1910-01-18

COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. MACKENZIE KING (Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill

(No. 101) to provide for the investigating of combines, monopolies,	trusts and
mergers which may enhance prices or restrict competition to the detriment of consumers.
Mr. HENDERSON.: Carried.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Did the hon. gentleman give any explanation?


Mr. KING.: The somewhat lengthy title of this Bill may help to explain its scope and purpose. The short title is the Combines Investigation Act.	As human
ingenuity has devised a great many forms of combination for the purpose of effecting an increase in prices, or the restriction of competition, an effort has been made in this measure to give a definition of the word 'combine' sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all forms of combination which may have this effect, and in particular to make it clear that this measure shall have reference to all such forms of combination as are popularly known as monopolies, trusts, mergers and combines. The legislation differs in some particulars from legislation of a like nature which has been introduced in other countries in that it is not aimed against combines or mergers as such, but rather against the exercise on the part of combines, mergers or monopolies, in an unfair manner, of the powers which they may get from that form of organization. This is an age of organization and not merely of local or national competition but of world-wide competition and any industry or any nation which wishes to hold its own in the field of com-petitipn must do much in the way of perfecting organization. A highly organized industry should, from the facilities it has of improving production, lead to greater efficiency and economies of one kind and another, which should, on the whole, benefit the consuming public. But, we know that in other countries, and possibly also in this country, organizations have not always used their corporate powers to the . advantage of the consumers, but have taken, in some cases, possibly, an unfair advantage to themselves. This measure seeks to afford the means of conserving to the public some of the benefits which arise from large organizations of capital for the purpose of business and commerce. It is organized society which alone makes the organization of capital and industry possible, and the people have a right to expect, and to look to the government to see that their rights shall be conserved and that their liberties shall not be curtailed by, privileges which they permit others to enjoy.


Robert Laird Borden: Who is to initiate the investigation?


George Gerald King: Perhaps it would be well if I were to explain somewhat in detail the procedure suggested by this measure. It is provided that the Act shall be under the Minister of Labour and that in connection with the administration of the Act a registrar of boards of investigation shall be appointed.
In	all measures	of this	kind	thataffect private interests and at the same time public rights there are two factors which have to be kept constantly in mind. There is first of all the desirability of securing	the	minimum of	interference with private business where that	business	is	conducted	in	a	fairand	proper	way,	and on	the	other
hand the desirability of providing a ready and efficient means for individuals or the public to secure their due rights where these rights are interfered with or encroached upon by any corporation. These two objects, have, it is hoped, been kept in mind in the drafting of this measure. It is believed that the Bill as introduced will afford a ready and convenient means whereby parties who have reason to believe that any combination is unduly enhancing prices or unfairly restricting competition, may obtain an investigation, and an effective remedy against evils which may be found to exist. This, it is sought to obtain in the first place by providing that six or more persons who feel that a combine exists and that prices have been enhanced or competition restricted by reason of such combine to the detriment of the consumer, may make application to a judge of the high court for an order to grant an investigation. The judge may, if he so desires, call before him witnesses, but all that is necessary is for the judge to assure himself before granting such order that a prime facie case has been made out. The judge, if satisfied there is reasonable ground for believing that a combine exists which is injurious to trade or which is operating to the detriment of consumers, and that it is in the public interest an investigation should be held, may direct or rather shall direct $n investigation under the provisions of this Act.
When the judge issues an order for an investigation the order is to be directed to the minister who is thereupon to call each of the parties concerned to name a member on the board of investigation. The Act in this particular proceeds along lines somewhat similar to the procedure under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. The parties who have made the complaint are called upon to name a representative on this board of investigation, the parties concerned in the alleged combine are called upon to name a representative on their behalf, and the two gentlemen thus chosen are given opportunity of centering together with a view of selecting a third person (who



