1909-11-15

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Hon. Mr. Justice Pelletier and the Hon. Mr. Justice Lemieux, two of the judges selected for tiie trial of election petitions pursuant to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, a report relating to the election for the electoral district of Montmagny, by which the said election petition was dismissed and the sitting member declared duly elected.



MEMBER INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
Edmond Fortier, Esq., member for the electoral district of Lotbiniere, introduced bj Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Hon. L. P. Brodeur.

[Stage Direction]
The Forty-second Annual Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries relating to Marine.-Hon. L. P. Brodeur.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: That the order for the consideration of the motion for an address to His Excellency the
Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session be now called, and that the same until disposed of have precedence over all other business except the introduction of bills and questions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. A. ECREMENT (Berthier).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, custom will be my excuse for being so bold. Custom requires that some young, unexperienced member be entrusted with the task of commenting the speech from the Throne. It affords an opportunity for teaching him a lesson which may turn out to be profitable to him; besides, it affords an opportunity for the House to show indulgence, the greatest virtue of men and especially of leaders of men.
I feel deeply grateful for the honour bestowed upon me, and which the electoral district of Berthier, whose representative I am, is especially entitled to claim for itself. But 1 have good reason to hesitate at undertaking such a task, considering that I am expected in the course of a few minutes to review a series of questions which it will take the House the whole session to dispose of.
Bound as I am to merely give a very general idea of the government's policy, I should certainly be in fear of minimizing its importance by too summary a judgment, were I not aware that experienced and leading politicians are to follow me up and take occasion of this period of peace and tranquility, to deal fully with these great undertakings referred to in the speech from the Throne.
Such a task is not always congenial to a beginner; many difficulties are in his way, some of which are personal to himself; a youth is often taken to task for being youthful. But if years impart experience, youth endows one with a capacity for work and a willingness to work; and I would feel some satisfaction if though everything else might be wanting, the quality of sincerity was found to inspire my utterances.
It is customary, Mr. Speaker, at the opening of each session, to review briefly the general condition of the country. It would be unbecoming on my part to break away from the custom generally followed, and particularly at a time when complying with the usage cannot but be an agreeable task, since, as several of my predecessors have done, I am bound to submit a favourable report.
On the other hand, however pleasant the task of pointing out the really good features in a policy, I must say that it is not solely with the object of eulogizing the government that I intend showing the connection between the wisdom of the policy they propound and the satisfactory state of business.
We have just emerged from a very trying period of depression. Our neighbours to the south have been severely shaken up;

and, while I am not called upon to set forth the influences which have brought this about, it will be in order to recall how disastrous the effects of this crisis have been and how well founded were our apprehensions in this regard. However, things did not turn out as we had surmised, and the depression from which the United States suffered did not affect our eountry possibly to the same extent as it did most European countries, some of which, such as Germany, show heavy deficits in their finances, while others, such as England, are trying to find out some means of making the revenue meet the expenditure, at the very moment when our Minister of Finance is reducing taxation and announcing large surpluses.
While it was inevitable that so great a disturbance in the financial condition of such an extensive country as the United States, should in turn have a depressing effect on the general business of our country, on the other hand our business and financial institutions were not imperilled in consequence; they victoriously withstood the storm. Now, if it is only a matter of fairness to praise very highly the foresight and wisdom of our business men under the circumstances, we should also be frank enough to acknowledge that a large share of these happy results is attributable to this government.
Let us be frank about it, no country would have been able to withstand such a crisis, if the management of its public affairs had not on the whole been sound, if it had not been protected against sudden changes in the financial world by means of a strong and secure financial organization, the result of several years of political effort, of several years of administrative forethought, with the object of warding off all possible danger and ensuring an ever increasing prosperity.
The main factor in the continuance of that prosperity has been an ever increasing tide of immigration, kept under strict control and particularly well selected. No one will deny that such prosperity is an actual fact. It would be an easy matter for me to quote figures which are familiar to you; they are very telling, and in that respect would prove useful to me; but preferably I shall follow the advice of a leading member of the party opposite and for once endeavour to find proofs other than statistics as evidence of our country's progress. The fact to which I refer has not been sufficiently insisted upon, it having only slowly come to light, though of late in n. striking fashion: I mean the expansion of Canada abroad, outside of its own boundaries.
We have reached a point in our history when nature, vanquished by us, is freely giving up its treasures; all classes of society are equipped and ready to win the battle in the economic field. We are making the best of our own resources.


Arthur Ecrément: From now on, Canada will attract more and more the attention of foreign peoples who concern themselves with all our country may do, or think, or wish. Thinkers have their eye on Canada; its products, its possibilities, its resources are discussed, estimated and its future commented upon.
' Among new countries,' writes a leading economist, ' Canada is the one which most attracts attention.' ' It is a country whose progress cannot be impeded,' writes a former minister in the French cabinet. And you are familiar with the following quotation from another author particularly well informed in a book intituled ' Le Canada et les deux races ': 'In a near future, no doubt, the Dominion's economic progress will be enormous and largely comparable with that of its gigantic neighbour, the United States.'
In connection with this parallel between our country and the United States, I may be allowed to state with what deep sense of regret we who had enjoyed the happy condition of things created by the treaty of 1854 and that of Washington, witnessed the setting up of that wall at the prompting of the protectionist spirit of our neighbours, the outcome of which action will be to induce us to seek elsewhere other openings for our products. Such is the great work to which our government is devoting itself when endeavouring to develop means of transportation throughout the country. There is possibly no other means whereby to the same extent the development of the country could be brought about, or enforced, if I may so express myself.
It is not incumbent on me to deal anew with the matter of the Transcontinental railway. Nearly fifteen hundred miles of that railway will soon have been completed, a gigantic undertaking to which the right hon. gentleman has had the glory of attaching that name which so often led us to victory.
That question, as well as that of the reconstruction of the Quebec bridge,-the promise of which, given to us as solace on a day of mourning, is now being fulfilled,- should be kept apart from party strife and considered as a national undertaking. It should be looked upon solely as a masterful and beneficent attempt to improve conditions and with which sectional views or prejudices should not be allowed to interfere. We are to-dav in possession of the marvellous results secured by the Caandian Pacific railway, not only as a business proposition, as a business concern, but as a means for the_ country's development.
In connection with the proposed Hudson Bav railway, what wonderful things might be accomplished through the building of a new line running across the Laurentian highlands, somewhere north of Berthier and reaching Montreal-since according to ex-nerts that would be the easiest route,-at the same time putting the commercial me-

tropolis in touch with that great inter- ; ocean line of railway! What wonders i would it not do, from the standpoint of immigration, agriculture, industry and coloni- s zation generally, throughout those unex- t plored districts. It would be a repetition of : what the Canadian Pacific railway accom- 1 plished in the Canadian west, which is j largely indebted to that company for its development.
Promoters and business men are anxious for a settlement of this question. What has been done in the past should be our surest guide for the future, and I cannot insist on it too strongly, our future prosperity lies in the development of our means of transportation. Right here I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to quote an opinion recently expressed by an eminent engineer, and which I select purposely among others, because I take it to indicate clearly, notwithstanding its brevity, not only the desirability, but the necessity of such development. 'The ability of the manufacturer and business man, the wealth and resources of a country, however great, are not sufficient by themselves to ensure success. It is, furthermore, necessary that the public means of transportation to the distributing points should have their full development. Under certain circumstances, the reduction in. the cost of transportation may become the main factor towards cheap products.'
It is that same progressive policy which has induced the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) to exert himself to the fullest extent with a view to developing that means of transportation which has been so aptly termed 'the St. Lawrence undertaking,' and also with a view to pushing ahead the deepening of the channel to a uniform depth of thirty-five feet. Thus better lighted and made still safer, that route, 110 miles shorter than that connecting New York and the Great Lakes, will challenge all competition and carry the ocean, as it were, to the very heart of the continent. The outcome will be that underwriters will have to cut down their rates and exporters to ship their goods through our territory and over our waterways. If I dilate somewhat on that point, it is on account of its evidencing on the part of the government an unrelenting desire to improve and make perfect that public means of transportation.
Parliament is to be called upon to consider in the course of this session a Bill amending thS Banks Act, and another amending the insurance laws. Both sides of the House agree as to the desirability of such legislation. That will dispense me with going into an examination of the provisions of these Bills, the wisdom of which all readily acknowledge, resting as they do on an uncontrovertible principle of equity and justice. That, of course, does not detract in any way from the credit due to the
government for the spirit of fairness shown under the circumstances.
That same spirit of fairness will be instrumental in putting a stop to the formation of illegal trusts and monopolies, an abuse which has been going on for some time past and which should not be tolerated in this country.
Let me now take up another point in the speech from the Throne; that of naval defence. I quite realize that this is in many respects a difficult, I might say, a thorny question, considering the rather extreme view of it taken by some people. At this turning point in our history, one cannot but be moved by what the historian terms the uncertainty of human events. It was to be expected, then, I was going to say it was unavoidable, that numerous objections should be forthcoming and a diversity of opinions expressed following on the announcement of the carrying out of that measure which the Canadian people have been considering for years past. However, as Guizot puts it, 'One must keep up with the times and with the trend of events, and be courageous enough to speak out the whole truth to one's countrymen and contemporaries.'
We claimed and obtained from England the right to conclude our treaties. That monument dedicated to the business interests of our country and over whose frontispiece we read the Franco-Canadian treaty, a' treaty which we will be called upon to ratify in the course of this session, is not the less advantageous. We boast, and rightly so, of being in full possession of the privileges of democracy; we occupy in the business world a most enviable position; we proclaim through the mouths of our public men, here and in foreign lands, that Canada is large enough, rich enough and proud enough to cease remaining a colony and to become actually a nation. Notwithstanding which we would leave to others the task of protecting our frontiers, our territory, that growing trade and the routes followed by it, those coasts where our fishermen and merchants have shelters and safe harbours. We would close our ears to that mysterious voice which entices youthful nations to take the necessary means for ensuring their growth, from the material as well as. from the moral standpoint! No, our statesmen, anxious for the welfare of Canadian interests as well as for the welfare of the interests of the mother country, for over a century the defender of our rights and franchises, our statesmen, I say, have been urged solely by a sense of national pride and self-respect, when, after listening to the various views voiced from divers quarters, they set aside the proposals of those who were favourable to a direct contribution towards the support of the Imperial navy, as well as the senseless grop-

ings of others, and come out with a distinctly Canadian policy.
The creation of that navy which will offer new openings to Canadian youths and further opportunities for the display of energy and ability by our Canadian workmen, will as we are assured, be Canadian-built, Canadian in its uses, and Canadian in its management Let us hope further that it will lead to the establishment on Canadian soil of large shipyards wherein, to meet the pressing needs of the Canadian trade, merchantmen will be built either through a grant from the Dominion government or the imposition of a duty on ships built in foreign lands.
'There is no escape from destiny,' once said the victor of the world, on board the ' Northumberland.' So it is with nations as with individuals. It is then a task worthy of our leaders to make to-day preparations for the future, unflinchingly, though at the same time unostentatiously. To-morrow all adverse opinions, all criticisms, will give way to admiration at the enviable position our country will occupy, with greater liberty and independence.
Such are, Mr. Speaker, the proposals of the government. They one and all spring from the same inspiration, and it is one that makes for progress. Indeed the great mainspring of all government projects, which persists under a variety of forms, is a desire to do right, and whenever possible to do better still.
I am quite ready to acknowledge that youth is apt to be carried away by deceptive appearances, but there is no deception in believing that improvement is always within reach, providing there is proper guidance, there is no deception in hoping for one's country a constantly brighter and greater future. There is no deception possible for whoever follows that venerable and glorious leader, supported by his colleagues, sustained by the House, working hand in hand with the whole Canadian people, all united in one common expectation. Then, satisfied as to the necessity of developing unceasingly our powers, we will have the satisfaction of seeing Canada play a more important part, not only on the continent of America, but among the nations of the world in whose company it has just been admitted, conscious of its strength and justly proud of its youthful activity.
I have the honour to propose that an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General in answer to the speech from the Throne.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.).: Mr. Speaker, we are living under parliamentary institutions, absolutely free from imperial interference, and it therefore appears desirable that we should from time to time be reminded of the source from which we have our being as a parliament- I Mr. ECREMENT.
ary body. And about the only material and substantial evidence of the tie that binds us to the motherland was presented to us on Thursday afternoon, as it is annually presented to us at the ceremony of the opening of parliament. According to ancient usage and custom, His Majesty's dutiful Commons, attended at the Senate Chamber and there learned from the speech of His Excellency the causes for which parliament was summoned. According to usage, equally ancient and respected, we are required to acknowledge this speech in a suitable reply. The honour and distinction of seconding the motion of my hon. friend from Berthier (Mr. Ecrement) that an humble address be presented to His Excellency has fallen upon me. I thank the right hon. the leader of the government for so honouring me, and I assure him that I have accepted the task, as I trust I shall accept every other serious duty in life, with a full sense of its responsibility. The mild and balmy weather we have enjoyed since our arrival at the capital and the lingering tints of autumn remind us that we have been invited to the discharge of our duties somewhat earlier than usual. Surely to begin earlier is to end earlier and my hope is that we shall have completed our labours before the melting winter's snows have overflowed the Chaudiere; and I trust that diverse councils or overmuch speaking may not shame my expectation.
In His Excellency's speech he dealt with many important subjects, but it is my purpose to limit my observations to three or four. The first subject that appeals to me is that of immigration. I have always felt that Canada can never expect to achieve her destiny until her vast prairies and important stretches of land shall be peopled by a sufficient and contented population. Last year, I am happy to say, was a year unique in our history as respects the number of immigrants who landed on our shores. I am not going to inflict upon this House any statistics, and I trust the House will pardon me if I indulge one statistical quotation.
The number of immigrants arriving in Canada for the fiscal year, ending 31st March, 1909, was as follows:



IMMIGRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR, ENDED MARCH 31, 1909.

