1909-04-22

Mr.   J.@: CONMEE (Thunder Bay) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 150) to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, chapter 115. He said: When the Bill for the incorporation of the Ontario and Michigan Power Company was before the House for its second reading a short time ago, the leader of the House expressed the view that it would not be within the jurisdiction of a provincial legislature to incorporate a company with the powers that company was asking for. The hon. leader of the opposition expressed the view that a provincial legislature might incorporate such a company, but might not be able to confer upon it the power to carry out the objects proposed, but

it might obtain that power by making application under chapter 115. I am not going to pretend to decide which of these opinions is correct; that is not necessary to the purpose I have in view. But so far as my information goes, so far as I can interpret the statute, and so far as I can learn from legal gentlemen with whom I have discussed the question, it is at least doubtful if a company incorporated otherwise than by the Parliament of Canada could obtain under chapter 115 power to construct works of any kind in navigable waters. Sub-section 'a' of section 2 of that Act defines the works that may be so ratified. (2) In this part, unless the contract otherwise requires:
' Work ' includes any bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau, wharf, dock, pier or other structure, and the approaches or other works necessary or appurtenant thereto.
In section 3 of this Act, we find these words:-
Except so much of this part as relates t* rebuilding or repairing any lawful work, nothing hereinafter in this part contained shall apply to any work or structure under the authority of any Act of the parliament of Canada or of the legislature of the late province of Canada or of the legislature of any province of Canada, passed before such province became a part thereof.
That language, it would appear, excludes from the operation of part 1, chaper 114 (a) ' any works authorized by the parliament of Canada.' I assume that that is not to be construed to mean that the parliament of Canada could not pass a special Act to authorize that work, but that is the language of the section as it stands whatever interpretation may be put upon it; (b) ' any work authorized by the legislature of the late province of Canada or any work authorized by the legislature of any province now forming part of Canada, passed before such province became a part thereof.' I would submit that this does not exclude the rebuilding or repairing of any existing works, I assume that such works could be rebuilt or repaired under chapter 115. That section is well knowm to hon. gentlemen, and therefore I shall not take up time reading it. But section 7 of the first part, which is the question under review here, provides:-
The local authority, company or person proposing to construct any work in navigable waters, for which no sufficient sanction otherwise existed, may deposit plans thereof and a description of the proposed site with the Minister of Public Works, and a duplicate of each in the office of the registrar of the district, county or province in which such work is proposed to be constructed, and may apply to the Governor in Council for approval thereof.
The subsection provides for advertisement so that there may be public notice given. I submit that this provision goes no further Mr. CONMEE.
than the works specifically mentioned in subsection (a) of section 2, chapter 115, under the provisions of that Act the works I have mentioned, namely, any bridge, dam, wharf, dock, pier or other construction or approaches thereto. Beyond those specific works mentioned, there is no power in the Act giving the Minister of Public Works or the Governor in Council power to authorize other wrorks such as a diversion of navigable waters. I may say that a question in point has arisen in connection with the works proposed to be built on the Rainy river at Fort Frances. The company there had obtained from the province of Ontario a charter under letters patent to carry out certain works of development upon the river, under an agreement which they had entered into with the government of the province. They came here to get their plans approved, but the department would not approve of them because they had not the requisite legal authority. Section 1 of the Act provides with regard to the rebuilding authority, that the w'ork shall be a lawful one, and what constitutes a lawful work is defined by the Act, chapter 115:-
Lawrful work means any work not contrary to the law in force at the place of the construction thereof at the time of such construction.
It was held that they had no lawful authority to go on with the w'ork, and therefore could not get their plans approved. That was one reason, I presume, which caused them to ask for the Bill from this parliament, which they obtained in 1395. The provisions of the Act provide that the company shall, before commencing their work, submit plans and apply for the approval of the Governor in Council.
Pending the passage of the Act, a dispute arose between the municipality of Fort Frances and this company, and the municipality filed a petition. It appears there was a dispute about an agreement-that is, there were, it appears there were, tw7o agreements entered into. The first one was dated 17th March, 1904, but it appears another agreement was made, as alleged by the municipality without their knowledge, and dated the 19th of October, 1905. The municipality took exception to the ratification of the plans, but an Act w'as obtained from this parliament, giving authority to the company to get its plans ratified. It got them ratified by an order in council, and I want to point out that an amendment to the statute is necessary, first, to determine what class of works are to be covered by such orders in council that may be passed under the Act, chapter 115.
I am not very much in favour of legislation by order in council. I do not think it is the best form of legislation, and I be-

lieve that the question involved in this measure is sufficiently important to require some governing statute which would better protect the public interest
I need not take up the time of the House explaining the position but there is a very grave injustice to Fort Frances. The agreement between the company and themselves is dated 17th February, 1904. The other agreement was sought to be legalized by the Act which the company asked for from this parliament and which was refused. The Act, as it is in our statutes, makes no reference to the alleged agreement of 19th February, 1905, at all. It was refused owing to a compromise. The solicitors on behalf of the town and the company agreed that an Act should be passed, without giving validity to the agreement in dispute, because the town was advised that they could set it aside by action in the courts. Strange to say that agreement has found its way into the order in council ratifying the plans. It is recited in full, and is made one of the bases for granting the request for the ratification of those plans.
I do not pretend to say -what legal effect that will have, but the Act in question-I had occasion to refer to it a few days ago- had been set aside, so far as it is in the power of the provincial legislature to do so. They passed another Act declaring that the company was not bound by the restrictions contained in the Dominion Act. When the Department of Justice came to deal with this provincial Act in the report as to whether it was an Act that should or should not be vetoed-I will not take the time of the House in reading the report because it is quite lengthy-the view of the minister was that the Act was very questionable, that it was beyond the authority of the provincial legislature to pass, but-unfortunately, in my opinion he did not recommend the disallowance of the Act and stated that the matter might be determined by the courts. Here was a community that, to my certain knowledge, has spent several thousands of dollars trying to defend what was a natural water-power, a great water-power in their town, for five years, first in the legislature, and then here, and, in the end, after employing the best counsel this country could afford and taking every step they could take as a small community to protect their interests, they are now relegated to the courts to find out what their rights are. I submit that there should be something better than that to determine these interests. There are several instances where the present method is not as workable as it should be. The department gave, as another reason.^ in this instance, why they could not ratify the plans of the company that they were asking for power outside the enumerated powers in the
Dominion Act, formerly Chapter 92, now 115, they were asking for the diversion of a navigable stream. The Department of Justice,
I believe, was consulted upon that point at that time-I am speaking of the application previous to the passing of the Act by this House in 1905-and the Department of Justice, according to my recollection, pointed out that that particular character of work was not covered by the Act, that there was no power to ratify the plans to that extent, unless they were empowered to do so by Act of parliament. So, we have this condition, that, under the Act as it stands to-day, if we take the view that has been expressed here, no provincial legislature could legislate in regard to the construction of any work of that character in or upon navigable waters, and it is equally true, if the practice to which I have referred be correct, that this government, under the existing law, cannot, or, at least, should not, in view of the express provisions of the statute, ratify plans in regard to works of the character of diversions to which I have referred. I am not going to say that plans of that character have not heretofore been ratified. I happen to know that works have been established at the town of Sault Ste. Marie without the ratification of plans, on the assumntion that the provincial legislature had jurisdiction and that ratification was not necessary. Somewhat later, in dealing with its securities, the company found that to give stability to them, they must have legal power to maintain their works, and they came to this government to get that power. But, if I am not mistaken, they have not got it. because the power did not exist under the statute to enable the department to ratify works already constructed. The language of the statute is ' works proposed to be constructed '-not works constructed. If I am cor-rectlv informed. I assume that the company, in ordeT to get itself out of the dilemma, will have to obtain an Act of parliament, if they have not already obtained it. The same condition exists in regard to the Kam-inistiquia river, near the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William. The works have gone on there without submitting plans to the Dominion authority. Dams have been, built and a navigable stream diverted. and there is no authority whatever. I could enlarge on that question and show that both life and property are at stake in these transactions. There is the case of the Current river near Port Arthur. A waterpower was developed there and storage dam3 built holding back large bodies of water. Unfortunately one of these dams gave way and the torrent of water carried away structure after structure in its course, including the tracks and bridges of the Canadian Pacific railwav in the city. And we know that the result of that was that there was great loss of property and the loss of several lives.

And these works are in their infancy in our country. The same great danger hangs over the community in the riding I have the honour to represent owing to the works at the city of Fort Frances. There should be proper inspection during construction of such works. Therefore, I submit this Bill with a view to meeting the difficulty. The Bill is in tentative form, and I hope that the government will realize the importance of the question and will bring in legislation to protect the public interest better than it is protected under the Act as it stands at this time. I might say, in that connection, that I notice there is a Bill on the Order Paper, introduced by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur). I do not know its scope, but I hope it is in the same direction as this. I am not sure that this Bill will reach a second reading, and that is why I have taken so much time in making my remarks upon it now. I may say, in closing, that it is not my intention to press this Bill-which is in tentative form, and can, no doubt, be made to cover the points of danger to which I have referred.


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

Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 151) to amend the Exchequer Court Act. He said:	This Bill consists
pf one section, to provide that the Crown, at its option, in any action which has been tried in the Exchequer Court, may appeal not to the Supreme Court necessarily, but, if it prefers, to the highest Appellate Court of the province. There are sometimes cases in which, though a comparatively small amount of money may be involved, very important questions of law arise on which the Crown would wish to appeal from the decision of the judge of the Exchequer Court, but the expense of such an appeal to the successful suppliant, if the appeal is to be carried to the Supreme Court, is so heavy that one feels great reluctance in advising the Crown to exercise its right. It is thought that a measure of this character would prevent that difficulty at all events, and give a useful alternative right of appeal to the Crown, if the Crown should be advised, to exercise it. There is upon the Order Paper another Bill which stands for a second reading, to amend the same statute in regard to the position of the registrar of the court, and the two Bills might usefully be considered together.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Does the hon. gentleman say that the right of appeal is limited to the Crown side of the case, or does the suppliant have the same right?


Mr. CONMEE.: 


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: It is extending it to the Crown only.


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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. LACHANCE-by Mr. Proulx-asked:
1.	On what date and in what capacity did Captain Theophile Roy, called Desjardins, en-tei the service of the Marine Department on board the ' Aberdeen ' ?
2.	When did he leave the service, for what reason, and on whose report or on whose order?
3.	Was he employed on the ice-breaker ' Montcalm ' ? If so, when, how long, and in what capacity?
4.	For what reason and on whose order did he leave his employment on the ' Montcalm ' ?
5.	Has he been called to the post of third officer or boatswain on the r Seguin '? If so, by whom and on whose report or recommendation was he called, and when?
6.	Has he been employed on the ' Seguin '? If so, how long?
7.	Was a man named Hoffman employed on the 'Seguin' in 1905? If so, how long, by whom was he appointed, and on whose request or report was he appointed?
8.	Was Captain Desjardins called to the post of first officer, second officer, or third officer, or to any other post on the steamers ' Champlain ' and ' Canadienne ' in 1907 and 1908? If so, on what date, by whom, on vi hose request or report was he so called, and has he taken charge of these duties? If net, why not?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Entered the service as 3rd officer on board the 'Aberdeen,' June, 1901.
2.	Services dispensed with by the department in October, 1905, on the official report of the agent of the department at Quebec that his habits and services were not satisfactory-Desjardins, was at the time under suspension.
3.	Had been employed as 3rd officer on the 'Montcalm' prior to 1905, for a short time.
4.	' Montcalm' laid up for repairs.
5 and 6. No record in the department of his having performed any services on the 'Seguin'?
7.	No record in the department of any services of Hoffman on the 'Seguin.'
8.	No. record in the department of T. Desjardins having had any connection with these vessels during these dates.


EXPLORATION PARTY TO JAMES BAY.
Mr. AMES asked:: 1.	Was it the intention of the government curing the season of 1908 to send an explorar t;on party by water to James bay and Labra-d >r, including Dr. Robert Bell?

2.	If so, was this project abandoned? If so, why?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue).: The answer to both questions is no.
FISHERY OFFICERS IN NOVA SCOTIA. Mr. JAMESON asked :
1.	Has the government taken into consideration the appointment of fishery officers to enforce the fishery laws at Port Joli, Nova Scotia, and vicinity?
2.	Who is the nearest fishery officer to Port Joli having jurisdiction to enforce the fisheries laws?
3.	Is there a fishery officer at Lower West Sable river, at Little harbour, and at East Ragged island, in Shelburne county?
4.	How far is each of these three places from the other two places, respectively?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Yes.
2.	A. C. Robertson, inspector of fisheries, Barrington Passage, and J. L. Bain, fishery overseer at Liverpool.
3.	Yes, there is a fishery guardian at each place.
4.	Department not aware of exact distances, owing to indentations of the coast.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-GEORGE CARSON.
Mr. GEO. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	Is Mr. George Carson in the employ of the Post Office Department?
2.	If so, for what period was he absent from the department during 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909, respectively?
3.	On what business, if any, of the department has he been engaged during these absences ?
4.	What amount was he paid during each of these years?
5.	In his absence who performs his work?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1.	No.
2.	From 25th August, 1906, to 31st December, 1908, upon which date his resignation took effect.
3.	Not engaged upon departmental business.
4.	In	1906	$590	44
1907		 Nil.
1908		 712	44
5.	Mr. T. A. Godfrey performed his duties during such absence.


I.C.R.-CONCILIATION BOARDS.
Mr. GEO. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	What was the finding or award made by the Conciliation Board in September, 1908, in relation to the dispute between the Intercolonial Clerks and the management of'the Intercolonial Railway?
2.	Did Mr. M. J. Butler, Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, write to Mr. F. A. Ackland, Acting Deputy Minister of Labour, on 10th October, 1908, in the following terms:
' I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 6th instant, and have to inform you that the department is ready and willing to accept the findings of the Committee of Conciliation, Mediation and Investigation.'
3.	Has the government or the Department ol Railways and Canals carried out the said finding or award up to the present time?
4.	If the said findings or award have not been carried out, what is the cause of the delay ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The finding which was placed on the table of the House some time ago is too voluminous to answer as a question; but a copy of the same is attached herewith.
2.	Yes.
3.	The report implied the reorganization and classification of the clerks and the dismissal of about 20 per cent. Action has been taken towards securing information that will enable the details of the finding to be carried out, with regard to the best interests of the service, with as little friction as possible. It necessarily takes time to prepare a satisfactory plan.
4.	Answered by number three.
Copy file No. 9982-24.
Department of Labour, Canada.
Ottawa, October 6, 1908. Sir,-In the matter of the Conciliation and Labour Act, R.S.C., 1906, cap. 96, and in the matter of certain differences between the Intercolonial Railway of Canada and the Station Freight Clerks' Union, Branches Nos. 1 and 2 of Halifax and St. John.
##*###*
I have the honour to forward herewith for the information of the employing party concerned an approved copy of the findings of the Committee of Conciliation, Mediation and Investigation established in this matter, and I am directed to request that you will kindly state on behalf of the employing party concerned whether the findings in question will be acceptable to such party, and will be taken as a basis for settlement of the differences referred to the committee. .
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) F. A. ACKLAND, Acting Deputy Minister of Labour. M. J. Butler, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, Ottawa.
Cl py File No. 9982.


REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON CONCILIATION.
[Stage Direction]
Hen. Rodolphe Lemieux,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ont.
In the matter of the Conciliation and Lab-cur Act, R.S.C., 1906, cap. 96, and in the matter of certain differences between the Into colonial Railway of Canada and the Station Freight Clerks' Union, Branches 1 and 2 of Halifax and St. John.
[Stage Direction]
Sir,-The committee provided for under the Act was formed and completed on September 8 and agreed to meet at Halifax on Sept' mher 16, and the three members of the committee arrived at Halifax on the evening of the loth.
On September 16 the members of the committee inspected the Intercolonial freight offices at Halifax and familiarized themselves generally with the duties of the clerks.
At 2 p.m. on the same day the committee met in the Province Building and there were present Messrs. G. P. Monaghan and Alex. Gibb and several others representing the clerks, and Mr. David Pottinger and members of his staff representing the Intercolonial Railway.
The demands of the clerks were presented 'n writing and were as follows:-

[Stage Direction]
Deep Water Freight Office.
Salary
No. Title.	. asked
1.	for.
1 chief clerk	$100	00i cashier	
95	001 clerk of piers	
95	00j terminal agent's	secretary	
90	005 first-class clerks	
85	0010	second-class clerks (1st year)	
60	00"	(2nd year)	
65	00"	"	(3rd	year)	70	0011	third-class clerks	(1st year)	
40	00"	(2nd year)	45	00"	"	(3rd	year)	50	00
Richmond Freight Office.
,	Salary
No. Title.	asked
for.
1 first-class clerk	
$85	001 second-class clerk	(1st year)	
60	00"	2nd year)	
65	00"	"	(3rd	year)	70	001 third-class clerk	(1st year)	
40	00"	(2nd year)	45	00" (3rd year)	
50 00
Schedule to apply from April 1, 1907.
Seniority and efficiency to count in grading.
2.	When a clerk is ordered back to work after hours or on Sundays or holidays by the officials, they are to be paid double time for all such extra time, and all clerical work in the office must be performed by clerks.
3.	_ When_ a clerk is relieving a clerk of a senior position or class for one week or more he will receive the rate of pay of the clerk he is relieving.
4.	That all clerks be allowed two weeks' vacation with pay, as at present, after one full year's service, and all statutory holidays be observed.
5.	That eight hours constitute a working day, as formerly.
6.	That all new clerks appointed to the office must enter as third-class clerks and receive the minimum of pay of third-class clerks for first year.
7.	That all vacancies go to the next senior clerk, who is to hold the office for six months on probation, and if at the end of that time he has satisfied his superior officers of his
Mr. GRAHAM.: ability to perform the work required of him he is to be confirmed in his position.
8.	That no employee from any other department be appointed to temporary or permanent vacancies over the heads of the regular clerks in the office.
9.	Clerks will not be discriminated against for being members of the Railway Clerks International Union, nor for serving on boards of adjustment representing clerks, and will be given leave

of-absence and furnished with free transportation for such purposes. They will also receive the same privileges for the purpose of attending their meetings on any part of the line, when it is possible to do so without inconvenience to the railway.
10.	No clerk will be suspended or dismissed without just cause, and any clerk charged with, suspended or discharged for an alleged fault, the same shall be fully specified in writing, giving full particulars two days prior to any investigation, and he will have a full and impartial hearing, and decision will be rendered within thirty days after filing his written request therefor with the proper official. If found blameless, as charged, he will be re-instated and will be paid for time lost at his stated rate of salary.
As this was the first intimation that the Intercolonial Railway officers had received as to what the demands were, nothing more than a preliminary discussion could follow, and it was decided to allow Mr. Pottinger proper time to consider these demands, and to formulate a reply to them. Accordingly the committee adjourned, and met again on the following day, when Mr. Pottinger presented his reply.
It became evident at this stage that the case divided itself into two distinct parts.
1.	Relating to general questions of the relations between the railway and its clerks and of appointments and organization.
2.	As to wages or salaries of clerks.
In Mr. Pottinger's argument he stated definitely that the Intercolonial Railway could not increase the pay of the clerks, nor adopt a schedule of salaries, but upon other points the Intercolonial were disposed to be conciliatory
The reasons for the railway declining to agree to the increase of wages were fully set out by Mr. Pottinger, and were such that the committee felt that it would be desirable to take up the other matters in dispute, leaving the question of wages to be discussed with the deputy minister at a later date, and all parties assented to this procedure.
Accordingly, and after a full discussion, the following matters were agreed upon by all parties in the form as undei

' Your committee are of the opinion that it would make for greater harmony, and better efficiency, if a system of class of classification of clerks were '''itroduced. Not only would the above results accrue, but there would then be an available scheme for promotion, which at the present time seems to be lacking, and which omission breeds discontent owing to the uncertainty of upward progress for efficient clerks who have by length of service and attention to the duties of their office earned the right to consideration in this regard. Just what system of classification should be introduced must necessarily be evolved by the officials of the railway who are more intimately familiar with the details of the busi-

ness of the Intercolonial than your committee can possibly be. The men involved must necessarily accept the classification determined upon, subject, of course, to the right which they possess of bringing to the attention of their superiors in office any improvement in such classification, which to them may seem desirable in the best interests of the service.
Overtime.
Clerks duly called upon to work beyond the regular hours of their daily service should receive a pro rata allowance for such overtime. The same rule should apply to Sundays. .
Holidays.
The two weeks vacation with pay should continue as at present.
Relieving.
When a clerk is relieving a clerk of a senior position or class, the relieving clerk should, after two weeks, receive the rate of pay of the clerk whom he relieves.
Length of Day.
Your committee do not feel disposed at present to make any recommendation with respect to the number of hours that should constitute a day's work- the present day is practically one of eight and one-half hours.
Promotion.
Your committee are further strongly of the opinion that, outside of the rare cases that arise where an exceptionally able outsider is brought into the service to fill some particular position requiring special knowledge and training, the principle of promotion of those already in the service should obtain, having due regard, of course, to efficiency and the requirements of the service.
Discrimination.
The men ask for the following clause:
' Clerks will not be discriminated against for being members of the Railway Clerks* International Union, nor for serving on boards of adjustment representing clerks, and will be given leave of absence and be furnished with free transportation for such purposes. They will also receive the same privileges for the purpose of attending their meetings on any part of the line, when it is possible to do so without inconvenience to the railway.
Mr. Pottinger stated that that was now the practice on the Intercolonial Railway and that there was no objection to an employee belonging to a trade union. This being the case, your committee need deal no further with this particular point.	.
10. No clerk is to be suspended, or dismissed, without just cause. Any clerk charged with, suspended or discharged for an alleged fault, the same shall be fully specified m writing, giving full particulars two days prior to any investigation, and he will have a full and impartial hearing, and decision will be rendered by the railway's proper official within a reasonable time after the written request has been filed. If found blameless, as charged, he will be reinstated and will be paid for time lost at his stated rate of salary.
After reaching this conclusion the committee adjourned to meet at Ottawa.
On September 28 the committee met in the Railway Committee room of the House of Commons and there were present Messrs. Mon9g-han, Gibb and Mr. M. J. Butler, Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals.
Mr. Butler laid his views before the committee on the question of increase of salanes and these coincided with those expressed by Mx-. Pottinger at Halifax, and further explained the inability of the railway to increase their expenses, owing to the fact that working expenses of the railway were very largely in excess of revenue, and no funds were available for any increase of expenses.
The committee further considered the questions involved and now submit the following additional recommendations:-
The committee after its investigation, is of opinion that, in the matter of wages, the system that obtains of appointing from time to time new men at higher pay over the heads of men long in the service and probably more capable of doing the work, is injurious to the service and unjust to the men. The remedy for this lies in re-organization, and the abolition of the existing system of appointment influenced by political patronage, which from the point of efficient working we find ample evidence to condemn as applied to the Intercolonial Railway.
The present staff is greater than is uecei-sary, and this is another element which discourages individual increases. If the aggregate amount paid now in salaries were divided among a staff equal simply to the requirements of the service, the men remaining could be better paid than they are now.
The re-arrangement of salaries could then he made on the basis of the value of the position and the work done, having regard of course to what is paid for similar work elsewhere, and the local cost of living as compared with such comparative centres.
At the present time the wages paid to those now presenting claims before us are not, owing to above reasons, what a fail- consideration would justify. Under the re-organization hereby strongly recommended, it is more than probable that the adoption of increase of from 15 to 20 per cent would not mean an appreciable addition to the operating expenses of the Intercolonial Railway, and would produce a more equitable schedule -of compensation for the staff retained.	.
We summarize our further recommendations as follows:-	,	,,
1.	Re-organisation in order to adjust tne number of employees to the actual requirements of the service.
2.	An increase as above suggested to the reorganized staff.
(Sgd.) D. McGIBBON,
Chairman of Committee.
JOHN G. O'DONOGHUE, Appointee of Clerks' Union.


HENRY HOLGATE,
[Stage Direction]
Appointee of Intercolonial R'y.
MARINE	DEPARTMENT-GOVERNMENT

Mr. GEO. TAYLOR asked:: 1. Has the government any information that boats owned by employees of the Department of Marine and Fisheries have been built or repaired in the government yards at Sorel ?

2.	Has the government made any inquiry or investigation into this matter? If so, what is the result of such inquiry or investigation?
3.	How many steam yachts are owned by foremen, engineers, or other employees of the government at Sorel, and where were such boats built?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1 No.	,
2.	An informal investigation was held seven years ago into a charge of this kind. The charge was disproved.
3.	The department has no information on this point.


ICE JAM AT NIAGARA.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Prime Minister, if the government are taking any action in regard to the trouble at the mouth of the Niagara river where the ice jam is going to cause, if it has not already caused, a loss of life as well as of property. Is any action being taken by any of the departments?


Hon.   L.@: P, BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries). The matter has been brought to the attention of my department, and I have given instructions to Colonel Anderson to go up and co-operate with the American government in order to remove the ice jam.



