1909-04-21

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 149) to amend the Extradition Act.-Mr. Aylesworth.


Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What amounts have been paid for commission, brokerage and other expenses respectively, on loans made since December 31, 1908 ?	_
2.	What amount has been paid on account cf the Grand Trunk Pacifio eastern division in each year up to March 31, 1909, distinguishing between the Winnipeg-Quebec and the Quebec-Moncton sections ?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1. The first part of the question was answered yesterday.
2.	Section.	
	Moncton-	Quebec-
	Quebec.	Winnipeg.
1904-5..	$ 408,086 05	$ 242,494 071905-6..	
552,410 30	1,062,596 181206-7..	
3,123,703 10	2,247,973 371907-8..	
9,694,621 83	8,875,868 711208-9..	
13,556,842 04	9,562,082 83$27,335,663 32	$21,991,015 15Note.	1908-09 is not complete as there	
outstanding accounts which will not be in till May 15.


MILITIA EXPENDITURE.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO asked:: 1.	What are the details of the item numbered 75, page 50, of the estimates for fiscal year ending March 31, 1910, the quantity and kind of the various items mentioned therein, and the amounts asked for each, respectively?
2.	What are the details which go to make up the item No. 79 of said estimates, page 51, and the amount asked for each subdivision of such item?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (for Minister of Militia):: 1.	This question refers to the vote on capital account of $1,300,000. While it is impossible in advance to give the exact

details, the vote will be disposed of practically as follows:
Ross rifle, 10,000 at $25	$ 250,000
Bayonets, 17,000 at $5.25	 90,000
Lands, including rifle ranges and construction of said ranges.. ..	125,000
Ordnance, reserve clothing and
construction, &c	 250,000
Artillery, including limbers, wagons. &c	 550,000
Inspection charges, &c	 35,000

Clothing .and necessaries to be purchased	$325,790
Allowance for lieu of clothing, permanent force	 18,550
Allowance for civilian clothing, permanent force	 290
Allowance to regiments in lieu of
clothing	 5,000
Amount required to purchase tunics of ' Guards ' pattern for the G.G.
P-G	[DOT]	 3,345
Amount required to cover cost of
cleaning clothing	 2,000
Unforeseen, a sum to cover difference between estimate and actual cost, and for unforeseen, such as winter kit allowance, compensation, &c.. 20,025
Total	$375,000



EMILE LACAS.

Mr. GEO. TAYLOR asked:: 1.	For what period has Emile Lacas been absent from the Public Works Department during 1906, 1907 and 1908, respectively?
2.	On what business, if any, of the department has he been engaged during these absences ?
3.	What pay has he received during each of those years?
4.	In his absence who performs his work?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1 and 2. During the years 1906, 1907 and 1908 Mr. Lacas was absent on duty as follows: From 8th to 15th January, and from 21st June to 10th July, 1906, taking photographs of public buildings and harbours and river works.
In addition to the regular authorized 21 days' vacation, with pay, in each year, he was absent, without pay, from 1st January to 30th June, 1907, and from 2nd October to 30th November, 1908; with pay, from 4th November, 1907, to 31st January, 1908.
3.	1906, $1,500; 1907, at the rate of $1,550, actual payment, $775; 1908, at the rate of $1,600, actual payment, $1,337.78.
4.	The staff also comprises Messrs A. T. Bell, A. E. Day, A. Belanger and R. Perron.


William Pugsley: DUTIES ON CHIN A WARE, &c.


Mr. WALLACE asked:: 1.	What is the customs duty, if any, upon chinaware, cups, saucers, dishes, &c.?
2.	To what extent is it manufactured in Canada, and at what points?
3.	Is there any duty upon the ore?
4.	Is any of said ore exported from Canada?
5.	Is such chinaware manufactured from the crude ore in Canada? If so, at what points, and from the crude ore in the United States, and at what points principally?


Hon.   WM@: PATERSON (Minister of
Customs) -.
1.	The duty on tableware of china is 15 per cent, preferential tariff; 27 J per cent intermediate tariff; 30 per cent general tariff.
2.	I regret that I cannot answer question No. 2.
3.	Clays, including china clay, fire clay and pipe clay not further manufactured than ground, may be imported free of duty.
4.	The customs appear to have no record of any such ore having been exported from Canada.
5.	Answered in No. 4.



LEVIS POSTMASTER.

Mr. MONK asked:: 1.	Has the government appointed a successor to Mr. Alfred Lafranpois, postmaster of Levis, Quebec ? If so, who has been appointed ?
2.	What was the salary of Mr. Lafranpois, and what is the salary of the person who occupies the position at present?
3.	Is the new occupant a relative of the member for the county of Levis?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1.	Yes, Robert Carrier.
2.	Postmasters at offices of this class are not paid a regular salary, but receive a commission upon the legitimate revenue collected at their offices, in return for which they are obliged at their own expense to provide whatever assistance may be required in order to properly transact the postal business. The amount thus earned at Levis post office for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1909, including commissions and allowances, was $1,962.09.
3.	Yes.
WEST PETERBOROUGH PUBLIC WORKS. Mr. T. CHISHOLM asked:
How much public money has been expended during the past twenty years by the Dominion government on public works in the territory now constituting the constituency of West Peterborough?


William Pugsley: $245,537.59. Would my hon. friend permit me to say that this is one of a series of questions he has asked with reference to various constituencies, extending back twenty years.	It takes a
great part of the time of the clerks to prepare the information. He will find all the information in the public accounts, if he will take the trouble to examine them. If he continues to put these questions, I suppose I shall have to answer them.



WINGHAM PUBLIC BUILDING.

Mr. T. CHISHOLM asked:: Does the Dominion government intend to complete the Wingham public building in the constituency of East Huron, by placing a clock in the space which has been left for one in the tower of the said building?


William Pugsley: Nothing has been included for that purpose in this year's estimates.



INVERNESS HARBOUR, CAPE BRETON.

Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR asked:: 1.	Is the government engaged at present, or does it intend to engage in the improvement of a harbour at Inverness, Cape Breton?
2.	Has the government purchased there a Icdy of water and adjacent land, called Mc-Isaac's Pond? If so, from whom, and at what pi ice?
3.	Is there a channel between said Mclsaac's Pond and the Gulf of St. Lawrence? If so, of what width and depth?
4.	Is there at present, or has there been doling the last year, a foreman in charge of improvements? If so, what is his name, when was he appointed, at what rate of salary, and what has he been paid to date?
5.	Has said foreman purchased timber for repairs to breakwater at said place? If so, to what value, and was it purchased by tender or otherwise?
6.	Does the government intend to rebuild and extend a breakwater or wharf at said harbour this season so that small steamers from Canso, Pictou and Halifax can make Inverness a port of call?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Materials required for reconstruction of inside protection work have already been purchased, and it is the intention of the department to use the revote of $4,700, granted by parliament during present session, in prosecuting said work.
2.	Steps now being taken to expropriate land required in connection with said improvements, portion of Mclsaac's Pond included. The presumable owners and the compensation tendered to each of them are as follow:


The Inverness Coal Company ..: Angus Mclsaac	 210
D. J. McDonald	 50
3.	The entrance to Mclsaac's Pond from the Gulf of St. Lawrence is at present entirely closed, the beach being three feet above high water spring tides.
4.	(a) Yes. (b) D. R. McLean, (c) 23rd
October, 1908.	(d) $2.50 per day. (e) $70.
5.	Foreman has purchased materials to the amount of $834.96, after ascertaining prices for which they could be delivered and submitting same for approval to Resident Engineer Millidge.
6.	In the above mentioned appropriation no amount is included for special wharf accommodation.



GOVERNMENT BUILDING ON SUSSEX STREET.

Mr. WRIGHT asked:: 1.	With regard to the proposed new building on Sussex street, are the plans submitted in the competition the property of the government?
2.	If so, are they open to the inspection of the members of this House, and where are they to be seen?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The plans are on file in the chief architect's office and may be seen at any time.



WHARF AT EATONV1LLE, NOVA SCOTIA.

Mr. RHODES asked:: 1.	What sum was expended on the wharf at Eatonville, Cumberland county, Nova Scotia, during the year 1907?
2.	Was the work done by contract or by day labour?
3.	If by contract, to whom was it let, what was the amount, who were the tenderers, and what were the amounts of the several tenders ?
4.	If by day labour, what are the names of the several persons employed, the rate of pay, and the total sum paid to each?
5.	What amounts were expended for hire of teams and materials, respectively, what are the names of the several persons who received such amounts, and the amount paid to each ?
6.	The same questions are asked with reference to the breakwater constructed at the same place, during the year 1908?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister or Public Works):: 1. There was no expenditure on a wharf at Eatonville, Cumberland county, Nova Scotia, during the year 1907. A portion of the old breakwater, which had been damaged by a severe storm, was entirely rebuilt during that year, the expenditure being $2,998.06.
2 and 3. Day's labour.

4.
Per
		day.


Kenneth W.: Morris	$2	50 $	150	00S. R. Canning.. .	1	75	105	00Eari Morris.. ..	1	25	.. . .July-August	1	50	81	87Howard Morris.. .	1	50	86	25James Webster.. .	1	50	88	50Judson Knowlton.	1	50	84	75


John D.: Knowlton	1	50	87	00Fred. Brown.. ..	1	50	81	00Warren Weaver..	1	50	85	50Luke Dyer	1	50	82	50Alfred Knowlton..	1	75	102	38Ayner Spicer.. ..	1	95	107	25


Elmo Dewis.   . ..@: 1	95	109	20John Nodwell.. .	. June-J uly	1	95	" ....	.. August	1	50	63	45Herbert Knowlton.	1	95	65	32Burton Morris.. .	1	95	62	40Simon de Long ..	June-July	1	95	** ....	. .August	1	50	19	35Jack Connolly.. .	1	50	12	00Total	$1,473	72
In addition to this, the department has paid to J. Newton Pugsley the board of the above men at the rate of 15 cents per meal; total amount, $342.30.
5.


Kenneth W.: Morris, teaming..	..$	180 00S.	R. Canning, stone	
50	00A C. & C. W. Elderkin,	materials..	14	65J. Newton Pugsley, hardware and lumber	
937	39Total	$1,182 046.	(1) $4,492.22.
(2 and 3) Day's labour.
(4).
Per
day.


Kenneth W.: Morris.. .	. ..$3	00 $	243	00Herb. Knowlton	75	121	63Warren Weaver	75	115	50Carl Mills	75	112	88Chesley Morris	.. .. 1	75	133	00Arlie Knowlton	. . .. 1	75	112	ooPercy Morris	. .. 1	75	114	63W. Canning	75	49	00George Knowlton.. ..	75	120	75Hugh Spicer	75	117	26Lloyd Elderkin	75	10	50Clarence Atkinson.. ..	75	14	00George Doherty	. .. 1	75	42	00Bertie Knowlton	,. .. 1	75	124	25Gilmour Knowlton.. ..	.. .. 1	75	108	50Dan. Barkhouse	.. .. 1	75	82	25George Darcy	.. .. 1	75	87	50Alfred Knowlton	.. .. 1	75	74	38


John D.: Knowlton.. ..	.. .. 1	75	87	50


John H.: Morris	75	83	13Elmo Dewis	75	75	25James Morris	75	34	13Isaac Morris	75	33	25Total


William Pugsley: (5).


Kenneth W.: Morris, teaming..	..$	283	50Stuart McAleese, teaming	
234	50A. D. Dyas, hardware	
31	50


Walter R.: Barnes, hardware..	..	59	14C. H. Hill, hardware	
11	80Douglas & Company, hardware..	..	207	70
J. Newton Pugsley, lumber, stone,
&e	 1,567	79
Total	$2,395 93



MR. DANIEL McKENZIE.

Mr. ARTHURS asked:: 1.	Did Daniel McKenzie, postmaster at Three Brooks, Pictou county, Nova Scotia, resign the said office? If so, when did he resign?
2.	In whose charge was the post office placed when said McKenzie resigned, or when it was moved from his premises, and when was the transfer made?
3.	Was this person to whom the post office was transferred appointed to be postmaster? If not, why not?
4.	How long did such person have the custody of the post office?
5.	Has the post office been again transferred? If so, when and to what person?
6.	Is this person, last referred to, appointed postmaster? If so, when was he appointed?
7.	On whose request and on whose recommendation was the present postmaster appointed?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: In November last the Department was advised that Mr. Daniel McKenzie, Postmaster of Three Brooks, N.S., was with his family removing to Vancouver, and that he could therefore no longer take charge of the Three Brooks Post Office. Before leaving he handed the books and other material in connection with the office to Mrs. John Shea and left the office in (charge of Mrs. John Shea on 1st April, 1909. Mr. James Irving was appointed postmaster to fill the vacancy. He was recommended by the member representing Pictou County in the Dominion parliament.