[Stage Direction]
Great Britain	 52,901
Continent	 34,175
United States	 59,832
146,908
From Great Britain-
England and	Wales	 37,482
Scotland	 11,810
Ireland	 3,609
The following are the figures of immigration for the six months ending September

30 last, compared with a similar period of the previous year:
6 mos. 6 mos. to to
Sept. 30, Sept. 30, In-1909.	1909. crease.
Ocean ports	 64,447	
From United States.. 56,486		
Total	 120,933 100,471 20 p. c.
Estimate for the whole year 175,000.
Now, Sir, while we in this country are always willing to open our doors to the best immigration that comes to us from Europe -from England, from Ireland, from Scotian and from the other countries who have contributed to our population for many years, there is a peculiar interest involved in the immigration which we receive from the United States. That is an immigration which is not forced upon us by reason of undesirable or unhappy social conditions at home or by reason of any inability on the part of these people to find profitable employment in their own country. They come to us voluntarily because they believe that in the great Canadian northwest there is a future which far exceeds the prospects that lie before them anywhere ,else in the world. I would ask our friends from the west to treat well these immigrants from! the United States. Their coming here is a repayment to some extent of the debt which the United States owed to Canada for many years by reason of the immigration they received from Canada under less happy conditions than those which exist at the present time. This is to us a notable and glorious fact. Instead of the tide of migration setting from Canada, and the maritime provinces to the United States as it was heretofore, to-day the tide of migration is from the United States to Canada. In the United States Canadians found comfortable, prosperous homes; they found the doors of opportunity in every walk of life open to them. There was no position in the social, intellectual and industrial life of that great country to which a Canadian was not welcome or to which he might not aspire. I trust that the same will hold good with regard to the immigrants coming into this country from the United States. They are worthy of the warm welcome which Canadians will always give them, and let us hope that while' immigration comes to us from the United States it will always be of the quality and class that characterized the immigration from that country into Canada during the last twelve months.
I do not propose to make reference to the question of finance and trade; these *were dealt with by my hon. friend from Berthier. But there is one matter mentioned in His Excellency's speech which has a great fascination for me-the subject of railways. I am pleased that the day has come when the government can afford to undertake the projection of a new railway into the great west. I observe that surveys and plans have been completed for the Hudson Bay railway, and, in the ordinary course of things, I would expect that the policy that the government enunciated some time ago in that regard would be carried out and that the construction of a railway to Hudson bay will be one of the undertakings of the not far distant future. But while we rejoice that the people in the west are receiving what was coming to them and what belongs to them in the matter of railways, I am glad that the government have not overlooked the position of affairs in the maritime provinces. It was my privilege last session to support the resolution of my hon. friend from Westmorland (Hon. H. R. Emmer-son) with respect to the absorption of certain branch railways by this government. I had scarcely hoped that the efforts of my hon. friend, who has conducted a vigorous and persistent campaign all along the line on that subject, would have borne fruit so early. The suggestion of his Excellency that the government would take power to lease certain branch railways is a fulfilment of the dearest and best expectations of my hon. friend from Westmorland and myself. I do not purpose going, this afternoon, into the question of the Intercolonial or setting forth the reasons why the people of the maritime provinces may reasonably look forward to a degree of railway development greater than they have heretofore enjoyed. There is a great field for the exercise of the benevolent policy on the part of the government outlined in that paragraph of his Excellency's speech. I trust that the government will carry out this policy vigorously; and while I cannot hope that they will enter into the purchase or leasing of all the railways that it is desirabe the Intercolonial should control in the near future, I would hope they will make an early start and that one or two branches connecting with the Intercolonial may be acquired at an early day.
One other question referred to in the speech from the Throne appears to me as having great importance, the question of enhanced prices of certain manufactured goods. I notice that his Excellency has referred to that, and intimates that the government intend to propose further legislation to prevent the enhancement of prices of goods that may be the subject of combines. I must confess to a fear that there is an activity abroad in the combining of industrial enterprises that bodes no good to the consumer in this country. We have from time to time been informed through- the newspapers that large and
[Stage Direction]
important industrial enterprises are being absorbed by larger enterprises, or are being combined into what are called mergers. And there is already some evidence that the result of these combinations and mergers is to enhance prices very materially as regards certain lines of goods necessarily consumed by the people of this country. Far be it from me to detract from the energy or enterprise of these captains of industry who, by their talents for organization, their financial genius and splendid optimism, have consummated what are known in this country as mergers but are known ^n other countries by harsher and less delectable appellations. It is our duty to study public questions and evolve policies on public issues in the light of the past history of other countries similarly circumstanced with ourselves, and I believe that the time has come to limit to some extent' the bxercise of those talents for promoting mergers recently so much in evidence in this Dominion. 'Predatory wealth ' is a term that happily, ; so far has had no meaning or application in relation to our industrial finances and I conceive it to be the duty of parliament in so far as it may properly do so by legislation to make it absolutely impossible for that opprobrious expletive ever to become engrafted upon the language of this country.
There is only one other question that I should refer to, and that is the question of naval defence. That question has already been dealt with by my hon. friend from Berthier, but, as it is an important one. perhaps the House will pardon me even if I go over ground that he has covered. The resolution passed unanimously by this House on the 29th of March last calls for action on the part of the government for the purpose of crystallizing that resolution into an active and vigorous policy with respect to naval affairs in this country. I confess that I was in a haze as to what was best for Canada to do. Not being a military or naval man, I had to exercise such judgment as I was able to arrive at after having heard the speeches of the leaders of the House on that occasion. But I wanted to know also what naval experts thought of the policy of this country and through it of the policy of the Imperial government, and I was pleased to learn, some months after this resolution was passed, that Lord Charles Beresford had delivered himself on that question. Speaking at the Australian annual banquet in the city of London, ^ on June 29 last, Lord Charles Beresford said:
The government was wise to ask a conference to assemble in this country to discuss this all-important matter. There was no doubt that the question of imperial defence was in the minds of the Dominions, because they had shown us at home that they thought we were Mr. KYTE.
getting a bit sleepy, not looking facts in the face, and the fact was further emphasized by the offer of money for the purpose of building what were called Dreadnoughts, but which ho preferred to call battleships. . . [DOT] The great object was to help one another, and he thought the best way was for the Dominions to make proposals for defending themselves.
The best investment for the colonies was to build cruisers with which to protect their trade routes. *****************
The vessels should be under the administration and control of the Dominions, but in case of war ready to join the imperial fleet.
I confess that I was glad to observe that Lord Charles Beresford agrees with the policy of this House as regards the vote given on the 29th of March. I am pleased to see that the government felt called upon to make some practical move as regards the policy that was adopted on that occasion, and I observe that that resolution has been strictly adhered to. There appears to be some difference of opinion in this country as to what particular form Canada's assistance to naval defence should take, but so far as the hon. members of this House are concerned I think there will be no difference of opinion in view of the vote that was given here last session on that subject. Now, I have no strong views with regard to this question. A cash contribution is an alternative proposal: but it appears to me that that savours somewhat of feudalism, a spirit that we got away from hundred of years ago. I think Canada would do well to move slowly in this regard, to form the nucleus of a navy for its own coastal protection and for its own purposes as regards naval defence in co-operation with the imperial navy should occasion arise for co-operation with the stronger force. When the proposals come down, I have no doubt, there will be a discussion on the question, and, perhaps, with more light upon the subject we may all be disposed to give some further expression to our particular views in that regard.
Now, Mr. Speaker, history affords us many instances of alliances having been formed among nations for the purpose of mutual assistance and support, to repel the attacks of other powers, and to assist each other in aggressive warfare. These alliances, however, having been based upon no higher law or nobler sentiment than fear on the one hand or hate on the other, if we except those sordid and selfish instincts, that frequently coveted the territory of some weak and unoffending neighbour, fell apart when self interest or expediency demanded new combinations; and the countries that were to-day leagued together, to-morrow sought new allies to conquer and destroy their friends of yesterday. The policy of the government as regards naval defence foreshadowed in His Excellency's

speech, is the opening of a new and striking chapter in the world's history. Great Britain, the foremost nation in the world, with her lusty and vigorous daughters, four other nations in vigour, promise and resource-Canada,	Australia, New
Zealand and South Africa-united together in a quintuple alliance for the protection and enfranchisement of the British race in every quarter of the globe. In this alliance, fear, or hate, or covetousness will have'no place. It will be held together by ties of blood and kinship, by devotion to British institutions, and by the recollection of what Great Britain has done to uplift the burden of oppressed mankind in every region and every clime, bonds that are enduring and indestructible.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion of the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Ecrement) that an humble address be presented to His Excellency.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to discuss the motion which has been presented to the House, I would like in the first place to express the sympathy of those sitting to your left for the family and friends of Dr. Wilbert McIntyre, late member for Strathcona, a gentleman whose fairness, whose courtesy and whose genial disposition endeared him to every member of this House, on whichever side of the Speaker he sits. Speaking for every one on this side of the House, as I am sure I can also speak for every one on the other side of the House, we tender to the family and friends of the late Dr. McIntyre our most sincere and hearty .sympathy. His death is a loss, not only to this House, but to the whole country; because, in addition to the qualities to which I have alluded, he was a man of more than ordinary ability, and one who devoted himself with the greatest possible industry to every public question that came up for the consideration of parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to congratulate in no purely formal manner the hon. gentleman, (Mr. Ecrement) who moved the address of His Excellency, and who did so in very happy terms and with great eloquence; also my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte), who spoke with very great ability, and for the most part very happily.
With respect to the growing time which has been alluded to, I notice a distinct difference in the tenor of the speech which has been put into the mouth of His Excellency from that which we heard last year. I noticed in the gracious speech of His Excellency last year, that attention was called to a world wide depression, and it was indicated to us that this world wide depression had in some inevitable way 2 ' ' "
been extended to our own country. There was a suggestion that the depression was prevailing throughout the world, and that no effort of any government could possibly have prevented it from reaching Canada. But this year I do not observe any reference whatever to the world wide prosperity which is enjoyed by every civilized country at this moment, the inference of course being that the great advance and growth which have been happily manifest in Canada, and the rapid recovery from the depression of last year, are altogether due to the fact that we have upon the treasury benches of Canada today that wonderful aggregation of ability and talent which now presides over our destinies. Well, I suppose there must be a difference' in the way in which you look at it one year and the way in which you look at it in another year. But, after all, those of us who give intelligent consideration to such matters know that world wide prosperity and world wide depression are beyond the control of any government, or of any combination of governments. We are happy indeed that Canada in the past eight or ten years has had her full share in the world wide prosperity, we are glad of it, we rejoice in it, and we trust that it will long continue.
But there were one or two matters in connection with the growth of this country as to which I did not observe any allusion in the remarks, either of the hon. gentleman who moved the address or of the hon. gentleman who so ably seconded it. It has been a growing time in Canada, and it would be strange indeed if Canada did not share in this world wide prosperity. But have any of these hon. gentlemen considered the way in which the public expenditure of Canada has been growing in recent years? I have some figures that were made up for me not long ago, and they were of so startling a character that I sent for the public accounts, because I did not believe that they could be correct. I did not realize that the public expenditure of this country had grown to such an extent. But I found upon examining the public accounts that the figures given to me were correct. I found that, taking the ten years from 1886 to 1896, the aggregate revenue of this country amounted to $371,000,000, in round numbers. I found that, taking the ten years from 1900 to 1909, inclusive, the aggregate revenue of this country amounted to $692,500,000; in other words, I found that during the past ten years the present administration have received from the people of this country- because the money could come from no other source-$321,500,000 more than was received by the late Conservative administration during the last ten years they were in power. I imagined to myself what a good,



stalwart Liberal of the old school might say, coming to this parliament or coming into this House to-day, having regard to the pledges and to the declarations of principle which he had heard on so many public platforms before 1896, when he learned that in ten years $321,500,000 had been collected by this government in excess of what the people had paid to the Conservative administration during a similar period before 1896. Well, he would say in the first place that he was glad the revenue had been so abundant, but he would say also, 'When our friends went into power, when we assumed the reins of office in 1896, there' were $258,000,000 of public debt in this country. We had complained of the growth of that public debt, we had deprecated it, and I have not any doubt but that out of the $321,500,000 of surplus excess of revenue which the Liberal ministry has received from the people of Canada in the last ten years, the whole of that public debt has been wiped out.' Well, then, he would be told: 'No, it has not been all wiped out.' He would say: 'At least $200,000,000 must have been wiped out, because that would leave $121,500,000 excess of revenue to supply all the growing needs of this developing country.' He would be told: 'No, $200,000,000 have not been wiped out.' 'Well, then,' he would say, 'surely $100,000,000 of the public debt must have been wiped out, because that would leave to the Liberal leaders who are in power to-day $221,500,000 to supply the needs of the rapid growth and development of this country. He would be told:	'No, the
public debt of this country has not been decreased as much as that;' and if he seemed to be a man of robust health, capable of standing the shock, he would be told that the public debt of this country has been increased by nearly $66,000,000. I did not observe any allusion to this somewhat rapid and remarkable growth in the speech of either the mover or seconder of the address.
But, it does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that these are figures which call for some comment, and they are figures which have already evoked some expression of opinion from great financial authorities outside of Canada. I may be told, perhaps, that the National Transcontinental railway undertaking has absorbed a very large amount of this. I have taken the trouble to look into that and I find that, excluding the Quebec bridge, about $52,000,000 was expended up to the 31st March last in connection with the National Transcontinental railway, and that, including the Quebec bridge, a little more than $58,000,000 has been expended in connection with that undertaking. So you can put the National Transcontinental railway out of the matter alto-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.	.
gether by deducting the amount expended upon it from the increase in the debt, and you will find, after balancing the accounts in that way, allowing $58,000,000 of debt for expenditure upon the National Transcontinental railway, that you have $321,500,000 of excess revenue beyond that which was received from the people of this country in the period of ten years before 1896, and you still find that the gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches to-day have spent the whole of that enormous sum and have also increased the public debt by $7,100,010. Not only that, but $46,000,000 in the increase of the public debt to which I have alluded took place, in the past year, and inasmuch as we have spent only $52,000,000 up to date upon the National Transcontinental railway we can foresee from the figures brought down by the government themselves that between $100,000,000 and $150,000,000 still remain to be expended upon that gigantic undertaking before it shall have been completed.
Passing from this question of the expenditure upon the Transcontinental rail-wav itself, I do not observe a reference iD the speech from the Throne to the probable Mate of the completion of the undertaking; nor do I observe, in the speech from the Throne, any reference, or any information whatever, as to the date at which the Quebec bridge will be completed. I think that these are matters upon which we might well be enlightened by the Prime Minister when he comes to address the House. We know that very severe comments have been made by the late president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, who has spoken in very indignant tones and in very severe language as to the extraordinary delay which has taken place in the work of construction between Winnipeg and Quebec. 1 would like to know, if possible, at what date the government expect that the road will be completed, and at what date they expect the Quebec bridge will be completed. Have they any reasonable idea, which they can vouchsafe to the House as measurably correct, as to when either of these events will take place; and if, as we assume the event will be, the Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Quebec and the remaining portion of the line from Quebec to Moncton will be first completed, what do they propose to do with thesa portions of the road during the period when the Quebec bridge will be still in process of construction? We are all aware in this country that traffic, once routed in a particular direction, is very difficult to move, and we are all aware that the traffic coming over the National Transcontinental railway may get routed in directions which are not thoroughly in the

