manitoba you can stand anywhere on the Grand Trunk Pacific and throw a stone on to either of the old roads, the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern. Is that carrying out the promise made to the people by the government on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific? That to my mind is breaking the contract; ana many hundreds of farmers, all through that western country are in need of railways to open up the particular districts in which they live. I Mr. FIELDING.
heard the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) make the remark that in his riding the Grand Trunk Pacific paralleled another road for over eighty miles. Is that making a colonization road to open up a new country and benefit the farmers ?


William Erskine Knowles: Will the hon. gentleman kindly give us the date when the hon. member for Assiniboia made that statement?-because the Grand Trunk Pacific dees not go into his riding at all.


Glenlyon Campbell: I was perhaps wrong in quoting the hon. memuer for Assiniboia just in the way I did. To correct myself and to put myself absolutely in the right, I may say that his argument was this, that it ought to have come through his riding, and instead of doing so it had paralleled another road within a stone's throw. My own opinion with regard to this Grand Trunk Pacific project is this, that the construction company behina it, call it what you will, has made up its mind that it is going to make its rake-off now out of Canada. Everything it sells to Canada, from town sites down to ties, is sold at from ten dewn to three prices over proper values. They are going to make all they can out of Canada, and when they have built a road which	will have	cost
so much that it will be almost impossible to operate it at a profit, they will band it back to Canada and say: ' HeTe is your road, run it yourself.' For example, I will instance the little matter of ties, millions of which are used. In the season before last ties were made and laid down on the right of way of the Transcontinental Railway by the contractors, who made money doing it, at from 21 to 28 cents each, and Canada pays for those same ties in the neighbourhood of 60 cents each. Nobody in this House can refute that. Perhaps in a few isolated cases, when some party heeler required a long price, a little more was paid: but the great bulk of the ties on the Transcontinental Railway were laid down on the right of way at the prices I have stated.


William Stevens Fielding: On what section of the road ?


Glenlyon Campbell: On the section eastward from Fort William-the eastern division.
Another matter of policy of the government that I would like to take a little cognizance of is the matter of deferred elections. I have had some personal knowledge of this matter, both on one side and the other, and if any man in this House is an authority on the subject I think I am. I had a deferred election in 1892 over practically the same territory that I now represent in this House. In 1896 I had the same experience. In 1899 I did not happen to be there, and a friend of the same stripe of