GLIMPSES OP NORTHEASTERN CANADA.

Mr. AMES asked:: 1.	Has there been recently issued under the auspices of the Department of the Interior a publication entitled ' Glimpses of Northeastern Canada'?
2.	If so, how many copies of this publication have been or will be circulated by the government?
3.	Who is the author of the publication?
4.	What sums of money have been paid to authors or publishers, on what dates, and what balance is due?
5.	Was it the intention of the government during the season of 1908 to send an exploration party by water to James bay and Labrador, including Dr. Robert Bell?
6.	If so, was this project abandoned? If so, why?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	Yes.
2.	3,000 copies.
3.	W. Tees Curran, Esq.
4.	Paid Printing Bureau $685.33, October 1908. Paid W. Tees Curran for editorial work and for photographs, $300, on the 12th of March, 1909.
5.	and 6. Probably refers to Geological Survey. Should be answered by Minister of Inland Revenue. No knowledge of the subject in the Interior Department.


Mr. AMES.: As parts 5 and 6 of the questions have not been answered, I would ask that they be allowed to stand in order that they may be answered by the proper department.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Parts 5 and 6 of the question allowed to stand.



TRENT VALLEY CANAL LAND DAMAGES.

Mr. SEXSMITH asked:: What amount has been paid by the government up to the present, for damages to land caused by the overflow of water from Peterborough up to and including Pigeon lake, on the Trent Valley canal, and to whom have such damages, if any, been paid?


William Pugsley: This is too voluminous to be given in a form of an answer to a question, but there is no objection to granting it as a return to the House.
Allowed to stand as a notice of motion.



INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES' ACT.

Mr. A. C. MACDONELL.: Before the orders of the day are called, might I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if an opportunity will be afforded the House to consider item No. 51 in the Public Bills and Orders ? It is a Bill introduced by me to amend the Industrial Disputes' Act. From present appearances, I can scarcely hope that the Bill will be reached this session. The matter is one of public importance to a very large number of people, and I would ask the government to put it on the government orders or to afford some other opportunity for considering it.


Rt.   H@: I
am sorry I can make no promise. We have several important matters, each of which will have to take its turn.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Mr. FOSTER.: I would like to ask for three returns which have been ordered. One was ordered on March 22, with reference to Intercolonial Railway officials. Another has reference to the armoury.


William Pugsley: That return was submitted yesterday.


George Eulas Foster: Then there is one having reference to statistical publications by the different departments. The hon. the Secretary of State would have to look after that. I would like to have it down before the end of the session. It was ordered early in the session.



WAYS AND MEANS.-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.
["Call it six o'clock.\nMr. MICHAEL CLARK moved the adjournment of the debate."]
Mr. GEO. H. PERLEY (Argenteuil).: The last speaker before adjournment last even-"g "'as the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Sutherland). I was very glad to hear his voice again after the enforced silence of four years as Speaker of this House. At the same time, I must say that the hon. gentleman, though he laboured very hard to break the force of the arguments of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) did not seem to me to succeed at all I suppose we may call that a task beyond even the powers of an ex-Speaker. The hon member dragged in the old standby of his friends, the surpluses, which had already been referred to by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Those surpluses, as we all know, are largely a matter of book-keeping. The hon. member for North Essex read an extract from an article in an American magazine, which he claimed to be correct, that public works like the Panama canal should be kept in a separate account. I have no fault to find with that argument, we do not object to any items of that kind being put into capital account. I am not here to oppose the system^ which has been in force since confederation, but to oppose the way in which it has been carried out. I agree that an item like the Transcontinental Railway, for instance, is properly chargeable to capital account-no man can object to that. But it seems to me that the government, in order to show its boasted surpluses, has gone far beyond all reason in this matter. For instance, the Minister of Finance referred yesterday to the matter of the bounties, and had himself to acknowledge that it was not a proper charge to capital account. Then, why did they do it? I see no reason for it. Take, for instance, the expenditures on militia. Some of us have heard a good deal about Ross rifles. There is a dispute as to the efficiency of the Ross rifles. Many people think that they are of very little service anyway. But, how-

ev-er that may be, why should they be charged to capital? They have only a short life, and will soon have to be replaced. Such things, it seems to me quite plain, ought to be paid out of revenue. In the same way, I claim, the new rolling stock and engines for the Intercolonial should not be charged to capital account with no provision made for renewing these when they are worn out. This system is carried to the smallest details. As an illustration, I would refer jyou to page V-28 of the Auditor General's Report. You will find there that moneys spent on Rideau Hall improvements are charged to capital. These are very necessary things to be done, I am sure, but such items as copper wire, lime, drain pipes and advertising in connection with the repairs to Rideau Hall should not be charged to capital. These surpluses would very largely disappear if the accounts were kept in a reasonable way.
The hon. member for North Essex further tried to show that these surpluses were a sign of good business management on the part of the government, and held up the Conservative government to scorn because during some years of its administration there were deficits. I regret that my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) is not present


Mr. SUTHERLAND.: I am here.