interests of the people of this country; at all events, not in the interest of the great maritime ports of Canada. I think the matter to which I have directed the attention of the government is one of considerable importance, and I do trust that we will have from the Prime Minister, when he comes to address the House, some reliable information as to these very important questions.
1 did not observe any reference in the speech from the Throne to the waterways treaty. The Prime Minister was good enough to tell us a day or two ago that the matter is still under the consideration of the government. If it is still under the consideration of the government I cannot reasonably expect any very definite information to-day, but I think the decision of the government, as soon as it is made, should be announced to the House in order that there may be an opportunity for debate, because I still adhere to the view which I expressed last session, and, I think, the previous session as well, that this treaty, inasmuch as it involves, to a certain extent at least, territorial rights, ought not, according to the modern and, I think, the better British practice, to have been entered into without having been made subject to the ratification of this parliament. Inasmuch as that course was not pursued it is only right and absolutely in the public interest that we should have all the information in regard to it as soon as possible.
I remember also, that the Prime Minister, at the concluding session of the imperial conference of 1907, proposed to the conference a certain famous resolution. I do not know whether many hon. gentlemen in this House can remember it thoroughly or not because the matter seems to have faded pretty well out of the public view in the meantime. As a matter of fact it concerned what was called the All-red line and the Liberal press throughout the country heralded the idea of the All-red line as one which had sprung in full armour, like Minerva from the brain of Jove, from the brain of the Prime Minister of this country, So, a resolution was introduced in the concluding days of the session of 1908-I think it was-the matter was placed before parliament for its consideration and the resolution, in the terms proposed by the government, was eventually passed. During the last session of parliament I asked for some information as to the position of, and as to the progress, if any, which had been made in this affair, and, as far as I recollect from the reply of the Prime Minister, it did not seem that any great progress had been made up to that time in that direction. It is possible that some progress has been made in that direction and if so I have no doubt the Prime Minister will give to this 2i
House all such information as may be available in that regard.
Allusion is made in the speech from the Throne to the French treaty. I do not desire to say one single word in regard to it which would in any way embarrass the government in its consideration of what appears to be a very difficult question. I have under my hand the tariff recently adopted by the United States of America. Every hon. gentleman in this House who has given any consideration to this question at all knows the terms of the second section of the American tariff of 1909. The second section of that tariff provides that the rates set forth in section 1 of the Act shall be the tariff to be levied in the United States upon goods coming from all foreign countries together with 25 per cent ad valorem in addition thereto unless the President of the United States shall after taking into consideration the fiscal measures of other countries, come to the conclusion that the United States has in every respect reciprocal and fair treatment from such other countries, and shall make proclamation accordingly. In the absence of any such proclamation by the President of the United States-and, of course, he has to depend, as we understand, for his advice in that regard, upon a board of experts whom he has appointed -every-article exported from Canada to the United States, or from any other country to the United States, shall be subject not only to the tariff set forth in section 1 of the Act but to 25 per cent ad valorem as well. I do not to-day propose to enter into any debate upon the bearing of the treaty with the French Republic, but I shall venture to bring to the attention of the government a consideration of our relative trade with France and with the United States during the past three years. Our aggregate imports from France during the past three years amounted to $24,798,756; our aggregate imports from the United States during the same period amounted to $546,622,404 or about 25 times greater than those from France. Our exports to France during the same period of three years amounted to $6,392,400 and our exports to the United States during the same period amounted to $285,146,337 or nearly fifty times as much. Under these circumstances I must confess that a consideration of the French treaty will involve some matters of serious import, and when that treaty does come to be considered I trust w'e shall have from the minister in charge of it some definite information as to what effect its ratification may have in connection with the probable effect of the United States tariff.
The hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the address made some reference to the paragraph in the speech from the Throne which alludes to the subject of

naval defence, and which is in the following language:
Two members of my government attended the imperial conference called by His Majesty's government, on the question of defence A plan was adopted after consultation with the admiralty, for the organization of a Canadian Naval Service, on the lines of the resolution of the House of Commons, of the 29th of March last. The papers will be immediately brought down and a Bill introduced accordingly.
I was a little in doubt during some portion of the remarks of my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) as to whether Canada was still a portion of the British empire, but I trust nothing has occurred since we entered the House of Commons to-day to lead us to the conclusion that we are not still a part of that great empire. I am glad to believe that Canada still floats the British flag. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte) rather adopted a tone which would lead one to think that he was speaking of four or five absolutely independent nations who for convenience might see fit to enter into a joint alliance for purposes of defence. I shall not discuss the naval question this afternoon; it will be time enough to do that when the government proposals are brought down. I do not propose even to allude to some rather remarkable speeches which have been made by members of the cabinet, if the public press is to be trusted. I do not yet know whether the gentlemen in question have been properly reported, but I have heard that at least in one case the minister disclaims the language attributed to him. All I have to say is that if those eminent Liberal journalists who have been proclaiming that I am entirely in favour of the government proposals, imagine that any such proposals as those which have been outlined in at least one of these speeches will meet the approval of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, they are labouring under an entire misconception. I neither oppose nor denounce these proposals because I do not know what they are. We are very happy indeed to say to His Excellency the Governor General, that we thank him very much for his gracious speech, but in doing so we do not concede for one moment that we are restricting our right of action in any way in respect to whatever proposals the government may see fit to make.' Like the other proposals of the government, reasonable and fair consideration will be given to them, and the sooner they are brought down the better. In fact, the sooner we get to work the better, because I entirely agree with my hon. friend from Richmond that we should all endeavour to expedite the work of parliament this session, as at every session. We are ready to begin work as soon as possible. Let the government get their committees Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
appointed, let them bring down their measures, let them come on with their work and we will work as hard as they to expedite the public business.	[DOT]
In the brevity of my speech I am at least giving an earnest of my desire to expedite the business of the House, but I cannot conclude without congratulating the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon his elevation to the cabinet. Might I remind the House that this is the sixth occasion on which the Prime Minister has gone outside of the House of Commons for a cabinet minister, and it is the fifth occasion on which he has gone outside of parliament altogether to make a selection. We on the opposition benches had nothing to say about that. Indeed the Prime Minister explained the situation to us two years ago when he said that he always endeavoured to select the best man, and inasmuch as he could not find the best man, or a sufficiently good man within the ranks of his supporters in the Commons, he was naturally obliged to go outside. But, these hon. gentlemen who have been passed over need not imagine that their usefulness is gone for thev will still be required to vote for the Newmarket canal and things of that kind. In that way they will be able to contribute to the fighting strength of the Liberal party, if not from the . treasury benches, from the benches immediately behind. I trust the Prime Minister will be good enough to furnish the House with information on the matters to which I have alluded so that we may get down to business and begin the actual work of the session as early as possible.
Rt, Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). Mr. Speaker, when in the month of May last this House was prorogued, it was understood that the government would endeavour to so shape its course that the session of parliament would be called to meet for the despatch of business in the early part of November. Parliament has been called at the appointed time according to that programme, and in this'as in all other instances the government has faithfully discharged its duty. Of course, for this we have received very little credit but with this government virtue is its own reward, and its ambitions no other. Meeting thus early in the season I agree with my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) that we should see the blessing of a prorogation early next spring. Indeed there is no reason why parliament should not be prorogued long before the melted snows have passed over the Chaudiere Falls. And if I may be permitted to recall a recent utterance of my hon. friend the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on this subject he stated, if I am correctly informed, that if the government brought

down its measures promptly, the session would be reasonably short. That is not,
I think, the proper way to put the matter. The session will be reasonably short if the opposition is not unreasonably verbose; but I confess, after experience, that I have my doubts as to that, though I may be mistaken. If we find that the opposition have had a change of heart, that they have turned over a new leaf, and that, in addition to the art of speaking, of which I know they are masters, they have learned the art of stopping speaking, then I will be the first to proclaim the fact to a grateful people.
I must extend my congratulations to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. He has set a good example, which I hope will be followed by those behind him. I must also offer to him my very sincere thanks for the generous manner in which he has spoken of our departed friend, the late Dr. McIntyre. Nothing could be too good to say of Dr. McIntyre. He was one of those rare men, who, to a brilliant intellect joined a kind heart, and he had nothing but friends on both sides of the House. I also appreciate the generous compliment which the hon. leader of the opposition paid to my friends, the mover and the seconder of the address. Indeed, in the course of a long experience it has not been my fortune to hear on such an occasion utterances at once so brief, so pertinent and containing so much matter.
I am afraid that I cannot meet all the requests that my hon. friend has made to me. I cannot discuss all the questions he has raised. I do not see any occasion at present for discussing the prosperity of the country. We are prosperous, and we do not grudge the prosperity of other nations, because we claim that Canada is more prosperous than any other country.
Neither do I propose to discuss at present the expenditure of the country. My hon. friend has stated that during the ten years in which we have been in office we have taken from the public $321,000,000 more than the Conservative party took from them in the same length of time. I do not dispute this, but I have not observed because of this any discontent on the part of the people of Canada. It has been an easy task for my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to get money from the people. My hon. friend the member for North Toronto recalls the days when he was Minister of Finance, and he will agree with me that he was sleeping on a bed of thorns, whereas my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is sleeping on an easy pillow. He has no difficulty in getting the money he requires,, because he has a wealthy population to draw upon, whereas my hon. friend the member for North Toronto was drawing money from an impoverished people. If ever there was a period in the history of Canada when the people were contented and happy, it is this period in which we live.
Neither do I feel called upon at this moment to discuss the question of the completion of the Transcontinental railway. I can leave this to a future time, when my hon. friend the Minister of Railways will give all the particulars to my hon. friend. The same remark applies to the question of the Quebec bridge. But before I leave the point raised by my hon. friend as to the completion of the railway, I would observe that the remarks of Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, the President of the Grand Trunk railway, were hardly justified and have been falsified by the event. He complained that the line from Winnipeg to the Lake Superior branch of the Grand Trunk Pacific had not been completed, and that therefore this year the railway could not serve to carry the crops of the Northwest to Lake Superior. I am happy to say that since the words of Sir Charles Rivers Wilson were uttered, the railway has been completed and opened for traffic, and that at this moment wheat is being carried over it from the prairie provinces to Lake Superior.
With regard to the waterways treaty, we have about made up our minds on all points except one, which requires some further consideration, and it will be our duty if we come to a conclusion on this point during the present session, as I hope we shall, to communicate it to parliament as soon as it is arrived at.
I have nothing to say at present on the French treaty. According to my own view, neither the French treaty nor anything in the legislation of Canada can be construed as an act of discrimination against the United States, and therefore the article in the American Tariff Act does not apply.
My hon. friend has not discussed the question of naval defence, which is the very question which I think on the present occasion should be discussed, for this reason, that the policy which was adopted unanimously by this House last session has been singled out for attack in quarters from which we had reason to expect support. Last session, when the House unanimously came to the conclusion that Canada should organize a Canadian naval service in cooperation wtih the British Admiralty, we informed parliament that we were going to send to Great Britain two members of the cabinet for the very purpose of discussing that question with the admiralty. Shortly afterwards, His Majesty's imperial government called a conference of all the selfgoverning colonies for the purpose of discussing the larger question of imperial defence. Two ministers of the cabinet, as we informed the House were appointed to attend that conference, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. L. P. Brodeur) and my hon. friend the Min-
43 .

U|.on the Chinese coast, and envies Canada and Australia the fleets which they are to possess, man and operate.
It is not for me to offer any suggestions to my hon. friends on the other side, but' i may venture to ask them to reflect upon this-that if the British empire is to remain strong as it is to-day, it will not be by compelling the daughter nations to revolve as satellites around the mother country but by allowing every daughter nation to develop itseii to the fullest extent possible so that it may add strength to the whole.
Now, I have presented to the House one side of the opinion amongst hon. gentlemen opposite. There is also another side. I have presented the side of the ardent; now I come to consider the side of the supine. But if I qualify those who are inactive by applying to them the word ' supine," I use a term that is not sufficiently strong. If I were to do them justice, I think I should be obliged, if I may do so without violating parliamentary propriety, to borrow a term from American political slang and say that these gentlemen are of the party of the ' stand-patters." The chief of that class is my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk).


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Does my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) think it quite right to discuss this question, referring to papers in the case and not give those papers to parliament?
I do not think it is at all fair.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is just as fair for me to answer the speech of my hon. friend the member for Jacques Cartier as it was for him to make that speech before the papers are laid before the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But it is an ordinary rule of debate that an hon. member should not, in speaking in this House, refer to papers that are not before the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: And it would have been well for the hon. gentlemen not to speak outside of parliament until he had the papers before him. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) might have told his hearers that there had been an occasion when he might properly have spoken. He might have spoken last session when this resolution was before the	House	and when others spoke
though he did not. He has changed his mind apparently. At a banquet which was tendered him in the town of Lachine. in the division of Jacques Cartier, he might then have told his friends that he had lost a good opportunity of thundering his objections to this policy last session. I recollect that my hon. friend was in his seat on the 29th of March last. He did not speak-he stood pat even then; he did not offer any objection, nor did he by speaking express approval. But on the more recent occasion Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
to which I allude he did not hesitate to speak, and spoke apparently by the book. He gave a wealth of objections against the policy adopted here last session, and in which he was a participator in that he did not challenge a vote upon the question. He voted for the resolution, but, having voted for it, without more information than he has to-day he chooses to attack the policy of the government, the policy of' his own party, and to declare that he will not stand by it. That was what the hon. gentleman did just eight days ago to-day.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I rise to a point of order. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not competent for my right hon. friend to discuss a subject referred to in a speech from the Throne and in that connection to refer to documents which are to be produced unless those documents are laid upon the table of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not discussing any question which is not properly before the House; I am discussing a resolution passed by parliament last session and an attack made upon that resolution by my hon. friend eight days ago to-day.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to have your ruling on the point, Mr. Speaker.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is the well-known practice that if reference is made to documents, those documents must be produced.


Wilfrid Laurier: What reference have I made to documents? I would have much preferred that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) should not discuss this question until the papers are before the House, but when he chooses to attack the policy of a resolution passed in this House, speaking in the province of Quebec and attempting to arouse prejudice there, I have the right to refer to it here. The speech which he delivered


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think that such an imputation should be made by my right hon. friend unless he is prepared to point out what language of mine was designed to arouse prejudice.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will tell the hon. gentleman at once. The hon. gentleman told the audience which he addressed eight days ago to-day that our project of building a navy would cost annually $20,000,000. I say that that is an appeal to prejudice. If it was not, what was it? My hon. friend will be glad to know, I am sure, when those papers are brought down, that he was altogether astray. My hon. friend will be glad to know that his assertion was not only astray, but was three or four times astray, and I presume that when he sees the papers they will cause him no little surprise. Then, to undeceive the good electors of Jacques Cartier who, since his speech have been unable to sleep

on account of the nightmare which it caused them, he will be glad to tell them that these tall figures are altogether wrong, that they are merely the imaginings, the dreamings, the vapourings, the vagaries of the hon. member whom they have unwisely entrusted with their confidence. But that was not the only thing he said. My hon. friend also said that if we were to build a navy we would be drawn thereby into European wars-. Need I say to my hon. friend that whether we have such a navy or not, we do not lose our right to self-government; that if we do have a navy, that navy will go to no war unless the parliament of Canada, including the hon. gentleman, choose to send it.
My hon. friend also blamed the government for proposing to begin the organization of a naval force. What is the object of that force, what is the occasion? We never had one before, and. why should we have one now? he says. It is true, we never had a naval force before. I remember a time when we had no railways, when we had no public school system But at the present time we have railways and we have school systems. And if now we have to organize a naval force it is because we are growing as a nation; it is the penalty of being a nation that we have to bear. Sir, I know of no nation having a sea coast of its own which has not thought it advisable to have a navy of its own. I know no nation which has a large sea coast but no navy. I speak under correction-there is one, I think Norway, and even that country has some naval defence. But Norway will never tempt the invader; there is nothing in Norway to tempt an invader. But Canada has its coal mines, its gold mines, its wheat fields, and its vast wealth may offer a temptation to the invader; and that is the reason, as was stated last year by the hon. member for North Toronto, that the time has come when we should move on. It was proposed that we should either make a money contribution or that we should do what would organize a naval force of our own. We have proposed to adopt the latter course.
There is one thing, however, on which I can agree with my hon. friend-perhaps he will permit me to agree with him. I am always glad to agree with him when I can do so. He told his electors of Jacques Cartier:
This is a Canadian question, we must view it from a Canadian standpoint primarily.
In this I quite agree with my hon. friend, it is a Canadian question, and we should deal with it as a Canadian question primarily. But there is something more than that. My hon. friend was right in saying this, but he did not go far enough, there is something else. We are Canadians, but we are something else also, we are British subjects. We have to consider this
subject, not only from the standpoint of our status as Canadians, but we have to approach it from the standpoint of our status as British subjects. It is conceivable that the interests of Canada and the interests of the mother country may vary upon some questions. That has happened in the past, and it may happen again. When that happened in the past it was the part of statesmanship to reconcile the conflicting interests, and if they happen to clash again it will be the part of statesmanship to reconcile them again on broad lines. But I am happy to say that, in so far as I can see, at all events-and in this matter I express my own opinion-in the present instance there is no clashing of interests between Canada and the mother country. Whatever is done for Canada will benefit the mother country; whatever is done for the mother country, will benefit Canada. Let me say also to my hon. friend that if we have duties to perform as Canadians, we have also duties to perform as British subjects. If we have rights, privileges, and responsibilities as Canadians, we also have rights, privileges and responsibilities as British subjects. But my hon. friend, in discussing this question, ignored altogether that side of it, he discussed it from the Canadian point of view alone. He should have gone further and should have discussed it from the point of view of our status as British subjects. We have to recognize our duties and responsibilities in that double capacity. When we approached this question and declared to the British authorities, as we did in 1902, that we would relieve them from the necessity of looking after the defences of our coasts which they had hitherto done, we were performing our duty as British subjects, and when we declared that we would undertake that task ourselves and keep it under our control, we were performing our duty as Canadian citizens.
I have to say to my hon. friend that I hold in my hand at the present moment a letter which I received a few days ago from a friend who was a visitor in the city of Rome, wherein is narrated an incident which throws a striking light upon the rights and privileges connected with our British citizenship. My hon. friend knows that there is in the city of Rome a Canadian college built a few years ago by priests of the Society of St. Sulpice of Montreal, and maintained by them for the education of young Roman Catholic students in theology. At the date of my friend's letter, on the 16th of October, the city of Rome, like many other cities in continental Europe, was in the throes of a violent commotion, occasioned by the execution of Professor Ferrer, in Barcelona. Riots were imminent at different points of the city. The Spanish embassy at the Quir-