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 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. Speaker, as the hour is getting pretty late I will promise not to keep you very much longer. Since the budget speech was delivered we have heard a great many different kinds of arguments, but it strikes me that what the farmer and the average business man want to know is what amount of taxes they are paying at the present time.', "By looking at the record we will find that in 1896 each man, woman and child in Canada was paying $5.48 in taxation while at the present time we find that we are paying $11 per head. While we find that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) showed a surplus on the year's business we also find, by looking at the records, that we are $46,000,000 farther in debt. It struck me very forcibly how this would affect the province that I come from. By going into the figures I find that the province of Manitoba's share of this debt is something over $5,000,000. We have in that province about 9,000,000 acres of land under cultivation, and the debt of last year means a mortgage of $400 on every section of land under cultivation in the province of Manitoba. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what the debt of this country will be at the end of four years. I had read a good deal about the Minister of Finance but I had never seen him until I came to this House. From what I had read and heard of the Minister of Finance I never knew of him as a joker until he delivered his budget speech. I am sure that the Minister of Finance must have been trying to get off a joke when he told the House that this government was a government that had held the land for the settler. I wonder if he forgets that almost the very first action of this government, after they came into power in 1896, was to try and give 375,000 acres of our western land to Mackenzie and Mann. Does he remember this government selling 250,000 acres of our homestead lands in the west for the paltry sum of $1 an acre? Every government that has ever held power in Canada, whether Reform or Conservative, has always held the homestead lands as a sacred trust of the people, but when this government came inlto power they sold even the homestead lands. They sold thousands and thousands of acres of our best coal lands to speculators and their friends. They gave leases of thousands and thousands of acres of our beat grazing lands for a paltry sum and in some cases people could get these leases for almost a song. Does the Minister of Finance forget this government selling hundreds of miles of fishing rights in the western country for $10 per year, or, does he forget the timber limit deals that were put through by this government or that they even went so far as to traffic in the Indian lands? They were not .satisfied with dealing in the white man's lands but we find that they took advantage of the Indians. The Indians are the same as orphans in this country; they are the wards of the people, we have charge of their resources and yet this government go to work and sell to their friends 39,000 acres of their land for $9,017. The purchasers, in a few weeks, in fact, before the Mr. W. H. SHARPE.\ndeed is made out to them, turn it over to speculators for $101,813, thereby cleaning up, out of the Indian lands, over $90,000. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a good deal during this session about a man they call Bill Miner. Bill Miner took his life in his own hands, you may say, when he went into the Rocky Mountains, held up the Canadian Pacific Railway express and stole a sum of money from it. I consider that Bill Miner is a prince beside these men who hide themselves behind the law and rob the orphans of the country. I do not intend occupying the time of the House very long, but there is a matter I wish to bring before the government and the House and that is in connection with an interview that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) gave his newspaper in Winnipeg on the 10th February last. It is as follows:\nBluff and Bluster-Mr. Sifton's Comment on\nMr. Roblin's Defence of the Voters' Lists.\nHon. Clifford Sifton, who arrived in the city Monday from Ottawa, was interviewed yesterday in regard to Mr. Roblin's statement in the legislature regarding the provincial voters' lists. Mr. Roblin claimed that the lists were clean and satisfactory.\nMr. Sifton said that the statement of Mr. Roblin was untrue and that Mr. Roblin knew it to be untrue. The lists were flagrantly stuffed as every one knew perfectly well who had anything to do with the late election.\nThe assertion of the provincial premier, Mr. Sifton said, was a piece of impudent bluff and bluster.\nWhen the last election was over the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) asked the hon. member for Brandon the reason why the elections had gone against him in the province of Manitoba, and the hon. member for Brandon made practically the same reply to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister repeated that same statement, or pretty nearly the same statement, on the 22nd January last in this House. I claim that if the statement made by the Prime Minister on the floor of this House on the 22nd January last is true, and if the the statement made by the hon. member foT Brandon in this interview with the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' is true, I, for one, have no right to a seat in this House. If those statements are false, as I claim they are absolutely false, then the hon. member for Brandon has no right to a seat in this House. I do not intend to discuss the merits and demerits of the Manitoba voters' lists at the present, time, more than to say that the electoral lists for the province of Manitoba are the fairest lists that are compiled in Canada to-day. The judges have complete charge of the lists in that province and there cannot be one name added or one name stricken off without the sanction of the judges. I was elected in the constituency of Lisgar, Manitoba, by 105 majority, and if this government will ap-\n\npoint a royal commission to inquire into the lists in that constituency, and if they can find 106 Conservatives improperly put on that list, or if they can find 106 Reformers improperly left off that list, I will resign my seat, provided, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) will agree to resign his seat if his statements are not true, as I claim they are not true. I hope, Mr. Speaker, T make myself clear on this question. As the hour is very late I will resume my seat.\nOn motion of Mr. Nesbitt, the debate was adjourned.\nOn motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Friday.", 'Friday, April 23, 1909.']
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer).: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday I had been attempting, in a few hurried sentences, to express the opinion that this country had been fortunate in having had for the last 12 years in charge of its finances a minister who, in spite of strong attacks upon him from interested sources, had engaged in strenuous endeavours, and in a large measure successfully, to keep the tariff of this country on a revenue basis. I notice that some hon. members on the opposition benches do not agree with me as to his success in that matter, but I think the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Sutherland) demonstrated very successfully the other day that the tariff had really produced the revenue.


Mr. LALOR.: Has it stood the test?


Michael Clark: The best test of the effectiveness of a tariff for producing revenue is that it produces the revenue.
I will try to show this by a reference to other countries. You have a protective


Mr.   G.@: tariff undoubtedly in Germany, and you have a protective tariff in the United States with the result that in both those countries last year there were enormous deficits in the annual exchequer, and the United States are looking forward to a much larger deficit this present year; whereas, under what I still claim is a revenue tariff, you have had a series of surpluses under the able administration of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. OWEN.: Germany and the United States have been building Dreadnoughts.


Michael Clark: I do not know exactly what Dreadnoughts have got to do with what I was saying at the present moment, but I can assure my hon. friend that if he builds plenty of Dreadnoughts he will not hear much of surpluses in his lifetime, nor in that of his children or of his childrens' children. I think the greater credit is due to the Finance Alinister because of what I willingly concede to be the peculiar geographical position of Canada, being in close proximity, as she is, to the great protectionist country to the south of us. But, I do not think that a careful study, upon full information, of the condition of the United States as a high protectionist country, would encourage the government, or any government of this country, to depart from a tariff for revenue purposes. It may not be out of place for me to say a few words about how high protection has worked in the United States. I find, in talking with my friends in eastern Canada especially, that there is what I may call, without offence, perhaps, a disposition to be dazzled by the apparent success of protection in the United States. If it be the main object of a country to build up trusts and millionaires, I admit that success. There is no doubt whatever that the-United States has been successful in building up trusts and millionaires, and that through the policy of protection, but, I do not think, on reflection, that is a matter which should recommend itself to the thoughtful men of this or any other country, because the building up of millionaires means inevitably the aggravation of that problem of the terrible disparity between great wealth on the one hand and great poverty on the other, which has harassed the minds of human-hearted men since the dawn of history. But, if we depart from the consideration of millionaires, I do not think there is much evidence forthcoming that protection has been a successful policy in the United States. What, after all, has the United States done? I wonder if hon. members of this House have ever thought what the population of the United States is per square mile, for example, as compared with that of Great Britain. The United States is keeping 21 people upon the square-mile. Great Britain puts 21 people upon every square mile and then makes provi-

sion for 537 more. Great Britain has 558 people to the square mile to the United States' 21 and I contend, Sir, that the economic miracle of the nineteenth century is not to be found in the resources of a continent being able to keep 21 people to the square mile under protection, but that it is to be found in two little pin points, comparatively speaking, sticking out of the ocean, the United Kingdom, keeping 558 people to the square mile in, what Mr. Asquith recently claimed, a degree of comfort to be found nowhere else in the civilized world. I have not had the privilege that my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Harris) has had recently of travelling over the various countries to which he referred, but all the evidence I can gather confirms me in the belief that he is correct' when he says that Canada has come through the recent period of trade depression better than any country in the world and certainly better than the United States. What is the condition of the United States at the present moment with regard to the depression and unemployment? I wonder if hon. members are aware that with these 21 people to the square mile, during the first eight months of last year more people left -the United States than came into it. It is true that the balance was redressed a little in the last four months and that at the end of the twelve months there was a paltry immigration into the United States of 6,000 people. Does that mean that protection is working out to be a great success in that country? For years a million people have been added by immigration to the population of the United States every year, but last year, with its 21 people to the square mile only compared with Britain's 558, the gate swung backward to such an extent that as many people left the shores of the United States as came to them. The chairman of Lloyd's Bank, speaking to the annnal meeting of the shareholders, at the beginning of this year-and he knows something about trade and financial questions-claimed before that meeting of shareholders that the conditions of unemployment in Great Britain have been largely aggravated by workmen returning from the United States where they could not get a living to the overcrowded centres of those little islands. I give the House that fact for what it is worth. I think the authority behind it is, at any rate, worthy of the serious consideration of this House if it is wishful to bring a serious mind to the consideration of this question.
Now,' I should like to give the House another fact that may help to enlighten us as to how far it may be wise for the Canadian Finance Minister to allow himself to be influenced by the supposed success of high protection in the United States. In 1860 the United States had two and a-half million tons of shipping and in that same year the United Kingdom had four and a-quarter
million tons. At that time the United States bid fair to be the great competitor of Great Britain unon the seas. This is a very important question for any nation that wishes to achieve commercial supremacy, because, Sir, if we pass our minds down through history, I think it can be claimed that no nation ever achieved real commercial supremacy which did not have the enormous command of the seas. Take, for instance, the Genoese, the Romans, the Phoenicians, the Spaniards, the French in the eighteenth century, and then, the wonderful shipping of Great Britain, which is a proof that this is a sound position. In 1860 an important experiment was adopted by the two greatest trade nations in the world for the consideration of the world upon tariff questions. The United States betook itself to the system of protection and Great Britain went the opposite way. At that time the shipping of the United States was two and a-half million tons and that of Great Britain four and a quarter million tons. To-day, after sixty years of that experiment, the shipping of the United States has shrunk to one and three-quarter millions of tons, whilst Great Britain's four and a-quarter millions of tons have gone up to eleven and a quarter millions of tons, far surpassing a shipping record of any country. I do not want^ to labour this question too far, but if this House were to permit me I should like to offer it a piece of evidence of how protection has acted in the United States of America and from an authority that would not be impugned in the United States itself. I suppose that most of us will admit that Mr. Bayard was one of the most brilliant men that the court of Washington ever sent to the court of London as an ambassador. Mr. Bayard, while fulfilling his duties in that high position, was asked to address the Philosophical Institution at Edinburgh, an honour that is only conferred upon men of the very highest distinction. In addressing the Philosophical Institution of Edinburgh, he referred to the United States in connection with the kind of argument that I am trying to bring before the House to-day, and said:
In my own country I have witnessed the insatiable growth of that form of state socialism styled ' protection,' which, I believe, has done more to foster class legislation and create inequality of fortune, to corrupt public life, to banish men of independent mind and character from the public councils, to lower the tone of national representation, blunt public conscience, create false standards in the public mind, to familiarize it with reliance on state-aid and guardianship in private affairs, divorce ethics from politics, and place politics upon the low level of a mercenary scramble than any other single cause.
I offer these words for the consideration of every member of this House as furnishing a strong argument why Canada should

not follow in her fiscal policy too closely in the wake of the United States. I claim for the government which I have the honour to support very great credit for their having introduced the principle of a voluntary preference to British goods coming into Canadian market. I would like to make clear what at any rate my attitude is upon this question. Personally I would deal with any part of the world where I could exchange upon fair and profitable lines the surplus products of my own country for the surplus products of that other country. Great credit is due to the government of Canada for introducing this preference policy because in it they realized the present needs of Canada. I ventured to fight my election upon the platform that the two great present needs of the west are: greater transportation facilities and better markets, and, Sir, the great needs of the west are the great needs of all Canada. We are going through a period of development. The policy of the government is a policy of developing the west, and the development of the west means the development of our whole Dominion. And, if as I contend, markets are the great need of the west then the government deserves enormous credit for having given this voluntary preference to British goods which has tended to enlarge and expand our opportunities for trade. I have been surprised to read that when the preference policy was first introduced it was met from the Conservative side of this House by the statement that we were giving the old country something for nothing. That was a surprising argument to come from a Conservative party in this or any other colony of the empire, because I recall the fact that throughout the whole history of the empire the Conservative parties of the various colonies have always claimed a monopoly of patriotism and imperialism, and they have generally-in the early days of the colonies especially-managed to get a monopoly of the patronage as well. But, that argument of the Conservative party with regard to the preference had of course the graver demerit of not being a sound one. I should not have thought that a party that occasionally has what I would call ebullitions of imperialistic sentiment, would cavil at giving the old country something for nothing, and would have denounced it as a thing which brought discredit upon the government of the day. But, did we give the old country something for nothing? Why, to my mind that preference policy was not only a splendid jfiece of sane imperialism but it was at the same time a splendid piece of business. It was based upon a sound understanding of the conditions, and the only conditions upon which trade between nations should be conducted. In what does international trade consist; what are the principles which underlay the giving of the British Mr. M. CLARK.
preference? As I understand them they are extremely simple and can he stated in a very few words. International trade is an interchange of commodities; it is^ that and. nothing more. Money has nothing whatever to do with it. If I were to offer you in a single figure proof of that statement I should remind you that in the year 1906 the total trade of Canada with the other nations of the world consisted of $550,000,000 worth of exchanges, and that out of that $550,000,000 worth of exchanges only $16,000,000 was composed of gold and bullion, $7,000,000 of which went one way and $9,000,000 the other. If that be the extent of our international trade, and if it be desirable to build up that trade, then it follows that, as the Minister of Finance epigramatically said the other day: Sound trade is a benefit to the buyer and to the seller both; and, the only way you can do an international trade is by an interchange of surpluses, and the only way you can get rid of your own surplus produce is by taking the surplus produce of other people. These were the principles which lay at the root of the British preference. Tt was an independent policy on the part of Canada and it was a proper policy as I consider. I am bound to say that in reference to another kind of preference which is being discussed upon the other side of the Atlantic, the attitude of leading statesmen in this country-of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition as well as the leading statesmen of the government benches-has been absolutely unassailable, in that just as we claim in Canada the right to manage our own affairs in fiscal matters, so, an absolute right of the same kind must be left to the mother country.
Now, did the policy of the British preference justify the faith of those who introduced it? Of course, the moment we gave a preference for British goods in our markets, the imports came in, and that is what created fear in the minds of those who talked of giving something for nothing. But the moment the imports came in, the exports went out to pay for these imports, and that had a beneficial effect upon the country because not only did every import take an export but every import brought an immigrant. And largely as a result of that freer trade we have had the enormous expansion which has been witnessed in the fortunes of Canada during the last few years. I take it that a very brief view of the entire policy of this government will show that the development of one tariff policy along these lines is absolutely vital to the development of not only western Canada but of the whole country. Our policy is a policy of development and it would be so whichever party were in power. One party builds the Canadian Pacific Railway and another party builds the Grand Trunk Pacific, and Canada marches on the road of progress.

But in that policy of develoment as carried out by this government we have included an immigration policy which has brought settlers to till our boundless lands, and coincident with that we have a transportation policy destined to convey the surplus products of our country to the markets of the world where there is a demand for them. But the only way in which they can be sold to other nations is by taking the only payment that can be got for them, that is, the surplus produce of other nations. These are the principles which lie at the root of all international trade, and the sooner we in Canada realize this the better.
I think I am justified in saying that there is a very clear distinction between the two parties on the question of tariffs. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), in his speech the other day, may be taken, I think, to have fairly well voiced, in two hours and forty minutes, the sentiments of the opposition side; and, although he did not give a very extended protectionist argument, as did my hon. friend from St. Antoine division, Montreal, (Mr. Ames), nevertheless he did refer in terms of pride to what has been called the national policy.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: I understand, from the. 'hear, hear,' of my hon. friend, that that policy is one that is looked back upon with pride by the Conservative party. Well, Sir, if it could be proved to have been a national policy, such is my opinion of the patriotism of Canadians, and such is my knowledge of my own patriotism, that I believe they and I would become unanimous in its support. But I must say, after a careful examination of the claims of a policy of protection to be called national, 1 fail to find that it established any claim whatsoever to that title.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he can tell us what reduction of tariff has taken place under the present government?


Michael Clark: I think I made an admission on that side which should satisfy my hon. friend that I am not making a party speech-that on the general tariff there was as much reduction under the Foster tariff as there has been under the Fielding tariff. But if I wanted to deal with my hon. friend in a party spirit, I could easily say that if lie and the bon. member for North Toronto were so proud of the national policy, why did they run away from it? I think that is a fair retort to the interruption.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What item of the present tariff would the hon. gentleman reduce?


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, I should be quite willing to discuss any point
that I am acquainted with; but I have always understood that there is a great latitude in a budget discussion, and I aim sure that my hon, friend will agree that a new member of this House should have that latitude extended to him, at least as fairly and as freely as any other member.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I wish to understand my hon. friend's argument, and therefore I simply ask him what item of the present tariff he would reduce if he had his way?


Michael Clark: I think there will be no difficulty, unless in the hearer, about understanding my argument before I am done. I think a truly national policy should be national in its outlook, and I want to put it_ fairly to my hon. friend and to the opposition. When hon. members of this House or their friends outside speak in favour of a policy of high protection and increased duties, is their outlook a national one? I have heard the pleas of my hon friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) and others for an increase in the duties on woollens. Would it be argued that anybody who was pleading for an increase in the duties on woollens was doing so out of the warmth of his consideration and affection for those who wear woollens. There are 5,000 people all told employed in the woollen trade of Canada, and there are seven million of people using woollens. I should say that people who have a national outlook in their policy would look to the seven millions rather than to the 5,000. When the hon. member for Brantford in the last parliament (Mr. Cockshutt) advocated in this House holding the duties on agricultural implements as high or higher than they were when the present government reduced them by 21 per cent, does anybody believe that the hon. gentleman and his friends were actuated by a sincere desire to get cheap agricultural implements for the hundreds of thousands of farmers who are coming into our western country? I do not want to be uncharitable, but I think the outlook of those gentlemen was sectional. And if I dare say a word about the province of Nova Scotia, I should even direct a question into that quarter. My hon. friend from North Toronto was very severe on the Finance Minister in connection with certain proceedings in Nova Scotia. I am not sure that there is not some little symptom of protection down in that part of the world; but I should be very lenient in my judgment of it, because I have stated very sincerely the grounds on which I think this country ought to be grateful that it has bad such a Finance Minister as the member for Queens and Shelburne. And I should be lenient to him in Tegard to what happened in Nova Scotia, on another ground because I should always wish to recollect that that country is inhabited by a race of men who are reputed to keep the

Sabbath and everything else they can lay their hands on. And I think the lines of the great Scottish poet apply in such a case :
Then at the balance let's he mute,
We never can adjust it;
What's done we partly may compute,
But know not what's resisted.
But even in the case of any protectionists that there are in Nova Scotia, I fear it will be found to be true, if we examine it carefully, that their outlook is narrow, sectional and provincial rather than national. I fail to see how protection ever works in any other way, and I fail to see that its outlook ever entitles it to the high-sounding name of national policy. _ Show me where it is a national policy in its operation as between the various classes of a country. It is constantly happening in the high protectionist countries of the world, that goods are sold in enormous .quantities more cheaply abroad than they are in the country in which they are produced. A well informed American, intimately acquainted with the iron trade, told me the other day that in Pittsburg, in the month of January, 1908, steel rails were sold to the American people in pursuance of a national policy at $28 a ton, and on the same date were sold in Middles-borough on the north-east coast of England for $19.50 a ton. Now, if it be a national policy to rob your own people in order to sell cheaply to foreigners, with the incidental advantage of building up a few millionaires in your country, then a policy of high protection is a national policy, but otherwise it is not. Not only in its outlook but in its operation and its effects the National Policy in Canada proved to be no national policy because it failed to build a nation. When I was pursuing my campaign last year, I invested a modest sum in the purchase of the Canadian Almanac, and I found the trade figures of this country, which were there given, most instructive. It gave the figures beginning in 1883 and concluding in 1906, and these figures showed that the total trade of Canada, in the year 1883, after the National Policy had got fairly under way, was $230,000,000. I passed my eye down the column until I came to 1895, and I found that in that year, after 12 years' experience of nation building under the National policy, our total trade had actually fallen to $224,000,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What about the home market?


Michael Clark: I was not living in Canada at that time, but I have a friend in western Canada, who is now doing splendidly in the little town where I live, and who was a Conservative until he voted for me, and he told me that in those


Michael Clark: days he carried a letter six weeks because he could not buy a stamp to put on it.
I was pursuing the same line of argument . in the town of Red Deer during my contest and I was met with the same interruption about the home market. I replied that the home market in those days was pretty well illustrated by the fact that if a farmer went out with his gun and was lucky enough to shoot a rabbit he got his dinner, but otherwise he had to go fasting. He retorted there are no rabbits just now. I said: That's sure evidence that the Laurier government is going back to power because otherwise Divine Providence would have to provide the rabbits.
My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) passed on to another portion of his protectionist argument, on which he touched very gingerly, and that was the balance of trade. On that point he contended himself with quoting the figures and showing that the balance was against Canada. I cannot say that I was surprised at that line of argument, because I have read other budget speeches by the same hon. gentleman and have heard him use a similar argument at much greater length. But I am bound to say that this theory of the balance of trade is an extraordinary theory to one who has studied economics in the school founded by Adam Smith. The balance of trade is against Canada, argued the hon. gentleman, because our imports exceed our exports. Just let the House consider for a moment. How is that balance of imports over exports brought about? We are spending enormous sums on an immigration policy to produce it. If the theory of Adam Smith be the correct one, there is no such thing in the actual operation of trade as a balance. An import always takes an export in the actual interchange of trade. When there is an excess of imports over exports or the reverse, there is also a method of accounting for it, apart from the actual exchange of trade. In the case of Great Britain, her enormous excess of imports over exports is accounted for by goods coming to pay the interest on her enormous capital invested abroad and the cost of the shipping she does for nearly every nation in the world. But it is a common question to ask: What about the enormous excess of exports by the United States over the imports? But does it not occur to any one who reflects that Great Britain has an enormous amount of capital invested in the United States which must be paid for by American exports, and the payment of the interest on that capital debt accounts for the excess of exports from the United States to Great Britain.


An hon. MEMBER.: Tell us about the unemployed in Great Britain.


Michael Clark: 

stone said, ' No Chancellor of the Exchequer is worth his salt who shrinks from economy in detail.' I have seen nothing but what is admirable, nothing but what the younger members of this House may admire in the way my hon. friend leads the opposition in moderate criticism of expenditures in detail and fair examination of the estimates in this House. I endorse his attitude and action in that matter. But I remember very well also Mr. Gladstone saying another thing, and that was that your expenditures depend upon your policy. In regard to that matter, our policy being a policy of development, I take it that it is impossible to avoid great expenditures and great growths in expenditure in this country. But always it should be provided, I think, that these growths in expenditure are wise growths. And certainly Mr. Gladstone set his face, not only to economy in detail but to economy in wise policy, and especialy in regard to the very dangerous expenditures upon armaments. Now, my hon. friend (Mr. Foster), as he has been reminded in this debate, went down to Prince Edward Island last year, and made a proposition which,^ I think, was not a very necessary proposition for the development of this country. And I would submit to him that, after all, he cannot pose as an economist with a proposition to build a twenty-five-million-dollar tunnel in one hand and a proposition to build a fleet in the other.


An hon. MEMBER.: How about the Newmarket canal?


Michael Clark: The Newmarket canal, or any ditch, might be of use, if we have a sudden invasion of Germans for building defences behind. I should like to say a serious word to this House and to the government upon military expenditure in general. But I do not think that a singleword of my own is needed if the House will allow me to read a quotation from some memorable words of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) spoken outside of this House:
Surely, while our obligations toward the empire are very great and binding

And to that I fully subscribe.
yet our first and paramount duty is to the people of the Dominion whose servants we are.
And now, I think, when I have referred to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as a, pessimist, I shall have finished anything I wish to say about him at this time. I have tried to deal with him as a protectionist, a prophet and economist. He also posed in his usual role as a pessimist in this country. Now, it is always safe, whatever subject the) hon. gentleman may be dealing with, to assume that, if


Mr.   M.@: there be a gloomy side of it, he will find it. I was surprised, early in the session to find him consumed with dread lest Canada should run out of fish. I think that was the most extraordinary fear that ever oppressed a human mind. A little later in the session, his fears had been removed from fish and concentrated upon the Germans. And now, he has a dread of Canadian credit sinking in the money markets of the world. I must say that I do not share with my hon. friend his spirit of pessimism in regard to the budget statements of the Minister of Finance in regard to the future of Canada. My hon. friend made what I cannot think a very successful attempt at alliteration in describing the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) with two P's. If I might endeavour to better it, I would describe the hon. member (Mr. Foster) as a Pessimistic Promulgator of Panics. I cannot help thinking that I can give an explanation of how he takes so kindly to that role. Early in the session he did me the honour to reply to a few remarks which I had taken the liberty of addressing to the House. And in this reply he compared himself to an ox. Well, it is a perfectly possible thing for an hon. member of 'this House to have exaggerated ideas of his-,own proportions. But if that be the description that he cares to go under, I do not know, Sir, that I have any right to quarrel with it. He reminds me of that very useful and domestic animal, the bull, that can be thrown into a state of purposeless and groundless panic by the simple exhibition of a red rag. My hon. friend goes about with a red rag stretched in front of him. If what he said about the falling credit of Canada had come from any other member than Die member for North Toronto, I am sure it would have received from the people of Canada more .attention than it will now receive, and more attention than I feel inclined to give it. The credit of Canada, to my mind, is as sound as her prairies are boundless, and the spirit of her people is indomitable. Talk to me about the credit of Canada! I came out as a professional man, with some school boys, seven years ago, and I am tilling to-day a thousand acres of land, and am able to make at that occupation far more than is necessary for my family and myself. There is a picture of the heritage that we are working out, and it is a picture which begets, in my mind at any rate, and in the minds of the great majority of Canadians I am sure, not a spirit of pessimism but a spirit of optimism. I was glad to notice the other day	that
my Tight hon. friend and leader had joined the society of optimists; I wish he would endeavour to enroll, if lie has any influence with that society, the hon. mem-

ber for North Toronto. In conclusion 1 would say: Keep your immigration policy on the sound lines upon which it has been worked hitherto; keep your farmers going on the lands; sdll them the materials they need for developing their heritage at reasonable rates; and give them a chance in the markets of the world by keeping your tariff down to a revenue basis, and then you will have all the surpluses you require for building up the grandest civilization and one of the greatest countries the world has ever seen.