George Halsey Perley: 
Mr. LLOYD HARRIS (Brantford).: Mr. Speaker, at the very outset of the few remarks which I shall address to the House, let me congratulate the right hon. the Prime Minister and through him the people of Canada on the splendid showing which, the distinguished Minister of Finance has been able to present to parliament in his annual financial statement. We Canadians have much to be thankful for. During the past eighteen or twenty months our country, in common with other countries throughout the world, has passed through a period of very great financial stringency, which, so to speak, came on us entirely unawares and severely tested our capacity to withstand the shock. We have to congratulate ourselves that Canada, far better than any other nation, has passed through the ordeal with her resources unimpaired and her progress unchecked. From personal experience I have found that the conditions prevalent in the United States are not at all so favourable as those in Canada. I have visited Europe, and my experience
147i
there has been that trade is more stagnant, and that the period of industrial and financial depression has left a more lasting mark on the older nations than on out own young and vigourous Dominion. Notwithstanding the sudden check in our trade and the decreased demand for our products,
I believe we can look back over the past eighteen months with a feeling of pride in that Canada has so creditably weathered the storm. It became necessary of course that there should be a period of retrenchment, and our people and our government had the courage to meet the critical conditions which faced them. I believe, Sir, that a check such as we have met with will in the end innuxe to the improvement of our national life and character. For years prosperity attended on us, our country was going ahead by leaps and bounds, there was unprecedented development, population was pouring into our land with its consequent increase in national wealth, and I fear we began to think only of how to make money and how to get rich. During the period we have passed through, we have had the Opportunity of pausing for a time and looking the situation in the fa,ce, and looking back upon what we have passed through and determining what we have lost. We have been in the position of taking stock as it were, aiL~ the result of our experience, I think, will be for our good. As with individuals, so it is with governments. When a period of financial stringency occurs, it is necessary that governments should realize the conditions and meet them; and I am glad to say that the present government has met the conditions as they arose. They determined it was necessary to make retrenchments and have made them. An attempt has been made to criticise the statement presented by the hon. the finance Minister, but taking the debate all through, hon. gentlemen opposite appear to have been fairly well satisfied with the budget as presented. I was very much interested in reading the account of the debates yesterday in that very fair newspaper, the Ottawa ' Citizen, which can hardly be accused of being a supporter at all of the present administration, and I was greatly interested in reading the editorial in that journal. In that editorial I read these words:
To be sure, considering the period of stringency through which the world has passed, Canada has come out of it very well.
In another part of the article I find these words:
But considering the bad debt represented by $6,424,000 on the Quebec bridge and the heavy expenditure on the National Transcontinental Railway, the showing is very fair.
I am glad indeed when I find a newspaper offering an independent and fair


George Eulas Foster: Be careful of rule 19.


Lloyd Harris: 
Mr. HENDERSON.: The Canadian Pacific Railway.


Lloyd Harris: I quite admit that the answer given by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) gives one of the reasons why we see this result - but only one. The Canadian Pacific Railway has been one of the greatest instruments for the development of this country. But we have found it necessary to provide other facilities for transportation. We have a country which is capable of sustaining a population of 25 or 30 millions, perhaps even 50 millions, but without transportation facilities it would be impossible for us to take care of any such population. People are now coming into the country because the government has wisely, in my opinion, expended vast sums on transportation facilities, with the result that the people are attracted here, and they can produce wheat and get a dollar a bushel for it, whereas twelve or thirteen years ago they could only get 60 cents a bushel.
The question of taxation has been very fully dealt with by the hon. the Minister of Finance, and also by my hon. friend from North Essex (Mr. Sutherland), and I have

only a few words to say in addition. Is it better to have 7,000,000 people in this country with a net debt per head of $45, or
5,000,000, with a net debt per head of $50? I say, let the government go on with their policy of reducing the debt by $5 per head for every 2,000,000 increase in population. This is good business policy, and I think the people of Canada will consider it so.
The hon. gentleman groans in agony over the enormous borrowings we have had to make. He quotes, and unhappily for him, I think, from Mr. E. R. Wood's pamphlet published a short time ago, showing the amount of borrowings Canada has been able to make in the old country; but in referring to those figures the hon. gentleman has attempted, I think, to leave the impression that these borrowings on the part of Canada were something to be deplored. Now, I know Mr. Wood intimately, and I look upon him as one of the most brilliant financiers in this country. I have read the article referred to with a great deal of interest, and I happen to know that Mr. Wood's object in publishing that pamphlet was not to create the impression that it was an evil policy for us as a country to make these enormous borrowings, but his object was to inform the people of Canada that the conditions at the present time are very different from what they were 12 or 15 years ago, and that it is possible, in view of our improved credit and increased resources and wealth, to make such borrowings in the old country on favourable terms. I may say that the money we have borrowed is all used in the further development of the country, and I cannot see how the hon. gentleman can get much satisfaction from that source. Now what was this money used for which is borrowed by the Dominion and provincial governments? This money we must have in connection with the operation of our government, this money we must get at the cheapest possible rate, and if we must have it, we should try and get it in the best markets of the world where we can get money the cheapest. What do municipalities want this money for? Let me say that there has been a tremendous change in the condition of the municipalities throughout Canada in recent years. At one time, people living in the smaller towns and villages were content to live under primitive conditions ; in fact they had no choice, because they had not the necessary wealth to improve their conditions. But times have changed, and at present people living in the municipalities are able to pay for public utilities, they are able to provide waterworks, electric lighting, paving, and other improvements which are enjoyed by the people living in large cities. The reason they demand these luxuries is that they are Mr. HARRIS.
in a position to pay for them. Many hon. gentlemen can remember the time when in a great many towns and villages in the province of Ontario, with which I am better acquainted than the other provinces, did not want the pavement on their streets and were quite satisfied to do without them; indeed in some of their streets the grass was growing in those days. Now the people of towns and cities are in a different position entirely. They have a larger population, they have increased industries, they have a more extensive commerce, they have greater wealth, and consequently they demand more public utilities and luxuries in conformity with their advancement. Yet the hon. gentleman from North Toronto deplores the fact that these municipalities should enter the money market and borrow money to provide for themselves these utilities and luxuries, although they are able to borrow the money at a low rate of interest, which they can well afford to pay. Take our corporations. They have borrowed $301,700,000 in the past five years. Yet'the hon. gentleman deplores the fact that this vast sum of money has come into the country and that we have to pay interest on it, which interest goes out of the country. What is that money doing while we have it? We are borrowing money in the old country at 4, 4i or 5 per cent, rates which any corporation or municipality has to pay. If they are not in a position to make H, 8, 10 or in some cases 15 per cent, yet they are able to make enough to pay them for their outlay. The more money we can borrow at a reasonable rate, a rate which we can afford to pay, the more rapid will be our development, and we ought all to have but one aim, and that is to develop the natural resources of our country.
Now the hon. member for North Toronto called the Finance Minister a great many names; in fact I do not think I ever heard a speech containing so many epithets hurled at another gentleman as the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto. He says that the Minister of Finance is the champion of nearly everything. I think he ought to specify particularly the one title which he should bestow upon the Finance Minister. The one title which he did not specify is the one that I believe he should have specified. I think the hon. gentleman should have been broad enough in his criticism to have added to the many titles which he conferred upon the Minister of Finance that of champion producer of surpluses. I believe the Minister of Finance has a perfect right to this title. Perhaps we could arrange a saw-off and allow the hon. member for North Toronto to take any title that we can agree upon. Probably he would like the title of champion producer of deficits. Or, he might like the title of the champion pro-