inal, the Spanish embassy at the Vatican, and the Austrian embassy had to be guarded by strong detachments of the Italian army. Streets and public squares were filled by an infuriated mob swearing vengeance, yelling and hurling threats at convents and religious communities of all descriptions. My friend asked the reverend father superior of the college if he was not apprehensive of danger for the Canadian college. Mark the answer. I commend it especially to my hon. friend from J acques Cartier.
' Non, j'arborerai le drapeau britannique, si nous sommes attaques. Le drapeau britannique est notre talisman ici.'
' No,' said the reverend father superior,
' I will hoist the British flag if we are attacked. The British flag is our talisman here.'
Sir, it is impossible not to be struck by the similitude of events which occurred something like 1900 years ago and which occurred again almost identically in our own day. Nineteen hundred years ago, at the time when the empire of Rome had reached the summit of its power, Paul of Tarsus, in the course of his labours as an apostle of Christ, was attacked by a mob; his life was in imminent peril. He bethought himself of His Roman citizenship; he had only to utter the words ' I am a Roman citizen.' This was his talisman, and at once he was safe from the mob. Now in our days, only'last week, in the city of Rome, once the mistress of the world, whose name alone carried such prestige, a disciple of Paul of Tarsus labouring also in the cause of Christ, is also attacked by a mob. He bethinks himself that he is a British subject. He bethinks himself that he belongs to an empire which, for power, maiesty and prestige can rival the empire of Rome in its palmiest days. And, as his talisman, he unfurls the British flag, the moment the noble colours are spread to the breeze over the famous city the mob is awed, all danger is past. I have to make this remark to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. Wherever there are rights, wherever there are privileges, there are likewise duties and responsibilities and, so long as we enjoy the rights and privileges of British citizenship, so long we must, we shall,'we will assume and accept all the responsibilities that appertain to British citizenship. These are the sentiments with which we should approach this question. I say ' we.' What do I mean? I mean Canadians of all origins, of all races, of all nationalities. I mean Canadians from the east and from the west. I mean Canadians of all the provinces, and above all-Canadians of the province of Quebec who claim the honour of being descended from a race which has Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
always stood foremost in chivalry, in enthusiasm and in idealism.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: Mr. Speaker, I do intend, notwithstanding the invitation of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), to discuss this naval question on this occasion, but just before I come to that, in view of what the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the Prime Minister said, and as something in the way of a just appreciation of the late member for Strath-cona (Mr. McIntyre), I wish to pay him one great and substantial tribute in regard to his public conduct last session in this parliament. I raised a question on that occasion as to the capitalization of the Canadian Pacific railway. I thought that a great injustice was being done to the country. I pointed that out, and the hon. member for Strathcona, and the hon. member for Assiniboia supported me in that position. I think I can make the fact clear to the House by reading a very short quotation from a prominent English paper, London ' Truth.' London ' Truth ' is noted for its financial articles, which are always written in the first person. In the issue of the 13th October this appears;
A week ago I referred to the likelihood of an early issue of shares by the Canadian Pacific. The official announcement has been made, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy intimating at the meeting held last week that the company would issue $30,000,000 of new shares to those registered on November 15th in the proportion of one new share for every five held. It is officially stated that the price of issue will be $125. There was a little disappointment in places at the company's departure from its former practice of making new issues at par, but the market was prepared for the board's change of policy in view of the opposition to issue at par lately encountered by the company in the Canadian parliament a matter with which I dealt at the time. It seems to me that the company's action achieves the object not often obtained of pleasing both sides. By issuing the shares at $125, instead of par, the board gains $7,500,000 of capital, and conciliates the Canadian trading community, while it is still able to offer the shareholders a handsome bonus.
The member for Strathcona has put this to his monument-and the people of the Northwest will appreciate it

that a year ago he raised his voice in this country against a capitalization in connection with the Canadian Pacific railway that was against the public interest, he stated his view in this House, he was supported by the hon. member for Assiniboia and myself, and the result is that the Canadian Pacific railway, in spite of itself and its intentions, has to-day $7,500,000 in its treasury for the building of branch lines in the Canadian west if it chooses to so employ that money. If there were more

men from the west who would stand up in this House as that hon. gentleman did on that occasion there would be better treatment for the farmers of the west in regard to the transportation question.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to come to this question of naval defence. While I may not add anything new to the question, or throw any great light upon it, still I do want to get the House down to the actual situation, whatever it may be, in discussing it, especially in view of statements that have been made on recent occasions by members of this House and statements that are now being made in the press by correspondents who, in some way, seemed to think that Canada has no duty to perform in this matter. If I deal for a few minutes with some things that we all know, I intend to deal with them largely for the information of the country, and, I think also, for the information of some hon. gentlemen who are to-day members of this House. While I say this I wish to put in a plea now for the very fullest discussion of this question. There must be freedom of discussion upon this question. Every side must be heard, every province must be heard, every citizen of Canada must be heard on so important a matter. But I do trust, and I* am confident that out of this discussion there will come a policy upon which the whole of the Canadian nation can be united. I believe that when we come to our final action it will be the action of a united nation and assist that desirable result'. I wish to try and make clear what I conceive to be a few of the basic principles of the situation. The first thing I wish to establish-and it reciuires sometimes to be established, although the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition have admitted it to-day-is that Canada is an integral portjon of the British empire. The Prime Minister alluded to it to-day, but - you often hear people discussing this question who seem to evade that issue. One way in which I wish to establish that, and I think I can establish it, is to take this little book, the British North America Act, and see what it says in reference to this subject. In its opening paragraph, or preamble, it says:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that, of the United Kingdom. .	.	.
Be it therefore enacted and declared by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled.
Then the Act follows. What does that mean? It means that to-day this country is
under the British Crown and that the House of Commons of this Dominion of Canada was organized and created by the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. When you read some of these discussions that take place in the country you discover that they evade the whole fact that we are a creation of the parliament of the United Kingdom and that we are under the British Crown. If you go on in the Act for two or three sentences more you will read the following:
Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the heirs and successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Article 9:
The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
Clause 15 reads as follows:
The commander in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all naval and military forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
Article 17:
There shall be one parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
Therefore, in this constitutional Act which creates the Dominion of Canada it is most clearly set out that Canada is a part of the British empire, and that this parliament is the creature of the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Let me read the oath that every soldier who joins the Canadian militia takes; and I suppose the same oath will be taken by the members of our naval force now:
I, A B, do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty.
And every member of this parliament takes this oath:
I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Edward.
The royal titles-and now I come to a point which is very significant-the royal titles as used in all our official documents read:
Edward VII, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the seas, King, defender of the faith, Emperor of India.
And to-morrow were a declaration of war made against our King it would be against Edward the Seventh of Great Britain and Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the seas, which of course would include Canada. War against Great Britain means war against Canada. Were the German Emperor to declare war against Great Brit-

ain to-morrow, even before the declaration were made public it might be the policy of , the German empire to have her ships in front of Halifax and on the way up the St. Lawrence to Quebec, just as the Japanese fleet has destroyed the Russian fleet before any overt declaration of war was made. Canada is an integral part of the British empire, Canada belongs to the King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the seas. Canada is subject to any attack that England herself may be subject to, and the people of this country should understand that,they are of the empire, that they are with it; that they are exposed to the same hostility as any other part of the empire may be subject to, and that it is their duty to be prepared to defend that empire and in defending it to defend ourselves. But there is still more striking language in a document which is not set out in any of the statutes but which was prepared by a committee of this House some years ago and the form of which w'as agreed to with unanimity. The people of this country do not know so much of that document as we who are members of this House because it is the form of prayer used daily at the opening of our proceedings here and it contains the political and religious creed of the great bulk of our people. There are two or three petitions in it that I wish to bring before the House and before the people of the country and I read them with the utmost reverence. The prayer reads:
Most lieartly we beseech Thee with Thy favour to behold Ilis Most Gracious Majesty King Edward, and so replenish him with the grace of Thy Holy spirit ths; he may always incline to Thy will and walk in Thy way, endue him plenteously with heavenly gifts; grant him in health and wealth long to live; strengthen him that he may vanquish and overcome all his enemies;
Most gracious God we humbly beseech Thee as for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and His Majesty's other Dominions in general so especially for this Dominion that Thou would'st be pleased to direct and prosper, to the advancement of Thy glory, the safety, honour, and welfare of Our Sovereign and his Dominions.
So in this daily prayer this House recognizes that Canada is a part of the empire; we pray for its prosperity; we pray that peace may prevail in it, and that His Gracious Majesty Ishoujd vanquish and overcome his enemies. And, not withstanding that, there are men writing in the press of this country who say that in some way Canada can be of the British empire and yet not recognize the responsibilities that are set out in the oath of office in the British North America Act and in other official documents. It surprises me that any one who professes to be a Canadian can say that Canadians are not responsible for the defence of the empire. And what is Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
there about the British empire that in. terests us? First of all the British North America Act confers upon us the British system of government as the system which is best suited to us, and which we believe is best suited for government generally. It is better than the autocratic system of Germany, it is superior to the system of the United States; and as England is the mother of free parliaments, and' as we are the beneficiaries of this grand system of government, why should we not defend it? But more than that, the British empire stands to-day the hope of humanity and the greatest factor in the progress of thj world that history has ever known. The British empire is to-day the hope of the oppressed people of all continents; it is the hope of the struggling people in Europe, in South America, in all countries on the globe where the aspirations of the people are for higher things. The greatest calamity that could befall the world-worse than the decay of the Roman empire, which fell because it probably deserved it-would be that the British system of government should be in any way confined in its scope for good and its mission to promote the welfare of the human race. Another thing, under the British system has developed that blessing of freedom to express public opinion which really governs the world to-day and which flourishes throughout the British empire as in no other. We as Canadians, in our own interest, and in the interest of-humanity as well, are bound to recognize our duty as subjects of the empire and to assume our responsibilities, whatever they may be, for its defence.
Now, Sir, in view of the fact that the mother country has called our attention to the state of her defences and of our own, we are just now at the parting of the way3. We must choose whether we are to be of the British empire or not. There may be four courses open to us, but there are only two of any great concern. In the first place, we may say that Canada shall remain one of the partnership of free selfgoverning British states working together for common purpose and mutual defence. I believe that is what we will say. Or we may cut ourselves adrift and become a separate nation and pursue our own policy irrespective of all external conditions. Or we may sink our individuality and become a portion of the United States. Or, as a fourth possibility, we may remain within the empire while refusing co-operation, which to me is unthinkable because unpatriotic and repulsive to the people of this country. We must do one of two things; we are at the parting of the ways, and we have before us only the choice of Heracles, to choose the course that is with virtue, with honour, and with duty, or the contrary. Our choice must be whether we are to be with the empire or to separate from

the empire. There are people in this country who support both of these ideals, and neither is repulsive to any one, as they are on the line of progress. Some day this country may drift into complete independence, which would not be contrary to the rights of the people; hut as long as this country is a part of the empire, and as long as that relation is what is set out in ' all these constitutional documents, and as long as we swear these oaths of fealty and loyalty and devotion to the crown of Great Britain, we must choose one of two courses, eilher to be of the empire or to be not of the empire. Then, if we choose to be of the empire, we must assume our responsibilities, and assume them in a generous way. There are certain incongruities that attend on a declaration of this kind. Some of them have been stated in the press and in debate in the country, and there is something to be said for them. One of these incongruities is this, that if the mother country chose to pursue a policy that brought her into wars or made her less competent to defend herself, we might be dragged into wars due to the neglect or the bad judgment of the mother country. The very German scare of the present time is based on the fact that England, by pursuing a certain fiscal policy, has given her markets to Germany and her work to the work-people of Germany. While the British people are told that it is cheap bread they want, it is really work that they want, and they would have that work and that bread if England changed her fiscal policy. I w'ish to say, as a citizen of this country and a member of this House, that inasmuch as Great Britain has intimated to us that she desires our assistance, I claim the right to discuss and criticise the present policy of the British government. My sympathy is entirely with the present government in their desire to bring about social reform, which is badly needed in Great Britain; but there is also needed a substantial tariff reform in the direction of keeping the British market for the British people and keeping the work of England for the working people of England instead of sending it abroad; and the one man that England and the empire needs to-day is the man who has force enough to tell the British people that their duty is to go on both in the work of social reform and in the work of tariff reform, and that with these two things they will get right at home that revenue which will make them strong and competent to resist any invasion that might threaten.
In view of the propositions which I have laid down, it is the duty of Canada to-day to come to the assistance of the empire; because this day of freedom which dawns so slowly and which we all speak so well of may be suddenly eclipsed, and the day
of conscript nations, the day of feudalism, the dajr of warlordism may be revived, and humanity and human progress may be thrown back for centuries. In the face of these things it is our duty to find out what our responsibilities are and to live up to them. England has given free parliaments and free institutions to the world. Our system is modelled on the British system and we are proud of it; and if we intend to work it out to better results, we must assume our responsibilities. The imperishable glory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is the monument she has erected on this North American continent, and in that I include with Canada the great republic to the south of us. That is a monument unequalled in the history of the wotM. The most wonderful democracy this world has ever seen is on this North American continent, and it is the creation of the people of England. The English people having erected such a monument, can any man say, even a citizen of the United States, much less a Canadian citizen, that he would for one moment fail in his duty to uphold that monument and maintain that democracy? Those who would attack the British empire would attack that democracy of this continent of America if they could, and dominate it with warlordism and feudalism. So that the issue at stake is not a small one, but a vital one-the greatest issue that has ever come before the Canadian people. We are at the parting of the ways; we must choose one thing or another, and I know that we will choose a policy which will be a policy of honour and will be in support of the mother country; and when this nation, a3 a united nation, works out that policy and settles what it will be, it will receive the support of every province of Canada, notably that of the province of Quebec.
Now, I want to come to the question ot what our policy should be. Should it be one of building a navy or should it be a contribution to the old country in helping it to carry on its navy. It could possibly be both. If war should break out to-morrow, our policy would have to be the first, and we should give a generous grant, because we could not possibly, in that event, hope to build a navy in time to help the empire in its day of stress. I recall now a proposition to establish shipyards in this country. Some years ago I happened to say on the floor of this House-I do not know that I got a great deal of support-that what Canada required to do in the development of a national policy was to establish a great naval industry in the maritime provinces, and in the basin of the St. Lawrence, and that we could not start too soon. Canada is growing into one of the great commercial naval countries of the world. It lies between the two great continents of Asia and Europe, so that all the traffic be-