Mr. CLARENCE JAMESON (Digby).: I must congratulate the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) on the eloquence with which he has addressed himself to the subject before this House; but having congratulated him upon his eloquent speech, I am sorry that I cannot proceed any farther along that line. I congratulate him for instance, upon the relation which he bears to the government which he claims to support. He says that protection is enervating and hurtful. He has advocated a free trade doctrine. If my memory serves me right, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs, when the present tariff was being framed in 1907, defended certain items of protection upon the ground of their necessity to encourage certain industries in this country. Then he Tefers to protection in Nova Scotia, and I would direct his attention to the matter of bounties which the government is paying to a certain industry there. I would further direct his attention to the fact that the government in paying these bounties, is increasing the public debt of this country by the amount of the bounties. I contend when I have mentioned these facts that I have answered all his arguments with respect to the tariff and with respect to bounties.
Now the hon. gentleman went on to review at some length the subject of markets and the interchange of commodities, but when we simmer down his remarks, his idea of home markets was seemingly confined to two items, first, the item of postage stamps which the government makes, and secondly, the item of jack rabbits, which no leading manufacturer makes. He made another remark to which I wish to make a passing allusion. Speaking of Nova Scotians he said, if I remember his words correctly, that they had a reputation of keeping Sunday and everything else they could lay their hands upon. Now, Sir, I must leave it to the Minister of Finance to correct the hon. member


Michael Clark: If my hon. friend will pardon me-I said they were descended from a race of men who had that reputation.


Clarence Jameson: I accept the correction of my hon. friend, but I cannot see that it places him in any better light. If there is
149i	:	I i : i
anything the people of Nova Scotia are proud of it is the stock from which they are descended, and if there is anything which they *would resent it is the slightest reflection upon that stock, which I contend is second to none in the whole Dominion of Canada, or in any part of the British empire. Let me say for the information _ of my hon. friend, that there is an impression in Nova Scotia that some of the party followers of the Minister of Finance and of the leader of this government are included with those who keep everything they can lay their hands upon. The. hon gentleman also referred to the policy of .Adam Smith. But I think that policy, like its author, is dead, and is of no immediate concern to this country at least. With regard to his references to my hon. friend from North Toronto, I shall make no comment further than to say that the hon. member for North Toronto is too well known in this House as a man of great ability, and too well recognized throughout Canada as an able parliamentarian to need any defence on my part or to suffer aught at the hands of the hon. member for Red Deer.
Now, Sir, to return to the subject under discussion, I may say that a review of the public accounts of Canada during the past 13 years will disclose three outstanding features, three features upon which the members of the government and their supporters have said a great deal, both within this House and out of it, three features upon which the members of the government and their supporters and the government press have frequently congratulated themselves and the Canadian people. These three features are: First, the increased amount which year after year the government has drawn in taxes from the pockets of the people; secondly, the lavish expenditure of those sums; and thirdly, the so-called surplus. The first and second of these features have already been dealt with at some length by hon. members on this side of the House; ! will detain the House but a short time in referring to the third outstanding feature, that of the so-called surplus; in other words, the surplus upon consolidated revenue account, or to be strictly accurate, a balance upon a part only of the financial transactions of the year. I think it will be admitted by hon. members on both sides of the House that the two principal objects sought to be attained in keeping the public accounts of Canada are first, to present to the taxpayers a clear and true statement of the management of their finances by the government, and to show honestly the result of the year's transactions; and secondly, to keep a permanent record of those transactions.
This being so, the question arises: Do the budget and the accounts, as at present presented to the country, fully accomplish the first object? Do they convey to the

outsider, t-o the man in the street, to the great mass of the Canadian people, a clear understanding of the financial operations of the year and the added obligations of the country? The country has heard a great deal from time to "time regarding the government surpluses, but little is said regarding the fact-certainly no emphasis is laid upon it-that the entire year's business, in two cases out of three, there has been a shortage. Yet, sir, such has been the case in eight out of thirteen years under Liberal rule. Now, the Canadian tax-payer is a confiding individual. He does not, as a rule, stop to consider what the surpluses upon, consolidated revenue account actually mean. To him, during the recent election, for example, the $113,000,000 surplus, said to have been rolled up under Liberal rule, conveyed the ^ impression of money in reserve and available when required. This was a conviction of which I believe a portion at least of the Canadian tax-payers was firmly seized. Yet, it was a false idea, a mischievous idea for it led all such to believe that the government possessed the means with which to carry out every reasonable and unreasonable promise made by ministers of the Crown and government candidates throughout the country Largely upon the faith of these promises and upon the supposed existence of the means with which to carry them out, the government was returned to power. But how about the pledges and promises, and, still further, how about the many of the sums which parliament voted last year for public works? They are not provided for in the estimates this year, because, according to the statement of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) and of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), the government lacks the funds with which to proceed with them and has actually stricken out of the estimates about $9,000,000 that was formerly voted for public works.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But that was before the election.


Clarence Jameson: As an hon. gentleman suggests these amounts were placed in the estimates before the election; they were stricken out afterwards. I think that fact should speak for itself. Now, I do not mean to say or to imply that an adept cannot take the public accounts and, by examination of them, learn just how the finances of the country stand, and how much the government has put the country in debt from year to year, but I maintain that the system of severing the accounts of the year's financial transactions into consolidated revenue account and capital account, a system which has been in vogue in Canada under all governments since confederation, lends itself to manipulation, misrepresentation and to an obscuring of the Mr. JAMESON.
results. That, in connection with this severing of the accounts, the feature of the gigantic balance as shown by a part only of the financial transactions of the year or, on consolidated revenue account, is made much of, and accentuated by the government and the government press, while the added debt of the country upon the total business of the year is slurred over and is not accentuated. Because of this a clear understanding of the actual financial condition of the country is not I believe, readily obtainable by the people of Canada at large, and is not held by them. Now, Sir, in illustration of the idea which I have been endeavouring to convey to the House, that these surpluses upon a portion of the year's transactions are paraded while the added indebtedness of the country is slurred over or lost sight of, permit me to quote from an editorial published by the Toronto ' Globe,' of date April 15, 1909, under the caption ' Why Canada is Prosperous.' The ' Globe,' in speaking of the influx of Americans from the Western States of the Union, says:
One effect of their coming to Canada soon shows itself; they begin to consume dutiable imported goods, and ill this way they contribute to the Dominion revenue.
It is to this next following paragraph that I wish to draw particular attention.
As a simple matter of fact, their doing so has been during tlfe past dozen years the chief reason why there has been a yearly surplus of income over expenditure in the public accounts.	.
Not, it will be observed, in the consolidated revenue account but in the public accounts. Then it goes on to say:
The Liberals adopted a vigorous immigration policy and they have had their reward,
&c.
Here we find, Sir, a great and influential journal, well and ably edited, making a statement upon the subject of Canada's finances and absolutely ignoring or overlooking the fact that there is a capital account, and absolutely overlooking the other fact that instead of a yearly surplus during twelve years past there has been, in the total public accounts of Canada, a shortage in eight years out of the last thirteen years; that taking the result of the thirteen years total transactions there has been an immense shortage which is represented by the increased public debt of Canada. If the severing of the accounts lends itself to this mystification on the part of the press how must it affect the person who receives his impression from the observations of the press and who does not or cannot investigate these matters for himself. We take up the public accounts of Canada for the past thirteen years, beginning with the period at which the present government assumed power, and we

find the total expenditures and receipts to have been as follows:
Total expenditure, 1896 to 1908.
On consolidated revenue fund account	$625,735,490
On capital account	 119,386,830
Railway subsidies and bounties,
&c	 43,838,705

For the year ended March 31. 1909, per budget-
On consolidated revenue fund account	 84,500,000
On capital account and for railway subsidies and bounties.. .. 46,000,000

During that same period (1896-1909) receipts were	 826,611,000
Which being deducted leaves a debit balance of	$ 92,850,025
Even after deducting the sinking fund for 13 years	 29,060,744
The appears a shortage, or an expenditure over and above receipts
of	- ..$ 63,789,281
since 1896.
Why, Sir, a continuation of such surpluses would strain the credit of the country, notwithstanding the fallacious financial reasoning of my hon. friend from Red Deer. Now, there is a system followed by the present administration of charging to capital account items of expenditure which properly should be charged to consolidated revenue account. One instance of this is to be found in the bounties which formerly the Conservative government charged to consolidated revenue account but which the present Finance Minister charges to capital. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has admitted that had he last year charged the total bounties of $2,250,000 in round numbers as he said, to consolidated revenue account (as the Conservative government had done) instead of to capital account, his estimated surplus of one and a half million dollars for the year just closed would not only have disappeared but be would have had to acknowledge a shortage on consolidated revenue account alone of $750,000-the shortage on the full year's business be it remembered was over $46,000,000 to the 31st of March, 1909. Let me point out very briefly wherein the evil of this system lies. It tends to show fictitious surpluses upon consolidated revenue accounts where in reality deficits exist or may exist, upon that account if all these items are charged against it as properly they should be. The government of the day, any government, can have but two objects in view in the practice of such a course; first, to create fictitious surpluses upon consolidated revenue account with which to dazzle the eyes of the taxpayers and, second, to prevent by such means the true and actual condition of the treasury being appreciated by the country at large. Any such surplus is only a bookkeeping expedient; the real surplus, the surplus the country wants to know about and is entitled to know about is the surplus available to be applied in liquidation of the public debt. It is contended by some that the severing of accounts and the showing of surpluses on a part of the year's transactions, namely consolidated revenue account, makes no real difference, because the outcome in the end is the same. But, Sir, the showing of a surplus on one account and a shortage or a deficit on another is quite as objectionable as that of presenting two budgets one showing a surplus and the other a deficit. C. F. Bastable in his work on public finance says:
Recently the system of special budgets for particular kinds of expenditure, has been somewhat widely employed, though it is an expedient evidently calculated to confuse the public accounts, and to prevent the true situation of the finances being understood. The general rule of meeting expenditure out of income should be openly trangressed only by
This shows that instead of any imaginary surplus there has been, on the total financial transactions of the government of Canada, during thirteen years past, and there now is an existing shortage of almost $64,000,000. Let us follow this a little further and we have this seeming paradox that every year in which the government, presided over by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), has added to- and increased the debt of Canada, his first lieutenant, the Finance Minister, has risen in his place in this House, and, amidst the applause of his supporters, declared a surplus. These, however, have only been those elusive surpluses upon consolidated revenue account and not upon the total transactions of the year; in each year a shortage was actually registered, although one of those vanishing surpluses was declared. We take a glance at the so-called surpluses and also the increases of debt since the present government came into power and we find the following result :



[Stage Direction]
Year.	So Called Surplus.	Actual Increase of Debt.1898	$ 1,722,712 33	$ 2,417,822 451899	4,837,749 00	2,317,047 691901	5,648,333 29	2,986,196 801902	7,291,398 06	3,349,085 931905	7,863,089 81	5,356,448 001906	18,898,719 12	818,811 151908	19,413,054 22	14,288,999 881909	*1,500,000 00	*46,000,000 00
*Estimated by the Finance Minister.
[Stage Direction]
tlie use of a loan. A surplus on the ordinary budget, with a deficit on one or more extraordinary ones, is a direct infraction of the principle that the finance accounts should be submitted fully, simply, and in unity.
And, in support of this view he quotes 'Stourm', an eminent authority on public finance. I submit that the result to the country of the practice of the present government in this respect, is inconsistent with the country's best interest. There are two evils attendant upon the figuring out of these immense balances-for they are not really surpluses-on a part of the year's transactions. In the first place they are an invitation to extravagance; an invitation which the government has been unable to resist. In the second place they tend to lessen watchfulness of the administration by the Canadian tax-payer. The prevailing system of declaring these so-called surpluses has furthermore reached a stage where it is not unattended with considerable danger to the country. In the first place it misleads a too confiding public and diverts attention from the fact that the public debt is rapidly increasing; and in the second place it encourages the government to pursue a course of extravagance . and to assume on behalf of the country unwarrantable financial obligations. Still further, the result of these glowing and growing surpluses dangled before the eyes of the man who cannot or does not examine the public accounts for himself, is, that his senses are dulled to the fact that the country is getting year after year deeper and deeper into debt. So it is, that when any proposed expenditure is advocated, that portion of the public which is misled is prone to say: 'Well, we had a surplus of two millions, or five millions, or nineteen millions of dollars last year and we can very well afford it;' whereas, if their attention were directed rather to the increasing debt than to the vanishing surpluses they would be more inclined to say: ' We increased our public debt by two millions of dollars, or five millions of dollars, or forty-eight millions of dollars (as it was last years) and we must proceed carefully.' Let me say here, Sir, lest I should be misunderstood in that regard, that I fully recognize the fact that in a country such as Canada where we are laying the foundations for the future prosperity of our people (foundations which must be broad, and deep, and enduring), the government is from time to time justified in making expenditures beyond revenue, and against the credit of the country. But granting this, would it not have been better for the government to have been perfectly frank and straightforward with the country by charging to consolidated revenue account everything which should be charged against it, and by directing attention to real shortages Mr. JAMESON.
upon the entire business of the year rather than to incorrectly computed surpluses upon a part only of the year's transactions? For I say without fear of successful don-tradiction, that notwithstanding any explanation or excuse which may be made to the country on the part of the government, this grave fact remains to confront the people of this country, that not only have these immense surpluses, aggregating, as the Finance Minister has told this House, $114,500,000 absolutely disappeared, but a vast shortage has developed. To meet this shortage, the government presided over by the right hon the Prime Minister, has mortgaged every home and every acre of the Canadian tax-payers in the amazing sum of $65,500,000, and that without a proper knowledge thereof being held by the country at large. Now, this brings us to the point where we may reasonably ask, would it or would it not be well for the government of the right hon. the Prime Minister, as well as the government which is to succeed it, and all future governments of Canada, to be perfectly frank, perfectly honest and perfectly straightforward with the country in regard to matters of finance.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have said, during the course of this debate, that we on this side of the House criticise, but do not offer suggestions. I propose, with the consent of the House, to make a suggestion in regard to the statement of the public accounts. There might, it seems to me, be profitably added to the public accounts a statement showing: first, interest-bearing assets of Canada; secondly, non-interestbearing assets of Canada. I am aware that a committee is now engaged in revising these Dominion assets after a long term of years; but I think it would be advisable to revise them once every four or five years in order that the dead wood might be cut out. That would tend also to keep a closer watch on arrearages and prevent them from becoming seriously stale, and perhaps entailing a loss on the country. There might also be stated, all new obligations of the Dominion incurred during the year, including guarantees whereby the country is made secondarily liable. The present system of dissevered public accounts, which has been in vogue in Canada since confederation, has the greatest claims on our respect, because it was adopted by the fathers of confederation as in their opinion best suited to the needs of the new Dominion. Forty years ago confederation was an experiment. Many people were sceptical of the result; many were openly hostile to the new order of things. The revenues of the country were less than one-fifth what they are to-day. The business of the country was comparatively insignificant; the population was small; the railway mileage was light; the country was unopened, comparatively un-

known, and little thought of. The credit of the new Dominion, which would be requiring to borrow large sums of money abroad for its development, was naturally a matter of the utmost concern. It is not strange, then, that the system of severing the public accounts, dividing them into capital account and consolidated revenue account, was adopted in order that the revenue of the new confederation might be placed alongside of the ordinary expenditure, to show that the country justified its new dignity. But, Sir, forty years have passed, and confederation is no longer an experiment. It has proved itself and justified the faith of its founders. The country has develoned, its population and industries have increased; it is well and favourably known abroad, and its credit, until recently at least, has been excellent. But the early form of the public accounts does not seem to have shared in the general progress. They lack a clear and direct 'statement of account, showing in brief the result of the year's transactions, what may be termed the 'cash turnover.' The statement of receipts and disbursements on pages 12 to 17 of the public accounts is very much involved. A great deal of it is made up of cross entries, so that the total of $426,000,000 is no indication of the amount actually disbursed on account of services of the Dominion. In this statement are included savings bank and trust funds, which are not receipts and disbursements on acount of the securities of Canada. Here is an item of over $26,000,000, Bank of Montreal, London, on the side of receipts, and the corresponding item is $34,000,000 on the side of disbursements. Here is an item of $164,000,000 "cash credits" on the side of receipts, and the corresponding item is over $160,000,000 on the side of disbursements. These are cross entries, which largely affect the totals. They are necessary in an account kept as this is, but they confuse rather than tend to simplify the account, which is unintelligible to the man in the street. This account fails to show in plain figures the amount of cash in the treasury at the beginning of the year and the amount in the treasury at the close of the year.' It is necessary to turn to the balance sheet at page 4 of the Public Accounts involving totals of over $481,000,000, to find this. Now, I repeat what I have before stated, that I do not mean to say that the adept cannot take the public accounts and by examination of them find how the finances of the country stand ; but to the average citizen of Canada they do not convey any adequate idea of the actual condition of the country's finances from year to year. There should be, I believe, a complete statement which would do this, and which could reach the people throughout the country, through the medium of the press. Neither the present involved statement nor the budget speech of the Minister of Finance accomplishes this. Would it not be well therefore that the public accounts should contain an additional statement showing the cash turnover, a statement showing the total receipts on the one hand and the total disbursements on the other, and indicating the balance for the year, whether it be in favour of or against the country ? The report of the Secretary o'! the Treasury of the United States contains a statement somewhat along this line, indicating the result of the year's transactions, and yet of such moderate length that every journal in the^ country can well spare the space to publish it in full for the information of the public at large. Again, the financial accounts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the fiscal year begin with a direct statement of the amount of cash on hand at the beginning of the fiscal year- so much in the Bank of England and so much in the Bank of Ireland-stating the receipts under different heads on the one hand, and the expenditures on the other, and ending 'balance in the Bank of England,' 'balance in the Bank of Ireland.' I am aware that the system of public accounting in Canada is not the same as that employed in the United States or in Great Britain; but I contend that their systems are much more simple than ours, and ours should be made as plain as figures can be made to read. Such a statement, it seems to me, could not be open to any objection, and would be productive of good results. It might fittinglv be placed at the very outset of the public accounts, to show the actual receipts and expenditures, with the totals of each-in other words, the cash turnover. Such an account, when it showed a surplus, would show a surplus which would be available for liquidation of the public debt, and, when it showed a deficit or shortage, would clearly indicate the added debt of the country. It may be said that by shelving a large deficit or shortage in the public accounts of Canada in years when there were large expenditures on capital account, as has been the case during the year just closed, when the total expenditures showed a shortage of $46,000,000, the credit of the country might be prejudiced.
But let me say that whilst the severed accounts may mislead the man in the street, they do not deceive the men who lend the money. The money-lenders have a due and proper appreciation of the real state of affairs. Furthermore, to say that a frank and open statement would injure the credit of this country is obviously to imply that our credit now rests on deception, and that is a view I cannot entertain and hardly think any hon. member would entertain for a moment. But the Canadian tax-payer is after all the man who should
[Stage Direction]
know the best and the worst. The public accounting is largely for his information. It is his business that the government is conducting and it is to him the government must account. He is entitled, to use a western expression, to a fair show-down once a year, and the duty of the government is to give him a fair, honest and frank statement. Then when the public debt was increased, the government must show justification for that increase by the exigencies of the occasion or by public works of a permanent or reproductive character and the Canadian tax-payer would be in a position to pass judgment on its wisdom.
Now Sir, I do not propose to address the House at greater length upon this subject. I will only add that as the Canadian taxpayer is yearly entitled to a clear, straightforward statement of the finances of the country, no government which fails to give it does all its duty to the people, who in the end must be called upon to pay the bills.
Mr. RALPH SMITH (Nanaimo).: My hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson), who has just given to the House a very clear and concise criticism of the methods of bookkeeping in this country, took some umbrage, at the beginning of his address, at a passing, jocular reference by my good friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) to our good friends from Nova Scotia, and of course took up this pleasantry in a very serious vein. And I noticed that when lie did so, our good friends opposite applauded him. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have one way of defining the different classes of people in different countries. I have no disposition to favour the Scotchmen or the Englishmen or the Welshmen or the foreigner or, the French Canadian. If I were to take umbrage at everything I hear about Englishmen, I would have a great many complaints to make, for I hear derogatory remarks concerning them every day. What I have to say about national descrimina-tion of that description is this, that you have good and bad Scotchmen and Englishmen, and people of every kind. Wherever you go, you will find some good and some bad, and my good friend, the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) was simply making a jocular reference to our good friends in Nova Scotia, which my serious friend from Digby took in so serious a manner.
My hon. friend made some complaints about the increasing expenditure of this country and its consequent increasing taxation. I agree with him that there are two principles which every government ought to respect. One is to keep down as low as possible, consistent with the reasonable expansion of the country, the taxation of the great mass of the people; and the second and the most important necessity