phet because, at the end of his remarks, he prophesied exactly what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will have before him for the next four or five years. I do not think anybody will take seriously the prophecies which he has given to us, but I think it is just as well that these prophecies should be on record, as, no doubt, they will be, for the reason that at some future time they may be very useful to us on the floor of this House.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks which were made by the hon. member for North Toronto, although I cannot say I got a very great deal of information which was of use to me. One remarkable fact about his speech was that after speaking for three solid hours he had no suggestions and no policy to offer on behalf of the Conservative party or on behalf of hon. gentlemen on the other side of this House. Surely, if things in this country are as bad as hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to make them appear, it is only reasonable to expect that we should have some suggestions from them whereby things might be improved and by reason of which we could take into our serious consideration the stoppage at the present time of this mad rush to disaster which is predicted. But, in all the speeches which have been made in connection with the budget, there have been no suggestions of any kind. I do not believe that the Conservative party have any policy. They did not have any policy to offer the people of the country on the occasion of the last elections, and I have not heard that they have had any policy to offer from the other side of the House.
I want to deal very briefly with the remarks which were made to-day by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley). I must confess I found the hon. gentleman very difficult to follow, but, after the first part of his speech was finished, I was very glad that the summing up was entirely satisfactory. The hon. gentleman went on to state that our loans and our finances generally were in a very bad condition, that they were badly handled, and he wound up by saying that he admitted that it is not important whether we have deficits or surpluses, but it is important to know that our expenditures are wisely made. I quite agree with the summing up of the hon. gentlemen in this respect. I do not think it is very important whether this government have large surpluses or large deficits. As long as the money is properly and wisely used in the development of our country and its resources we should go on spending, having entire confidence in the country.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: What about 5-inch belting at $2.12 a foot?


Lloyd Harris: I think that before answering that question it is in order for the hon. gentleman to make some explanation
of the statement he made in the House recently about ladies' blouses.


George Taylor: They are all right too.


Mr. FIELDING.: My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) said they were all wrong.


George Taylor: No, I did not.


Lloyd Harris: I think it would only be proper to hear from the hon. gentleman on that point. The hon. member for Argenteuil has criticised the rate of interest paid on some of our loans. Of course, he is a business man and he has had extensive experience in conducting large business operations. He knows that at certain times it is much easier to arrange large loans than it is at other times, and I dare say that in his own experience there have been times when, on looking back, he has found that he could have made very much better arrangements than he did'make. I do not think my hon. friend the Minister of Finance claims to be infallible. I believe that that hon. gentleman claims to have the same weaknesses as other men have. But, it is so easy for hon. gentlemen opposite to take certain loans, criticise the way in which they were handled and endeavour to leave the impression that if they had had the handling of them perhaps they might have been able to have secured one-eighth, or one-sixteenth, or one-quarter of one per cent more than has been secured.
I do not think that a criticism of that kind is very important and, certainly, I, personally, do not look upon it very seriously. I must admit that I envied the hon. member for Argenteuil the great enthusiasm which prevailed while he was speaking. I think that the enthusiasm on the other side while he was speaking was quite as great as it has been on this side since I have been speaking.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


David Henderson: Cheer up.


Lloyd Harris: I am afraid that things are inclined to be a little dull and I think we want to get more humour into the situation. I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Argenteuil say that the Conservative party is an optimistic party. I *have had the opposite opinion, and I think I have very good reason to have the opposite opinion because I think a great many of the members of that party who should be optimistic and who should have the fullest possible confidence in the future development of this country have not been of the optimistic variety, but have been what I would term calamity howlers. I do not think there is any place in Canada for pessimism. This must be an optimistic country and I am perfectly willing to join with hon. gentlemen opposite in forming, inside the walls of this House, an association of optimists. We have to be optimists on both sides of the House and we have to have

the fullest possible confidence in Canada. The hon. member for Argenteuil closed his remarks by comparing the government of this country to that of the requirements of a large business concern. This rather startled me for a moment, for the reason that I practically used the same illustration in one of my election speeches last fall. I am not going to charge the hon. gentleman with having copied my speech, because I do not believe he ever saw it i agree with him in the statement that he made in this connection. We as members of this House are simply the trustees or directors for the people of Canada and our duty is to see that the government of this country is properly carried on, that the taxation and revenues are raised properly and without imposing too great a burden upon any class. We must also see that the expenditures are made wisely, honestly and properly. Of course the results of any business undertaking can only be known by the financial statements which are brought down by the directors at the end of each year. I suppose that that is the only method that we can adopt in getting the results of the operations of our management of this country. Taking that as a basis for arriving at the results, I believe that every hon. member, especially those on this side of the House, will agree with me that the results of our management have been magnificent, that they have been satisfactory not only to the hon. members of this House, but to the people of Canada generally.
I shall not longer detain the House. I am glad indeed to have had an opportunity to make a few remarks on this question. I do not know whether I have added anything of value to the debate but X do hope ^ that I have not said anything not becoming in one who is in every way anxious to uphold the dignity of the House,
(St. Antoine, Montreal) Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unusual for the members of this parliament to have the opportunity of considering in one budget debate the accounts of two complete periods of twelve months and I take it that we are expected for the most part to confine our remarks to an examination and consideration of those figures for the two years which the minister has presented to us. I admit, that for purposes of comparison, we may go back even to confederation if necessary and examine the financial transactions of those who have preceded us, but I take it that our main duty is to deal with the public accounts of last two years. Those for the year 1907-8 are closed and final. We have the official figures before us in the public accounts. Those for the year 1908-9 are as yet before us only through the estimates of the r inance Minister, but we are quite