tween these countries must pass through it. Therefore, Canada is bound to have a great mercantile marine. An evidence of that is the way in which our great railway companies are developing mercantile marines. The Canadian Pacific railway has become the owner of an enormous fleet, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern propose to go into the same business, we have the Allan steamship line and other great lines which centre in the old country and we shall require an immense Canadian marine on the Pacific. This will involve an enormous amount of shipbuilding in this country. There are to-day enough ships required foT the trade of this Dominion to occupy a half dozen shipyards. Let us establish these in the basin of the St. Lawrence, in the maritime provinces and British Columbia as well. On that ground alone we should have these great shipbuilding yards in this country. There is only one way in which to get them quickly, and that is to offer inducements to the great firms of England, Ireland and Scotland to come over and establish shipyards for the building of a British Canadian mercantile marine. They could then be used for the building of Canadian ships of war should that be required. I am not afraid to assume the responsibility of creating a Canadian navy for the defence of Canada or for the assistance of the empire, or even of giving a contribution to aid the empire should the day of peril come. No Canadian will object to that. We hear it said that if we give a contribution we should control the distribution of it. I do not quite agree in that doctrine. We are free to give it if we choose. We are free to give the mother country $10,000,000 or $20,000,000 forthwith for the maintenance of the integrity of the empire and are thereby not departing from the principle of controlling our own expenditure. In hundreds of ways we give grants of money, the expenditure of which we never control. That is altogether different from our paying taxes and having no control over the expenditure of these taxes. When w*e imposed taxes on our own people, the people have control over the expenditure through their representation in parliament. But if a tax should be imposed on us by a British parliament-which it is perfectly free to do-we should be justmed in refusing to pay unless we had our say in the disposal of the money. But theTe is nothing unpatriotic or unconstitutional or humiliating to Canadians if they choose to give a substantial contribution to the British parliament for the purpose of defending the empire. That might be the quickest and easiest way to settle the difficulty, and it might make any nation, who might contemplate an attack on the British empire, think twice before doing so. To my mind, and I think I express the opinion of the Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
bulk of Canadian people, there would be nothing wrong in this government giving immediately a grant of	money	to
help the mother country and in establishing a navy, if necessary. But the fundamental requisite of a navy is that it must be efficient and removed absolutely from politics in so far	as
that can be done. I Efficiency in their navy is the one thing which the people of the empire think they have. There have been scandals in that navy, but these have been removed, and the finest service in Eng. land, in fact in the world to-day is the British navy.
On my own behalf and on behalf of the people I represent, and I think largely on behalf of the people of Canada, I am prepared to say that we are British as well as Canadians. We are part of the British empire and are prepared to assume all our responsibilities as such, whatever they may be, for the purpose of maintaining the integrity and the honour of the empire and the integrity and honour of the Canadian people.


Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: There are one or two points on which I wish to say a few words in connection with the address in reply to the speech from the Throne. There is one omission-an omission which I did not look for especially this year. Neither in 'the speech from the Throne or the address in reply is there any allusion to the bountiful crops with which we have been favoured. Up to the present the government has rather prided itself on being in a sort of partnership- silent though it may be-with Providence, and on previous occasions they have acknowledged that partnership and been rather proud of it. What has happened iii the meantime I do not know,, but I do know that in this particular year, if you take quantity, quality and value, there has been a record crop throughout the Dominion and certainly there never was a year in which bounteous crops and good prices were so essential to the prosperity of the country. But strange to say, the government-for what reason I do not know-have omitted any mention of that fact and have tried to produce the impression that it is all owing to a prospective Hudson Bay railway, a present and much enduring Grand Trunk Pacific railway, immigration and other things, combined with that virtue which is always present with the government and for which my hon. friend took credit to himself this afternoon; these have been the causes, and these alone, which have produced this great prosperity of the country according to the right hon. gentleman. Let us ask ourselves what the prosperity of this country would have been if, instead of having a bounteous crop

of good quality and with good prices ruling, we had had a very poor or indifferent crop? Why is it that my right hon. friend has thrown Providence overboard and now, takes all the credit to himself and his government for the prosperity of the present year? Hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken have talked-very guardedly I must say-of the finances of the country. They have referred to the fact that the times of depression seem to have passed and that the revenue seems to be increasing. And they have also dwelt-though lightly-upon the fact that there was a surplus for the year, of, I think, a million dollars. Now, we have a piece of business machinery of great extent, 'of immense cost and of diversified powers, to wit the Intercolonial railway. When I look at the accounts of the Minister of Railways, I find that in the year 1908 there was a deficit in the operation of the Intercolonial railway of a little over $800,000. And I find that, in order to have no more of a deficit, some $3,800,000 of money borrowed in the market or taken from the taxpayers has been expended on the Intercolonial railway and charged to capital account. Now I call the special attention of the Minister of Finance to this because it illustrates the vicious system of book-keeping under which he gets surpluses from current revenue-even though small surpluses. At the end of the last' fiscal year, the Intercolonial had sixty express and baggage cars, 140 refrigerator cars, 7,096 box cars, 1,199 hoppers, 414 locomotives and other kinds of rolling stock amounting in all to 12,539. An almost infinitesimal appropriation has been made for the purchase of new cars out of revenue account, the vast majority of the purchases of cars having been charged to capual. The life of a car is given by some authorities as ten years, while some say fifteen and others try to stretch it out to twenty. Take whichever you please. According to the canons of railway administration, and according to ail honest methods of railway book-keeping, the current wear should be paid for out of current account. But instead of ten or fifteen per cent of this immense number of cars having been replaced out of current account, no less than 619 have been replaced out of capital with a very small number indeed replaced out of current account. For instance, there were 414 locomotives at the end of the fiscal year 1908. Not a single locomotive bought last year was charged to current account, while twenty-nine have been bought out of borrowed money and charged to capital. Only an infinitesimal amount of the whole replacement has been charged to current account.
Now, Sir, I say that a charge of $1,300,000 to capital account for rolling stock for the Intercolonial last year is a charge that ought not to have been made, but the current year's wear should have been replaced out of current account. That it was not so replaced is an illustration of the way in which surpluses are made for the Minister of Finance and of the tremendous evils which are allowed by the Minister of Railways. In thirteen years during which these gentlemen, business men they have called themselves, have been running a railway, a proposition that we are all familiar with, they have had deficits, acknowledged by in that time of $3,500,000 net, besides they have spent a little over $2,500,000 a year on capital account for the railway. And this period of thirteen years, be it noted, is the prime period of Canada's growth, development and business enlargement. Suppose that the directors of any other railway of equal size in this Dominion or anywhere else, after thirteen years during which railways generally were prosperous, had to acknowledge to their shareholders that they had made a deficit within that time of $3,500,000 net, besides spending $33,000,000 of borrowed capital in an attempt to bridge the chasm between expenditures and earnings, what would those shareholders think? And what should the Dominion of Canada think of men who make such a record in running a railway, which, if run on business principles, would pay every dollar of its expense and yield a profit for every mile of its operation? In the past thirteen years every great railway system in the world almost has added to its dividends, and many of them have added largely. And this so-called business government, in its management of the Intercolonial, has suc-ceded in running up a bill agai.ist the people od $3,000,000 of borrowed capital besides mulcting them in a deficit of $3,500,000. What is the reason' The right hon. gentleman gave the reason hi Toronto many years ago. He says it is not because the ministers are to blame, it is the vicious system which prevails in the administration. Why, in thirteen years, has my right hon. friend not changed the vicious system? Is it because he does not believe in changing vicious systems? Is it because from his knowledge of humanity he thinks there is some gain on the other side by having the vicious system, some gain in power or otherwise? But whatever it may be, it stands, not to the credit, but to the discredit of this government, that when other roads of equal, and many of them of lesser, opportunities have shown good profits and increased dividends and have paid interest on their borrowings, this road is in the position I have shown. So much with reference to that.
I want now to call the attention of the Finance Minister to the position as regards the United States tariff and the French treaty. I would not do this so strongly as I propose to do, were it not that the speech from the Throne intimates that

the French treaty is to be ratified. Then if the French treaty is to^ be ratified, I imagine that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs have made up their minds as to the probable incidence of the United States tariff upon Canada. Have they made up their minds? Do they know how that will affect the commerce of Canada? My right hon. friend, in his happy go lucky way, stated that he had read it and he could not see any discrimination in it. Will my right hon. friend say that he has that from conversation with people in authority in the United States who had given him to understand that it is not meant to discriminate against Canada provided that Canada's operations go on as they are now, plus the addition of the French treaty? I do not think he will. In fact, it is impossible to tell.
But when you look at the spirit of that legislation in so far as it has been actually declared, what do we find? You take printing paper, you take pulp wood, and what is the design as actually carried out in the enactments of that treaty in force to-day? The design was that that it would discriminate against Canada with reference to chemical pulp and mechanically ground pulp and printing paper. And so you have the enactment, and you must read the spirit and intent therein; you have the enactment that on print paper, in the first place, there is a duty according to value of so much per pound. When it is worth 21 cents and less,. the duty is 3 and l-16th cents per pound; when it is 21 to 2J cents, the duty is 3 and l-10th cents per pound, and so on graded up. That is the minimum duty with reference to any country which puts a restriction of any kind on the exportation of wood out of which the pulp for paper is made. And what country is aimed at, and what country is meant? Canada, and Canada alone. The discrimination is that l-10th of a cent per pound is added in the case of that country, and to that is also added the amount of the export duty, if any export duty is put upon pulpwood. Now that reads the intention of Congress into the actual item in the tariff.
There is no contingency about it. And how about wood pulp? Wood pulp in the general tariff is free, wood pulp against a country which has any restriction on the exportation of pulp wood into the United States is placed at l-12th of a cent per pound. To what country is that directed? To the Dominion of Canada. But in addition to that, there is to be added the export duty on the pulp wood, or the equivalent of that export duty, whatever it may be. So here are two actually finished sections of the United States tariff, and their plain intent is to influence if possible Canadian legislation,


George Eulas Foster: 

if the House will allow me. No, I do not think I can take up any other subject, but I want to have one word with the right hon-the Prime Minister on the way in which he tried to do two things. The spirit of mischief was in him when he tried to raise ructions on this side of the House in reference to the subject of naval service-the spirit of arch-mischief which befitted the politician rather than the statesman. There was also present another spirit, which would have done credit to Saul of Tarsus when he became Paul the Apostle and which animated him when he made his argument to the men on his own side to stand by his policy.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ALEXANDER HAGGART (Winnipeg).: Mr. Speaker, I have not in the past trespassed very much on the time and patience of the House nor shall I to-night. Members from a small and distant province, are no doubt inclined to be influenced by their environment and are likely to become provincial or perhaps parochial, and when such an important document as His Excellency's speech is presented to them it may be that they read it for something which more particularly affects the part of the country whence they come. In the speech of His Excellency I find one short paragraph which refers to the Northwest country and to the province of Manitoba, and in that paragraph the Hudson Bay railway is spoken of as follows:
The exploratory surveys for a railway from the western wheat fields to Hudson bay were pushed energetically during the whole of last summer. It is hoped that a report of the operations will be placed before you at an early date.
Here we are apprised that an exploratory survey, whatever that may mean, is in preparation and there is an expression of hope that we may see the report before long. To the older members of this House the name ' Hudson Bay Railway ' is no doubt a chestnut, because it bobs up regularly from time to time and in the west it enters into our municipal and political life. Many years ago when the Conservatives were in power a railway to the Hudson bay was projected by two or three different companies, and at one time it got so far that forty miles of rails were laid in a northwesterly direction towards Lake Manitoba, but eventually these rails became streaks of rust The Liberals of that day, perhaps very properly so, poked fun at the Conservatives and they said: Give us a chance; we will not simply talk about the Hudson Bay railway we will build it. The year 1896 came and with it the Liberal government. At the first by-election in Winnipeg after the I.ib-


George Eulas Foster: ,
erals came to power the late Mr. Jameson was a candidate in 1897. The slogan at that election was: Vote for Jameson, for progress, for the Laurier government and the Hudson Bay railway. After the death of the late Mr. Jameson the late Mr. McCreary was a candidate and the cry was the same. The people accepted his assurance and they elected him, but no Hudson Bay railway came. Then we had Mr. Puttee. True he was a labour candidate but he had the united support of the Liberals of Winnipeg and whether or not he had authority he also promised the Hudson Bay railway. Then, Mr. Bole, the member for Winnipeg in the late parliament made the Hudson Bay Railway a plank in his platform and when he was elected we thought that perhaps the whole project would die a natural death and that we would never hear of it again. From 1896 until the last election we have had a succession of Liberal candidates in Winnipeg and with them the Hudson Bay railway was a name to conjure with. It was determined apparently that the Hudson Bay railway should be one of the planks in the platform of the Liberal government at the late election. Let us see what the man who builds the railways, the Minister of Railways, says about it. Of course, when he spoke the dissolution of parliament was pending, and for the announcement of his policy he chose a public meeting in the town of Galt, Ontario. There the people could have very little interest in the project because it was calculated to take the traffic away from Ontario around by the northern seas. Although the Minister of Railways spoke in Ontario he was in reality speaking to the people of Manitoba and the Northwest over the wires and through the press. He said:
It is going to be built and built right away.
That is very positive language. Last year I heard the hon. gentleman deliver an address on another great public undertaking, the Newmarket canal, and as I had the opportunity of seeing him and listening to his voice I was not able to come to the conclusion to whether he was serious or joking. Not having the good fortune to hear him at Galt I cannot say whether he really meant what he said when he told the people that the Hudson Bay railway would be built and built right away. But that assurance to the people of the Northwest was not sufficient, and so another little blast came to us from away in the further west. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) was in Alberta or Saskatchewan doing service for his party and addressing a meeting he said:
I call attention to the robustness of the statement:
If you want the Husdon Bay railway you must support the Liberals. If you don't want it the Conservatives are good enough for vou.