must in this particular case be a judge) to act as chairman of the board of investigation. Failing agreement the minister appoints the chairman. The board thus constituted shall have all the powers of a court of record; it shall have power of summoning witnesses, of ordering the production of documents, of taking evidence under oath. When the board has duly investigated the matters before it, it is the duty of the board to draw up a report and submit that report to the minister who is obliged to give it publicity by publishing it in the ' Canada Gazette/ by sending copies to the parties concerned, by distributing copies to the press if so desired, and by supplying copies to any other parties who may make application. Perhaps it would be well to read the section which refers to the board of investigation:
The board shall expeditiously and fully and carefully inquire into the matters referred to it and all matters affecting the merits thereof, including the question of whether or not the price or rental of any article concerned has been unreasonably enhanced or competition in the supply thereof unduly restricted in consequence of a combine, and shall make a full and detailed report thereon to the minister, which report shall set forth the various proceedings and steps taken by the board for the purpose of fully and carefully ascertaining all the facts and circumstances connected with the alleged combine, including such findings and reeom-mendations as in the opinion of the hoard are in accordance with the merits and requirements of the case.
There are certain classes of evils in the remedying of which it is believed publicity is more effective than penalty. It may not be that publicity will in all cases prove an effective remedy, but certainly in industrial matters it has many times in the past proven to be effective. While this Act provides machinery of a nature calculated to let in the light on the workings of these , large corporations when it is believed they are operating in a manner unfair to the consumer, and while it is believed that much good will be accomplished in this way, the legislation does not rely entirely upon publicity to bring about the desired remedy. There are other remedies proposed, and one is the remedy already existing in connection under other legislation with respect in certain cases to such articles as are protected by the tariff. The statute in this particular gives authority to the Governor in Council where the board reports that prices have been unduly enhanced or that competition is being unfairly restricted in virtue of the protection given to a particular article to reduce the tariff on that particular article or to remove the duty altogether.
Then, there is another class of combination which it is hoped this measure may be the means of preventing. I refer to the Mr. KING.
case of persons holding patents and who exercise their exclusive rights and privileges to restrict competition. In section 22 of the Act there is this provision:
In case the owner or holder of any patent issued under the Patent Act has made use of the exclusive rights and privileges which, as such owner or holder he controls, so as unduly to limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any article which may be a subject of trade or commerce or so as un- -duly to restrain or injure trade or commerce in relation to any such article or unduly to prevent, limit or lessen the manufacture or production of any article or unreasonably to enhance the price thereof, or purchase, barter, sale, transportation, storage or supply of any article such patent shall be liable to be revoked.
The clause then sets forth the steps that may be taken for the revoking of the patent where an adverse report has been made by a board in such a case.
Then there is a further clause which provides that where a board finds any combination has been guilty of enhancing prices or unfairly restricting competition to the detriment of the consumers, if the guilty parties persist in the conduct which has been reported against, they shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding $1,000 and costs for each day that they continue to offend after the expiration of ten days from the date of publication of the report of the board in the 'Canada Gazette/
These are the main features of the measure, Mr. Speaker. A good part of the Bill is taken up with the setting out the machinery for investigation, a part of it relates to the meetings of the board, the remuneration and expenses of the board and the taking of evidence, and there are a few miscellaneous clauses. I think, however, what I have said will be sufficient as an outline of the Bill.	[DOT]


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

Mr. J. D. REID (Grenville).: I would ask the government if the rumour is true that a deputation from Montreal waited on the government yesterday to ask that they be granted the privilege of placing a dam across the St. Lawrence river. If so, has any decision been arrived at?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: There was a deputation consisting of representatives of the company which proposes to develop the power, and that deputation presented certain statements to the Committee of the Privy Council.


John Dowsley Reid: Was any decision arrived at?


William Pugsley: No, it was understood that they would present the modified plans to the International Waterways Commission, and that commission would give an opportunity to the navigation interests and those who might naturally be opposed to any obstructions to navigation, to be heard. After that the 'matter would come again before the government for consideration.


Mr. LALOR.: Has a day for hearing that deputation been arranged for?


William Pugsley: No, the commission will arrange that.



MANITOBA FISHERY COMMISSION.

Robert Laird Borden: Referring to the request preferred yesterday that the report of a certain fishery commission should be laid on the table, so far as I understand the case, it is this. Three commissioners were originally appointed. One of them was afterwards elevated to the bench and consequently ceased to act as a commissioner. Another was appointed in his place, and these three commissioners, duly constituted, made their report. The cause of the delay, as I understand it, is that the commissioner, who was elevated to the bench, has not signed the report. I do not see that he has any jurisdiction to sign, and therefore the reason given by the Prime Minister yesterday is not a good one for withholding the report.


Mr. FIELDING.: I am not personally familiar with the matter, but will draw the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister to it.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad my hon. friend will do so because there has been unreasonable delay.



BANK ACT AMENDMENT.

Robert Laird Borden: When does my hon. friend the Minister of Finance expect to introduce his Bill for the continuance of bank charters and the revision of the Banking Act?