Lloyd Harris: prepared, I am sure, to accept those figures as he has given them and to base our criticism upon them. While I heartily agree with the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Harris) in his desire to uphold the dignity and traditions of the House, and while I congratulate the hon. member on the most excellent spirit in which he presented his ideas for our consideration, yet I do not share his opinion that what the Finance Minister presented yesterday was a 'splendid showing.' Those figures, to my mind, disclosed a condition which should call not for rejoicing but for very serious and careful consideration. I do not wish to approach this discussion in any spirit of pessimism. I share the feelings of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Harris) that we should not be pessimists; how, in fact, could we be pessimists in this Canada of ours. But I do deny that I am necessarily guilty of pessimism if as a member of the opposition I bring to bear on the statement which the Minister of Finance has presented, a careful scrutiny and if as the result of that examination I find grounds for criticism and for protest. I feel that only when the duty of the opposition is rightly performed can we expect the best results under our system of government.
Our credit, as is admitted by all, is the basis of our hope for future prosperity. We should all be extremely jealous of the financial credit of the Dominion of Canada. If that be in any way injured, or even if its reputation be tarnished, we must expect to suffer seriously in future and it is for that reason that we are justified in looking for such indications, in bringing them to the attention of the government and in asking the ministers to do all they can to keep the credit of Canada at the highest possible level.
WTTen we come to examine these public accounts, the first striking feature, and it cannot escape the most casual observer, is the rapid increase in expenditure which has occurred under this present administration. Go back to the year 1897 and you will find that we were then expending the sum of $43,000,000 per annum. By 1906 this expenditure had doubled, in that year it amounted to $83,250,000. For the last year, 1908-9, which closed a few weeks ago, the total expenditure amounted up to $132,000,000, if I correctly understood the Minister of Finance. That is an expenditure treble what was considered to be sufficient twelve years ago; treble what was denounced as extravagant by the Liberals when they were in opposition prior to 1896. It would seem as though it were absolutely impossible for the Finance Minister and the government to now apply the brakes. Certainly they have found it impossible to apply them during the last few years.

I shall not discuss this much debated question of surpluses. I do not think it necessary to consider all the budget speeches which have been delivered in the last 25 years; all we need are the figures in the public accounts, and there we have no difficulty in finding just the amount of the over-expenditure for every year since confederation. By over-expenditure I mean simply the total amount expended in excess of the total receipts and if we compare our system of accounting with that of Great Britain, the United States, Australia or any other country, that would be the only fair method of reckoning. If we look over the statement of the net difference between receipts and expenditures we find that for 1907-8 we ran behind $14,-
300,000,	and for the year 1908-9, according to the minister's confession of yesterday, we ran behind something over $46,000,000, making for the two years now under consideration a total over-expenditure exceeding $60,000,000. You may take the records of all the years since confederation, you may examine these figures, line upon line, even in the periods of the largest expenditure, and you will never find any two consecutive years that will even approximate the present figures. They are unparalleled, unapproached in the history of Canada. You may add all the over-expenditures of the last 20 years together and they will not equal the over-expenditures of the two years which are now under consideration.
Was this done at a time when the revenues showed indications of increase? quite the reverse. In the years 1907-8 we had a revenue of $96,000,000 and in the year 1908-9 we had a revenue of $84,500,000, and yet the expenditure of the latter year exceeded the expenditure of the former year, large though it was, by twenty million dol-iars. And the Minister of Finance knew when he came to this House last year to put through that enormous budget under which an expenditure of $132,000,000 has been incurred in the last twelve months, he knew that the revenues were diminishing compared with the previous year. He had the returns before him monin after month, and the fact was announced throughout the press that we were certainly destined to have a smaller revenue than we had the year before, and yet he was prepared to ask the House to vote estimates under which $20,000,000 were to be spent in excess of the largest amount ever expended in any single year in the history of Canada. I am reminded of a passage that I read in an interesting book which recently came under my notice, entitled 'Bygone Bays', by Mr. Leveson Gower. In that book there is an episode which tells of a society woman of London who was so actively engaged in performing her social
duties that she stood in great danger of breaking down, and a friend went to her and said: 'Mrs. X., be careful, you are burning the candle at both ends.' And Mrs. X. instantly replied: 'Oh, and is not that the way to make both ends meet ? ' I commend that to the Minister of Finance as typical of the manner in which the finances of the country are being managed by him.
A further striking feature that appears to the observer in connection with these accounts, as a necessary consequence of over-expenditure, is the vast increase in the public debt which the figures show. The figures of the gross debt, as near as we can ascertain, have within the past two years increased by $85,000,000; the figures of the net debt which more especially concern us in matters of debate, have increased during these two years by over $60,000,000. That too is an absolutely unprecedented increase in the history of Canadian finance. You can look over the financial history of Canada since confederation, _ and you will never find two years succeeding one another that approximate that amount of increase. You will find that -more has been added to the debt in the last two years than was added during the whole period of twenty years from 1887 to 1907. Think of it, that in two years the debt should be increased by this government to as great an extent as it had been increased in a score of years under both the Liberal and Conservative administrations. And, the Minister of Finance himself admits that we are only entering on this period of vast expenditures. He knows we are only a part way across the river; he knows that the National Transcontinental Railway is as yet not one-third completed and yet $52,000,000 have gone into it; he knows that the prairie section is about to receive a $10,000,000 advance; he knows that the mountain section has hardly been commenced and yet that we must guarantee an amount approximating $50,000,000. The Minister of Finance expects, on his own figures, to add $25,000,000 to the debt in this coming year; he will be very fortunate if he gets off with so small an amount. And, if that be continued for the two succeeding years, as we have every reason to believe it will, then you will find that in the period of five years from 1908 to 1913, (that is to-say during the life of this parliament and the year immediately preceding), there will have been added to the debt of this country $135,000,000, a five years' record exceeding that of the entire last quarter of a century. In 1882 the net debt of the country stood at a little over $153,600,000; in 1907 the net debt of the country stood at $263,600,000. There had been an increase during that twenty-five year period of $110,000,000 or $4,400,000 per year. Compare that with the