And if that were not sufficient to insure the support of the people of the west, no less a person than the right, hon. the Prime Minister was called upon to say something about the Hudson Bay railwav. He was speaking to the people who reside on the banks of the Niagara river and the Welland canal; people who have no interest in the Hudson Bay railway because it would take traffic away from the St. Lawrence route. But, he also desired to reach the ears of the people in the Northwest over the wires and through the newspapers. And the right hon. gentleman, after telling the people of Wellington, that the Hudson Bay railway was not much use to them as it was an alternative route, he urged them to be broad minded and he told them that whatever is good for any part of the Dominion is good for the whole Dominion, and he says:
We have undertaken the construction on another railway-the Hudson Bay railway. The Hudson Bay railway I am sure does not appeal very much to the people of Welland county. It concerns more the people of the west. But I say to you, gentlemen of Ontario, and you will agree with me, that what concerns one portion of the community concerns every part of the community. Now, we have come to the conclusion that this railway is a necessity owing to the condition in which our fellow citizens in the west are placed. This railway will give an alternative or optional route. At the present time all the wheat as soon as it is tracked is sent out to Lake Superior. We want to provide another railway by Hudson bay. There will then be the present route and the Hudson bay route and the man who raises wheat and cattle will have two outlets for his production. We have been asked: ' Are you not going to hurt the trade of the St. Lawrence if you do that? * Oh ye of little faith! the trade of Canada is too great even for these two outlets. What we see coming will be more than sufficient for both of St. Lawrence and the Hudson bay routes. We have come to the conclusion that the time to build this railway is now; not to-morrow, but now; and we have surveyors in the field.
Of course, at the time the statement was made by the Prime Minister there was a red hot election pending in the west. The ' Manitoba Free Press '-you have no doubt heard of that paper; it has an annex to its building in the shape of a splendid post office-the ' Manitoba Free Press ' a journal which expresses the sentiments of the Liberals of the west and is supposed to be the personal organ of the ex-Minister of the Interior, commenting on this statement of the Prime Minister, said:
This is one of the most important announcements to the west that has ever been made by the Canadian government and it will be received with acclamation by the people of the prairie provinces.
But, even the declaration of the Minister of Railways and of the Prime Minister was not considered sufficient and so the ex-Min-3}
ister of the Interior in accepting the nomination of the convention at Brandon which was then the centre of an exciting electoral contest, declared that the Hudson Bay railway was a paramount issue in that election and he closed his speach with these words:
The Prime Minister proposes to build for these provinces the Hudson Bay railway. It is a fitting culmination to the policy of process and development which the government as followed during these years. That pronouncement was a very material factor in inducing me to become a candidate for this constituency in this election, because I felt and feel now that the time has come when we men from the west have succeeded in proving that the Hudson Bay railway is no chimera, no foolish project, but one which the people of the west are bound to see carried into effect, and the time to do it is now. So, therefore, if the people of the Northwest give Sir Wilfrid Laurier their endorsement at this election, then in three or four years we may expect to see trains running to Hudson bay.


Mr. SPROULE.: What was the date of that?


Alexander Haggart: That was delivered on the 22nd day of September, over a month prior to the election on the 26th of October. We did not expect, that the government would last session be able to fulfil all the promises and make good all the assurances they had given to us in the last election; but we expected that we would be given a little more this session than the expression of the hope that in a short time we would get the report of the exploratory survey.
That leads me by an easy stage to the consideration of another question which is very closely associated with that of the Hudson Bay railway. That railway will we hope, sometime run through a territory which is appurtenant to the province of: Manitoba, and which we have long hoped would become a part of that province. For the benefit of the new members who are not, conversant with the history of Manitoba-let me say that that province was created in the year 1870. It was a very small province, extending for about a hundred miles from north to south and about as many miles from east to west, with Winnipeg in the centre with about 17,000 people. We had a constitution which was sufficient for the government of almost half a continent. We had a Lieutenant-Governor, a senate and a legislature. We got rid of the senate, and I will state, for the benefit of the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster! how we did so, with promptness, neatness and despatch. The senate consisted of seven members, four constituting a majority. Jobs were created for those four at salaries a little better than the indemnity of a senator, and those four, very much to the disgust of the minority, voted the sen-

ate out of existence. It was evident, at the time of the formation of Manitoba, that its boundaries were only temporary. It was felt that it would never do to make a checkerboard of those Northwest territories and multiply provincial governments; and during the first legislature of Manitoba application was made to this parliament for the extension of the boundaries of the province and for further financial assistance. Mr. Alexander Mackenzie turned this application down, for the reason that the northwestern boundary of the province of Ontario had not been defined. In 1881, however, the boundaries of Manitoba were extended. It was known at that time that the boundaries had not been defined, but it was believed and expected by nearly every one that the northwestern boundary of the province of Ontario was the meridian which cuts the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers which, if produced northward, would cut the northern shore of Lake Superior to the east of Fort William and Port Arthur. At once there was a conflict of authority. Both Ontario and Manitoba claimed jurisdiction over the disputed territory. A reference of the dispute was made to the Privy Council. Manitoba had hoped she would have all the Lake of the Woods, Thunder Bay and Eainy Eiver country from which the province of Ontario has reaped rich revenues in timber dues and mining licenses. But the decision of the Privy Council was against Manitoba, the boundary between the two provinces was declared to be the line running north from the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods, making the territory of Manitoba 73,000 square miles, which is not [DOT]one-third of the size of either Saskatchewan [DOT]or Alberta. It was thought, at the time of the formation of those new provinces, that it would be an opportune time to increase the boundaries of Manitoba and settle for all time the whole question, by making the three provinces as nearly equal in size and importance as possible. Manitoba was turned down. The provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were created and were given a reasonable financial assistance for their development, and I have no doubt it is being wisely expended. But there is no reason why the province of Manitoba should not have received the same treatment. Manitoba did the pioneer work in the early days when it was a question whether or not agriculture was a profitable occupation in that country. Manitobans were living in the Northwest and Manitoba was there as a province when it took the price of two bushels of grain to transport the third bushel to market. Manitoba solved the transportation problem. She mortgaged her future for the purpose of getting reasonable rates and running lines of railways all over the province. She Mr. ALEX. HAGGART.
could not help herself without incidentally benefiting the other provinces to the west. Manitoba should be treated as she has been. We all at this distance of time appreciate the efforts made by the late Sir John A. Macdonald in bridging over the great commercial and geographical weakness of this Dominion; I refer to the vast expense of wilderness between the towns and villages of Ontario and Quebec and the fertile plains of the west. A belt of iron was thrown across that wilderness, which was the first link that was forged. We appreciate too the policy of Sir John A. Macdonald in ruthlessly disallowing railway charters for lines running from Manitoba in the direction of Duluth and Chicago. He was determined that the channels of commerce should be worn wide and deep before our railways should be subject to competition and our trade directed towards American cities. We realize the wisdom of that policy now. There was fierce opposition to the disallowance of those charters at the time, but we now appreciate that it was for the benefit of the province and the whole Dominion. But, Sir, there are other bonds which bind together the provinces of this Dominion more firmly perhaps that the steel bands of a railway, and that is the knowledge experience and the satisfaction that every province has been fairly treated by this Dominion, and that there has been no discrimination, no penalizing, no suspicion even of anything of the kind, because that would bode no good for the Dominion. That seems to have been fully recognized at the close of the last parliament, for we find that on the 13th day of July, 1908, the right hon. the Prime Minister moved a series of resolutions with reference to the Manitoba boundary, which resolutions conceded the right of the province of Manitoba to the extension, and the right hon. gentleman, in support of those resolutions, spoke in these words:
The case of Manitoba seems to be particularly pressing. Manitoba has the smallest territory of all the western provinces, and it is a matter of public notoriety that there is in Manitoba a sentiment of disappointment, almost akin to irritation, that the province has not been as liberally endowed as the adjoining provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, which were carved out of territory of which the boundaries of the province of Manitoba could have been increased. We all sympathize with this sentiment and there is no reason that I can see why this desire for increased territory should not be gratified.
The right hon. the prime minister there admits that there is cause for irritation, and that that cause has not been removed. Well, if it be not removed the * irritation may develop into a chronic sore, into positive, absolute hostility, and if there be any reason for it, must there not be delin-

quency in some quarter in connection with this business?
At the opening of the first session of this parliament, the greeting of the hon. the first minister to the members from Manitoba was certainly not a pleasant one. I do not think that the right hon. gentleman would have greeted us in that way if he had known the real facts. He told us that we are here by virtue of stuffed lists, Sir, the reverse is the fact. We are here by virtue of honest lists, but when we learned the source of the right hon. gentleman's information, we were not surprised. I shall not say a word about the ex-Minister of the Interior, as it would be contrary to the rules to say anything that might be offensive to a member of this House, but I will say that in Manitoba he had a lot of the rankest registration scamps to be found anywhere at work in any province. And when he resigned as attorney general and left Manitoba, he left us as a legacy his election law, and that law was a beauty and was beautifully administered. The lists for Manitoba were a disgrace. At great expense of time and trouble we had those lists revised before a judge, and the result of that revision, which occupied about three weeks, was to strike off about 3,000 names of bogus voters. There were about 900 names of men put on the list by the revising judge who had been improperly left off. After we had cleaned the lists, we were not very long in cleaning out those who were responsible for them. We are not here by virtue of stuffed lists. The people had before them these matters I have spoken of and the result was they elected members to sit on this side. The people had, right under their very eyes, the maladministration of the Department of the Interior, and if the hon. gentleman had been out there during the election, he would have had ample evidence to satisfy him that it was not stuffed lists but a strong political club in the hands of an honest, intelligent and indignant electorate which returned the Conservative party in that province.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In offering a few observations on the address, I wish in the first place to congratulate the mover and seconder on the very creditable way in which they discharged the important duty assigned them. Few could take exception to the manner in which they presented the case from their standpoint. Certainly if brevity is the soul of wit, they set a good example to members of this House. The right hon. the Prime Minister told us that he cherished the hope that this would be a short session, and in that opinion he was strengthened bv the first speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
Let me tell the right hon. gentleman that the length or brevity of a session depends very much more on the government than on the opposition. If the government, when parliament meets, have their work well in hand, if they bring down promptly the returns to which the House is entitled, if they lay on the table without delay the departmental reports and other information which the House requires in order to intelligently perform its work, then the opposition will assist the government to the best of its ability to shorten the session. But on the other hand, if the government bring down their measures only half digested and are unable to reach a conclusion regarding them for weeks, if they allow them to remain day after day on the Order Paper without doing anything, they have no right to blame the opposition for extending the session. That, however, is a state of things to which we have become accustomed under the present government.
We can all express our congratulations and gratitude to his Excellency the Governor General for the information he has given us in the speech from the Throne. We are grateful to him for the assurance that the country is prosperous. Of course, we may know more or less about the condition of the country ourselves, but such information is always pleasant coming from the high source it does, having been put into the mouth of his Excellency by his constitutional advisers, who of course have at their disposal the means of ascertaining the country's condition. But will the government tell us to what extent that prosperity is due to any act of theirs ? What have they done during the year to account for that prosperity? It may be reasonable to assume that they desire to impress the people in some way or other with the conviction that that prosperity is due to something the government has done. At any rate they have not given Divine Providence any consideration for that prosperity at all; and since the government has not given any credit to Providence, we must presume that it wishes to have all the credit itself.
We are assured that immigration is pouring into the country in a well directed stream from the best elements of the British Isles, the continent of Europe and the United States. But the government forgot to put into the speech from the Throne the fact that the North Atlantic Trading Company has gone out of existence. During many years it was claimed that the influx of immigration was due to the efforts of that company, but we have now the assurance from the highest source thak even since that company has ceased to exist, immigration has been pouring into Canada in a well directed stream, composed of some of the

best elements of the British Isles, continental Europe and the United States. I am pleased to believe that we are getting a fair share of immigrants, and more care is being taken with regard to the quality of those who come to this country. Year after year, when we pointed out that in immigration quality was to be considered rather than quantity, and when we raised objection to the character of many of the immigrants coming to Canada, we were assured that none but the very best were coming to this country, farmers and farm labourers-not artisans or mechanics-the very cream of the British Islands and of continental Europe. And this notwithstanding that the Doukhobor3 were coming, the Galicians, the Finlanders and the people of almost every benighted country in the world. At last the government themselves were obliged to take note of the complaints concerning their immigrants that were being complained of in every part of the country. They were even obliged to deport many of them, and the reports laid before the House disclosed the fact that they have sent back thousands of these immigrants within the last few years. We have been endeavouring for the past ten years to convince them that there was urgent need for the improvement in the selection of immigrants, and it was said over and over again that the class who were coming were of the very best-that we could not expect or hope for better. But, after a time there was the admission on the part of the government that this was not correct, and now they boast of how many of these immigrants they have sent back.
We feel grateful to His Excellency for the assurance he has given us that trade and commerce have made rapid strides during the year and that in every direction the commerce of the country is expanding. One would have thought that commerce would almost have come to a standstill when Mr. W. T. R. Preston decided to leave Japan, packed his gripsack and commenced to hunt another job. He seemed to be the one man depended on by the government to regulate everything wherever he went and in whatever line he happened to be engaged. He endeavoured to do that with regard to immigration in the old country, and when he went to Japan he had not been there very long before he was in trouble with the officials in regard to trade with that country. We were told that he had revolutionized commerce so that Canada would develop immensely by reason of her Increased trade with these great oriental peoples numbering 450,000,000. In a short time, he was obliged to leave, and he is now away hunting a new field. Notwithstanding this, we are told that hade is Tapidly developing. and for this we certainly should be grateful.
We are told that the construction of the MR. SPROULE.
Transcontinental Railway has made substantial advance during the year. And very reasonably might have been added, so has the debt. For one of the greatest increases in the debt of this country for the last forty years has been made in the last year or year and a half. The government have been pushing on the Transcontinental railway and expending money right and left. We know that the statement has been made, and, I think, established to the satisfaction of almost every business man in this House that a great deal of that money was improperly expended, that there was overcharging, that there was wrong 1 classification, extravagance, improper making of contracts and graft in connection with almost every part of this business. This was emphatically denied two years ago. Complaint was made by Mr. Hodgins, the engineer, and there was an inquiry, and a whitewashing report handed to this House by the majority of the committee engaged in the work. Notwithstanding that, we have the undeniable fact that the very parties who above all others interested in this matter, the railway company themselves, declare that there was over-classification, that there was improper expenditure, and I understand they intend to go into the courts in order to establish the fact. This is exactly what was brought out by the evidence in the committee, notwithstanding the whitewashing of the commissioners by the report. But that is not all.
I have here the report of the Auditor General, and I notice that that officer raises objections. There is correspondence between the Transcontinental Commission and Mr. Fraser, the Auditor General, on the subject. One of the letters of the Auditor General reads as follows:
Audit Office, Ottawa, Jan. 25, 1909.
Sir,-I have not received a reply to my letter of Jan. 5, re payments to M. P. & J. T. Davis and Macdonell & O'Brien on the Hogan & Macdonell contract for ' excavation of foundations, solid rock,' at three times the schedule rate for solid rock.
' Three times the rate.' That was practically the contention of Mr. Hodgins, viz., that by the improper classification of the material, the contractor was being paid three times as much as he was entitled to. But the government contended, and established to the satisfaction of the majority of this House, that there was nothing wrong about it. In another letter, the Auditor General says that not only three times the schedule rate was paid, but that three times the amount done was charged up in progress estimates given. That is another device for paying out to their favourite friends more money than the country ought to pay for this work. And that is going on to-day.