Clarence Jameson: is to keep down the cost of the commodities which have to be consumed by the great masses of the people. But I submit that by no system can the expenditure in a new and growing country be prevented from increasing. Nations are like individuals. The young man, who has no one but himself to keep, and who has a salary of $1,000 a year, will live within his income if he is prudent. But if he gets married and has a family and increases his salary to $2,000 a year, imperceptibly he spends that $2,000 a year. This is a great country in process of development; and I submit that while there is every reason and need for economy, it is impossible for this new and growing country to develop, as it ought to develop, without increasing its expenditure. Look over the list and you will find our expenditures increasing right along; and although there is a temporary arrangement to curtail them this year, we may depend upon it that the channels of trade and the development of our country will always necessitate an increasing outlay. There are false notions and ideas about economy. Economy is not parsimony. It does not consist in refusing -to pay what is legitimate. True substantial economy is well spent money, and I have some slight criticisms to make as to the method which my good friends the government themselves may adopt with regard to this system of retrenchment.
My hon. friend from North Toronto made a slight reference to what he called the enormous increase in taxation. My hon. friend from St. Antoine Division (Mr. Ames) made a protest against what he called the system of mortgaging the interests of future generations. With regard to increasing taxation, he calculated the amount at $11.50 per individual. I want to say this: In looking over the United States revenue, taking the sum total of their custom and excise revenues and dividing that by the population, I discovered that their tax per head was equal to $6.50.
My hon. friend from North Toronto takes the revenues created by the customs and excise in Canada for the year 1908. divides that by what I think a reasonable estimate of population, 6,500,000, and finds a per capita tax, or individual tax, of $11.50. In that connection, I wish to consider the principle contended for by my hon. friend from St. Antoine, that we ought to pay our debts as we go along, that we have no right to transfer anything to the future. On the contrary, I contend that under no economic principle operated by any government is it possible to entail upon future generations financial disadvantages that at all compare w'ith the mighty advantages that the present taxpayers are providing for future generations. The fundamental basis

of my hon. friend's complaint was a fallacy; the difficulty is exactly the opposite of what he states, the difficulty is how to develop a young, large and growing country without imposing extraordinary taxation upon a small present population. The principle is seen in the very figures I have given,- with a population of 88,000,000 and an income of $500,000,000, you find a per capita tax in the United States of $6.50; but, take the tax revenues of this country and divide them by a population of 6,500,000, and you have a per capita tax of $11.50. The principle demonstrates itself. Will anybody say that there is nothing in these mighty productive national expenditures for future generations ? Are we building transcontinental railways for to-morrow? Are we deepening the canals of this country for use next week? Are we broadening and deepening the channels of trade in this country for a few weeks or months to come? Are we determining the fiscal and commercial policy of this country to meet the wants of only 6,000,000 people? No, the expenditures which make, this taxation necessary are largely to provide machinery for the development of this country thirty years from this time. The obligations that wo are placing upon future generations are far more than counterbalanced by the assets we are creating for the future. And these assets develop and increase in importance, and any liabilities that may be placed u; on the people of this country thirty years from now will be far more than paid by the increasing values of the assets that are beiAg created by the expenditures of to-day.
You cannot prevent the future taking the responsibilities and meeting the obligations created by the present unless you establish the economic principle that we should do things just for to-day. The sound national policy is to look ahead for a hundred years, and, when we are bearing the burden of a financial obligation created by the construction of a great transcontinental railway in the year 1909, we may calculate that the real benefit of that expenditure will be felt the more effectively a hundred years from now. If, then, the benefits are for the future, why should not the generation that is coming pay for these things? In this connection I have a protest to make against what I regard as an unwise stipulation of this government with regard to certain public expenditures. I have laid down the principle that we must have expenditures in this country, that we must have increasing expenditures. I have stated what I think about the principle of economy-that economy is not always in withholding. And on that point I would refer my hon. friend to what is said in the good old Book itself, 'There is that seattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.' I take this opportunity to protest against withholding necessary expenditures when that withholding will decrease the returning revenues. So far as the country I represent is concerned, I believe that necessary expenditures. are being withheld, the withholding of which will decrease the revenues to the Dominion exchequer from that part of the country. If I can prove that position then I say the policy is a very unsound one.
On the west coast of Vancouver Island we have spent some thousands of dollars in building a road for the protection of human life in marine operations. That road is partially built. We say to the minister: 'You ought to proceed with that work; it is of tremendous importance; it adds to the credit of the marine on the Pacific coast; it increases our imports; it gives a feeling of greater security to the travelling public, all of which means revenue.' But the minister replies:	'We have no monev.' Again,
on the Pacific coast, our good friends the Americans are stealing Canadian fish, depleting the fishing banks oi the Pacific, which, let me say with all due credit to my hon. friends from Nova Scotia, in halibut alone, are more valuable than all the fishing resources of the Atlantic coast. This depleting of the halibut banks of the Pacific by our friends the Americans is going on, and the government is not taking the necessary precautions to stop it. I am glad to see, by the morning paper, that the fishing cruiser now operating in British Columbia has taken charge of an American fishing boat on the Pacific waters. This system of robbery by our neighbours to the south has been going on year after year. Two years ago this parliament provided an appropriation of $200,000 for protection, but up to date our friends of the government have not utilized that provision. This should have been done in the interests of British Columbia and in the interests of the Dominion. For I will not advocate here anything in the interests of British Columbia that I think is not for the general good; the sound principle for this parliament is for every man to advocate for his own province only that which is good for Canada as a whole. In this principle of fisheries protection of the Pacific coast, I have brought to the attention of the minister a matter of this kind, and I must say that the minister has expressed great anxiety to do everything that is reasonable in the situation and his determination to do all that he possibly can. But that does not interfere with the nature of my complaint. I say it is important at the present time that Canadian fish should be protected against poachers

from the United States. What the government ought to do is to make the people on the other side realize that we are going to protect our own interests. Now, the provision that is made in the estimates this session, I am afraid, is not likely to accomplish that object. These are what I call revenue producing principles, these are what I call productive expenditures, and every productive expenditure ought to be provided for. I recognize that the government should make some retrenchment. I do not say that they should be economical, for that would imply that they had been wasteful. But I do say that, owing to conditions that have arisen, largely from the conditions in the United States, it is necessary for the government at the present time to exercise retrenchment and care.
I think after all that the government is to be complimented upon even the present financial condition in this country. Sir, two weeks ago I had the privilege, with one of the influential business men of Pittsburg, to go down into the coal mines in the vicinity of that city. I spent over a week looking into industrial conditions of the United States, going down into the mines and studying everything belonging to the industrial conditions of that country, and it is after a man has gone through an experience of that kind that he is prepared to regard even the worst conditions in Canada as favourable in comparison. I want to say that the coal miners of England 50 years ago were in a better condition than the coal miners in the surroundings of Pittsburg are to-day. Factories are closed, or only producing 50 per cent of their usual output. To show how thankful we ought to be that we have not been more affected by the commercial conditions in the United States, let me point out that wherever you have in Canada productions depending upon the American market, there you have depression. For instance, in the city of Nanaimo and its surroundings, about 50 per cent of the coal production has to find a market in the United States, and that industry is depressed for the reason that in California and other western states many factories have been closed, and there exists a general stagnation in manufacturing enterprises which affects the market in British Columbia. I repeat that after my experience in one of the chief industrial centres of the United States, our industrial classes in this country have reason to be thankful that they are so well off in comparison. Nowhere in Canada, that I am awaTe of, is there anything to parallel the condition of the workers in the steel rolling mills of Pittsburg, and in the coal mines of that district. Why, in hours of labour, in wages, in the price of the commodities that they require to use-and that is the true test of the condition of workingmen-out in-Mr. RALPH SMITH.
dustrial classes in Canada are very much better off than those in that old settled community of Pittsburg. Why, Sir, it costs more to live there than it does in the city of Ottawa, a community hundreds of years younger. The purchasing power of the wages earned by the Pittsburg workingmen is a good deal less than the purchasing power of the wages earned by our Canadian workingmen. Everything depends on that principle. It is not the money that the wage-earners gets and puts into his pockets at the end of the month that tells the tale, it is what that money can purchase of the commodities that he has to buy. It is in the amount of the necessaries or comforts of life that the wage earner can purchase for his wages that you can calculate his true relative condition. I do not hesitate to say that the purchasing power of the wages of thousands of men in the United States, where so many factories are closed down, where so many others are working at half time, where there are so many thousands of idle men-the purchasing power, I say, of the wages of workingmen in the district I visited, is in no way to be compared to the purchasing power of the wages of men in this country. Therefore I say thht we have reason to congratulate ourselves that we are so favourably situated, although we are in an exceptional bad state in the coal mining regions of the Pacific coast.
Now I wish to ask whether the government are making a proper selection of the objects upon which to expend the taxes of our people. I will be frank with pay hon. friends in the government in saying what I am about to say. I admit that retrenchment is necessary, but I am going to say that you cannot make the people believe that retrenchment tin productive works is necessary in face of the fact that you spend $7,000,000 on the militia of this country.
I do believe that if there was a band of men, I might say a political party, that went through this country from one end to the other, preaching the policy of a reasonable curtailment of military expenditure, they would obtain the votes of the majority of Canadians. I say that when you cut down expenditures on productive public works and devote them to militia purposes, you are saving at the tap and wasting at the bunghole. When you expend $7,000,000 in the present financial stringency and interfere to that extent with the productive works of this country, you are making a great mistake. I say there is no justification for spending $7,000,000 on the frills and fripperies of militarism. I am speaking frankly to the House. I will tell you what I would do with the $7,000,000 that is now expended on the militia.
I do not know what it is for. I can quite understand the necessity of defence if you know that there is an existing

enemy, but I am not aware of any. Where ia the possible approaching enemy of Canada? Where does he live? Do you say in the United States? There never was a time in the history of this country when the feeling between this country and the United States was as friendly as it is at the present time. Where is the enemy to come from? What are you spending the money for? Is it fashionable to have a militia? I know it is proper to have a reasonable measure of protection and have it better distributed in Esquimalt as well as Halifax and other points. My hon. friend from the city of Vancouver (Mr. Cowan), very seriously, in a speech that he made the other day in Vancouver, urged the government of this country to make adequate provision for assisting in the protection of the empire, but * I want to tell him that if the citizens of Vancouver had the right to make a selection between the deepening of the harbour of Vancouver and supporting the militia they would support the former principle. If my hon. friend has to report to the people of Vancouver that he cannot secure an expenditure for the productive works of that city, which are necessary for the development of its trade, they will ask him why it was that he supported the principle of such an enormous expenditure on military matters when he did not get the money necessary for the productive operations of that community. I am not a military man, but I am not a man of prejudice. I have my own personal ideas but I always try to look on both sides of every question. This is something that the people of Canada do not want to this extent at present. They are an innocent, self-reliant, enterprising people, attending to their own business every day, cultivating their farms, developing their mines, enlarging their factories, looking after their" domestic interests and improving this great country not only by developing its natural resources and increasing its wealth but by developing the finest manhood to be found in any country in the world. That, Sir, is the greatest contribution we can make to the empire. By establishing in this country an ever _ increasing population, true to the British institutions that we possess, by developing the great resources that we have and by surrounding the people by moral influences and inculcating amongst them high principles we make the best possible contribution to the empire. If you are going to provide for further contributions to the British navy take three and a half or four million dollars of the present provision for militarism in this country; take half of what you provide for militarism if you are going to make the necessary contribution to the British navy, but, there can be
no support of and there can be no agreement to the curtailment of the necessary expenditures upon works such as I have mentioned that are revenue-producing, that are creating and developing this country and -that are building up its trade. To my mind by so doing you are losing at the tap and saving at the spigot. The people of Canada, under the present conditions, at a time when you have to restrict your expenditures, are not likely to support a principle of that kind. With no enemy in view they are not prepared to support a principle of that kind if the productive interests of this country have to suffer in consequence.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Ralph Smith: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock I was dealing with the necessity of the government maintaining as far as possible its ordinary expenditure on productive public works, and I said that while there was considerable evidence that certain important public works in this country were not provided for in this year's estimates, we nevertheless have provided for an expenditure of $7,000,000 on the militia. Now, Sir, I do not repudiate the position that it is necessary to have a reasonable provision foT a military force in Canada; I believe that our coasts should be protected by fishery cruisers and that there should be efficient police supervision and protection along the boundary line. But what I did say and what I repeat is, that a time when you have to restrict the ordinary expenditures of this country in its present state of progress and development, is not the time to expend $7,000,000 of the people's money for military purposes and that whatever is spent ought to be better distributed to the advantage of the Pacific coast.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House a question that has not been considered by us so far, but it is nevertheless a question which deserves the serious consideration of the government and of the members of this parliament. I refer to the question of free importation of bituminous coal into Canada, by agreement of reciprocity with the United States, which has become a live issue of late on account of the action taken in regard to it by the Congress of the United States. Hon. gentleman will have observed that the United States Congress at its special session, has provided in the schedule of tariffs for the possibility of reciprocity in coal; and let me ask the Minister of Customs and the Finance Minister especially to give their attention to this. The question as I

have said has not been presented before in this parliament, possibly because there was no opportunity such as that which the policy of the United States Congress has recently afforded, t shall endeavour to show that there is no one policy that could be adopted by Canada that will contribute so much to our development, especially to the_ development of the western country, as reciprocity in coal between the United States and ourselves. I know that our friends in the far east, as coal producers, may take reasonable objection to the facts as I shall put them, and I have every respect for their opinion in that regard. I have every consideration for the large and permanent and successful investment in coal operations in Nova Scotia, but it must be remembered that we have coal mines in British Columbia and in Alberta as well, and I want to point out that the geographical situation of this country makes the offer of free coal from the United States one of the greatest boons that has been placed at our disposal for many years. When provision was made in the tariff of the United States for a possible reciprocity in coal, a strong public feeling arose in British Columbia on the question. I probably represent more of the coal mining interests of that province than any other member from British Columbia, and I have been appealed to not only by the consumers of coal, but by the British Columbia coal operators themselves to . bring this matter to the attention of the government. I shall present evidence of this feeling in British Columbia, and if the United States Congress should continue to make the necessary provision for reciprocity in coal, then I shall make the modest request of the Canadian government that they a'ive careful consideration to this important matter and take advantage of any offer that they may make.
I shall submit to the House certain communications which I have received from British Columbia so that they may, with the permission of hon. gentlemen, be printed in 'Hansard.' I have received the following letters from the manager of one of the largest coal mining operations in British Columbia:
WESTERN FUEL COMPANY. Nanaimo, British Columbia,
January 26, 1909.
Ralph Smith, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Smith,-You are doubtless aware that under pressure of a growing sentiment in the United States the majority party in Washington is considering some changes in the tariff schedules, and the hearings before the committee have developed some curious and interesting phases of the question connected with free trade with Canada.
Take the matter of Coal.
The bituminous mine owners in Central Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia, who Mr. RALPH SMITH.
operate near the Atlantic sea-board, are opposing it because it will give the Nova Scotia coal a free entrance into the New England seaports. I think it will be found that the Nova Sootia mines ship only the fine coal, which is admitted under the 15 cent rate of duty, and this is used for steam and gas making purposes.
The opinion changes among the anthracite producers and those bituminous coal operators who are so situated in respect of the Great Lakes that they can reach the Canadian coal consuming territory between Winnipeg and Montreal and which is said to import about 7,000,000 tons per annum. They want free trade, because it will give them unrestricted access to those markets.
Going farther west the opposition recurs from the mine owners in Wyoming and Montana, who fear the incoming of coal from the Crow's Nest region into the territory immediately south of the Canadian boundary line; and the Great Northern railroad is said to favour free reciprocity because it is heavily interested at Crow's Nest and naturally desires to get a cheaper fuel.
Coming farther west, the opposition is again with the Washington mine owners, whose development of their coal resources has not kept [DOT]pace with the growing local demand. They cannot supply the present call of their own market; and during the recent cold spell they actually needed coal from British Columbia to supply their own deficiency.
Again their output of coal suited for domestic purposes is so limited and the prices maintained by the operators, who serve the public directly, have been so high, that notwithstanding their nearness by rail to centres of consumption of Puget Sound, their local dealers have sent vessels to Vancouver island, paid water freightage and 67 cents duty and sold coal at the Seattle price schedule with satisfactory profit. Of course, at the same prices Vancouver Island coal would command the trade on the score of better quality. So that for the first time our coal is obtaining a firm foothold in Seattle and neighbouring markets.
This is all preliminary to the question.
If the Washington Congress should show a disposition to provide for reciprocity in coal, is it your personal opinion that the Laurier government would meet them on these terms?
It could be only beneficial to Canada, because it would give free entrance to Canadian coals, and cheapen the cost of imported fuel in that intermediate Canadian region which is not self-supplying.
Free reciprocity in coal between Canada and the United States would have this distinct advantage over free coal from everywhere into the United States, in that the product from Vancouver island mines entering American Pacific coast ports, Alaska and Hawaiian islands, would not be taxed, and that would not be the case in respect of coal from Australia and Japan.
Yours sincerely,


JOHN HOWARD,
[Stage Direction]
President.
Western Fuel Company,
March 18, 1909.
Ralph Smith, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir-We are to-day advised that the new Tariff Bill, just introduced at Washing-

ton, provides for the free entry into the United States of coal from countries that will admit American coal free of duty.
It is an economic question for Canada to consider, whether the loss of revenue from customs duty on American coal would he offset by the advantage given to her coal producing interests through a wider market in the United States.
You have as coal producing centres Nova Scotia, the Crow's Nest country and Vancouver inland. The latter is very largely dependent upon the United States for a market.
_ Canada imports from the United States into that region between Winnipeg and say Montreal.
Free American coal into Canada would mean the cheapening of fuel to consumers of 7,000,000 ton9. This figure I obtained from the testimony recently taken before the United States Congressional Committee.
Free coal from Canada means an extension of her markets, greater development of resources, and more wage earners.
To illustrate, the Puget Sound conditions enabled our company to enter that field for the first time in iSeptember last, since when that market has taken from us a tonnage equal to a full month's output of our mines. With a remission of the 67 cents duty we will greatly enlarge this.
Australia is our present competitor in California. By no possibility could American coal be sent to that country. Therefore, without any loss of revenue to that government, and without any risk of competition to its coal mines in their home market, Australia could pass a law admitting free the «oal imports from the United States, and thereby be entitled to have her coal admitted free of duty into California.
I have given you these two concrete cases to show the value to the industries and the wage earners in your constituencies of free coal from the United States into Canada.
If Canada can afford to relinquish the revenue it now obtains from the customs duty on American coal, the cost of fuel to the Ontarians should be reduced, and the other benefits will accrue to the coal mining population of the Dominion.
Yours very truly,

[Stage Direction]
As indicating the public sentiment on this subject, let me quote the following article from the daily press of the Pacific
coast:
Anything that affects an industry in a community is of interest to the residents in that community and it naturally follows that the interest taken corresponds to the importance of the subject under discussion. Just at this time the United States congress, both the Senate and House of Representatives con-''eued in special session, are in the midst of a tariff discussion. The tariff being of vast importance to all classes, it is not strange that the Bill introduced by Congressman Payne, as chairman of the Ways and Mean* Committee and bearing his name, comes in for so much discussion, both for and against, and which discussions are of world wide interest.
It is, however, generally believed that the Bill will be passed and become law substantially as reported by the Ways and Means
Committee. To Canadians the question naturally arises, how will the Dominion be affected by the provisions of the Payne Tariff Bill. Among others the Bill calls for reciprocity timber and coal under certain conditions. Many other articles in which Canada is interested are also affected, but the ones of paramount interest to the whole of Canada are lumber and coal. Eliminating for the present the lumber question from the discussioji, for while lumber is of great importance 'to British Columbia and to Vancouver island, coal holds a most prominent position in any discussion bearing on Vancouver island resources. In the Payne Bill it is proposed to put bituminous coal on the free list with any country granting similar conditions. Under the- Dingley, or present tariff, sixty-seven cents per ton duty is paid on every ton of coal shipped from Nanaimo, Ladysmith or Union to San Francisco, Puget Sound ports and Alaska. There is no foreign coal shipped into British Columbia. Quite a lot of American coal, however, finds its way into the prairie country through the lake ports; Port Arthur on the upper end of Lake Superior being the principal point of distribution to the prairie country. Nova Scotia ships quite a little coal into the New England States of America, and under reciprocity a larger market for Nova Scotia coals will be found in that territory. Again, by reciprocity Canadians who reside in the prairie country and long distances from Canadian coal mines would he supplied at reduced rates from across the line; and similarly the coal mines (f Canada could and would reach farther into the States for trade.
Meantime what does Canada gain or lose with reciprocity in the exporting and importing of coal? With the exception of Nova Scotia mines, which theoretically might lose a little Canadian territory, the rest of Canada would he greatly benefitted, and we of British Columbia and Vancouver island would gain immensely in the territory that could be covered by Eastern British Columbia mines and also the Island mines. It is reported that during the past year the Western Fuel Company shipped some 70,000 tons of coal to Seattle, Tacoma, Bellingham and other Sound cities, to say nothing of the San Francisco and San Diego markets. They have shipped coal even as far as Spokane in the State of Washington; and if given reciprocity can very largely increase the territory to be sup-idied, sufficiently so to keep the Island mines all running at full blast for years to come.
Vancouver Island mines, however have one rival for the coast markets, and that is Australia. The Australian continent can, and does, produce cheap coal; and although it is not in the same class with the Vancouver Island product, it can be mined and sold cheaper. We of Nanaimo have a vivid remembrance of the effect on our prosperity v hen the San Francisco coal yards were filled with Australian coal. Officials of the Western Fuel Company state that they have not the slightest fear of Australian coal in competition outside of San Francisco, and not to any extent there, unless some advantage be given that coal.
Another indication of the public feeling is contained in a resolution of the Associated
[Stage Direction]
474©
Boards of Trade of Eastern British Columbia, which has been sent to me in the following letter:
Rossland, British Columbia,
February 1, 1909.
Ralph Smith, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Sir,-I beg to advise you that at the eleventh annual convention of the Associated Boards of Trade of Eastern British Columbia a resolution was unanimously adopted as follows:- Abolition of duty on coal and coke between Canada and the United States.
Resolved, That this association recommends that the government of the Dominion enter into negotiations with the government of the United States for the mutual abolition of customs duties on coal and coke.
Such a reciprocal arrangement would have the following effects:-
1.	To make lower prices for fuel in.a good many parts of Canada, particularly along the Great Lakes, and in Manitoba.
2.	While possibly unfavourably affecting the business of the large Nova Scotia coal companies in Quebec and along the Great Lakes, yet this will probably be more than offset by their increased market on the Atlantic sea-board.
3.	It will increase the market for British Columbia and Alberta coals in the states to the south.
4.	It will probably have a tendency, through the increased volume of business made possible, to reduce the cost of coal and coke production in British Columbia, which should insure at least present prices, with the possibility of reductions to the consumer.
I have been instructed by our executive to commend this matter to your earnest consideration with a view to bringing about results that appear to be in the interests of the Canadian public.
Yours faithfully,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
In, interviews published a few days ago with two important men interested in coal operations, one in British Columbia and the other in Nova Scotia-I mean Mt. Lindsay, president and superintendent of the Crow's Nest Coal Company for many years, and Mr. D. D. Mann, an owner of coal mining interests in Nova Scotia-I read the following references to this question in view of the 'changes made in the 'tariff of the United States. Mr. Lindsay stated:
In bituminous coal and coke, if Canada reciprocates, there is an enlarged and increased American market for British Columbia. As Canada imposes no duty on coke, the American duty will be removed. Canada does levy 53 cents on bituminous coal, so reciprocity is a condition here.
Mr. Mann made this statement:
Mr. Mann stated that there should be no duty on coal.
The geographical positions of the two countries show that, he said. * Here in Eastern Canada, in Ontario and Quebec, we have no coal, while to the south of us is an unlimited supply. In the western states there is no coal, while to the north, in Canada, is another 1 Mr. RALPH SMITH.
unlimited supply. Why should not there be free trade in coal? If there were it would do away with the long haulage over the railways from coast to coast in Canada, and from coast to coast in the States.
Now, Sir, I want to bring to the attention of parliament the investments in coal mining in British Columbia and Alberta. The operations in coal in Nova Scotia have depended almost entirely, until recent years, on a foreign market in the United States. My hon. friend from Cape Breton, who spoke the other day in support of a resolution in favour of higher duties on coal made the statement that it was important that a protective duty should be placed on coal in this country to preserve the Canadian market for coal products. The difficulty in British Columbia is to get markets for our coal products, and the very natural conditions of the country determine that for all time to come, a large part of the coal products of British Columbia will be dependent on foreign markets. I want to say, in passing, for the policy of the government, that ten years ago, previous to the disaster in San Francisco, 90 per cent of the coal produced in British Columbia went into the American market. There never would have been coal mines in British Columbia but for the American market. The Hudson Bay company, in operating the coal mines of British Columbia 50 years ago, found their whole market in the United States. I am happy to say that at the present time 60 per cent of the product of these coal mines is consumed in Canada and 40 per cent in the United States. I mention this to show that there has been more real development of a home market for the coal mining industry in British Columbia in the last 10 years than there was before that since confederation. This fact is very important, that whereas 10 years ago only 10 per cent of the coal produced in Vancouver island was consumed in Canada, to-day 60 per cent is consumed in Canada. But since the financial panic in the United States the mines have been working only two-thirds of the time, owing to the contraction of the United States market, from the closing of their factories and the shrinkage in business resulting from their financial condition. Let me give to the House the present condition of coal operations of British Columbia and AlbeTta. We have in British Columbia the Wellington Colliery company, the Western Fuel company, the Crow's Nest Pass Coal and Coke company, the South Wellington mines, the Vancouver-Nanaimo Coal Mining company, the Nicola Valley Coal and Coke company, since McGowan & Co. of Vancouver, and since 1907 the Canadian Pacific Railway company has begun its mines at Hosmer. We have in British Columbia a total capital invested in coal mining operations of $20,000,000, employing 7,000 miners directly