And, when you come down to the 31st of July, you find that the government of Canada, in England and in the banks of this country, taking all the accounts together had only $995,604 to its credit in available cash. Do you believe, Mr. Speaker, that there has been any time in the history of Canada since confederation when our bank balance was so low? Do you suppose that any of the provinces, unless, possibly, Prince Edward Island, carries a bank balance much less than that? Yet here we find ourselves, this great Dominion of Canada, with only $995,604 for which we can write cheques and draw the money. And even that sum if I am rightly informed, was not all available, because our contracts with some of these banks provide that we must leave minimum balances which cannot be touched ; and therefore it is probable that the government had drawn out practically every available dollar it had to its credit by July 31, 1907. Then, what did they do? They started in to raise money on temporary loans. The history of the temporary loans also shows how hard-up this government must have been during that period. Look back over the history of Canada, and you will find a great many occasions when the Finance Minister could come to this House at the end of the fiscal year and say to the members of parliament : ' Gentlemen, we have not one dollar of temporary loans Of all the years between 1871 and 1884 that was true-not a dollar of tempor-porary loans at the end of the year. Also from 1900 and 1903-four years-the Minister of Finance could meet parliament and say that there were no temporary loans. But what is the record of these last two years which are uow under consideration ? In May June and July, there was no liability. In August a loan of $2,433,000 was made. By January, 1908, temporary borrowings had gone up to $7,300,000. From February to May, 1908, the amount stood at $9,300,000; in June at $18,000,000, where it remained during June and July, going back to $15,600,000 in August, September, October, November and December. I believe that, since the first of the year on one occasion, we had an indebtedness of $20,000,000 on temporary loans-the government owed that amount to its bankers.


William Stevens Fielding: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames) endeavouring to show that there were not temporary loans in former times? If not, what is the effect of his statement?


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. minister has only to read my remarks in ' Hansard ' to see exactly what I mean.


William Stevens Fielding: I am willing to have it read in the light of my question. I say that there were more temporary loans in a corresponding period in the time of my predecessor than there have been in my day.


Herbert Brown Ames: 


Herbert Brown Ames: In reply to that, I would only say to the minister that if he will turn to the Public Accounts, page 23, he will find the amount of temporary loans which successive Finance Ministers have given at the end of the fiscal years for which the budget was presented.


William Stevens Fielding: What difference does it make as to the particular time of the year at which the loan stands?


Herbert Brown Ames: For purposes of comparison, the minister will see. At the present time we have $13,600,000 of temporary loans, and that there are many years in Canadian history when there were no temporary loans.


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames) will permit me, I can tell him that during the twelve and three-quarter years of my office as Minister of Finance, the temporary loans have amounted to $101,000,000, and, for a corresponding period of my predecessor, they amounted to $136,500,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is certainly evident that *most of the hon. minister's predecessors were able to right themselves before the end of each fiscal year, which is more than can be said in his case. Now, what do these figures show? These figures show that, during a time of financial stringency, a time for which the Canadian government should have provided large sums on deposit with its bankers so that it could have given a steadying influence to the banking transactions of Canada, of all those who were clamouring for assistance, there was no corporation in the Dominion so insistent as the Canadian government. The figures show that, after a period of unrivalled prosperity, during which this government could have accumulated large sums of money, the government had reached such a stage that its cash balances with all its bankers amounted to less than a million dollars. They show that the government had gone to the Bank of Montreal and other institutions and had succeeded in obtaining sums running up to $20,000,000 as temporary accommodation. And what is the result? Every business man will tell you that in the fall of 1907 and the year 1908, the banks throughout Canada curtailed their credits. Every business man will tell you that, not getting the advances he wanted, he was compelled to diminish the volume of his business. That was the universal experience. Many of the weaker houses were crowded out altogether, and even the largest and strongest houses could not get their accustomed line of credit, and had to be contented with half of it. And what was the result? The volume of production in the country was lessened. The number of persons on the pay-rolls of industry was reduced, and there was idleness to a great extent throughout the coun-

try. And the Minister of Finance knows perfectly well that the drains he made on the Bank of Montreal made it necessary for that institution to say to other customers, ' We cannot deal by you as generously as we would; we have got to see the Dominion of Canada through this

'


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames) says that the Bank of Montreal made that statement. I say it never did.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is hardly to be expected that the Bank of Montreal would officially make that statement. But I do not think the hon. minister (Mr. Fielding) will have much difficulty, if he inquires among the men accustomed to borrow from the Bank of Montreal in Montreal, in satisfying himself that many of them had to take half a loaf because the government insisted on having a full supply.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman says that these borrowers had to be satisfied with half a loaf because of the influence of the government. I say he has no warrant for that statement. They may have received only half a loaf, but it was for other reasons.


Herbert Brown Ames: I do not think it requires, before business men, much more than the statement of the proposition that a large customer who ordinarily requires no accommodation required accommodation to the extent of $20,000,000 from the banks- that these banks had to stand behind this heavy customer, the Dominion of Canada- in order to show that the banks were compelled to say 'No,' to less favoured borrowers.
But, ultimately, even the limit of temporary borrowing was reached, the minister was forced into the market to make some long-term loans. It is not altogether well that the Dominion of Canada should be in that position. We ought to be able to choose our time of entering the market. There are periods, I admit, when the market is unfavourable. The Canadian government ought to make enough provision in advance to be able to stay out of the market for a few months if it is unfavourable.
But when the Canadian government reached the point that they had no cash, when they had to borrow more than they had ever borrowed before by temporary loans, then they had to go into the market, whether it was good, bad or indifferent, and float their loans.
The situation has not bettered very much. The minister tried yesterday to make us believe that it had, or would. But look what is ahead of the Finance Minister, and how can he expect much improvement? The Finance Minister has to renew this year, if I
rightly read the figures, (beyond the sinking funds that are provided), about $16,000,000 of loans. He has to provide $10,000,000 for the Grand Trunk Pacific and he has to provide about $24,000,000, for the National Transcontinental. There alone you have $60,000,000. Are we to understand that the economies of the minister, which he expects will be rigorously enforced, are going to reduce that to $30,000,000 or $25,000,000? I hardly think so. I hardly believe, in view of the probable revenue of this year that the minister will be in a position to reduce that $60,000,000 to $25,000,000. So taking our previous estimate, which I think is a very moderate one, we would conclude that the minister, during this five year period, will have to add to the debt about $135,000,000, and of that, fully $75,0000 must be borrowed within the next three years. So I cannot see haw we can expect much improvement in the way of more favourable terms when we stand in a penniless condition forced into the market against our will, and compelled to borrow enormous sums , every three or four months. Now, this government has already added to the debt $65,500,000. In three years more they will probably add another $75,000,000, or altogether $140,000,000, which they would for purposes of debate like to spread over the whole sixteen years in order to strike an average. So this government which prior to 18%, made protestations of economy, will find themselves at the end of the life of this parliament compelled to confess to the country that they have added fifty per cent to the net debt of Canada. The net debt in 1896 was $258,000,000; in 1909 it is $325,000,000. It will probably be $400,000,000 before we again have a general elections, if this present government continues to the end of its term. Can we expect, in view of all these renewals, of this immense amount of money we require, can we expect that we are going to secure favourable terms? Is this not a sufficient explanation of that significant table which my hon. friend from Argenteuil presented, showing that while all the securities of other British possessions were advancing, those of Canada had declined 34 per cent?
Now I know that I shall be accused of endeavouring to injure the credit of the Dominion of Canada. The statements which I am endeavouring to make, are, I believe, absolutely true, and if any hon. member on the other side of the House can show that my figures are incorrect, he will do me a favour. But I cannot but believe that the action of this government is injuring our credit, and so believing, can I sit silent in this House and vote for every proposition which this administration brings forward? I do not believe any Finance Minister, or