And what did the commission do when the Auditor General asked for information? They practically told him that it was impertinent on his part to ask such questions, and they passed a resolution refusing to give him the information. This is the beautiful commission that is spending so much money. And the Auditor General was obliged to go to the Justice Department, and he is sustained by that department after being turned down by the Transcontinental Railway Commission. So, if the Toad is being built rapidly, the money is being spent rapidly. There is nothing about this in the speech from the Throne. Nor have we further information concerning this correspondence of the Auditor General, yet it is something concerning which we should be well informed in order to deal with this question.
We often hear this government boast that they are a business government. I think one of the speakers to-day referred to that. In the speech from the Throne we are kindly told that the engineers of the Quebec bridge have sufficiently advanced this work to permit of tenders being invited for the substructure. Now, this business government started to build that Quebec bridge many years ago, and when the matter was first broached in this House they told us that they were prepared not only to do a great work but to do it wisely and expeditiously. They got a corporation of their own to commence the building of it-a corporation that put up $63,000 in all to build a bridge that Will cost over $9,000,000 and then took out $64,000 in salaries, and finally handed over to the country for several millions a bridge that had fallen and was lying at the bottom of the river. We are now told that the engineers are prepared to invite tenders for the substructure.
The government expressed the hope that this session would be a short one, but they have not given this House a word of information with regard to these plans, what kind of a bridge is going to be built, where it is to be put, whether they can use the substructure of the old bridge or not, whether it is to be a cantilever bridge, a swing bridge, or what not. And we are going on to commence the construction of another bridge which will cost in all probabfiity $8,000,000 or $9,000,000, without any of this information.
But we are told this is a business government. This business government started in with a great undertaking which was going to be a valuable outlet of the Transcontinental Railway, which was to be ready in 1910 or 1911. But there is not a single stroke of that -work done yet. This business government has spent $6,500,000 of the country's money, and there is nothing in the world to show for it except the twisted iron in the bottom of the river. I say there
has been more money squandered, sunk in that undertaking by this business government than was spent on all the parliament buildings at Ottawa up to the last few years-on the three great blocks, and the Langevin block-all these cost less than $7,000,000, and no more than was squandered in that undertaking by this government on that Quebec bridge. Let the people of Canada know these things, and ask themselves where this business government has justified its name. Where is their intelligence with respect to economy? What wisdom and prudence have they shown, when all this money has gone, and Canada has nothing to show for it to-day but the wreck of the bridge that is lying in the bottom of the river?
His Excellency thought we ought to feel grateful because we are starting out in another undertaking of the same kind. Well, we are obliged to thank His Excellency for the information that exploratory surveys for a Hudson Bay railway have been pushed expeditiously during the summer. As my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Hag-gart) says, that is an old question which has been running on like the famous lawsuit of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce, ever since this government came in. I remember when it was first started and we were told that there was going to be a fine outlet for the grain of the west, and -what a wonderful change it was going to work when this government built the Hudson Bay railway. Every year they were going to commence . it, especially when an election was coming on in the west, then the^ were ready to commence operations. They were not going to be like their predecessors, they were in earnest. Well, now, after being in power fourteen years they tell us through the mouth of His Excellency that exploratory survevs have been pushed energetically during the whole of last year and he expresses the hope that they will be able to lay a report on the table during the present session. I suppose that will be all, and next year we will have something more in the speech from the Throne about it. Well, we all feel very grateful for the assurance that we wili get the papers, because there are many lines in which papers are very useful, and give us information which we might otherwise have to make a long fight to obtain.
Now we have another piece of valuable information, and that is that the government intend to introduce a Bill to give them power to lease or purchase branch lines connected with the Intercolonial railway, that road in the operation of which they have had such large deficits every year, notwithstanding the fact that all that goes into the building of that road, nearly all of it, is charged to capital account instead of to the earnings of the road every

year. It is not a paying concern. But the leasing of these branch lines, we are told, is going to make it very profitable to the people living in the vicinity, and in the interest of the whole country as well. Now if they manage the branch lines as well as they have managed the road since they have come into power, I do not think the country will have much cause to congratulate itself. Yet we are told from time to time that these branch lines have never paid, that they are a bill of expense to the owners, that they are in a dilapidated condition, and that many of them can never pay. It must therefore be a consoling piece of information to the House and the country to be told that we will lease these branch lines from the owners and give them a substantial amount of money for them and add them to a road that has never yet paid, and will be still less likely to pay with these additional burdens tacked on.
We have another piece of information which is valuable, and that is that the government propose to introduce a Bill with regard to combinations in restraint of trade. We heard a great deal about that many years ago. The government, through the mouth of their Finance Minister, told this House, I think in 1897, that the only effective way to deal with combinations in restraint of trade was through free trade, and the government took power in a Bill to take off the duty from any article when it was the subject of a combination formed in restraint of trade; that article was then to come in free. I remember bringing this subject up in two successive sessions. I remember the arguments that were addressed to this House by Mr. Garrow; who is now a judge on the bench. He tried hard to induce the government to punish those parties who were engaged in combination in restraint of trade to the detriment of the consumer and to the detriment of all interested parties. But the government said it could not be done, that the only proper way to control them was by ascertaining where there was a combination in restraint of trade, and to take the duty off the articles so effected, and allow them to come into the country free. Now application was made to the government to do that in the leather combine. Mr. Garrow brought that up. I brought it up two sessions afterwards, but the government refused to do anything. They let that combine continue its operations to the detriment of Canada, to the detriment of the consumer, and they did nothing to prevent it. But I will tell you what they did do. There was a law put upon the statute-book many years ago by the late member for West York, the Hon. N. Clarke Wallace to punish those who were combining in restraint of trade. The government so amended that Bill that they made it useless. It provided that wherever people com-MR. SPEOULE.
bined to enhance values or raise prices, they became amenable to the Criminal Code and could be punished. But the government amended that Bill by providing that wherever it was proven that a combination unduly enhanced values or increased prices, they should be punished, but they threw the onus of proof upon the complainant. We were told by the high authority of the late Sir Oliver Mowat himself that the Bill was practically no good, because you could not go into court and prove what was unduly enhanced value. I made an effort two years in succession to get that Bill amended and leave it as it was at first, so that it might be of some value and that you might start a prosecution under it. I succeeded at last; for some reason the government were kind enough to allow me to get this amendment through the House, anil shortly afterwards these combines were attacked, and parties went into court to punish them, and what was the result? The government took up that Bill, amended the law again, put it back where it was before, these prosecutions stopped and they have never gone on from that day to this. That from a business gov-vernment that was going to do something to prevent combinations in restraint of trade! Did they ever step in that direction except with reference to paper? Did they ever undertake an inquiry in regard to that subject although the allegations were made to them by their own friends over and over again that in various lines combines were detrimentally raising prices to the consumers of this country ? Did_ they take any interest in it ? - none whatever except in that one case. In that I believe they did in a partial way and they are entitled to commendation for what they have done. I would suggest though, that, what-every that Bill may be, it should be something that will be effective rather than something to be paraded before the public and telling the people what wonderful things they are going to do, but which the experience of future time will prove they never will do. They have had it in their power to restrain these combinations and they have made no effert to do it except in the one instance I have cited; therefore, we have the right to reach the conclusion that they are no more likely to do it in the future than in the past. But, they parade this before the country to-day as something they are going to do for the benefit of the country and for which the country ought to be devoutedly thankful.
I would like to say one word in regard to a report I see of the speech of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) in Montreal on Saturday. I shall read his own words. Speaking of Canada he says:
They could and did legislate for themselves and make their own treaties with other nations, and it was probable that in the near

future Britain would discontinue the practice of sending a representative of the Crown to them.
I presume a Governor General. I think the people of Canada will be greatly startled


Mr. GRAHAM.: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) allow me? Having been a newspaper man myself, I very seldom rise to a point of order or ask for any correction. As a matter of fact, I never made such a statement or referred directly or indirectly to anything that could be construed into such a statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then I think the Minister will thank me for giving him this early opportunity to make that denial which I accept with all pleasure. I was going to go on and read another portion in reference to naval defence, but if he denies that in advance, I will not read it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The same speech. His memory cannot be so bad but that he must remember what he did say or some of the subjects that he spoke about. If he will be good enough to tell us what he did say, we would like to hear from him. Well, he does not take the opportunity of denying it.


George Perry Graham: I have not heard it yet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He says that:
In his opinion they would be making a huge mistake by presenting either ships or money to Britain. He was most strongly opposed to contributing one dollar towards any fund, unless they retained the right to decide as to how that dollar was to be expended. They should manage their own affairs in their own way.
Then, let the Canadian people know that no matter what the emergency may be, the Minister of Railways and Canals is opposed to giving one dollar, or one ship, or one cent towards the assistance or support of the mother country unless we have the right to expend the money just as we like ourselves. Then he goes on to say:
-and he was sure that Britain would not attempt to deprive them of the right to do so. A great deal had been both said and written regarding the possibility of war with Germany but ho could not conceive of any reason why Canada should be disturbed on this account.


George Perry Graham: I think it is very proper that I should set my hon. friend Tight for fear that he would say that I did not-


Mr. HUGHES.: Set yourself right, not my hon. friend right.


George Perry Graham: Not myself. It would not be so hard to set myself right as some
other people, but I accept the task even of setting them right. As a matter of fact, the reference which my hon. friend has read has been broadened very much. I made it very clear, speaking for myself, that I was not alarmed about the German war scare and that, notwithstanding whether there ever had been a German war scare or not and altogether outside of it, Canada had a duty to perform.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman ought to be grateful to me because they have read this all over the country and I have given him an opportunity of setting himself right. He sat in this House all day and did not deny it, did not say a word about it; I have given him an opportunity of putting himself right and I think he should be grateful. If it went out to the world that it was none of our business, that we were not interested in the German war scare, that we did not care a continental about Great Britain, what would the people think of our loyalty to the British empire of which they hear so much? I have read this at the present time for the purpose of giving the hon. gentleman an opportunity of either denying it or admitting it. He has chosen to deny it. I accept the denial which he has made with all respect to him. Part of it he has not denied or said anything about and therefore I assume it is correct.
Well. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to continue this debate longer. There are some other subjects touched on which we will have an opportunity of dealing with when we have certain papers before us and we will he in a position to deal with them more intelligently. I can only express the hope, that the government, in their desire for a short session, will facilitate the work of this House, as they ought to do to assist us in making a short session, by giving parliament the information which parliament requires and which it ought to have as soon as any subject is brought to this House, or when any important subject is to he dealt with, and which information, whether they have it in their departments or elsewhere, ought to he put in the possession of the House at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. E. N. LEWIS (West Huron).: Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed at failing to see an allusion in the speech from the Throne to a matter which, it was currently reported, would be made the subject of investigation by a committee of this House. I refer to the question of the revision of the procedure of the House. I believe, Sir, that a great majority of the voters of Canada would be pleased to know that the rules of procedure of the House of Commons are to be revised with the purpose of expediting business. There has been for some years a strong feeling

amongst our constituents that matters drag too- slow here, with in consequence great loss of time and money. I at one time, thought that the trouble was in the length and frequency of speeches, while this is certainly responsible for part of the delay, I feel that the procedure is at fault. Long windedness should cure itself when we remember that with very few exceptions all the long speech makers of last parliament were defeated. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are like a mechanic trying to do business with tools fifty years behind the times. In the older hemisphere I admit that a succession of merchants may carry on business in same stand and under same methods for hundreds of years with success, but, Sir, in this new land a merchant who has made a competency by the time he is sixty-five will lose it all in the next ten years if he keeps on the the same 'old way Our rules were founded on those of the mother of parliaments, but, Sir, I regret to say we have not kept pace with her in the changes of same; some suitable to this country, some not. It is a striking fact that amendment of procedure was almost from the beginning to end treated without party spirit, not as an issue between two great parties, but as a problem for House of Commons as a whole (Redleigh, page 125-6). In proof of above statement that the great majority of Canadians wish shorter sessions I say that newspapers of all classes and politics have advocated same and from the Atlantic to to the Pacific. I quote a few to prove this. The Regina ' Leader,' Halifax ' Herald,' Sea-forth ' Expositor, Manitoba ' Press,' had column editorials all in favour.
I find in different countries that the procedure on budget legislation is as follows:	In Belgium, explanations to items
added to estimates. In Prance, a committee on budget, general report. In Germany, a committee of thirty-three, whu examine the papers and ask for further explanation when needed. In the Netherlands, five separate committees of chamber examines estimates. Each of these five named to draft report. In Spain, budget committee standing thirty-five in all, majority report made to House with any alterations decided on. In Peru budget must be presented to congress within fifteen days after assembly, it is then referred to a committee. It is already on ' Hansard ' how few Bills w'e pass for the time occupied In comparison with other countries, and when comparing our legislation with Great Britain's, we must bear in mind that Great Britain has only one parliament for all and we have provincial houses to take off a great part of the work. The United States congress lasts on an average five and a half months. During the second season of the 58th congress, 20,074 Bills and resolutions were introduced and 4,904 mea-Mr. LEWIS
sured and 3,992 Acts passed both Houses. (See Reinsch on American legislatures, pages 300-1, while in the sessions of the Canadian House of Commons for 1908 lasting nearly eight months seventy-seven Public Acts and 173 Private Acts were passed. The difference is greatly accounted for by the procedure. In the 58th Congress there were fifty-five standing and ten select committees in the Senate of the United States varying in size from three to seventeen, and there were sixty-one standing committees in the House of Representatives varying from five to nineteen.
The newspapers throughout Canada from Halifax to Vancouver, newspapers of both sides of politics I am glad to say, commenting on my remarks on this subject last session, all favoured shorter sessions and greater despatch of business. I quote the following:-
' Toronto Mail ':
There is no doubt a disposition to address parliament at too great length.
' Victoria Colonist ':
There is such a thing in political archery as drawing the bow too far.
' Wingham Times ':
Foreshadows a Bill to amend present rules of parliamentary procedure with a view to expediting transaction of public business and preventing waste of time in useless debate.
' Halifax Herald ':
The extraordinary length of the sessions of parliament and the consequent enormous expense lias often been the subject of comment and the need of reform has been recognized.
' Globe ', June 25, 1909:
Parliament with a great four years off has a splendid chance this year of showing that it is a business institution and not merely a voice.
' Globe ', July 18, 1908:
The 4th session, 10th parliament, longest on record, 234 days, but the actual business was in a large measure compressed into the final six weeks.
'Toronto News':
Inflexible rigidity is one of the grave defects of machinery of government. The British constitution readily adapts itself to changing conditions.
' Canadian Presbyterian ':
There is no good reason for any member speaking more than once on any one topio when a Bill is in Committee of the Whole.
Parliamentary oratory is at present a by word for prolixity, diffuseness and resulting tediousness, compression would tend to improve it.
. ' Globe ', June 18, 1908:

Day after day is wasted because a few members abuse to the extreme their privilege of speaking again and again in the committee of reply.
' Saturday Night ' says:
We fiddle with a programme that is petty and peanutty.
' Toronto Star April 17, 1909:
. With the growth of Canada the business of parliament has outgrown the old procedure. The House of Commons ought to be able to agree upon some businesslike way of doing its business.
' Manitoba Free Press ', February 23, 1909:
Such an outrageous wasting of the time of parliament at enormous cost to the country should be made impossible by the adoption of rules of debate and procedure such as no other parliament in the world is without, the indemnity to the member being only a fraction of the daily expense of having parliament in session.
I have, Mr. Speaker, taken the liberty to draft a few rules which I believe if adopted would result in saving the time of parliament. These rules are very simple and I shall submit them for consideration.