and maintaining a population of 30,000 people. The yearly product-1907 is the latest year I have been able to get-is nearly 2,000,000 tons, and its approximate value is $7,637,713. The total known coal areas in British Columbia, which I have collected from the Geological Reports of Canada, are 1,123 square miles, containing 38,642,000,000 tons of bituminous, 20,000,000 tons of anthracite, and 314,000,000 tons of lignite. These axe known areas. Of course, there are large coal areas in British Columbia of which very little is known. The total export of coal from British Columbia to the United States in 1907 was 733,224 tons, amounting, as I have said, to 40 per cent of the total production; so that if we had reciprocity in coal, British Columbia would practically monopolize the markets in the western states of America.
In this connection I want to mention that I have made some inquiries with reference to the coal production of Alberta, and the same is largely true there. There are about eighty companies producing coal in Alberta. This is principally bituminous and lignite, with a little anthracite. These companies are capitalized at $40,000,000, and have a total capital invested of about $15,000,000. I was surprised to find the large amount of wages paid and the large amount of the output of these mines.
The money paid in wages in the province of Alberta in that production is equal to $3,500,000 per year and the number of hands employed averages 37,800. The total yearly production in 1907, including coke and briquettes, is equal to 1,958,112 tons. The total coal area, according to the geological reports, is as follows: "19,589 square miles, containing 44,530,000 tons of bituminous, 400,000,000 of anthracite and 60,000,000 of lignite. So that the House will see that, in the development of these enormous coal areas in our great west, a free market in the United States would be a
great advantage. The development of these coal areas depends very materially upon the United States markets, so that, if there be no disadvantage unduly to the rest of Canada and if it be in the interest of Canada generally, this government should take advantage of any offers, if any be made by the United States, to giv our coal a freer entry into their markets. Let me draw attention to another fact. The central provinces of Canada are non-coal producers. Take for instance Manitoba. There may be some coal of an inferior quality in that province, but I do not suppose that for many years to come it will be able to produce sufficient coal to supply its own needs. At present it depends on imports from the United States for about 98 per cent of its coal consumption. In Ontario there is no coal, and the probability _ is there never will be any. Ontario is a great manufacturing, largely populated province, depending absolutely at present-as it will, in my opinion, have to depend for all time to come-on the imported article. I do not think it is possible by any improvement of transportation facilities, and taking into account reasonable competition, to have a sufficient investment of capital into the Nova Scotia mines as will enable them to supply the market in Ontario. I have in my hand a very important statement which I have compiled from 1899 to 1908 showing the quantity of foreign coal imported" into Canada during that period, and what I ask the House to remark is the constantly increasing imports of that commodity. What does this statement showP It shows that in the great manufacturing centres of Canada which must have coal, and can only get it from a foreign country, are developing their enterprises to such an extent that their importation of coal on which they have to pay a duty of 53 cents a ton, has increased by leaps and bounds.
Statement showing the quantity and value of Bituminous Coal and Bituminous Slack entered forConsump-________tlon ln Canada during the last ten fiscal years, showing also the duty collected on same.
BITUMINOUS COAL. -				BITUMINOUS COAL DIJST.		
Fiscal Years.	Tons.	Value.	Duty.	Tons.	Value.	Duty.1899	
1900	2.171,358 2,439,764 2.516.392 3.047.392 3,511,412 4,053,900 4.176,274 4,495,550 3,807,604 6,185,400	S 3,691,916 4,310,964 4.956,025 5.712,658 7,776,717 9,168,208 8,002,896 8,360,349 7,491.045 13.596,606	31,146,418 1,291,375 1,329,519 1,608,436 1,849,808 2.127,417 2,206,283 2,379,196 2,0.2,373 3,436.992	276.547 330,174 114,432 489.548 550,883 608,041 650,261 747,251 627,725 1,154,721	$ 44,717 98,349 275,559 264,550 420,317 544,123 313,456 489,180 564,955 1,247,183	$ 7,981 17,783 40,292 44,557 64,522 80,061 69,330 83,795 80,628 161,5951901	
1902	1903	
1904....	1905	
190(1	
*1907	1908	
0 Months.
[Stage Direction]
In 1899 we imported into Canada 2,171,358 tons of bituminous coal, value, $3,691,915; on which the duty collected amounted to $1,146,448. Of bituminous coal dust we imported 276,547 tons, value, $44,717; on which the duty was $7,981. That was in 1899. In 1908 we imported 6,485,400 tons of bituminous coal, value, $13,596,606; on which the duty was $3,436,992. I fancy that the duty is what touches in that connection the heart of my good friend the Minister of Customs; and no doubt by this time he is asking the question: 'If you are soing to tear down this wall of protection, how are' you going to provide the revenue? Well, I would make this answer: I believe that in a few years the enormous development of trade in British Columbia, the great west, and Ontario, as the result of the admission of coal free into our manufacturing centres, would far more than counterbalance the loss of the duty which the government collected in 1908. That is my answer to my hon. friend the minister. These figures indicate that in our great manufacturing and producing centres, where you cannot find the necessary fuel and where consequently you have to import your fuel, and on which you have at present to pay a duty of 53 cents per ton, it wmuld be good policy, if we were offered free entry of coal from the United States, to take advantage of that offer.
I have made another calculation, showing the consumption of coal by our railway companies during 1908. I have just taken one year, but that shows an enormous consumption. Railway transportation is one of the prime operations of business in this country, and in that operation coal is an essential factor. It is as necessary to the industrial life of the nation as bread and butter is to the life of the human being. Here is the consumption of coal hy locomotives on the Canadian Pacific Railway during the year ending 30th June, 1908.
Canadian Pacific Railway.
Number
Locomotives.	of Tons.
Passenger	 624,588
Freight	 1,373,985
Switching	 241,308
Construction	 178,529
Mixed	  84,719
Special	 1,096
Total	 2,504,225
Average cost at distributing point, $3.12; total cost, $7,813,182.
Thus I find that the locomotives employed by the Canadian Pacific Railway consumed in that year 2,504,225 tons of coal, the cost of which at the distributing point was equal to $3.12 per ton and the total cost of which to the Canadian Pacific Railway was $7,813,182. But some of my hon. friends may say that that is simply a tax upon the railway company. Well, so far as I am concerned, I am not at all
deluded by any reasoning of that kind. It may be said that when we have a law to regulate the passenger rates on railways and their transportation charges on freight, when we have the power to make these railway companies cut down their Tates to a minimum, surely this duty is a proper tax to impose upon them. Let me reply that the amount of duty collected on the coal used by these companies must be taken trom the travelling public. When the railway companies of this country submit their charges for operation into the hands of the Railway Commission, that commission is bound to consider among the other charges the duty imposed upon an article which is absolutely necessary to these companies in the operation of their business.
Take the Grand Trunk Railway. Here is a statement of what their locomotives consumed.
Grand Trunk Railway. Locomotives.
Passenger	 [DOT]
Freight	
Switching	
Construction	
Number of Tons. , 410,975 . 905,676 . 165,577 . 36,790
Total	1,519,018
Average cost at distributing point, $2.76; total cost, $4,192,489.68.
Thus you see that their total consumption in the year 1908 was 1,519,018 tons, that this cost them at the distribution point $2.76 per ton, and that the total cost to that company was $4,192,489.
Then take the Intercolonial Railway. Here are the figures showing the quantity of coal that railway consumed in the same
Intercolonial Locomotives. Passenger	 Freight		Railway. Number of Tons. 	 133,602 	 351,273 	 55,552
		 30,623
Total			 571,050
Average cost at distributing point, $3.04; total cost, $1,735,992.
Let me now divert for a moment to ask this question:	How is it that coal, in the
coal mining regions on the Atlantic coast, costs the Intercolonial Railway over 30 cents a ton more than the other railway companies paid for their coal? Why is it? For the reason that it is the competitive distance. Receiving its supplies as a government work entirely from the Nova Scotia mines, confining itself absolutely to the home product, that, in my opinion, is the difference in the price to the Intercolonial a tax upon the people, an increase to the Intercolonial as against the other railways. Take the Canadian Northern Railway: Here are the figures of its coal consumption :
Ralph Smith: Canadian Northern Railway.
Locomotives.	Number of Tons.	
Passenger			61,218
Freight			190,489
Switching			23,009
Construction			13,600
Total			288,316
Average cost at distributing point, $3.85; tctal cost. $1,110,016.60. Recapitulation. Tons. Cost.		
C. P. R. consumption.. .	. 2,504,225	$ 7,813,182I. C. R. " .. .	. 571,050	1,735,992I. C. R. " .. .	. 571,050	1,735,992C. N. R. " .. .	. 288,316	1,110,016Total	
4,882,609 $14,851,677
In my opinion, the deduction ol 53 cents on every one of those tons would represent a very material reduction in the cost of railway transportation to the people of this country. This, it seems to me, calls for consideration by my hon. friends the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Finance.


Mr. McKENZIE.: When anthracite coal was put on the free list, was it made cheaper for the Canadian people?


Ralph Smith: The consumption of anthracite coal is very small-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is not my question.


Ralph Smith: The consumption of anthracite coal in Ontario is a very small proportion of the whole, there being a large consumption of bituminous coal necessary in manufacture.
< Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
' Mr. RALPH SMITH. Well, I made what I thought was a logical deduction. If my hon. friend thinks that the taking off of the duty would not lower the present price, then this duty does not afford any protection to the coal industry.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But you would lose the revenue.


Ralph Smith: I did not think my hon. friend was looking at it from that standpoint. What I say is that the extraordinary development of this country by the utilization of free bituminous coal would, in my opinion, in a few years so increase our trade that the revenue from coal would be far more than made up. However, I appreciate the position of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie). This is a great and important question in the west. It is an important question in Ontario and Quebec. I leave the consideration of it to my hon. friends with my sympathy, 150
and with every appreciation that there may be something in their contention.
A few days ago the Minister of Finance received a document from the representatives of the gas industry in Canada. I do not know its value, for I have not looked into this question. But I received, as other members have, a copy of this document, and I want to read a few paragraphs:
3.	Canadian gas companies imported 170,000 tons of bituminous coal from the United States for tgas-making purposes. This amount this year will total 350,000 tons.
4.	That we are compelled to import bituminous coal from the United States for two reasons:-
(1) Because Nova Scotia coal is unsuitable for economical gas production.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: That is not correct.


Ralph Smith: I am not swearing by this book. I received the document, and I am giving it to the House for what it is worth. I hope my hon. friends from Nova Scotia will be able to show that this statement is not correct. But I am in duty bound to present it:
-Gas companies within recent years have been compelled to stop using, notably Montreal and Quebec, who formerly used Nova Scotia coal. (2) Because transportation charges from Canadian coal fields were prohibitive.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the hon. gentleman say who was the authority for those statements?


Ralph Smith: As I told my hon. friends, this was a document sent to the Finance Minister a few days ago from the gas industry.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the hon. gentleman will permit me:	Is he aware
that the great grievance of these people is that this government permits coke to be brought into this country free of duty, and that what they want is a duty on coke?


Ralph Smith: I think that, further on in the document, they do ask that. But I think that the statements in the two paragraphs I have read call for explanation on the part of those who oppose this principle. Now, I wish to say a word further with regard to the Nova Scotia position, for which I have great consideration. I have here a document, I do not know the man who wrote it-Mr. W. C. Milner-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Oh, oh.


Ralph Smith: I do not know who he is.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We do.


Ralph Smith: Perhaps he is a Tory.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certainly,-a good
one.


Ralph Smith: Mr. Milner read a paper before the Mining Society of Nova Scotia, in which he presents facts and figures to show that Nova Scotia coal could find a market in New England if there were no duty, and that at the same time the home markets would be safe. I cannot read the whole article, but I wish to read a few paragraphs. As I have said, it is a public document, read before an important institution in Nova Scotia, by a citizen of that province, and it speaks for itself. How much it is worth I cannot say. I read it to the House, and it will be to my hon. friends from Nova Scotia to disprove the statements this gentleman makes:
The importance of United States trade, not only to the maritime provinces but to all Canada, was such that in 1849 all the governments of Canada united in a joint effort to extend it. . . In coal, the United States became early our chief market.
I want to point this out in passing. What I am contending for in the great west is that, logically and naturally, the permanency and extent of the coal mining operations must depend upon the foreign markets, which, according to this document was absolutely true of Nova Scotia fifty year ago-they depended upon the New England markets for the development of their mines.
In coal, the United States became early our chief market. It was not until after 1820, that the production of the Nova Scotia mines exceeded 10,000 tons per annum; in 1826 it exceeded 100,000 tons, and in 1850, 200,000 tons, and of this output the United States purchased considerable more than one-half. In 1853, when the duty was 24 per cent ad valorem, the shipments were 120,000 tons out of 217,000 tons of an optput. The shipments rose from 120,000 tons to 404,000 tons in 1866, the year reciprocity was abrogated. Of the entire output of our mines-558,000 tons- United States purchased over 400,000 tons, or about four-fifths.
There are other items in this document that I have marked, but I do not consider it necessary to read them. But I felt it my duty, as a member from the Pacific coast province, to bring this matter to the attention of the House. The last thing I have to say on the question is this: That, with regard to certain products, coal included, it seems to have been the policy of the federal government of Canada, since the first days of confederation, to hold out an opportunity to the United States to provide for reciprocity in certain articles. As this document says, in 1879 the great national policy itself provided for reciprocity between the two countries on certain natural products, especially on coal and Mr. RALPH SMITH.
coke. In referring to the tariff schedule of 1906, I found provision was made for holding out an opportunity to the United States to meet Canada in certain reciprocal changes; power was given the Governor in Council to take advantage of any tariff reductions in the United States. But in this new tariff of 1907 the government did not continue that long standing offer to the United States. Now I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance to consider this question. I notice that provision for reciprocity has not been inserted in the new proposed tariff sent up to the Senate of the United States. When I was in the United States two weeks ago I made special inquiries with regard to this matter, and I was told that there would almost certainly be a reduction in this particular coal down to 40 cents a ton. If the same provision were in the tariff schedule of Canada that existed in 1906, then he would have the power to take advantage of that reduction in the duty which we have not to-day. I want to present that consideration to the government, so that if the United States provides for reciprocity in coal, we may be able to meet them. Speaking with all consideration for Nova Scotia, I do not see why she ought not to be able to compete in the Canadian markets as well as in the markets of New England. There is nothing I know of which can conduce so much to the development of the great west as the possibility of getting better markets in the United States for the bituminous coal of Canada.
Now I want to make an appeal to my hon. friends from British Columbia. I have no doubt the Minister of Inland Revenue will use all his influence with the government in reference to this matter. I think my hon. friends from British Columbia are interested in the development of that province as much as I am, and here is an opportunity of doing something that will help to develop the great resources of that province. Anything that will lessen the pressure of protection in this country I will be glad to support, and anything that will extend protection I will be loath to support. I know that most of my good friends from that province are supporting a party that stands for adequate protection, which means a general advance in the tariff of at least 20 to 25 per cent, and I can understand how difficult it is for them to support me in this principle. But I hope, because of their loyalty to the province, that [DOT]they will lend me their influence to accomplish this object. I am sorry to say however, that I am not so sure of the support of my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan). Of course he has expressed his great zeal for the development of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, I have been

using my good influences to keep his feet in the straight and narrow path ever since he came down to this House, and I perceive that he still needs that influence. I ,was sorry to read a speech he made the other day in Vancouver. While I think I may appeal with some confidence to my hon. friend from Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve), and to my hon. friends from the other constituencies, I have not the same confidence that my hon. friend from Vancouver can use his influence in favour of my proposition. I say that because of the wild and extravagant statements he is reported to have made some days ago to his constituents in Vancouver. It seems to be the misfortune of my hysterical friend from Vancouver that whenever he finds his feet he looses his head. I feel a great sympathy for him in my heart, but I think I have discovered that he is afflicted with political spasms. Now political spasms, like physical spasms, are always an evidence of weakness. I want to read my hon. friend a report of the speech he made at Vancouver in order to give him an opportunity of taking back some of his statements if he can do so. If he cannot take back those statements, then in my opinion I think he has lost his public influence in this country in so far as it can tend to the advancement of the interests of British Columbia. I say with every feeling of kindness to my hon. friend, that when a public man stands up in the great commercial city of Vancouver, as he did, and utters the slander that he did against the leader of the Liberal government of this country, he is bound to loose his influence for good. The strongest weapon that any representative in this House is entitled to use is the weapon of argument, the weapon of reason, but when he makes the statement he is reported to have made in reference to ministers of this government, charged with great responsibilities, I think he has seriously injured the public influence that he ought to seek to retain. He discussed that question of better terms with British Columbia, also the old chestnut of Oriental immigration. I thought my hon. friends would never dare to open their mouths again about Oriental immigration. I notice that my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell), speaking in Toronto, told the people how important it was that the yellow race should be kept out of Canada, but he did not tell them that he himself employs men of the yellow race. The rest of my hon. friends from British Columbia are in the same position. In discussing the question of better terms my hon. friend from Vancouver spoke in this .manner of the attitude of the Prime Minister on that question:
Then Sir Wilfrid had turned to the question of better terms and in rather sneering tones had cited the Conservative proposal to 1504
refer that question to an independent and impartial tribunal. . . . They had no difficulty in showing Sir Wilfrid and the House of Commons that the Asiatic problem had been projected into the public life of Canada by the blundering treaty making of the government.


Mr. COWAN.: Hear, hear.


Ralph Smith: I hope my hon. friend will just keep up that response for the next sentence.
It did not trouble him to show that every province in Canada was entitled to a fair and impartial hearing of its claims.
Now here is the sentence to which I wish to call his special attention:
It was a white livered coward who would deny British Columbia an independent, fair and impartial, tribunal for the settlement of her claims .
I say, with the greatest regard, that, if my hon. friend said so, and he will have an opportunity of disproving it, any public man in this great country who stands up on any platform and places himself on record by making such wild and prejudiced statements, disqualifies himself from occupying any important place or exercising any influence in the public affairs of the country. He went on further to say:
He had had an opportunity of saying to Sir Wilfrid that it was left for him to be just and be a man. . . But he would say now that he had not the courage of manhood to treat honestly and fairly with British Columbia and submit to an impartial tribunal a claim, the justice of which was admitted by the highest courts in the land. From this time forth it would be his bounden duty to tell the public that in his judgment, whatever it was worth, that man was a false alarm in the public life of Canada.
_ I consider it fair to my hon. friend, cherishing as I do, nothing but the kindliest considerations towards him and, as a political missionary, being out for the Vancouver sinner-as long as the light holds out to burn the vilest sinner may return-to give him an opportunity of explaining these statements. If my hon. friend is prepared to take the responsibility of these statements, I say that he has done the greatest possible injury to himself. If, on the other hand, he is prepared to take the responsibility of saying that he did not make these statements, that he had been falsely reported, it is due to himself to let the people of this country know it.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Mr. Speaker


George Henry Cowan: Mr. Speaker


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has the floor. The hon. member for Vancouver must resume his seat. If the hon. member for Frontenac gives way to the hon. member for Vancouver, he may speak.


John Wesley Edwards: I understand that the hon. member for Vancouver wishes simply to reply to a question with reference to himself.


George Henry Cowan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as has been said, I wish merely to reply to the references which have been made to myself. In doing so I am prepared to credit the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) with the best motives, at least the best motives that could actuate that hon. gentleman. I take it that he has given mei this opportunity of explaining the report of the speech I made at Vancouver. I have not read that report. I would be glad if he would let me see it. I assume that the hon. gentleman realizes, as we all do, that when reporters seek to condense the remarks of a speaker, they very often omit the arguments and use such catch phrases as will make good reading. I want to thank the hon. gentleman for giving me this opportunity of explaining the remarks I made at that meeting in Vanvouver, but I want to remark, before proceeding to that personal explanation, that the position which the hon. member for Nanaimo finds himself in in this House seems to me somewhat bizarre. From his place amongst the faithful on the other side of the House he has charged the government with dereliction in the matter of the fisheries of British Columbia, he has charged the government with militarism


Mr. TALBOT.: Answer the question.
Mr. COWAN -and he has charged the government with a neglect of its duty in the matter of coal. The position of that hon. member is rather a peculiar and anomalous one. I will not say that it is apropos of that position although I want to remind the House that on the American side of the line in their political terminology they have one expressive word-mugwump. A mugwump, they define to be something on the fence with his mug on one side and his wump on the other. I want to say in justice to the government, with reference to some of these criticisms and in loyalty to the truth, that it has been dealing recently with the protection of the halibut fisheries on the Pacific coast, and I will say here, as I said on the public platform in Vancouver, that I believe the government is honest and sincere in its intentions. As I understand the intentions of the government, they are that it will improve the fishery protection service on the Pacific coast. The government knows, I believe, quite as well as the hon. member for Nanaimo knows, that in the last year there were
49,000,000 pounds of halibut poached by foreign vessels from Canadian waters.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: White livered halibut?	.** ;


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: 


George Henry Cowan: I do not qnite understand mv hon. friend's desire to claim relationship with that kind of ' talibut,' but the government knows too that in the year before last there were some 38,000,000 pounds of halibut taken from Canadian waters by poachers, and it knows that this is due to the insufficient and inefficient fishery protection service, resulting in a failure to enforce the laws. The government knows that halibut banks in British Columbia are the best and almost the only halibut banks capable of profitable exploitation in the world to-day, and they realize, I believe, the necessity of protecting these banks. They have told us, and I believe that when they did so they acted sincerely, that they will improve that protection service. I have every reason to believe that the 'Joliffe,' a fast steamer, will be chartered pending the construction of a cruiser for the purpose of protecting our fisheries. In justice to the government I believe that they are grappling with the subject, and my hon. friend from Nanaimo notwithstanding, I am prepared to believe that their pledges about the protection of the fisheries and with regard to the productive development of the harbour of Vancouver, will be carried out by them. If my hon. friend (Mr. Smith) wants to keep himself posted on the pledges his government have made I can tell him that they are pledged to put a dredge in the harbour of Vancouver and I believe they will carry out that pledge, within the time stated, to the deputation that waited upon them recently. I am not one who would readily believe that the government has made these pledges for sinister and improper motives and that it does not intend to carry them out.
Now, it is true that on the public platform in Vancouver quite recently I did make reference to the idol before which my hon. friend from Nanaimo bows down. It was not an unholy reference; I spoke of the Colossus under whose huge legs my hon. friend from Nanaimo has been seeking and has at last apparently found a dishonourable political grave. I did make reference to that Colossus and I am sure that had my hon. friend (Mr. Smith) been present at that meeting he would admit that I had not transgressed the rules of political ethics or of decency, and I intend here and now to say exactly what I said on that platform. My hon. friend from Nanaimo will pardon me I am sure if I be not so imbued with reverence for his leader as to lose my sense of truth and of equity. At the Vancouver meeting I became reminiscent, and I examined the record of the Rt. Horn Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the question of the solidarity of the British empire and of Canada's desire to contribute to uphold that solidarity. I recalled the fact that on the 3rd of October, 1899 he declared in an interview with a correspondent of the* Globe,' his policy that not a man, not a gun could go from

Canada to South Africa. I remembered that from the Atlantic to the Pacific there was one great surging wave of enthusiasm in the hearts of the people and a desire that the Canadian boys should be allowed to go to South Africa. I remember that two days later, on the 5th of October, 1899, Sir Charles Tupper, on behalf of the Conservative party of Canada, wired Sir Wilfrid Laurier expressing the hope that a Canadian contingent would be allowed to go to Africa and assuring him of the loyal support of the Conservative party. I remembered that on the 7th of October, 1899, the ' Globe ' in an editorial declared for the policy of not a man and not a gun for South Africa until parliament had been summoned and had authorized it. I want my hon. friend from Nanaimo to remember the ground-swell of indignation that came up from the people of Canada on that occasion, and how, notwithstanding the technical and constitutional difficulties that bothered the Prime Minister, the Canadian boys did rush to the front on the way to death as to a festival. And, Sir, I say that when the sons of Canada did that they did more to bring about the birth of Canadian nationhood than all the blatant politicians that ever came from Nanaimo or anywhere else. I want to say here that I know exactly what my hon. friend (Mr. Smith) is appealing to when he charges this government with militarism and with spending $7,000,000 in fostering a military spirit in Canada. I know the little vote he is appealing to, and I want to tell the House that we know the hon. gentleman as a 40-per cent man in our country, because he succeeded in getting just about 40 per cent of the vote polled in his constituency.


Ralph Smith: Will my hon. friend permit me to ask him a question?


George Henry Cowan: Why, yes.


Ralph Smith: Does he represent the majority of the vote in Vancouver?


George Henry Cowan: I represent the second largest constituency in this Dominion of Canada, and I represent a bigger turnover at the last election than any single man in this parliament; that is what I represent.


Ralph Smith: As my hon. friend is making his attack personal to me


An hon. MEMBER.: You made a personal attack.


Ralph Smith: I did not; I read his statements from the newspapers, and I never accused my hon. friend of making them. But my hon. friend (Mr. Cowan) knows that he sits in this House with 1,500 of a majority of the votes of Vancouver against him.


George Henry Cowan: I sit in this House with a pluralty over every candidate against
me of 1,582 and I had an adverse majority to meet of 858 against me so that I represent a turnover of 2,440 votes. If any hon. gentleman can boast of a larger turnover than that in his constituency I am perfectly willing to take my seat and let him tell about it. When this sentiment in Canada in favour of standing at the back of the empire and preserving its solidarity was on the rise, where did we find the right hon. leader of the government? We found him saying: 'Canada is not menaced; I will not be stampeded; I will not act in a panic; I will not take any false step because of any false alarm.' It occurred to me, in looking over the records, that that same sentiment by that same gentleman has been expressed more than once in this House and on the public platforms of Canada. I recall that in 1907, when She right hon. gentleman, by entering into a treaty with Japan, inaugurated his policy of planting in British Columbia and in western Canada colonies of aliens who would always remain aliens, the aliens, quick to take advantage of that policy of his, came in thousands upon thousands into British Columbia, until in less than six months after the ratification of the treaty in January, 1907, there were no less than 8,125 Japanese army reservists and naval reservists landed in British Columbia to take possession of our fishing banks and our canneries. I remember again, when the influx of this Oriental horde was ,at its height, that the public feeling of resentment, especially in British Columbia, rose to fever height; and I remember that the right hon. gentleman, speaking to a meeting of manufacturers, I think in Toronto, again said in his spectacular way: 'I will not act in a panic; I will ponder; I will not take any false step, because of any false alarm.' That is the import of his words on that occasion; and I recalled at that time, as I recall now, that those army reservists and naval reservists had completely taken possession of the fishing grounds of British Columbia, which are to be the nurture ground of the sailors and officers of our future navy; and on a more recent occasion the same right hon. gentleman, after the greatest statesmen in the empire, the premier of Great Britain, the leader of the opposition, Mr. Balfour, and Mr. McKenna, had spoken weighty words as to the danger that threatened the empire-


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Right here would my hon. friend allow me a question? Speaking of the Japanese, does my hon. friend believe that it is better to be on terms of friendship and amity and good will with Japan just now than it would be to be at war with her?


George Henry Cowan: I believe that our first duty is to preserve our own self-respect, and I

believe that the way we should have preserved that self-respect would have been to have done as the home government asked us to do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Denounce the treaty?