William Stevens Fielding: The matter is very well advanced in the department, tout could not at present fix a date. It will however, be early in the session.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the 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.
['I thank the Minister of Finance for his very kind expression. All I had in view was to give my hon. friend time to get his wind. I had no intention of delaying the Bill, but there was an object in just wasting a little time. The Minister of Finance knows how that works. .']
Hon.   WM@: PATERSON (Minister of Customs), _ The House has been favoured with a very gratifying budget 66i
statement this session, much the same as statements presented in sessions gone by. I think it has given universal satisfaction to the House and country to have heard and read the truthful recital of the favoured conditions of trade and commerce and the prosperity throughout this country. There is no difference of opinion regarding the fact that we are in this respect a highly favoured people, but there is this distinction between the members on the two sides . of the House. Our opponents claim that this prosperity in which we all rejoice, is not due in any measure at all to any action or policy of this government. As t-he hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has said, our Finance Minister is not to toe credited with any portion of the benefits we are enjoying, as none of these benefits is due to his management of our financal affairs, but is due solely to the good harvests and the industry of our people. No one will doubt that we have had good harvests; no one will doubt .that we had a good harvest last year and that we have an industrial people. But what puzzles one is this. If these are to be accepted as the sole reason for our prosperity, and if the government have had nothing whatever to do with bringing about the condition of things which prevails, did we not have good harvests when our Conservative friends were in power? Did we not have fruitful fields then as now? Did we not have an industrial people then as now? Therefore, if the prosperity now abounding in Canada is due to these causes alone, how is it that we had such a period of depression, when precisely the same causes were at work under the old Conservative administration? That there was stagnation and depression and anything but a feeling of buoyancy when our friends opposite were in power, every one knows. That there is a buoyant feeling now and abundant prosperity every one likewise knows. How then do you account for the depression which then existed? How do you account for the prosperity which now prevails? The difference can only be due to the fact that the Liberal party know better how to utilize the benefits which a kind Providence has given us than did our opponents. I know of no other reason. If there be any other, will hon. gentlemen opposite give it?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Did the same conditions .prevail?


Mr. PATERSON.: The same conditions prevailed-good harvests and an industrial people.	.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Did the same conditions prevail from 1874 to 1878?


William Paterson: We had abundant harvests and an industrial people and yet

under the Conservative regime we had depression. We had not then the buoyancy we have now or the prosperity. Hon. gentlemen opposite laugh. I do not object to their having a little pleasure, but I would like to have a little myself. I do not just see where the joke comes in, but they are able to see jokes sometimes where no one else can.


Mr. FOSTER.: The joke "is right ahead of you.


William Paterson: And the principal joker seems to have got frightened and gone out -not an unusual sight in this House. Hon. gentlemen opposite make statements, broad statements, which they cannot verify, and which ought not to be made by responsible men. What are they? You have heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), on more than one occasion, say that the Liberal party had violated every plank in the platform which they adopted in 1893.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


William Paterson: Hear, hear, an hon. gentleman says. He is of the same belief yet, every one of them? If hon. gentlemen rejoice in their ignorance of the facts of the case I cannot help it, but I propose to read to the House the planks of the platform of the Liberal party adopted in 1893 and in the light of what has transpired I am going to ask this House and the people of this country if the men who dare to say that we have violated and broken every plank in that platform are not men who have told what is not true. Thus, after this, if any man endorses the statement that we have carried out none of the planks that we laid down, he sins with a full knowledge of the facts. Ten resolutions were adopted at that grand Liberal convention, which they termed ten planks. I have taken them off from the official record of that convention of which there is only one copy that I know of. That is in the parliamentary library and the librarian wants it to be handed back to him because it is the only copy and it is in demand. It may be that, not having seen this and having listened to what men like hon. gentlemen opposite have told them, there is an idea among the people, even among friends of the government, that we have proved recreant to the principles laid down at that convention. The first resolution had reference to the tariff. I intend to take that up later because I shall dwell longer upon it, as it is more particularly under discussion now. The second resolution was:
That the Liberal party is prepared to enter into negotiations with a view to obtaining a fair and liberal reciprocity, including a well-considered list of manufactured articles,


William Paterson: With the United States. Was that plank carried out? Certainly it was carried out. A man will write himself down ignorant of the history of his own time if he says it was not carried out. He knows that it was carried out and honestly carried out.


An hon. MEMBER.: Explain?


William Paterson: Explain? Why the hon. gentleman does not need any explanation. He knows that representatives of the Canadian and United States governments sat first in Quebec, and subsequently in Washington and made every honest attempt to secure reciprocity. That they did not secure it does not mean that the plank was not carried out; the plank did not pledge them to secure it, it told them to try for it.
The third plank declared:
That the convention deplores the gross corruption in the management and expenditures of public moneys.


Mr. SPROULE.: Was that carried out?


William Paterson: Yes, it was carried out at that time and that is the reason the resolution was put. It was a protest against the state of things then prevailing, and therefore that resolution was adopted and that resolution should be carried out. Whether hon. gentlemen say it has been or not, it should be carried out, and I claim it has been carried out.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: In the same way as reciprocity, no change.
Mr. PATERSON'. \ Would hon, gentle-, men have any objection to replying to me when I have finished?
The fourth resolution read:
We cannot but view with alarm the large increase of the public debt and of the controllable annual expenditure of the Dominion, and the consequent undue taxation of the people under the governments that have been continuously in power since 1878, and we demand the strictest economv in the administration of the government of the country.
What are the facts?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Paterson: They are evidently not cheering the facts but because I have not recited them yet. When this resolution was adopted great increases were being made to the public debt. The trade and commerce of the country was almost stagnant, public works were not being carried on. The Canadian Pacific Tailway was being built. While they were not collecting under the system of taxation they had in force enough money to pay the ordinary expenditures of the government, they