Rule No.   I.@: Answers to all questions to be in writing and to be laid on the table and not read, or, be printed in the orders of the day or on ' Hansard.'
This will not prevent the answers being explained in the House if necessary.
Rule 2. Estimates to be first brought before committee consisting of all members. The committee will sit in committee room on Monday, Tuesday. Wednesday, Thursday and Fri-dav. from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., and if necessary while House is sitting. All non-contentious items to be brought up in bulk in the House and contentious ones separate, but this not to prevent any item to be challenged in the House.
This is the rule in the English parliament. The system followed in the Canadian parliament in reference to the estimates is absurd. The minister is supposed to explain them but in reality he may not know anything about them and so his deputy sits next him and the accountant sits next him again and the information is transmitted backward and forward and a great deal oi time is lost. If the minister happens to be a gentleman who is friendly to every one in the House his items go through with a rush, but otherwise he is bothered considerably and in the end the items go through without any real explanation being offered. I submit, Sir, that the business way to do this is to have a committee of the House sitting every clay of the session at ten in the morning. Let the minister give notice a week ahead that his estimates will be brought up at a certain date and then let him be prepared with his clerks and with his documents to give the information and let every hon. member if he wishes be allowed to ask questions. Then, the items which were not contentious should be passed in the House en bloc. The contentious items could be discussed, and in that way months of the time of the House would ire saved. These are the other rules I submit:
3. A member only to be allowed to speak once to any item brought up in Committee of the Whole House.
i. The Speaker to be authorized to prevent members from repeating themselves or reiterating other members speeches.
5.	The Speaker to allow quotations, referred to in members' speeches to be placed on ' Hansard ' without being read, if be sees fit.
6.	Where a member makes a motion for papers, letters, documents, to be brought down and the government grant the motion, no discussion is then to be allowed in advocacy of the motion.
7.	A set time should be decided on for
bringing down of the estimates each session and so many days allotted to each department similar to the English practice (page 109 Red-leigh.)	. .
8.	Wednesday evenings to be utilized for work.
Rule 7 is in force in the English parliament, and although I have doubts as to whether it would work here, I have added it. As to the rule about sitting on Wednesday evenings, my contention is that we come here to work and if there is one evening to be taken for play or recreation it should not be Wednesday evening. It is the only evening in the week outside of Thursday that all the members are here and as we all know well most of the estimates are put through on Friday night when very few members are present. I submit that either Monday night or Friday night should be the night set apart for social gatherings or rest if rest is needed. Now, Sir, I have given notice to-day of eight Bills to be introduced by me. They are Bills which I introduced last session and as some parts of those-were adopted last session I only propose to ask the consideration of the House to such provisions as were then not adopted. I have been found fault with for introducing too many Bills in parliament, but I cannot suggest any possible way by which less of the time of the House would be taken than by putting my ideas in the concrete form of a Bill. Every one knows that a private member cannot have legislation passed in this House, nor do I consider that it is the province of a member of the opposition to put legislation on the statute-book. His first duty in this House is to criticise the administrative acts of the members of the government, in whose hands the people of the country have placed the government for the time being. Let me mention some of these Bills:	The Bill respecting load
lines on ships; the Bill respecting injuries

to persons due to motor vehicles; the Bill to provide for the government inspection of vessels not now inspected; the Bill respecting wireless telegraphy on ships; the Bill respecting offensive weapons and capital offences; the Bill respecting assaults against the person; and the Bill respecting the saving of davlight. If I desired to pick out two or three from these, I could not do so, because they are all good. Now, I desire for a few moments only to refer to what concerns more and comes closer to the plain people than anything else under the sky, that is, the enormous increase in the cost of living. Wages are much higher than they were ten years ago. Still the dollar to-day will not buy much more than half what it would then. I propose to suggest a reason and also a remedy, and to bear me out in my contention I pronose referring to some reliable and prominent newspapers. I contend that the chief cause of the great increase in the cost of living is the high prices carried by the combines which are fostered under the present customs law. Shortly after the change of government in 1896 the free trade Finance Minister took the tariff out of politics by substituting for protection the words ' tariff for revenue only,' and there the tariff has virtually remained ever since. Now, Sir, I do not propose going into a discussion of the tariff or whether the Finance Minister was right or wrong, but I do consider that under the circumstances the Conservative opposition are not bound to stick to protection and be called high protectionists. In fact, Sir, I think that under the circumstances certain parts of the tariff should be lowered, and I propose bringing in a resolution to that effect respecting agricultural implements. While it may be necessary in the interests of certain manufactured articles that a combine or merger, as it is sometimes called, of factories or corporations should be, it may be necessary or beneficial in the interest of those institutions, still, Sir, I contend that where the people of Canada through its government protect the combine or merger from outside competition, then the same government acting for the same people should see that said combine or merger does not unduly charge said people for its goods. Shortly after the accession to power of the present government the Finance Minister spoke on this question, and I believe he proposed trying to remedy any evils by orders in council; but he finally realized what work this wnuld be and how anything he did might be misinterpreted, and he desisted and ever since has only referred complaints to the remedy under the Criminal Code. There is no question as to this remedy being under the circumstances futile and a. dead letter; and I Mr. LEWIS.
quote the hon. the Finance Minister's own words:
Toronto Star, March, 1909:
I venture to say that if you attempt to reach combines by the ordinary procedure of law, without any other penalty than that enforceable by the courts of law, you will have great difficulty in reaching them. The efforts made in other countries to reach combines in that way have not been very successful.
This is the great truth which is now being pressed upon the government in vain. He asserted:
Even with the amendments we are now making, the element of protection will remain in the tariff to a considerable extent. One of the evils to the protective system is that it inevitably leads to the formation of combines in our country as the recognition of the fact, by manufacturers and others who may engage in forming combines for unduly enhancing the prices of commodities, that the duty on like articles imported into the country can be removed by order in council.
There is no combine or merger of the people, and this remedy could not be utilized without such.
There is one way, and one way only, and I submit an adequate way of remedying this great grievance, and a way which will be of great benefit to the government and country in other ways. I refer to a permanent commission of men skilled for the purpose, men above politics, who will bring their whole energies and time to the study of the intricate question and do full and fair justice between the producer and the consumer. To-day if a producer thinks an alien is importing goods and in any way evading the duty or part of the duty by under-valuation or otherwise, all he has to do is to report the matter to the nearest customs officer, and immediately the whole machinery of the government is investigating the offence; but if a consumer or retail dealer believes he is charged unjustly or that there is a combination in restraint of trade, he has to fight it himself, which is an impossibility. Why should it cost the newspapers $2,000 to fight this paper combine? It cost thousands to prosecute the plumbers' combine in Toronto. The advice of such a commission to the government on tariff legislation, apart from combines, would be invaluable. How can any finance minister, no matter of what party, give adequate research and thought to tariff charges or making when you consider all his other duties? There is no question that the corporations and trusts have the United States legislative bodies in their iron grasp, which once closed is hard to open. Don't let us fall into the same error.
I speak, Sir, on behalf of the consumers of Canada, and I say to the manufacturers that my only desire is to see a body of

skilled, reliable and impartial men appointed to see that the manufacturers and consumers both get fair and honest treatment. There is no use in my taking up the time of the House in specifying articles which the combines charge too much for. Their number is many. There is hardly an article, from leather to wash goods, from rubber to tacks, that it would not pay to have the charges for investigated.
The ' Toronto Star,' November 13, 1908, says:
A protective tariff established with the aim of building up Canadian industries and employing Canadian workmen at fair wages soon becomes an instrument for furthering trade combinations and conspiracies to rob the consumer, the speculator follows the settler and lives upon his labour.
' Toronto Star February 3, 1909:
Tack combine in trade war. Effect on general commercial conditions is wholly bad, after driving out opposition by low prices, prices are raised too high.
'. Toronto Star ', February 17, 1909:
Grange meeting at Forest asked Dominion government to investigate at cost of government charges made re combines and remedy. Combine is the modern robber baron.
' Goderich Signal ':
Decidedly uneasy feeling among old time Liberals at position re combines taken by Mr. Fielding. 'Huron Signal ' goes so far as to say, that the fact that it was even necessary to present such a request constitutes a disgrace to the government. The ' Signal ' contends that the government should have acted of its own motion without waiting for a request to perform the duty, which it has by formal enactment laid upon itself.
The ' Kingston Standard ' says private persons cannot afford the cost to fight a combine. If any one tries, he is a marked man. It cost newspaper men $2,000 to fight the paper combine.
The ' Toronto Globe ':
Two things should be done; those found guilty of extortion in connection with the combines should be punished and the tariff conditions which favour unjust combines should be changed.
'Star,' February 3:
It has come to a pretty pass in this country that if a man may not sell or may not buy where and how he pleases, bub such :s the fact. Commercial and social life is being strangled by this exercise of privilege on the part of guilds controlling the supply of the necessaries of life. It has come to pass that no man can go into any business without the consent of his rivals, and agreement to conduct it as they dictate.
One retail merchant says the domestic combine on which owing to the tariff
on imports, I am forced to depend for supplies, could put me out of business to-morrow and I simply dare not be quoted in opposition to what these combines are doing, said one dealer.
' Toronto Star ', February 10:
Circular to retailer reads won't deal unless your buy from no one else and sell at our prices.
'Toronto Star,' February 13:
Canada's Combine Law a delusion and a sham.
United States case quoted says, ' a combine is an illegal organization and cannot invoke law.'
' Toronto Star ', February 6, 1909:
One, well informed in regard to the situation, has estimated that the advanced price list will result in the collection of between three and four hundred thousand dollars more from the users of woodenware in Ontario than was collected last year on the same volume of business. Over 25 per cent above American prices.
The ' Toronto Star ' says:
The -speech of Y. M. McLean, of South Huron, in the House of Commons, was an able argument for a more effective use of the tariff law for the suppression of combines. The tariff law provided that on proof of the existence of a combine in any article, the government may reduce or remove the duty on that article. It is a good law, but it is a dead letter because the means of enforcement are not provided.
I had purposed, Mr. Speaker, making some reference to naval matters; but as the government are going shortly to bring down their policy on this subject, I shall wait in the hope that when they do bring it down I shall be so satisfied with it that I shall not be able to say anything. It is not a matter of politics. It is a matter affecting the whole of Canada for all time.
But, Mr. Speaker, there are other elements of national strength besides armies and navies. The most important element of all is the fibre of the race. A new nation derives its whole character and has its whole future determined by its first settlers, unless subsequent immigration is so extensive as to submerge the original population. It needs little study to see of what great value to a people a national type is. The absence of a national type is a loss to every man, woman and child. The question of the effect of large foreign immigration is not between us and the immigrants, but between our children and grandchildren and theirs. We are trustees for the future. We are laying the foundation for the last great nation; it rests with us how well built those foundations will be, and what kind of men shall inherit the country after we are gone. Two Englishmen, George Washington and Alex-

; ander Hamilton, founded the United States and from 1776 to 1830 it grew from less than four million to almost thirteen million people, an unprecedented increase of 227 per cent and wholly out of the loins of their own people. They acquired a national type and characteristics of a strong, sturdy, moral self-reliant people. The height, weight, and chest measurement was steadily rising. Since 1880 these measurements are all decreasing, and the_ moral, physical and mental average lowering, due wholly to the immense immigration _ of people from inferior races, the small birth rate among native citizens and the great birth rate among foreigners. Up to 1880 the bulk of immigrants came from the sturdy races of northwest and western Europe-Scandinavians, Germans, French, Anglo-Saxons, good physique being the rule, and loathsome and contagious diseases extremely rare. In immigration heredity is far more important than environment or education. With the congestion of population in the great cities of western Europe, too many people are ill fed, ill clothed, ill sheltered and in consequence physically and morally weak. There is this to be said, however, of the Keltic race; men and women when lifted out of squalid poverty and despair into a broad land, where there is food and clothing for those who labour, invariably do well, after the shaking up and down of a Canadian winter and summer, they take a new lease of life and breathe in the air of freedom and ambition.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I contend, that we should profit by the example and lesson taught by a nation which has gone through what we are now face with. A nation founded by men of the same fibre as Canadians and grown up under similar conditions and climate. I, of course, refer to the United States. I hand in, Sir, a map from a United States standard work, showing where the undesirable immigrants that have lowered the average standard of United States inhabitants come from, and I give notice that I propose introducing to this House a Bill prohibiting all immigration from Europe south of 44 degrees North latitude and East of 20 East longitude, and from Turkey in Asia. The United States native birth rate before 1830 increased the population fast enough. The birth rate was lowered among native Americans by the immense immigration, so sets out Hall on immigration and its effects upon United States issued in 1907. Why should we not keep for our own descendants and old country relations this fair heritage of ours, and be as Goldwin Smith savs a contented people dwelling in a land of milk and honey.
The above remarks were carefully compiled some weeks ago. Since coming here, I happened to see in the reading room on


Edward Norman Lewis: the first page of ' Life,' the first social paper of the United States, a picture representing metanhorically what I have been saying. There is a great purple land with a great rock cldse to the ocean. On that rock stands a noble figure of a red man, one of the original owners of the soil. Behind him stands a tall man, with a goatee, with straps on his boots, and with the usual hat worn by Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam lifts his foot and pushes the Ted man off the rock. Then I turn to the other page, where I see standing on the same rock the same tall man with the goatee and the straps on his boots, and behind him crouched the figure of a man wearing old clothes and with a beard and a hooked nose-the same type of which seventy-five thousand were starving in New York last winter, and that man lifts his foot and kicks Uncle Sam off the rock and is left standing there alone. Let such immigration be absolutely prohibited. We have the power to do it. There is no better asset to Canada or any other country than a strong, sound immigrant from our own stock. The best citizens we have are those of our own race, and I ask why, instead of doing as President Falconer says we are doing, going too fast-why should we not go a little slower and keep this country for our own people and the descendants of the people from whom we sprang. I have given considerable thought to this matter. (I am not here simply giving my own idea but those expressed by experts and students and official reports). It is sometimes thought proper to relieve the discussion of a serious subject by indulging in a lighter vein and I would ask the House to indulge with me while I tell this story. The province of Ontario some years ago called on its county clerks to say how many farm labourers were required in each county. The replies, of course, came in. Middlesex wanted so many and Oxford so many, and so on. But in one county the county clerk happened to be away and his wife was doing his work and she wrote back: we do not want any, we grow our own. I submit that no better policy could be followed. Military and naval matters are all right in their way, but there axe other things besides ships. Drake's guns would not have barked so loudly or strong had it not been for the men behind them, the fibre of the men is what counts. That is what we have to look to-the fibre of the men. An immigrant's heredity counts before environment or education. There is one great race trouble to the south, and that is race suicide. I would submit a solution for that great difficulty, one which is likely to affect this House in the near future, which is fast comine here except to the province of Quebec.
There is the question of woman suffrage, which is on the way and is bound to reach

us. Mrs. Pankhurst is on the road. I have a precedent for the- remedy I propose, and it has come to me from a high ecclesiastical dignitary. While the spinsters of Canada have a right to vote on their own land, if the married women should come to the government and ask for the ballot, instead of putting a tax on bachelors or giving a bounty to large families, I would say give the women the right to vote if they carry out the duty they owe to their country as women and wives, on the clear principle, well defined, of ' No Babies no Ballots.'
Motion (Mr. Ecrement) agreed to.


Wilfrid Laurier: That the said address be engrossed and be presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this House as are of the honourable the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved:: That this House will on Thursday next resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Stevens Fielding: That this House will on Thursday next resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 9.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 16, 1909.