George Henry Cowan: With dignity, reserve to oursely;es the right to control immigration from Japan.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many Japanese are coming into Canada now?


Mr.   OOWAN@: I say I remember another occasion, when the solidarity of the empire was in question, and when the weighty men of the empire spoke weighty words. On the 16th of March last, Mr. Balfour said:
1 do not approach this problem, I can truly say to the House, in an alarmist spirit; but T have 'been forqed most reluctantly, not only against my wish, but against all the traditions by which British politicians and statesmen have been animated for generations. and now for the very first time in modern history, to declare that we are face to face with a situation so new, so dangerous, that it is very difficult for us fairly to realize all that it imports.
And the Premier of Great Britain, agreeing with Mr. Balfour, added 'that a contingency had arisen that menaced not only the supremacy of the empire at sea, but the independence of the nation itself.' Notwithstanding these weighty words by these weighty statesmen, again we find the right hon. leader of the government rise in his place in the House and declare: 'I will not be stampeded; I will not act in a panic; I will not make a false step because of a false alarm.' And I said to that audience, as I say here, that in the matter of the solidarity of the empire and Canada's desire to take part in upholding that solidarity, the only false alarm in the public life of Canada was the right hon. gentleman himself.
I also said something to that audience in regard to better terms. Now, I wish you to understand that we in British Columbia are human, and, like most men, when our rights are denied, we believe in a strong statement against the man who dares deny us our rights. Moreover, we believe that we have a just claim on the Dominion of Canada. It is deeply imbedded in the British sense of justice and fair play that every man who has a claim against an individual or a state will have a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. That is what we in British Columbia ask for. We do not ask you to believe in advance that our claim is well founded. We ask you simply to give us, in the name of common justice, a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal, and we are satisfied; and I said then, what I am prepared to repeat, that Mr. COWAN.
any man who denies me or denies a province the right to have a claim which I or it considers a just claim, heard before an independent and impartial tribunal, that man, if a public man, is unworthy of his position as a public man, and is unworthy to be called a man.


Ralph Smith: Will my hon. friend permit me a question? Did he say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a white-livered traitor?


George Henry Cowan: No, I will repeat exactly what I said, as nearly as I can remember.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is my duty to point out that to ask an hon. member to repeat an expression which is out of order is asking him to repeat the offence, and I cannot allow him to do so.


George Henry Cowan: I believe, Sir, that I can repeat exactly what I said, and that you will not be called on to rule the words out of order. What I said was that such white-livered treatment was unworthy of a public man or any man.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the hon. gentleman is attributing to any member of this House a character of that description, he is using offensive words.


George Henry Cowan: I wish to state that my purpose was to draw the attention of this House to the simple and material fact that we are denied the hearing of a claim which we believe to be just. All we ask is to be heard before an independent and impartial tribunal. I believe myself that when the right hon. the leader of this government realizes that position, when he realizes that the government, by its attitude, is denying us that hearing, his own innate sense of justice and right will lead him to change that attitude and give us the opportunity of pleading opr claim. If my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) considers that I do not represent the public sentiment of my constituency upon the subject of better terms or on the attitude of the right hon. the leader of the government regarding the solidarity of the empire, I should be very grieved indeed to think that I do not represent the majority view of my constituency, and it will be one of my pleasures to contest with him or, if he chooses, with his leader whom he idolizes to such an extent, public opinion in the city of Vancouver; or if either of these gentlemen does not choose to take up the gauge of battle, possibly they may find some one courageous or bold enough, either resident or non-resident in Vancouver, to take it up in their place and on their behalf. I am here only because I believe I represent the healthy view of the people of Vancouver; and if I have fallen short of my duty, should any gentleman wish to contest public opinion in

Vancouver with me on that point, I want him to understand that the door is wide open for him to do so as soon as he wishes.


Mr. A. VERVILLE (Maisonneuve).: I thought that I had a fair majority in the last election, but it seems that my non. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) must have had a larger one. I wish to say a few words on the question before the House, which question also was under debate last week when we were discussing the woollen industry. In that discussion I heard some hon. members claiming to be farmers, others claiming to be labourers, and others claiming to have worked at certain industries during thirty or forty years, and all of them coming to the conclusion that more protection should be given our manufacturing industries. Much was said regarding the protection we should give the manufacturing element in this country, much was said regarding the protection we ought to give to the buildings themselves, the machinery in those buildings, the owners of those buildings, and also the stockholders in those companies. Much was said on behalf of their protection, but very little indeed on the labour side of the question. These hon. gentlemen seem to have forgotten that that is an element entitled to be seriously considered. For my part, I fail to see that our manufacturers are any poorer than they were ten or twelve years ago. I also know that time and again, especially in this very year, whenever the discussion of the budget is on, the Manufacturers' Association are particularly busy endeavouring to impress on the government the advisability of raising a large stone wall around the country-a wall so high that you cannot reach the top. But at the same time they want holes in it to let in their raw material and a wide door to allow labour to come in free. I only hope that our manufacturers, who are asking for higher protection, will seriously consider that whenever they are given protection of any kind, they should be at least willing to give a certain share of the profits allowed them by the tariff to the people who are producing their wealth.
Much has been said concerning the condition of the woollen industry. We had one hon. member telling us that he had been thirty years in that industry and imploring pathetically for more protection. But I believe that hon. gentleman is worth nearly a quarter of a million dollars. That industry must therefore pay very well or he would not have so much money. Again, take the cotton industry, and I have before me the report of the last royal commission held by Mr. King in the province of Quebec last year. It is proven by this report that, while that industry was asking for higher protection, it was impossible for it to produce enough cotton to meet the wants
of the Canadian people-there had to be importations in order to supply those wants. Even though two large establishments were built right at the doors of our city, they still could not make enough to supply the market. But I am sorry to say that, whenever the financial people get together, the only thing they seem to be looking for is to find means to cause this government to propose legislation to double their capital not in two years but in one year if possible. The manufacturers of this country are not satisfied to make ten, fifteen, or twenty per cent; they want more. And if, because of financial depression, such as we have had for the last eighteen months, they cannot make as much as they have been accustomed to make, the first thing they do is to cut down the wages of their employees. This is true not only of the cotton industry, but, so far as I can see, of all others throughout the country. If we are to have protection should we not have it for everything that will produce wealth for the people? I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) speak on the subject of the militia. Every member of the House knows, I presume, that I am not very strongly in favour of militia. When the hon. member for Nanaimo asked that $3,500,000 of the budget of $7,000,000 for militia should be spent for the benefit of the farmers of the West and of the country generally, I believe he was right. As said by the hon. member for Nanaimo, we should protect a certain element in this country by trying, as far as possible, to keep our money in the channels of productive industry. I claim that the soldiers we have in this_country and the $7,000,000 a year that we are spending, would not enable us to defend even the old city of Quebec. It is not feather-bed soldiers that we want, but men who can fight.. I claim that there is no danger to be feared from outside; the worst enemy of this country that I can see is accumulated capital, the possession of which by a few reduces the rest of us virtually to the position of their subjects. This is our most dangerous enemy; this is the foe against which we should arm ourselves. Labour is not supposed to be at the mercy of capital. If we look at what is going on in England to-day we find the question ' discussed there whether capital is to be hired by labour or labour to be hired by capital. If we are not blind altogether, we can see that we are coming to the same position in this country. So long as we have men who try to breed a certain element and a strong element among our people, and are willing to come before this government and ask tariff or legislative favours, there exists an awful danger. Therefore, I hope that the

government instead of raising the tariff as asked by hon. members on the other side, will lower it and abolish the duties altogether in many instances.
We have been talking about expenses. I claim that it matters not so much what your expenses are, if the money is being spent for the good of the people. I would ask any hon. member of this House who has charge of the spending of money whether, in carrying on the industry in which he is engaged, he considers how much should be spent, or whether he considers only getting the good Teturn for that which is spent?
As to this question of tariff, when protection is asked for, it is always for the benefit of the poor labour people. The labour people are told: we are asking for high duties in order to protect you. But I say right here, let any member of this House prove to me that the labour people ever were protected. The benefits have come to the labour people when they were highly organized and able to protect themselves.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Hear, hear.


Alphonse Verville: I am happy to hear the hon. member (Mr. Lalor) say ' Hear, hear.' I infer that he wants high protection for himself and not protection for labour.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I can tell the hon. gentleman that protection means high wages for the labouring people and artisans of this country. That is what it means in my factory and every other.


Alphonse Verville: The manufacturers have less protection to-day than they had ten or twelve years ago. How is it, then, that they are paying their working people a little higher wages than they were then? They pay the labour people higher wages when they are forced to do so .and at no other time. The generosity of the manufacturers has no word to represent it in any language that I know; it is not explained in any grammar that I have ever seen or defined in any dictionary I have ever consulted. I have not learned anything about it in the twenty odd years that I have been in this movement. It is good enough to talk about in this House, but as we go from city to city observing the actual conditions, we do not find that generosity very much in evidence in any place that I know of. Any increase of wages has always been gained as the result of a struggle. Therefore, so far as the tariff is concerned I am not asking the government for a higher tariff, I am asking them to lower the tariff as much as possible, for we do not want high protection to the manufacturers and free trade in labour as has been the ease in the past. If these manufacturers are so anxious to provide work for our people, how is it that year after year the Manufacturers' Association are advertising throughout the whole world, you may say, that labourers of all Mr. VERVILLE.
kinds are in urgent demand in Canada? How is it that every year the Manufacturers' Association advertise, I might say throughout the world, that labour of all kinds is in urgent demand in Canada? If they are so anxious to give work to the unemployed, why do they try to make it appear that labour is scarce? Again, we find the Manufacturers' Association stating that workingmen are responsible for the present financial depression in the country. Will any hon. member say that the labouring men of Canada have not been as faithful in their work, that they have not worked just as hard the last two or three years as they ever did? Then how can they be responsible for the financial depression? But notwithstanding the financial depression, the stockholders must get their dividends, even on watered stock, and their dividends must be wrung out of the human flesh of the workingmen. Therefore I would urge upon this government, instead of raising the tariff, to lower it as much as possible, and I claim that by so doing they will benefit all the interests of Canada.


John Wesley Edwards: I consider that every man who has the honour of a seat in this House has a double obligation to perform; he has an obligation to his constituents who sent him here to represent what he believes to be their opinions on public questions, and he has an obligation to his fellow members in this House to do that as briefly as possible. I have listened with a great deal of interest to many of the speeches which have been delivered during this debate, and I was especially interested in observing the different positions taken by supporters of the government. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Verville) said among other things that he favoured tariff reduction as much as possible. Now, it is a little remarkable to me that an hon. gentleman who, I believe, sat in this House during the last parliament should so express himself. Last session the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) moved a resolution to reduce the duty on agricultural implements from 17J to 10 per cent, and the hon. member who has just taken his seat, and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith), who were both in this House, and every member on the Liberal side of the House, joined to vote that resolution down. It has been interesting to me to follow the arguments advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite; it is interesting to observe them labour to defend an expenditure which has risen to some $125,000,000. The position taken by hon. gentlemen supporting the government to-day is vastly different from that taken by the Liberal party previous to 1896, when, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, on every platform in Canada, they denounced in unmeasured terms an expenditure of $38,000,000, while

to-day we find them labouring to defend an expenditure of $125,000,000.
I agree with much that has been said this evening by my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith), and I think that many on this side of the House will agree with much that he has said. I think that the Conservative party in this House, as well as the Liberal party, favour a proper expenditure of money, an expenditure that will increase our transportation facilities and benefit the country. But where the Conservative party differs from hon. gentlemen opposite, is that they condemn expenditure which, in their judgment, are improper, while hon. gentlemen opposite are ready to back up any expenditure proposed by the government no matter how indefensible it may be. For instance, the hon. member for Nanaimo is today finding fault with the government for spending money on militia and defence; he says that an expenditure of $7,000,000 for that purpose is unjustifiable, that the money should not be used in that way. But what has been the course of that hon. gentleman for the last four or five years that he has been in this House? Every session, when six or seven million dollars has been voted by parliament for militia purposes, the hon. gentleman has supported that vote. This session he did not raise his voice against an expenditure of $7,000,000 for militia purposes after all the money was appropriated, and now he comes forward and raises a howl about it. I think we might characterize his course on this question as one of those political spasms to which he referred. It is interesting to note that while the hon. member advocates free coal, the hon. member for Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie) advocates a higher duty on coal; that while some Liberal members advocate a reduction of the duty on different articles, other Liberal members advocate an increased duty on various articles. The policy of the Conservative party since 1879 has been known as the National Policy, the N. P. The Liberal policy, if we may judge by the diverse opinions expressed by Liberal members, might be properly termed the M. P., that is the Mixed Policy, a policy which is applicable to the condition of every constituency which they represent. We find the present government going down to Nova Scotia and telling the people that they will not touch the duty on coal, or if they do, that they will increase it; and going up to British Columbia and assuring the people that the proper thing to do is to reduce the duty on coal. We find that every Liberal member who gets up in this House to speak, whether it is the hon. member for Nanaimo who advocates free coal, he gets applause from the government benches; whether it is the hon. member for Cape Breton who advocates an increased duty on coal, he also gets applause from the government benches;
or whether it is the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who is prepared to advocate anything that comes into his head, he is also applauded. I was particularly struck with some of the arguments, if I might dignify them with the name of arguments, advanced by my philosophical friend from Red Deer. The hon. member for Red Deer said among other things that the credit of Canada was to be judged by our answer to the question, 'What is our faith in Canada? It strikes me that the credit of Canada is to be judged rather by the faith of the other fellow, who is the creditor of Canada. Another argument advanced by the hon. member for Red Deer was that we spend what we get, and he says that we get our money from the increase of our trade. I might ask him, 'How do we get an increased income from increased trade if it is not by means of duties imposed by this government on trade? The hon. member for Red Deer has advanced the peculiar doctrine in this House to-day, that we in Canada must regard, and should regard, any increase in Canada's expenditure as a token of Canada's prosperity, and as a token as well of the administrative abilitv of the present administration.
I submit that of all the peculiar arguments that have been advanced in this House of parliament by any member, let alone the member who claims and professes to be somewhat of a philosopher, this is, to my mind, the most peculiar. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has a great admiration for the Minister of Finance. He admires the steady persistence shown by the Minister of Finance to the requests of the manufacturers, but he has forgotten that in this present budget the only change made was one in the interest of manufacturers and asked for by manufacturers. Has he likewise forgotten that the Minister of Finance could not resist the appeals of the manufacturers of iron and steel in this country, but that he gave way to their appeals and that this government has granted, since 1896, in bounties to manufacturers of iron, steel and various other commodities over $16,000,000 of the public money? The hon. member for Red Deer supports that sort of thing. That is a style of protection which he applauds although he is in theory an ardent free trader. That is the great trouble with that hon. gentleman and with a great many hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House; in theory they are free traders while in practice they are protectionists. There is one more reference that I desire to make to one of the statements made by the hon. member for Red Deer and that is the expression which fell from his lips that he had the fullest sympathy with any aspirations for true economy. It was a beautiful sentence, beautifully expressed-that he had the fullest sympathy with any aspirations for true economy. Yet,

the hon. member for Red Deer stood up in this House and gave his support to the throwing away of $1,000,000 of the public money for the Aylesworth ditch.


Michael Clark: Will the hon. gentleman tell me the date when I stood up in this House and voted for that ditch?


John Wesley Edwards: If I have mis-stated anything in reference to the hon. member for Red Deer I will be very sorry. I will ask him if he was in the House at the time.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend made a definite statement purporting to be a fact about myself. I asked him the authority upon which he stated as a fact what was not a fact.


John Wesley Edwards: I also promulgated a question to the hon. member for Red Deer and it was:	If he was not in the
House when that vote was on, why was he not?	If the hon. member
for Red Deer did not believe that that was a proper expenditure he had ample opportunity, when he was making his speech on the budget, to condemn it. Was the hon. member far Red Deer in his place in the House when the resolution was put forward asking for an inquiry in the McAvity steal of $35,933 of the public money.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mi- EDWARDS. Hon. gentlemen say: 'Oh, oh.' I venture to say that before the next elections are over they will say something more than 'oh, oh,' in reference to that.


An hon. MEMBER.: They will say: 'Ha, ha.'


John Wesley Edwards: We have a good many policies advocated by the Liberal party in the Dominion of Canada. We have had tariff for revenue only, we have had free trade as it is in England, we have had unrestricted reciprocity or commercial union, a policy which one of the ablest men that the Liberal party ever produced in this country could not back up and on account of which he left the Liberal party. He believed that the leaders of the Liberal party at that time, in advocating that policy, and in allying themselves with men like Wyman, Farrer and other annexationists, were making the first move towards giving this country away to the people across the line. We have had various policies advanced and advocated by the liberal party, and to-day we have a policy which we might properly call a mixed policy, because it seems to me to apply to any constituency and to any member of this House if he is on the Liberal benches whether he be in favour of free trade or


John Wesley Edwards: in favour of protection. It is an accommodating policy and to that extent it deserves to be styled a mixed policy. In 1893 there was a convention held in the city of Ottawa to which Liberals were called from all parts of Canada. That convention was representative of the Liberal party of Canada. At that convention the platform laid down was that on which the Liberal party appealed to the country in the elections following in 1896. In one of the planks of that platform they stated that the Liberal party viewed with alarm the increase in the national debt. They seem to view with the utmost complacency an increase of $60,317,999 to the public debt in the last two years. In 1896 the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) expressed himself in these words:
The expenditure has grown until the people are unable to bear it. I promise you that if you put our party in power we will reduce that annual expenditure by two or three millions of dollars.
We hold as individuals, one with another, that a man should be as good as his word. That is the test that we have in sizing up a man. If his word is good he is good for anything but if his word is no good the man himself is considered no good. The same test should be applied to governments. If the Liberal party made these solemn promises in 1896 to the people of Canada they should have kept them. If these men made these promises knowing at the time that it would be impossible in a growing country like Canada to decrease the annual expenditure then they made them for the purpose of wilfully deceiving the people. If they made these promises believing they could carry them out, then I maintain it is up to them to explain why they have not carried them out. The promise made by the Prime Minister in 1896 was supplemented by a promise made by Sir Richard Cartwright. He said that an expenditure of $38,000,000 or $40,000,000 was monstrous, and that when the United States mustered a population of 20,000,000 their expenditure was barely $22,000,000. If that argument of Sir Richard Cartwright were well founded, then according to that basis of calculation the present expenditure of the Dominion government is sufficient for a population of 110,000,000 people in this country. The people of Canada took the Liberal party at their word and placed them in power, and the right hon. the Prime Minister who pledged his word to reduce the then expenditure by two millions or three millions a year, now views with complacency an annual expenditure of $125,000,000, and he even expresses his pride in a Minister of Finance who can spend that amount of money and in a minister of Public Works who can throw away $1,000,000 into the Aylesworth ditch, and who

can permit the looting of the public treasury by his bosom friend to the extent of nearly $36,000 of the people's money.
Now, Sir, I wish to refer very briefly to the tariff plank in the Liberal platform of 1893. The Liberals stated at that time that the tariff should be reduced to the needs of honest, economical, and efficient government. No one in this House will claim that the tariff has been reduced to any such extent, and the natural conclusion is that the needs of this government require three or four times as much as was required by the Conservative government, or else, that this government is neither honest, nor economical, nor efficient. You can have your choice of whichever it is. I will not take up the time of the House by referring in detail


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: I can, however, tell these hon. gentlemen opposite that I am going to take up just as much time of the House as I think necessary to make out my argument. I shall not now refer in detail to the various expressions used by Liberal politicians from 1893 to 18% in reference to the tariff. The right hon. the Prime Minister said that if the Liberals were successful they would cut the head off protection and trample on its body. Well, protection is a pretty lively corpse at the present day in Canada. Sir Richard Cartwright declared that the policy of the Liberal party was death to protection; Sir Louis Davies said that protection was a system accursed by God and man, and the Hon. Wm. Paterson nailed his banner to the mast and joined in the procession with the motto:	We declare for freedom
of trade. But, after the Liberal party came to power he tacks on to that motto the words:	Except in biscuits. Well, Sir,
notwithstanding all these pledges made by Liberal statesmen of that day we still have the same line of custom houses and an increased staff of customs officials collecting pretty much the same duties as were collected previous to 1896. In reference to tariff and taxation I want to reiterate the statement made by the hon. member for North Toronto-and it is a statement which has not been denied by any Liberal member-that the taxation of the people in 1896 was $5.46 per head of the population and in 1908 it was $11 per head of the population. Let me say further that if the Conservative government from 1887 to
1896	had exacted a similar amount of taxation to that levied by the Liberals from
1897	to 1908 the Conservative government would not only not have increased the debt of this country but they would have reduced it by some $120,000,000. Or if you like you can put it the other way: If the Liberals had not increased the taxation to meet the ever growing expenditure they
would have added over $150,000,000 to the debt of this country. Hon. gentlemen opposite are very fond of referring to the conditions previous to 1896 and they tell _us that the present time is one of financial stress and trade depression. But, Sir, in the period from 1890 to 1894 commercial depression was world wide and Canada came through it better than any other country in the world. In support of my statement that trade depression was world wide between 1890 and 1894 I would point out that the falling off in exports from Great Britain amounted to $235,000,000 and the falling off in her imports to $60,000,000; in the United States there was a falling off in exports amounting to $140,000,000 and a falling off in imports amounting to $170,000,000; in Australia there was a falling off in exports amounting to $95,000,000 and a like decrease in the value of imports; in France there was a falling off in exports to the amount of $95,000,000 and in imports to the extent of $65,000,000; in Germany there was a falling off in exports of $40,000,000 and in imports of $50,000,000. The depression felt in Canada at that time was shared in by all the great commercial countries in the world, but in Canada, while her import trade remained stationary her export trade increased by $17,000,000; her earnings increased by $46,000,000^ .her railways increased by 2,700 miles; her coasting trade by 2,700,000 tons; her imports of raw material doubled, her exports of manufactured articles increased by 35 per cent and her exports of agricultural products by 65 per cent. And I want to say that the Conservative government at that time, realizing that it was a time of stress, adopted the wise course of reducing the annual expenditure and besides that they reduced taxation. Let me point out that in 1890 the Conservative government took taxes off the necessaries of life amounting to over half a million dollars, that in 1891 they took the duty off raw sugar and reduced the duty on refined sugar, thus saving to the people from 1891 to 1895 nearly $20,000,000 in that way alone. In 1894 they' followed up their wise policy and they made a general reduction in taxes amounting to upwards of one and a half million dollars. This reduction of taxes, this lifting of the burden from the people at that time was the policy of the Conservative party. I hold Sir, that in comparing the tariff of to-day with the Conservative tariff of 1896 we must take into consideration the general increase in the cost of goods which amounts to from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. It is true there have been reductions made by the Liberal government on some things; they claim for instance that the duty on various articles of iron have been lowered. But I submit that it is fair, in considering that statement, to consider also the fact that while

they reduced the duties on certain manufactured articles, they gave in bounties to manufacturers of iron, steel and other things, over $16,300,000. That is just as much a form of protection as the placing of a specific or ad valorem duty on an article imported.
Very much has been made of the fact that trade has very largely increased since 1896, which I am very pleased to admit; it was only to be expected that it would increase. But of the eighteen leading countries named in volume 1 of the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce, Argentina was the only country whose percentage of imports during the last decade was greater than that of Canada; but there is a very great difference in the way the trade of the two countries is balanced. I find that the percentage of increase of imports in Argentina in the last decade was 190'84 and the percentage of increase of exports was 192-78, thus showing not only a large increase in the total volume of trade, but a favourable balance of trade as well. Canada's percentage of increase of imports in the last decade was 178-59; but her percentage of increase of exports was only 75 -5, showing a very large adverse balance of trade.	Allow me also to call
your attention to this fact, that of the eighteen principal countries mentioned six show a favourable condition of trade, so far as it is indicated by imports and exports; seven show practically the same percentage of increase of exports as of imports; and of the other five, the adverse balance of trade is far greater in the case of Canada than in the case of any of the others, For the year ending the 31st of March, 1908, Canada's imports for home consumption amounted to $351,879,955, and her exports of domestic merchandise amounted to $246,960,968; in other words, Canada bought nearly $105,000,000 worth more from other countries than she sold to other countries. This means that our imports amount to $52.87 and our exports $37.10 per head of the _ population. Now, I submit that if a business man or a farmer, year after year, continued to buy from others more than he sold to others, there could be only one result, namely, that he would be obliged to borrow in order to carry on his business; and what applies to the individual applies in a larger sense to the country as a whole. The balance of trade in 1908 was unfavourable to Canada to the extent of nearly $105,000,000. In 1896, while the total volume of our trade was very much less than it was in 1908, the balance of trade in Canada's favour was $7,600,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite, I know, profess to make light of this balance of trade; but I observe that when they are referring to our trade with Great Britain, they seem to take a great deal of pleasure in the fact that we. are exporting to Great Britain more than we are import-Mr. EDWARDS.
ing from Great Britain. Now, I think that our trade relations with Great Britain, so far as the figures show, are -very satisfactory. In 1896 Canada bought from Great Britain over $32,000,000 worth and sold her over $66,000,000 worth, showing a balance of trade in our favour of over $34,000,000. In 1898 Canada bought from Great Britain $64,000,000 worth and sold to Great Britain $104,000,000 worth, or a balance of trade in favour of Canada of $40,000,000. In my judgment that represents a very satisfactory state of trade as between this country and Great Britain. But if we regard that state of trade as satisfactory, so far as Canada is concerned, what must we think of the state of trade revealed by the figures of Canada's trade with the United States? In 1896 our trade with the United States showed an adverse balance of $17,000,000, and in 1908 we sold to the United States $96,900,000 worth, and bought from the United States $214,000,000 worth, showing an adverse balance of trade in the neighbourhood of $118,000,000.
Now, I wish to express the opinion, which I shall endeavour to back up with figures, that the unsatisfactory condition of our trade relations with the United States is largely due to the unwise, and, if I may be permitted to say so, the unfair policy maintained by this government. I am not going to claim to be a farmer. That is not my profession. I represent a farming constituency, and have lived all my life in the country amongst farmers; and I have had an opportunity to come into contact with them and to ascertain pretty fairly what their views are. In 1908 Canada imported from the United States of animals living, $2,000,000 worth, of which $1,611,000 worth were dutiable and $453,000 worth were free. Of grains of all kinds we imported from the United States over $14,000,000 worth, of which $8,250,000 worth were free. Of breadstuffs we imported from the United States over $15,000,000 worth, of which over $8,250,000 worth were free. Of fruits we imported nearly $6,000,000 worth; of butter, cheese, eggs, lard and meat we imported $3,612,334 worth; and of vegetables we imported $851,451 worth. Now, I wish to state to the House why I think the tariff between Canada and the United States is unfair to the Canadian market. We imported into Canada from the United States in 1908, 6,428 horses, the value of which, as represented in the blue-books, was $1,254,744, and we sent to the United States that same year 3,616 horses, the value of which was $901,350.
Permit me very briefly to compare the Canadian tariff on horses with that of the United States. The United States charge Canadians a duty of $30 on all horses valued under $150 each, and 25 per cent on horses exceeding that value. Our tariff charges on American horses brought into this coun-

try 25 per cent, if a horse is worth $150, and $12.50 on horses valued at $50 and under. You see how that works out. Suppose a Canadian farmer has four horses to spare and sends them to the American market. One of them he values at $100, the other at $75, and two colts at $50 and $30 respectively. What duty has he to pay? Before he can get them into the American market, he must pay a duty of $30 each, or a total duty of $120. But suppose an American farmer sends into the Canadian market four horses of exactly the same kind, what duty will he have to pay? On the $100 horse, he will have to pay $25; on the $75 horse, $18.75; and on each of the colts $12.50, so that he pays a duty of $68.75 on these animale while the Canadian farmer has to pay a duty of $120. I submit that that is manifestly unfair and unjust to Canadian farmers: and when we take into account the fact that the United States sent into Canada last year 6,428 horses, valued at $1,254,704, we must see that a portion of that was deliberately taken out of the pockets of Canadian farmers.
Let me carry the comparison further and give a statement with regard to hay and different other articles. We allow the Americans to ship hay into this country on paying a duty of $2 per ton, whereas Canadians must pay a duty of $4 per ton on hay which they send into the United States. Is there anything fair in that? I think not. The United States sent into this country last year 11,258 tons of hay, and I do not believe they would have sent us that much if our duty had been the same as theirs. Let me submit to the House the following statement of imports from the United States and the duties collected from these imports:
1908. Value. Duty.
Horses-


From U.: S	No.	6,428	$1,254,704


To U.: S	"	3,616	901,350
Hay-


From U.: S	Tons.	11,258	221,341	$2


To U.: S	 "	27,631	243,903	$4
Butter-


From U.: S	Lbs.	306,317	77,994	4c.