politics as myself had the experience. In 1904 I had the same experience over the same territory, but for the federal house. On that occasion there was more time between the date of the issue of the writ and the date of the election than there was in the last election, when we did not have a deferred election. The reason why we did not have a deferred election this time was perhaps this, that the best thinking Liberals in Dauphin constituency had got tired of deferred elections; they had got tired of being disfranchised, and they told the gentleman who was representing the Liberal interest that if he held a deferred election he could not count on their support.
That was perhaps one reason. Another was that I had the pleasure of travelling with the returning officer a few days before, when he had to make known whether there was to be a deferred election or not. The conversation turned on that possibility, and I advised him, as a friend, having heard the rumour, that if he did not want to take a prominent part in a hanging bee, he had better not have a deferred election.
I mention this to show the feeling of the people in that country on that point. Neither Conservatives or Liberals out there want deferred elections. We want the use of our franchise and are prepared to use it in the proper way. In 1899, another gentleman had the pleasure of contesting a deferred election. On that occasion it was a provincial election and this man, who was a prominent worker for the Liberals in Winnipeg, went out on a specia train. I hope my non. friend from Rainy River, (Mr. Conmee) will not get angry with me for speaking of special trains. On that train he had 50 or 60 men to whom he paid $2 a day and provided them with all the whisky they wanted besides what they required to eat. He took them up-I had the story from himself-into	a district
where there were no actual settlers, and voted them time and again until he piled up 400 of a majority for the government candidate. His employers were gentlemen known to both sides, and if any one is ainxious for the names I shall be pleased to whisper them to him. I can assure you that if the Liberal candidate at that time were here, he would not want to hear the names. That is the great danger in deferred elections. The government have the leverage by running all the party heelers into the particular districts, even if there be an election held and it does not go by acclamation, and in this way they can smother the voice of the people. I would be in favour of this House setting the example of legislation in such a way as to prevent the holding of deferred elections, which they could easily do. In Manitoba there are certain districts in which it has become the fashion to hold I54i
deferred elections. That happened in my own case in the last provincial election. Although I tried personally in every way possible to obviate the necessity, still for certain reasons, owing to the state of the law on elections, it was not possible to get time enough to hold the contest on the same day as the others. Perhaps while that was not an unmixed benefit to my opponent, because I believe it saved him expenses and his deposit of $200 as the seat was given to me by acclamation, this government should set an example in that particular matter to the provinces, and I feel sure that if it did, the provinces would have no reason in the world for not following suit.
Another matter to which I wish to bring your attention is something which occurs on account of deferred elections. That is explained in a letter, of which I shall give a paraphrase to the House. I do not wish to read the letter itself, because I do not intend to lay it on the table, but I shall give the exact meaning. The letter was to the following effect:
I write to ask if you will not come down and use your influence to call Glen off. He is very stubborn, and no one here can do anything with him.
* This was written in 1904, before the election, and it was written to a gentleman who had been actively concerned in political interests with the writer or his close friend. The writer went on to say:
In any case, I think we can heat him, hut you know you never can tell what these damned Grits will do.
This was written by a Liberal candidate, and it will not surprise you to learn that I have no wish to endorse his language, having been brought up in the Presbyterian church myself. But I often wonder who were the gentlemen who were stigmatised by that unhappy epithet. Did he have in his mind, I wonder, the right hon. the Prime Minister or any of his cabinet, or the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton)? Or did he just mean the honest and decent Liberal electors? I think perhaps that is really what he meant. Being a turncoat Tory himself, having been a Tory for years, so long as the flesh-pots were in charge of the Conservative party, and having changed his politics in 1896 because the flesh-pots still had attractions for him, possibly I am right when I say it was the honest Liberal electorate he was referring to. But if there were no deferred elections, a letter such as that would be impossible.
I just want to say a word with regard to my hon. friend who is asleep here, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). Knowing him as I do, I know that anything ,1 say will not be offensive to him. When

he spoke yesterday I listened to him attentively, and do yon know the thought that flashed across my mind was this :	' Here
is another maverick.' Perhaps you do not know what a maverick is. It is an unbranded steer running on the range, owned by nobody and subject to be caught at any time and branded, and the ownership would then be in the proprietor of the brand. My hon. friend was wandering around talking free trade and imagining he was talking for those gentlemen over there. His speech was all right if he had only brought it to a logical conclusion. He talked free trade, and then he talked of what the government had done for free trade, and admitted that the Conservatives had done more to reduce the tariff really than had those so-called free traders. And he went on to speak of inconsistency in politics When he considers those two facts, and the conclusion he came to in regard to the lowering of the tariff being greater on this side than on that, there is only one thing for him to do, and that is to rub off the hair-brand he got since he came down here and fall in line with the people he knows are honest. He knows that on that side they are not honest because on one particular occasion they were so dishonest that he went out and would not vote for them. He felt, as I say, lost. He is a free trader; there is no free trade in Canada.


Michael Clark: Can the hon. member recall a single phrase in which I mentioned free trade?