The hon. the Finance Minister likes to quote consols to us as falling.


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend say that consols have not been falling, that they have not fallen as low as 80 at one time?


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well the fluctuation of consols, but I notice here that a bank manager does not consider it necessary to write down consols.


Herbert Brown Ames: 
William Stevens Fielding: That depends entirely on the money market.


Herbert Brown Ames: Now that Canada's credit has suffered as shown by the


William Stevens Fielding: I dispute that with my hon. friend. I say that Canada's credit has improved.


Herbert Brown Ames: 
William Stevens Fielding: And the market conditions at the time.


Herbert Brown Ames: The market conditions are largely the effect of what you make them.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I dissent from that.


Herbert Brown Ames: 
William Stevens Fielding: Another fact that my hon. friend omits to state is that in the interim the bank rate has gone down.


Herbert Brown Ames: We will see the next loan that is made.


William Stevens Fielding: We will. Wait till you see us next year.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is another indication that it has been difficult for the minister to get money, and that therefore our credit has not been enjoying such a reputation as would have made it very easy for him to have obtained it. He has not referred to it in his budget speech, but a perusal of the prospectuses of the seven loans of the last two years shows that the minister has had to offer very considerable and unusual inducements to make the loans go off at par. As is well known there are certain elements which have to be considered in connection with a loan. There is the price of issue, the Tate of interest, the length of time, and then, what we might call, the details by way of inducements. The minister stated yesterday that we might consider a standard loan to be one issued at paT, at 34 per cent for forty or fifty yeaTS. The minister knows that if he cannot get his standard loan he must advance some of these elements and make them slightly better or introduce some other element to improve the security. The minister knows that it is just like, to use an example, a rubber cushion; if you depress it at one point the cushion is distended at another. So that, what you give, by way of interest or by grading your price of issue, you have to take at some other point. The minister has not told us of all the experiences


George Eulas Foster: Is that discount taken into consideration in fixing the effective rate that rules?


William Stevens Fielding: I think so, I think it is the effective net rate. I have always Mr. AMES.
understood that the calculation is made in that way.


Herbert Brown Ames: evident lack of preparation in approaching this great work, the National Transcontinental. They should not have allowed^ the credit of Canada to have become strained through lack of preparation to meet the laTge expenditures which they knew perfectly well were shortly to come upon them. I blame the government further because during the year 1908-9 they did not apply the brakes. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance knew perfectly well that the revenues were falling down that year, that they would not exceed $85,000,000, and yet he insisted upon an authorization from this House of a budget under which $132,0000,000 were spent. Those economies which he now promises should have commenced a year ago. It is all very well to begin them now, but they should have begun a year ago. And I also would say that, to my mind, the longer the government puts off adopting some new method to provide for the extinguishment of the capital amount of our indebtedness, the worse it will be for the credit of Canada. Therefore, I hope that the time is soon coming when something along the line I have indicated will be adopted. The time has come for economy in connection with the controllable expenditure; Canada, further, should declare that she is a debt-paying nation, and should, make that declaration with statutory authority.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer).: 
Mr. CAMPBELL.: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend (Mr. Camnbell) says, 'Hear, hear.' I do not know whether he sees that, in approving my statement, he supports the principle that lower tariff does make for the greater prosperity of the country. If he does, I am very glad that there are among hon. members on the Conservative benches at least some minds into which the true light of tariff principles is penetrating. I believe that the tariff policy which gives the Liberal party of this country a different position altogether from that occunied by its opponents is that which is known as the British preference- the British preferential tariff. I regard that as the feature in the policy of this government so far which will probably be approved by posterity as the one deserving the greatest credit in the history of this government. I believe that feature of their policy not only gave an impulse to what I call sane imperialism, being one in the best interests of the union of the British
empire, but it was a far-sighted policy as regards the development of Canada by providing us an access into the best market of the world for our agricultual products, for a country which has and is bound to have an ever increasing excess of those agricultural products. I want to say this in regard to the hon. Minister of Finance, that he deserves credit not only for what he has done upon the Tariff Commission, but for what he has not allowed others to do. I want to pay him this tribute. I watched with the utmost care the proceedings of the Tariff Commission two or three years ago, I watched the evidence that was given before that commission, I observed the determined assaults that were made from day to dav. from every part of Canada, upon the Minister of Finance, and I found him as well posted upon the details of the various trades and manufactures as the manufacturers were themselves, and in many cases better. I honour him and I thank him, as a representative of the western farmers, for the steady resistance which he gave to the demand for an increase in the tariff, for the steady way in which he kept the faces of the Liberal party looking in the direction in which they should look always if they claim to be a Liberal party, that is, in the direction of greater freedom in commerce, a policy which they have con-sistentlv followed during their whole history. I am sorry my hon. friend from North Toronto has left his place in the House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Call it six o'clock.
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 22, 1909.