To U.: S	"	206,336	43,045	6c.
Cheese-


From U.: S	"	800,063	116,851	3c.


To U.: S	"	173,009	27,247	6c.
Eggs-


From U.: S	Doz. 1,123,336	216,278 3c.


To U.: S	"	32,991	9,846	5c.
Bacon and hams-


From U.: S	Lbs.7,304,187	851,807 2c.


To U.: S	"	30,294	5,211	5c.
Potatoes-


From U.: S	Bush.	249,907	195,650	20c.


To U.: S	 "	35,864	18,480	25c.
Barley-


From U.: S	 "	62,572	23,299	15c.


To U.: S	 "	210,788	139,573	24c.
1908. Value. Duty.
Oats-


From U.: S	Bush. 88,485	$35,048 10c.


To U.: S	 "	350,991	144,545	15c.
Pease-


From U.: S	 "	4,952	10,096	15c.


To U.: S	 "	95,785	155,625	40e.
Beans-


From U.: S	 "	15,925	38,741	25c.


To U.: S	 "	38,173	61,828	45c.
Wheat-


From U.: S	 "	5,803,452	5,138,455	12c.


To U.: S	 "	114,926	102,699	25c.
Let me draw particularly the attention of the House to a few of those items. Take butter, we allow American butter to come in at 4 cents a lb. while they charge us a duty on our butter of 6 cents a lb. On American cheese our duty is 3 cents per lb., and on Canadian cheese they charge 6 cents. On eggs from the other side we charge 3 cents a dozen, and they charge on Canadian eggs a duty of 5 cents a dozen; and last year they sent to Canada 1,123,336 dozen of eggs, valued at $216,278, and I submit that, to a certain extent at least, our Canadian farmers are, in consequence of that competition, deprived of the money which they otherwise would have received. Bacon and hams we allow to come from the United States at 2 cents per lb., and they charge us 5 cents per lb. On American potatoes we charge 20 cents per bushel, and they charge on Canadian potatoes 25 cents a bushel. On barley our tariff is 15 cents per bushel, and they charge us 24 cents, under the change they have made in their tariff. On oats we impose a duty of 10 cents a bushel and they charge us 15 cents. On pease our duty is 15 cents a bushel and theirs 40 cents. On beans we charge 25 cents and they charge 45 cents. On wheat we charge 12 cents per bushel and their duty is 25 cents. All along the list, on these articles I have enumerated, our tariff is against the Canadian farmer, and in the interest of the American farmer. The total value of the articles I have enumerated, which we sent the United States last year, amounted to but $1,853,352, and the imports of the same articles from the United States, which entered into competition with similar products of the Canadian farm, amounted to $8,180,264.
Hon. gentlemen opposite, however, profess a very high regard for the Canadian farmer. Earlier in the session we were told by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) that the drawback to agricultural productions in this country was the slipshod methods of our farmers, their lack of industry, and the lack of labour necessary in the carrying out of farming operations. That was the opinion expressed by the hon. minister of ^ the farmers of this country, and that opinion I would respectfully com-

not to kill outright, even people with a most hearty stomach.
There is one point brought out by the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) which I desire to deal with. He is unable to conceive how it comes that the present administration having accumulated surpluses up to $94,000,000 and having spent that money, they should not be in a position to account to him for their use. I realize his great embarrassment in having to deal with surpluses, he, among all others, who has always had deficits on hand.
Let me show you briefly the actual difference in the political status of the two parties who have been contending for power. When the Conservatives came to power in 1878, the total assets of Canada amounted to $34,595,499.05. In 1896, these gentlemen were driven out of power by the verdict of the people. In the meantime, they had brought the assets of Canada up to $67,220,103.96; that is to say, they had increased them by $32,624,004.91 in the space of 18 years. However, they had brought the debt during that period up to $118 000,000. After deducting from the above amount the $32,500,000 of assets to their credit, there remains a net increase of the debt during those 18 years of $85,500,000, for which the Conservative party is responsible.
We came to power in 1896, when the assets of Canada, as I said a moment ago, aggregated $67,220,103.96. By 1909, we had increased that amount to $130,246,298, that is an increase, during those twelve of Liberal government, of $63,026,194.04. Now, according to the official report of the Finance Department, the debt under the Liberal government has increased by $65,463,427.07. But the assets represent $63,026,194.04. Therefore, the net Tncrease of the debt for which we are responsible amounts only to $2,437,233.03.	_	,
The member for North Toronto inquired the other day how it was that having had surpluses amounting to $94,000,000, we should not he in a position to account for them. Let him consider the net increase of the debt, and he will find out that the difference in round figures, amounts to only $2,500,000.	,
Regarding the use that has been made of the surpluses, let my hon. friend refer to the official reports and he will see that the National Transcontinental has already cost to this country $52,574,131; that about $8,000,000 have been expended on our canals-I am speaking from memory-that the better terms granted to the provinces, account for $3,000,000; if we add to the above several other items aggregating to about $12,000,000, it will be seen that of the $94,000,000 of accumulated surpluses, $75,000,000 have thus been employed.


Mr. GLADU.: I will stop at that, and I will impose no more figures upon the House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is in this House an extraordinary man, a man without the like of him; he is generally referred to as the best debater of this country. But he also excels in some other ways, he can accommodate himself with a marvellous versatility to the exigencies of the most heterogeneous situations. I am alluding to the hon. member for North Toronto. When the hon. gentleman sits to your right, Mr. Speaker, he is the most persistent accumulator of deficits. When he sits to your left, he wages war unceasingly on the surpluses of the government.	.
He is an extraordinary man in another direction yet. Twelve or thirteen years ago, he delivered a splendid speech-of which we hear a repetition every year. I refer to his criticism of the budget speech. Those who hear that speech for the first time are found to say: What an orator! Those who hear it for the second time, say: What a repeater. But those who hear it for the fourth or fifth time-and that is the case of those of us who have long enjoyed a seat in this House-are hound to say: That gentleman sings always the same tune; he is a grinding organ.
I would dislike to make these remarks in his absence, but as this same speech comes back to us regularly about Easter time, quite innocent people say that the ex-manager of the Union Trust, the friend of the Independent Foresters, is about to repent. On the other hand, those who do not know more about the ritual than about the dogma, say: He has a sermon in store for us, but it will not be on the last sufferings of the Saviour.
The hon. member for North Toronto has made a crime to the government for having borrowed money recently, at a different rate than the one they had obtained some time before. It is of no use to argue on this point, for everybody knows that when one goes to the money markets of the world to float a loan he must submit to the financial conditions of the market, for the time being.
The hon. member has taunted the hon. Finance Minister with having changed his views on the political questions concerning this country. He has recalled that Sir Richard Cartwright has always been true to his colours and so with Sir John A. Macdonald. The political convictions of Sir John A. Macdonald do not concern me, but I can say of Sir Richard Cartwright that if during the five years he has been Finance Minister in a Liberal administration, he has never changed his views on the political question of the day, the reason was that there was no necessity for him to do so, his task being confined to relieve the country of the evil effects of the preceding administration.

Moreover, it is an accepted truism that asses only never change their views, for the good reason that they have none. In my opinion, a statesman is bound to conform his views to the needs of the country, without considering if in doing so he has to modify his former views.
The country having been left in a depressed condition by the Conservative party in 1896, it was but natural that the succeeding government should gradually modify the existing fiscal policy, so as to bring about the prosperity that we presently enjoy.
The other night, the hon. member for North Toronto found fault with the hon. Finance Minister for having charged' to capital account the expenses incurred in connection with the bounties on iron and steel. In our time, said the hon. gentleman, these bounties were charged to current accounts. I do not doubt it, because under the former administration these industries were almost at a standstill and the bounties amounted to a mere triffle.
Furthermore, the hon. member for North Toronto is not consistent in his statements. He complains about the heavily increasing expenditures, notwithstanding the fact that in Prince Edward Island he advocated an expenditure of $50,000,000 for the construction of a tunnel. Later on he made a strong plea in favour of the construction of Dreadnoughts. But his most stupendous contradiction is when he stands in this House and denounces the construction of the National Transcontinental Railway as a crime.	.
If he is in earnest, if his friends are in earnest, if they sincerely wish to do something for the defence of the Empire, they cannot suppress the fact that the contraction of this Transcontinental Railway exclusively on Canadian territory, is the most patriotic and imperialistic scheme that could be conceived.
Let us suppose that England should be called upon for the protection of her interests in the Far East, to transfer her forces, her whole army, together with contingents from Australia. New Zealand, South Africa, India and even France, nothing would equal the advantages to be derived from the transportation facilities afforded by that magnificent line of railway.
The hon. member for North Toronto favours the construction of the battleships It is not an easy thing to express a decided opinion on this question at the present moment, nevertheless let us take the figures by the hon. member himself, who stated that the construction of the National Transcontinental will cost the enormous sum of $180,000,000. Now it is an admitted fact, 151
that the construction of a single Dreadnought costs $10,000,000. So by the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad we are contributing towards the defence of the Empire, the equivalent of eighteen Dreadnoughts. That proposition ^ cannot be assailed. Those who are urging the defence of the empire, if they are m earnest, must withstand all criticism concerning the construction of that railway. There is no more effective way of contributing to the defence of the empire.
What is this Dreadnought policy aimed at ? At putting Canada in the throep of the most pronounced form of imperialism. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I say it from the bottom of my heart and without boasting-I am an anti-imperialist. First of all,
I am a son of Canada.
In what situation would we be in acceding to the construction of Dreadnoughts, which, after all would be the exclusive property of the English nation ?


Mr. PAQUET (L'Islet).: (Translation.) Will my hon. friend allow me a question ?


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: (Translation.) Certainly.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) When has the hon. member for North Toronto advocated the construction of Dreadnoughts?


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: (Translation.) I am sorry for my hon. friend, but it is quite evident that he did not bother himself much with the reading of that speech of the hon. member for North Toronto. It is in the last part of his speech that_ the hon. member advocated the construction of battleships. I was asking in what situation would we find ourselves in acceding to the construction of these Dreadnoughts, which would be, after all, the exclusive property of the Engilsh nation? We have been enticed to imperialism on every hustings, in England, in Canady and in this House. Have we not yet, on the Order Paper a resolution of the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) teeming with the most fervid imperialism of the hon. gentlemen on the other side? 'In cauda venenum.'
Would not that pronounced form of_ imperialism create a most anomalous condition of things for a considerable portion of our pooulation ? Let us suppose that one day the land and naval forces of England and Germany clash against each other. If we have allowed ouTselves to be enticed into imperialism, we are in duty bound to fight for the empire. What right have we to ask the Germans, the Italians, that have become naturalized citizens of this country, to fight against Germany or Italy ? If these citizens of Canada, being in such an awkward position, should refuse to draw the sword against their kinsmen, should they be declared rebels and traitors ? If, on the other hand, they go to war, do we not



ask them to become murderers and fratra-cides ? In the first case, they are to be shot as rebels ; in the second case, they are to be disgraced for fighting against their own blood.
I may be allowed to state in all frankness that I am neither English, nor French; I am nothing else than a Canadian; I would not give a token to return under French domination. But for nothing on earth would I see my fellow countrymen of the province of Quebec being called upon to take up arms against the French army. These are my sentiments on this question.
Moreover, we have no right to decide about the future. The future does not belong to us. A great poet has said "The future belongs to God." It is true; but the expectations of the future are ours; it is our duty to transmit them as an inheritance to those that will come after us. It would be a crime, an outrage, to deprive them of that inheritance. We have no right, be it in the form of a Dreadnought policy, or in the form of imperialism, to imperil the future of this country in entering into a scheme of the consequences of which we know nothing. We have a perfect right to have expectations and to hope that they will be realized in the future; but no matter what that future has in store for our country, we have no right to dispose of that future.
I do not think I can be accused of being disloyal for giving expression to these sentiments; as I have just said, I would not give a token to return under French domination. I believe that our country ought to be proud of the present status. I love the British Empire that has given Canada more liberty than this country had ever enjoyed before; I love that mighty Empire oyer which the sun never sets; I love the king of the United Kingdom, the worthy successor of the most admirable woman that for centuries has sat on a British throne. But there is another country that I cannot forget; a country to which God has given the dimensions of a continent, a country bounded on both sides by the Oceans, a country which has as neighbour on the one side the greatest republic in the world, and which on the other side is bordered by the mysteries of unknown seas. All our ancestors have proven it. That country is yours, Mr. Speaker, it is mine, it is the country of us all. It is the country of the English, who on that soil so gallantly and gloriously fought us; it is the country of the French Canadians who opened it to civilization and who, themselves also fought some immortal fights. That country, we all know, is Canada.
I fail to see what advantage we could be, for the defence of the empire, by building Dreadnoughts, or by throwing ourselves Mr. GLADU.
into exaggerated imperialism. England has got nothing to fear from us-I speak of Canadians of all races and of all creeds. Every time that her flag has been threatened on Canadian soil, every time an audacious hand has been stretched towards that same flag, the French and English Canadians stepped forth for her defence. Let us open history. In 1774-75, Canadians kept the British flag flying on the citadel of Quebec. In 1812, de Salaberry and his companions gain immortal fame in history at Chateau-guay. In 1870, during the Fenian raid Canadians again stood by the flag. In 1885, that flag was threatened once more. On that occasion, we were face to face with our own kin; and yet, it was for the defence of that same flag, and as loyal subjects of the British empire, we did not hesitate to crush the rebellion. And even now, when I come to more recent times, the blood of our compatriots is still reeking on the battle fields of the African soil.
What benefit, what privileges would we find in a more intimate union with the empire? What would be the profit to England? Absolutely none. Let us then remain as we are, loyal British subjects. The money we have to spend, let us spend it for the general good of Canada; that our country may attain that prosperity and greatness to which it is entitled, and some day perhaps become one of the finest and greatest countries on the face of the globe. I do not believe, a Canadian, who Teally loves his country, and wishes to show his love for it, could possibly form any other dreams.


Mr. W. B. NANTEL (Terrebonne.) (Translation).: Mr. Speaker, without making any such nice phrases as those we have just heard from the member for Yamaska, I will be satisfied to simply congratulate him. He has spoken to us in an ornate tongue, but I do not wish to dwell upon it any longer, and I come at once to the point which he particularly insisted upon, and that is imperialism.
Answering the remarks made by the hon. gentleman, I will read, not in full, but partly only, the resolution adopted by this House, and compare it with that submitted by the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster).
The member for North Toronto proposed as follows:
That in view of her great and varied resources, or her geographical position and national environments, and of that spirit of self help and self respect which alone befits a strong and growing people, Canada should no longer delay in assuming her proper share of the responsibility and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great seaports.
To that resolution an amendment was brought forward by the right hon. leader
APRIL 22. 1909 [DOT]
of the government. And what does this last resolution of the right hon. gentleman contain? I read a portion only of its conclusions :
The House will cordially approve of any recessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the Admiralty at the last Imperial Conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the Empire and the peace of the world.	_	_
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will be found ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the Imperial authorities the most loyal and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and the honour of the Empire.
Really, on hearing the bon. member for Yamaska express so strongly to-night that frightful theory of imperialism, I am inclined to believe that he is no staunch supporter of the government. Does he wish to strike his chief in the face? I cannot bring myself to imagine he would have that courage. I will insist no longer on that question; I think the most appropriate answer is found in that part of ' Hansard ' which I have just quoted. I have, also, no intention whatever of defending the hon. member for North Toronto. I know he is well able to defend himself, and will, therefore, leave the matter in his hands.
The hon. member for Yamaska has told us of the bounties paid by the Conservatives when in poweT. The bounties paid during that administration were far from considerable, because the Conservative party had quite different ideas as to national politics, and did not give the bounties any great attention. National industries were encouraged in quite another manner. This was perhaps a bad policy, but such was its policy, and it is not here the place nor is it the time to discuss it. Bounties then could not have had any great influence in equilibrating its budget.
My hon. friend has stated that the hon. member for North Toronto, during his term as Minister of Finance, could show nothing but yearly deficits. That assertion is completely in opposition with the facts, and one has only to open the blue-books, to find not only the refutation of the accusation, but also to get proof that the hon. member foT North Toronto was able to show an occasional surplus.
On the other hand, what is the substance and material of the surplus of which the present ministers are so boastful ? If one follows the easy methods of the Minister of Finance, it seems to me quite any easy matter to have a surplus. I do not know if the secret is one of his own invention, 151J
but according to his ideas, it is sufficient to capitalize the revenue. He does not spend public money, he capitalizes it. It is according to those ideas that he capitalized the $6,424,000 sunk with the Quebec bridge. Strange capital, I must say. _
The hon. minister pays to certain industries bounties amounting to $2,787,354, and in his mind, this is also a capital, although the government have assumed these obligations by means of a law obliging them to pay the bounties ; yet, at the end of the year, the minister does not hesitate to capitalize that also. The same system applies to the grants to the railways ; again my hon. friend includes them in his capital. Following that plan right through, he will probably end by capitalizing the expenses of the public servants. Putting all that to the credit of capital, he, of course easily finds a surplus. Really, I think the Minister of Finance should have his invention patented.
But they tell us he simply borrowed the system from his predecessor, the hon. member for North Toronto, who was minister before him. If it be true, I say he was quite wrong in doing so. But I do not believe that he, a proud and dignified Liberal, could possibly make use of methods so decidedly Tory in their essence.
The Minister of Finance has been in power for the last thirteen years, and with all his progressive ideas, he has not been able so far to change that wrong method. He might have invited his colleague the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) and imported a book-keeper from New York, who could have taught him a new system of book-keeping. If it be true that the Conservative party was the first to imagine and apply the theory of capitalization of expenses, the Conservatives greatly deserved to be thrown over and become the opposition, and if the Liberals act in a similar manner, they are equally deserving of a similar treatment, and should pass into the opposition as quick as possible.
Simple minded and innocent, I had thought that a sum of money could be converted into capital when that sum of money represented a real and solid value, and I said to myself; now here is a farmer who, as a result of strict economy, has saved a sum of $1,000. He takes that money, builds a barn on his farm; he is not impoverished thereby, he simply puts his cash into a building and adds so much to the value of his property ; he can in all justice charge that sum of $1,000 to his credit and capital account. But the Minister of Finance acts differently, he capitalizes all the money he spends. The principle is a false one, and the method quite wrong, when applied to financial dealings.
A government who builds a railway will

capitalize its real value, because it is equivalent to cash or credit on hand. But certainly that cannot be said of the $6,400,000 of the Quebec bridge, which he buried in the bottom of the St. Lawrence. The old members of this House know and understand the meaning of these surpluses the Minister of Finance speaks of, but the new members do not know, neither do the public, and all this is likely to be misleading to the people, the creditors, and to the Minister of Finance himself.
There seems to be very little chance of an understanding in this matter of accounting, but there is a wonderful understanding as to the frightful proportions of the public debt. The public debt has in the last two years increased by $46,000,000. We are living on loans. We have long term and medium term loans; we have also temporary loans which, I might say, are on the weekly payment or instalment system. Here we find a condition of things that requires prompt attention. And yet, I believe we are extravagant in the administration of our affairs. And that is the point I had most particularly intended to develop. We are extravagant in the salaries we pay to the Government officials, we are quite exaggerating in the extent and largeness of certain salaries. We are also sometimes exaggerating in the smallness of some other salaries paid to the small and humble servants in the public service. This was brought to my mind the other day, when the hon. Postmaster-General Mr. Lemieux, brought for- [ ward his bill in connection with the salaries paid in his department. We insisted on this side of the House, that he should grant certain postmen, mail carriers and other humble post office officials, a sum sufficient to permit them to live.
The hon. minister protested, saying: 'Gentleman, what you are asking from me represents a large amount of money, and I desire and so do my colleagues, to practice strict economy.'
I felt inclined to rise and say to him: 'Gentlemen of the Government, if you wish to practice economy, I can only congratulate you; but for mercy's sake do not try and practice it on the backs of the starving, but rather on the heads of those who gluttonously feed on favouritism. There is more to reap on the salaries of five, six, nine and ten thousand dollars, than there is to pare and clip from the salaries of five and six hundred dollars.'
I did not even open my mouth, reserving my right to return to the subject when The opportunity offered itself; and I believe it offers itself now. I notice that the Minister of Finance does away entirely, in his estimates for 1909-10, with an amount of $22,581,458. I hope that this saving will not be too much at the expense of those earning small salaries, and that the Post-Mr. NANTEL.
master General who has obtained a surplus, an effective surplus, will see that these people do not suffer in consequence. It should not be inferred from my reference to the hon. Postmaster General that my criticism is aimed specially at him. In the first place, I have no ill feeling towards any of the hon. gentlemen occupying the treasury benches, and this is particularly the case as regards the Postmaster General. I have no intention of criticising his department; on the contrary, were I to follow my inclination, and were it not for fear of annoying so modest a man, I would say that if there is a minister who seems to manage his business properly, it is he, and if there is a well managed department, it is that of the Postmaster General, and the proof is to be found in the surplus which he obtains from year to year for the Minister of Finance, a surplus perceptible to the naked eye, and in regard to which he is worthy of congratulation. I also take this occasion of congratulating him on having remembered the small wage earners who never have many defenders, while the high officials always have many, besides being in a position to take care of themselves, which they do with courage and success.
There is a wide margin between a salary of $10,000 and another of $500. The distance which separates one from the other is great, I was tempted to say immorally so, in a democratic country such as ours. The man who earns $500 or $600 has a wife and children whom he cherishes just as does the man whose salary runs up to $10,000; his wife he must provide with clothing and nourishment ; his children he must clothe and feed and educate, exactly like the man who, one year with another, draws $8,000 or $10,000 of a salary. The former gets his $50 check per month, while the latter draws $700 or $800 per month ; the former will starve in the service of the people, while the other, if he leads an honest life, will not be able to spend his whole salary; one will be a pauper all his life, while the other will heap away money, grow rich, build up a fortune for himself at the expense of the public.
Mr. Speaker, the minister who will put an end to that state of things will go down to posterity as a benefactor of his country, and a grateful nation will dedicate a monument to his memory. The proper rule to follow in fixing the scale of salaries, is to grant to each man enough to live, bring up his family in accordance with the needs and requirements of the social environment in the midst of which he is called to live, and not the rule followed at present which ignores that elementary principle. Such a system is likely to cause large numbers to curse the fate which providence has assigned to them, and to build up on the