Glenlyon Campbell: I am not referring to what he specifically mentioned in the way of free trade because I realize that since he came down to this House there are some things which he must not mention in a Liberal camp. But the hon. gentleman cannot deny that he is one of the most ardent free traders in Canada. On this side of the House, Sir, we call a spade a spade, we believe in protection and call it protection. The other people believe in protection but they call it by any name under the sun that they think will hood-wink the people. I believe in protection and I believe in this party because they enunciate clearly and honestly what their policy is in that regard and they are willing always to stand and fall by it.
I listened to the splendid logical argument laid before this House on the matter of imperial defence or aid to imperial defence delivered by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Poster). It was found fault with by the hon. gentleman who leads the House. Why? Because it was not concrete. That is the fault he found with it and what did he give us? He gave us verbiage, which means nothing. Why, Sir, Mr. CAMPBELL.
it is time for this House to realize that the whole world is looking to Canada in this particular matter. I say the whole world and I mean it. Why these little Japanese with their civilization 4,000 years older than ours in some matters of esthetics and the arts, have come to realize in the last few years that painting and ornamental work of that kind does not bring them anything, they have become ambitious to take a position in the world and have taken a position by defeating great Russia. The fact that they defeated Russia has stimulated them to further aspirations, there is no doubt about that, they are looking around for fresh worlds to conquer, they are watching to see what Canada is going to do, when the motherland is calling. Then there is Russia, she is watching as we all know, to see if anything will befall the navy of Great Britain. If anything occurs to the navy of Great Britain, I am of the opinion that the next day Russia will be marching across the borders into northern India. Germany is watching to see what Canada will do. Why? Because she has an idea that if she can only beat England on the sea she has the supremacy of the world. She is watching to see if Great Britain has her colonies at her back, she is watching to see whether the Germans, who have come out here by thousands, are ready to support loyally the country of their choice and their adoption. France is watching for the same reason that all the minor powers in Europe are watching, watching on account of her commerce for one reason, because she knows that the naval power of Great Britain has stood for the safe commerce of the world, has stood for the safe commerce of all the smaller countries, knows that the navy of Great Britain has not been maintained and brought to its present standard because Great Britain desired to go out to conquer new worlds, but simply because Great Britain believed that as long as she held the supremacy of the seas, the commerce of all kinds from the smallest nation to the greatest nation was safe. France is looking to this colony to see what it will do. France does not forget that on this side of the Atlantic are the descendants of Frenchmen in their thousands, she looks to them to see whether the old French chivalry, the loyalty to the flag which protects them, is dead in the descendants of the men who came over from beauteous France. She is looking to see if chivalry died in this country when fell Montcalm.
I think further that we ought to remember that in Great Britain there are hundreds of thousands, nay millions of people who for all those decades have been paying ' with a smile ' for the protection of Can-

ada as well as other colonies, they have been paying their taxes, and it has been hard to pay them, with a smile, because they knew it was Great Britain's colony, it was the daughter of the great mother, whom they were helping to protect. Those people are looking to us to see whether we are going to respond to the call, if we are not going to show that we were ready to help our brothers across the sea in bearing the burden they have to beaT on our account. All through Canada the people have been looking to see if anything definite is going to be done. Every board of trade from the Atlantic to the Pacific has been passing resolutions to that end, to have Canada show herself, show her hand, show her willingness to come out in the open and say:	We are with the mother
country. Send the message to Great Britain. ' You can call on us for what you want and we are behind you.'
1 was more than surprised to hear the hon. gentleman from Nanaimo (Mr. R. Smith) speak in such a cold-b'ooded way about gathering up gear and gvlting rich. No matter how rich we got, if anything should happen to the navy of Great Britain, where are we at with all our richness? The hon. gentleman who represents in this House the hardy men of the Yukon came here and made a cold-blooded speech on this subject. Knowing the people of the north country as I do, 1 declare that his sentiments as expressed in this House are not the sentiments of the men who have gone into that north country and taken their lives in their hands from day to day. I hope the First Minister will reconsider his reply of two or three days ago with regard to aid in the matter of Dreadnoughts. I hope he will consider that even although he cannot trust me to back him up in many of the things he does, there is one thing in which I and every Conservative would support him, loyally and enthusiastically, that is, if he would come to this House and give us a part in saying what we will do for the mother country and for the empire. Had he been here I would have taken pleasure in telling him that it is my opinion that this is the hour and he is the man, and all Canada is looking to him.


Mr.  M. Y.@: McLEAN moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: I suppose we continue this debate on Monday?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 26, 1909.