free soil of America an aristrocracy of the worst type, an aristocracy of wealth. Luxury side by side with misery in the service of the government and the people, is a thing which should not be tolerated. However, that state of thing exists, Mr. Speaker, and I have only to open the blue book to find numerous cases of men employed in the various departments, heads of families, who do not earn enough to ensure a comfortable living for themselves and family, while there are numbers of others who are unable to spend the whole of what they earn. I do not propose indulging in personal references in the course of the remarks which I have to make, nor attacking any one in particular. I shall refer to some high positions, but without in any way reflecting on those who were fortunate enough to secure such appointments. Moreover, my intention is not to hold the present administration wholly responsible for the evil, except in so far as they have made no attempt to cure it, but instead have allowed * it to grow worse, after promising implicitly, if not expressly, that they would apply a remedy, and though, in truth, they were in duty bound to do so.
For the time being and to start with, I shall be content with mentioning a few of these positions with large salaries attached. I may point out, in the first place, a few positions created by the present government; for instance, the Board of Commissioners appointed to supervise the building of the National Transcontinental Railway. At the outset, three commissioners were ap pointed; later on, a fourth commissioner was named. The chairman's salary is $8,000 per annum; the three others receive $7,000 per annum each. These salaries are too high, and moreover, there are too many commissioners. Would not two commissioners have been able to cope with the work?
Then we have the Railway Commission, an institution which I admire, and whose work will soon extend over the whole Dominion. At first they were three in number; a chairman and two commissioners. To-day there are six of them, and their salaries are as follows:	the president gets $10,000
per annum, the vice-president, $9,000, and the other commissioners $8,000 each.
The Civil Service Commission comprises two commissioners, each of whom draws a salary of $5,000 per annum.
The deputy ministers are to-day very numerous. They are growing in numbers day by day, and their salaries are increasing at the same rate. Once more, I am only stating the facts, and although I have worked the matter up carefully, I may have made some mistakes. If so, I shall be glad to be set right and corrected. In the Privy Council, in the Department of Militia, in that of Agriculture, in the Department of the Secretary of State, in the
Library, in the Public Works Department, in short, in all the departments, numbering fourteen in all, there are to be found deputy ministers, or head officers designated at times under some different names, but drawing the salary of a deputy minister, and these gentlemen, if I am not mistaken, number in all thirty-three. There salaries run from $4,500 to $8,000 per annum. There are two with salaries of $4,000, twenty two or twenty-four drawing about $5,000; five drawing $6,000, one $7,000, and lastly one drawing $8,000.
The ministers, who number fourteen, draw salaries amounting to $9,500, including their sessional indemnity, while the Prime Minister draws altogether $14,500. By the way, let me state that I am not objecting to the salaries granted to he ministers of the Crown; in fact I consider that their remuneration is inadequate, as compared with that of their deputy ministers. They have to undergo elections, and it is well known that, in regard to the Liberal party as well as to the Conservative, elections are an expensive thing and cannot be carried on solely by means of prayers. There devolve on the ministers social duties much more onerous than those devolving on the deputy ministers.
The judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are six in number, the Chief Justice, and five puisne judges. The Chief Justice gets a salary of $10,000 per annum, the five others, $9,000 per annum. There is also a judge of the Exchequer court who is paid $8,000 per annum. Then there are judges for the provincial courts whose salaries run from $3,000 to $8,000 per annum, besides their travelling expenses, which make up quite a large amount, reaching in several cases $1,100 and as high as $1,300 per annum. Six have received over $1,000 for travelling expenses. The expenditure in connection with these salaries and travelling expenses, reaches in the aggregate $1,075,536.81, for the year 1907-08.
In the Yukon we have three judges drawing $10,000 each per annum, in all $30,000. The administration of justice in the Yukon entails an expenditure of $88,088.47, and I understand the population is on the decline. According to the last census, that of 1901, it numbered only 27,219. The population of the country as a whole barely reaches 7,000,000, but for the purpose of my argument, I shall take it at that figure.
I have pointed out the high salaries which the Dominion government pays to its officers. Now, let us see how these things are managed in the United States. Our neighbours to the south of us are older and richer than we are. They number 87,971,000 in the United States proper ; while, with the islands taken in, the population

reaches 96,850,000. Taking the United States proper with all their denominations, )we have a total population of 105,000,000.
Now, let us see what salaries they pay. The figures which I am about to quote, are taken from volume 34 of the Senate documents, 59th Congress, 1906-07, appropriation for the year closing June 30, 1908. The United States have nine state departments called secretaryships or departments of state. They are as follows:	Agriculture, Treasury, War, Navigation, Postoffice, Interior, Commerce, Labour, and Justice, that is the department of the Attorney General. The various secretaries or ministers, heads of these departments, receive salaries of $12,000 each. Up to February 26, 1907, they were paid only $8,000. It was not until the year 1907-08, that they obtained that increase for the first time. The under-secretaries are paid on the average $4,500 per annum. There are several under-secretaries, whose salaries vary according to the importance of the various departments; but I repeat it, many of these under-secretaries get only $4,500 per annum. The chief clerks are paid only $2,500 or $3,000 at most.
In the Department of Agriculture, for instance, the under-secretary gets $5,000, but his department is somewhat more important than ours, since its appropriations for the year 1907-08 reach $9,444,290, equal to about one-eighth of our whole Supply Bill, and about eight times larger than the amount voted for our Department of Agriculture, which that same year amounted to $1,481,091.67, and for 1909, aggregates $1,112,500. Notwithstanding which our deputy minister of Agriculture draws a salary of $6,000 per annum.
The Postmaster General has a first assistant who draws $5,000 per annum. The secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labour has also an assistant and two under secretaries who draw $5,000 each. The assistant to the Attorney General draws $7,000, and the assistant to the Solicitor General, $7,500. One would be inclined to think that they have copied our scale of salaries or that we have copied theirs, seeing that we pay our deputy minister $7,000 and our solicitor $7,500.
While, as a rule, the salaries paid to their deputy ministers or under-secretaries are smaller than those we pay to our 33 deputy ministers in Ottawa, on the other hand, as regards subordinate officers, I find a smaller proportion of those starvation salaries to which I referred a moment ago, and on which no man can be expected to support a family.
Ambassadors and plenipotentiaries of the United States to England, Germany, Japan, Russia and other countries of the same standing, draw a yearly salary of $17,500. Extraordinary envoys and plenipotentiaries Mr. NANTEL.
to Belgium, China, Spain and other countries of the same class, draw $12,000.
The same officers representing the United States in Chili, Columbia, Peru, Roumania, Servia, Persia, and Siam brought $10,000 per annum. The envoy to Liberia, who fulfils the duties of consul general draws $5,000; the consul general to Cairo draws $6,000.
We have not as yet representatives of Canada in foreign countries; but we have in this very city of Ottawa, as members of the Railway Committee and of the National Transcontinental Railway board of commissioners, officers who draw salaries reaching seven, eight, nine and ten thousand dollars per annum.
At the congressional library, at Washington, the total salaries amount to $18,140. At the Dominion library of Ottawa, the salaries reach $25,685.50; and if the further increases are taken into account, the total amount will almost be double that of the salaries paid out for the same purpose by our neighbours.
The Civil Service commissioners at Washington receive only $4,000 per annum. Our commissioners here draw a salary of $5,000 each. The Washington War Department comprises what is known as the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, apparently under the management of an assistant engineer, who draws $2,400 per annum and of a chief clerk whose salary is also $2,400 per annum.
Let us now come to the courts. The United States Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and eight puisnes judges. The chief justice is paid $13,000 per annum and the puisne judges $12,500 each. There are 29 circuit court judges, whose salary is $7,000 ; 70 district court judges, with a salary of $6,000 per annum. There are also six additional judges, appointed to meet the needs of the new territories. They also draw $6,000 per annum. The unorganized territories have eight judges with salaries of $5,000. The district or territory of Hawaii has three judges. The court of appeal for the district of Columbia consists of three judges, one of whom gets $7,500, and the two others, $7,000 per annum. The Supreme Court of that same district consists of six judges at $6,000 each. For all these judges, except those in Alaska, Arizona and Hawaii, appointed under federal authority, the total of salaries is $969,000, while for our Dominion judges, the total expenditure is $1,075,536.81, that is to say an over-expenditure in our case of $106,536.81.
The administration of the territory of Alaska, apparently entails on the people of the United States an expenditure of $67,000 per annum. The population is 32,000; the governor draws a salary of $3,000, and there are three judges with salaries of $5,000 each. The territory of Arizona has a

governor whose salary is $3,000; the territory of New Mexico a governor with a salary of $3,000. Our Yukon territory for judicial purposes only costs us $88,088.47 per annum. If we add to that figure the salaries of three other chief officers, we reach a total of over $104,000, that is $47,000 more than what the United States have to spend. The cost of management of the territory of Alaska as compared with that of the Yukon, shows how extravagant we are.
In the United States, barring the federal Supreme Court, I found no judges with a salary of $10,0000. The average runs from $5,000 to $6,000. On the other hand, in the territory of Arizona the judges get only $3,000. We have here many judges of superior jurisdiction who get only $3,000, while in the Yukon we have three judges drawing $10,0000 each, that is a total of $30,000, to administer the law to 27,219 people, provided their number has not gone down since the last census. These judges at $3,000 are not treated as well as subordinate officers at Ottawa, drawing the high salaries to which I have referred. Without some personal income these magistrates are unable to live up to the requirements of their position. They are starvelings, and I cannot conceive a worse situation than that of the man compelled to play the person of consequence on an empty purse.
I estimated the population of Canada as
7.000.	000. That of the United States proper reaches 87,971,000. If all their dominions are included, that figure should be raised to
105.000.	000. The cost of government here is $16.09 per head. In the United States, it amounts to $8.67, or $10.47 according that one or the other of the above figures is taken as representing the total population. Am I not justified in stating that our expenditure is extravagant?
I find another evidence of that extravagance in the pensions granted to some former officials. It is a matter which I have some hesitation in taking up, but I think it is my duty to do so. I am not attacking individuals, but merely a system. I refer to the judges. I consider that our system of pensions to superannuated judges rests on a false principle, on a principle of class legislation, which is always hateful and condemnable.


Mr. C. A. WILSON (Laval).: (Translation.) Does my hon. friend comprise in the list of superannuated judges the member for St. Anne's (Mr. Doherty)?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) I except nobody. I am not criticising the hon. member for St. Anne's. I can only say that the hon. member has availed himself of the law, and it would not have been the part of so intelligent a man to omit doing so. In volume I of the Auditor General's report, page G-17, I notice the name of an ex-judge who draws a pension of $10,000, and I am satisfied that he has no children to bring up and send to school.


Charles Avila Wilson: Please give us his name.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) I do not like to mention any name. The hon. member will find out for himself by referring to page G-17, of the Report of the Auditor General, from which I am quoting.


Charles Avila Wilson: (Translation.) Will the hon. member say whether it is not to the hon. Mr. Justice Routhier that he is referring?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) No, it is to the Hon. Mr. Justice Taschereau, of the Supreme.'Court. You are putting me under the necessity of giving his name; you will be to blame for it. Another judge draws a pension of $8,000, and besides for the year 1907-8, he has drawn a further salary as judge of the Admiralty Court. Another pensioner draws $5,000. We pay altogether under this head $126,359.82. That also is ex- . travagance.
That legislation providing for the superannuation of judges, as enacted, is to say the least, overdrawn. It goes too far when it states, as will be found by referring to volume 3, chapter 138 of the Revised Statutes: " If any judge who has continued in the office of judge for fifteen years or upwards, or ('and' should have been put in here instead of, 'or') who becomes afflicted with some permanent infirmity, disabling him from the due execution of his office, resigns his office, &c." he is entitled to two-thirds of his salary for the remainder of his life. And please observe, even if he be only 45 or 50 years old. Section 20 states: if he has reached the age of 75 and has been a judge for 20 years; if he has reached the age of 70, and has been 25 years a judge, or if he has been 30 years a judge, whatever be his age, he is entitled to his full salary in each case at the time of his resignation, and that as long as he lies. While in office, that judge is not called upon to contribute a dollar to a pension fund. And see how solicitous the legislator appears to be: the benefit of that provision has been extended to the president of the Railway Commission, while the vice-president has been left out, although he may be in precisely the same position as the president. How admirable, Mr. Speaker, is that great solicitude shown on behalf of the president of that commission. Section 23 of the Act just quoted, provides that if the office of judge, which that nresident may have relinquished to accept the chairmanship of the commission, should later on entitle its occupant to a higher rate of salary, say $12,000 or $15,000, that same president would be en-

titled, even after being superannuated as president of the Railway Commission, to get that increase.
These high officials do not contribute one dollar to the superannuation fund out of which they will later on be paid as pensioners of the State, wihile subordinate clerks who get only $500 or $600 of a salary are called upon to contribute each month to that fund at the rate of 1, li, 3, or 3i per cent, according to their status and depending on the fact whether they draw $600 or more per annum, and whether they have joined the service previous or subsequently to a certain date. Then in order to be entitled to that pension, it is necessary that one should have been in the service of the State ten years or more, have reached the age of 60, and have become incapacitated through infirmity or otherwise. The pension is based on the average salary and it is a rather complicated affair to obtain it. It is granted by fractions of one-fiftieth per year of service. If the head of the department should make an unfavourable report, if the clerk should have been unfortunate enough to displease one of these gentlemen, his pension may be reduced. It is not even stated to what extent that reduction may be affected; that is left to the discretion of the deputy head or the minister. It is a rather difficult matter to get through the meshes of such an act. I believe it is Solon who said that laws are like a spider's web, which stops flies and other insects but through which birds easily pass. Solon lived 600 years before Christ but this truth still holds good to-day. Look into the act providing pensions for high officials, and you may be inclined to think that the legislator has purposely woven a web of such a fabric that high officials might easily get through, while others would be captured.
Why should there be two weights and two measures? I sincerely believe that we should change such a state of things, without, of course, interfering with vested rights. Therein lies a real evil, and the law should be amended so as to be more equitable and fair to all. Nowhere else is such a law to be found. I am not an iconoclast, but if we are intent on managing things economically, that law should be changed as soon as possible. Do not attempt economy at the expense of the small wage-earners while letting the higher officials go scot free.
It is geting late, Mr. Speaker, and while I might go on speaking of a good many other things,-since we are allowed in connection with the budget to refer to various matters,-I shall cut short my remarks for the time being.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: 


Charles Avila Wilson: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the House for undertaking at this late hour of the night to answer briefly the remarks made by my hon. friend and neighbour the hon. member for Terrebonne.
I merely wish briefly to take exception to certain peculiar and eocentric statements uttered from his lips; for instance, his concluding remarks to the effect that any question whatsoever can be discussed on the budget. That is surely a new doctrine. I am at a loss to imagine where my hon. friend could have got acquainted with constitutional and executive law; but assuredly he cannot have followed the same curriculum that I have, for this is the first time I ever heard this theory expounded. 1 came to Ottawa with a strong settled purpose of talking little but listening much. I wished to learn something and I have just learned from my hon. friend, that anything can be spoken on the budget. It is evident that he and I are not agreed upon this subject.
My hon friend spoke of the pension law. As I did not wish to misquote him, I have endeavoured rather to get at the real meaning of his words and if I mistake not, I believe he is opposed to such a law as that. I do not entirely disagree with him on this point. Rut before attempting to improve or repeal a statute, it is well that one should look at what was done not very long since. I would understand the position taken by my hon. friend had he the courage of his convictions, and were he, before this session is over, to call for the repeal of that pension law which favours all those whom he termed the dregs of power. Such are the words he uttered.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) I never used that word. I said budget-fed.


Charles Avila Wilson: (Translation.) Well, let it be so, and I will help him if he likes to define what is properly meant by the budget-fed friends of the party, accentuating the expression if he so desires. It will be recalled that the legislation which was abrogated had been placed in our statute books in order to favour your ex-ministers, the late Sir A. P. Caron, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, and, last but not the least, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). Are the gentlemen intended by my hon. friend for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel) to be the satiated of power? Or was the word aimed at such of his friends whom he called intelligent for benefiting by a statute passed quite a few years ago granting a pension to judges after fifteen years service? At all events, I would like to know what he thinks of those men who, as in the case of Yamaska county, went out campaigning against the government candidates, while at the same

time receiving a good big fat pension from the government, under pretense of physical disability, or of him who, not satisfied with getting such a substantial pension, got elected a member of this House to secure the $2,500 indemnity attached to the job. I hardly think the hon. member knew what he was talking about when expounding such a principle in the tone he assumed before the House a while ago. The hon. member also alluded to what took place when the Postmaster General asked the House to increase the salary of certain employees of his department. The government have already started increasing the salaries. They have appointed a Civil Service Commission, and increased the salaries of the inside service. If I mistake not it is their intention to pursue that wise policy. A little consistency does not hurt anyone, not even the hon. gentlemen opposite, who have been clamouring ever since the session started that the government are spending extravagantly. I will merely answer to them:
' Gentlemen, tune your fiddles.'
My hon. friend thinks that as a whole, this pension law is nothing but a perfect squandering of the public money, inasmuch as the beneficiaries of it never have contributed one dollar into the pension fund. He is mistaken. Let him look at the statute and he will see there that the government hold back upon their employees' salaries a certain sum which in their old age will be refunded to them. I hold the public servants in high respect, and I do not want to see them go a begging when old. As regards the increase of the smaller salaries, let him look at that particular branch of the service with which I - am especially acquainted, I mean the employees of the penitentiary. Their salary under the old regime was $500 only, but I was successful in having it raised to $600. This is again a happy reform brought on by the present government, which shows their good will towards the humbler offices of the service. Of course the hon. member, who was elected a Tory, dared not, and I know the reason why, attack the policy of his friends when they were in power.
He finds fault with the expenditure connected with the library, which he thinks, is out of proportion with those in the Washington library. I believe he was in Washington in his mind only. Had he been there at all, he would know how things are carried on there. I do not doubt of the correctness of the figures he quoted, but he does not know perhaps that the library at Washington cost $8,000,000 ; that electrical appliances and contrivances are in use which do away with perhaps one hundred employees. I invite him to call personally. Ours did not cost that amount, and I am not surprised at the number of employees which is required to give us an adequate
service. It is therefore practically impossible to cut down expenses in that direction.
Such were the few observations I had to offer on the question of the pension law.
I will conclude by referring to my hon. friend's first declaration. He was shocked at the Finance Minister capitalizing what was now lying at the bottom of the river near the city of Quebec. Had the Minister of Finance done what the hon. member for Terrebonne says he did, there is no question he could be held up to ridicule. But is that what he really did ? My hon. friend is a very clever finance man in St. Jerome ; he is even wealthy and I congratulate him. Let us take this for example: If he loaned $6,000 and the borrower did not pay him, would he charge this transaction to his revenue account or to capital account at the end of the year P He would beyond doubt, charge it up to capital account. That is precisely what the Finance Minister did in charging this operation to capital. It is thus also for all monies spent on the National Transcontinental. They all go to make up this country's assets. That is my way of understanding public finances. When I take out of my capital a certain sum of money, I cannot but help debit my capital with a like sum. The hon. Finance Minister seems to me to have figured out in the same manner.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) Should you lose all your capital, would you still figure it out as your capital ?


Charles Avila Wilson: (Translation.) If I lose all my capital, I charge the amount against my capital account, and the result is nil.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) You will not come out of it as wealthy.


Charles Avila Wilson: (Translation.) Of course not. Supposing my farm is worth $10,000, and I borrow $10,000 on it. Practically I do not own a farm any more, but will that keep me from deriving the revenue from that farm for the time being ? It seems to me a skilful financier like my hon. friend, would be able to understand such a clear argument.
With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will now Tesume my seat. I would have several observations to make yet, but I want my hon. friend from Terrebonne to sleep upon his speech, and I hope his slumber will not be too much disturbed.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE (Lisgar).: Mr. Speaker, as the hour is getting pretty late I will promise not to keep you very much longer. Since the budget speech was delivered we have heard a great many different kinds of arguments, but it strikes me that what the farmer and the average business man want to know is what amount of taxes they are paying at the present time.

By looking at the record we will find that in 1896 each man, woman and child in Canada was paying $5.48 in taxation while at the present time we find that we are paying $11 per head. While we find that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) showed a surplus on the year's business we also find, by looking at the records, that we are $46,000,000 farther in debt. It struck me very forcibly how this would affect the province that I come from. By going into the figures I find that the province of Manitoba's share of this debt is something over $5,000,000. We have in that province about 9,000,000 acres of land under cultivation, and the debt of last year means a mortgage of $400 on every section of land under cultivation in the province of Manitoba. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what the debt of this country will be at the end of four years. I had read a good deal about the Minister of Finance but I had never seen him until I came to this House. From what I had read and heard of the Minister of Finance I never knew of him as a joker until he delivered his budget speech. I am sure that the Minister of Finance must have been trying to get off a joke when he told the House that this government was a government that had held the land for the settler. I wonder if he forgets that almost the very first action of this government, after they came into power in 1896, was to try and give 375,000 acres of our western land to Mackenzie and Mann. Does he remember this government selling 250,000 acres of our homestead lands in the west for the paltry sum of $1 an acre? Every government that has ever held power in Canada, whether Reform or Conservative, has always held the homestead lands as a sacred trust of the people, but when this government came inlto power they sold even the homestead lands. They sold thousands and thousands of acres of our best coal lands to speculators and their friends. They gave leases of thousands and thousands of acres of our beat grazing lands for a paltry sum and in some cases people could get these leases for almost a song. Does the Minister of Finance forget this government selling hundreds of miles of fishing rights in the western country for $10 per year, or, does he forget the timber limit deals that were put through by this government or that they even went so far as to traffic in the Indian lands? They were not .satisfied with dealing in the white man's lands but we find that they took advantage of the Indians. The Indians are the same as orphans in this country; they are the wards of the people, we have charge of their resources and yet this government go to work and sell to their friends 39,000 acres of their land for $9,017. The purchasers, in a few weeks, in fact, before the Mr. W. H. SHARPE.
deed is made out to them, turn it over to speculators for $101,813, thereby cleaning up, out of the Indian lands, over $90,000. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a good deal during this session about a man they call Bill Miner. Bill Miner took his life in his own hands, you may say, when he went into the Rocky Mountains, held up the Canadian Pacific Railway express and stole a sum of money from it. I consider that Bill Miner is a prince beside these men who hide themselves behind the law and rob the orphans of the country. I do not intend occupying the time of the House very long, but there is a matter I wish to bring before the government and the House and that is in connection with an interview that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) gave his newspaper in Winnipeg on the 10th February last. It is as follows:
Bluff and Bluster-Mr. Sifton's Comment on
Mr. Roblin's Defence of the Voters' Lists.
Hon. Clifford Sifton, who arrived in the city Monday from Ottawa, was interviewed yesterday in regard to Mr. Roblin's statement in the legislature regarding the provincial voters' lists. Mr. Roblin claimed that the lists were clean and satisfactory.
Mr. Sifton said that the statement of Mr. Roblin was untrue and that Mr. Roblin knew it to be untrue. The lists were flagrantly stuffed as every one knew perfectly well who had anything to do with the late election.
The assertion of the provincial premier, Mr. Sifton said, was a piece of impudent bluff and bluster.
When the last election was over the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) asked the hon. member for Brandon the reason why the elections had gone against him in the province of Manitoba, and the hon. member for Brandon made practically the same reply to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister repeated that same statement, or pretty nearly the same statement, on the 22nd January last in this House. I claim that if the statement made by the Prime Minister on the floor of this House on the 22nd January last is true, and if the the statement made by the hon. member foT Brandon in this interview with the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' is true, I, for one, have no right to a seat in this House. If those statements are false, as I claim they are absolutely false, then the hon. member for Brandon has no right to a seat in this House. I do not intend to discuss the merits and demerits of the Manitoba voters' lists at the present, time, more than to say that the electoral lists for the province of Manitoba are the fairest lists that are compiled in Canada to-day. The judges have complete charge of the lists in that province and there cannot be one name added or one name stricken off without the sanction of the judges. I was elected in the constituency of Lisgar, Manitoba, by 105 majority, and if this government will ap-

point a royal commission to inquire into the lists in that constituency, and if they can find 106 Conservatives improperly put on that list, or if they can find 106 Reformers improperly left off that list, I will resign my seat, provided, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) will agree to resign his seat if his statements are not true, as I claim they are not true. I hope, Mr. Speaker, T make myself clear on this question. As the hour is very late I will resume my seat.
On motion of Mr. Nesbitt, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Friday.

Friday, April 23, 1909.