had to borrow, absolutely borrow money to meet the ordinary expenditures, without expending a dollar on public works or on capital account, and therefore it was that the public debt went up and up and up, till in their 18 years of power they had increased the public debt to $118,000,000 and odd, with nothing to show for it, for they had not carried on the public works. I mean nothing to amount to anything outside the Canadian Pacific railway. That resolution was adopted, but that resolution, you say, should be enforced by us. Deploring this evil in the late government have we fallen into the same mistake? Have we added to the public debt? Is there any cause for alarm in that respect now? As the Finance Minister points out to you, at the end of this present financial year, after 13 continuous vears in power, if you jleave out what has been borrowed on-the Transcontinental railway, a great national undertaking, we shall have paid all our other expenditures, ordinary and on capital account, running into the tens, yes the hundreds of millions of dollars, without adding a dollar to the public debt of the country. These are the facts. Why do hon. gentlemen opposite not cheer the facts? Thev are cheering the facts by contrasts. One hundred and eighteen million added to the public debt, and nothing to show for it, scarcely. Tens and tens, running into the hundreds of millions, expended on capital account, beyond the ordinary expenditure of this government, at the end of this financial year, outside the Transcontinental railway, and not a dollar added to the public debt. No cause for alarm now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman desires to be perfectly fair, when he leaves out the expenditure on the Transcontinental, why does he not leave out the expenditure on the Canadian Pacific railway in making his comparison?


William Paterson: I alluded to the fact that the Canadian Pacific was being built. But what about all the other expenditures that we have made?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The increase of the public debt. I wish merely to say this, that the increase of the public debt included money to be spent on the Canadian Pacific railway in the one instance, and does not include the money borrowed to be spent on the Transcontinental in the other. Therefore, the comparison is not fair.


William Paterson: Oh yes, it is quite fair, the House well understands what the point is. We leave out both those undertakings. Take all that has been done by the Liberal government in digging canals, in bonuses upon iron and bonuses to railways, in all the directions in which we
have spent ten and tens of millions, running up to hundreds of millions more than those gentlemen spent on similar works, and we have done all that without adding a dollar to the public debt, while they had to borrow money for such works. Now I think that resolution has been carried out. We deplored, we viewed with alarm, the great increase in the public debt, and so we have endeavoured to keep it down, and we have succeeded admirably.
Resolution No. 5.-That it is the ancient and undoubted right of the House of Commons to inquire into all matters of public expenditure, and into all charges of misconduct in office against ministers of the Crown.
I am glad to hear that that is the principle on which both sides of the House agree, I am sure.
Resolution No. 6.-That in the opinion of this convention the sale of public lands of the Dominion should be to actual settlers only and not to speculators, upon reasonable terms of settlement, and in such areas as can be reasonably occupied and cultivated by the settler.
That plank was adopted-the very reverse of the policy that was being carried out by our Conservative friends when in power, and which we viewed as contrary to the well-being of the country. That plank we carried out, and every fair-minded man must say that it has been carried out in its entirety.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the land sold to the Robbins Irrigation Company?


William Paterson: Is that denied?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is a fact.


William Paterson: A fact! Why, if any man wants to deny that these lands have been sold for the settler-talk as the hon member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) did about the Saskatchewan lands that were sold to these people! These lands were sold, but they were not sold in contradiction to that resolution, for they were sold with terms of settlement. Do you mean to tell me that that resolution was not carried out?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes, yes, no, no.


William Paterson: Then all I can say to you is this, that the united voices of 250,000 happily settled homesteaders give a denial to the statement. I take their word in preference to an objection of

Resolution No. 7.-The repeal of the Franchise Act, and that we should revert to the provincial franchise.
Was that carried out? Is that upon the statute-book now? No. Gentlemen may laugh, and try to be merry as they may, and deny it as bravely as they may, but they cannot say that that plank has not been carried out, because the Franchise Act has been wiped out.


Mr. BURRELL.: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? While we admit that it was carried into effect in 1898, did not the government try to reverse that action and adopt a Dominion franchise?


William Paterson: No, we did not. If I were to answer the hon. gentleman courteously, I say no, I say no; because my hon. friend alludes to the circumstance that took place in this House where there was a little question about the list in unorganized districts. That don't bear out what he says.


Martin Burrell: Not only in unorganized districts, but I think there was a a similar attempt made in British Columbia.


William Paterson: We wont enter into an argument on.that point.
Som hon. MEMBERS. Ha, ha, ha!


William Paterson: Really, they are the happiest lot of gentlemen in opposition that I have seen in a long time, rejoicing in the good times brought about largely through this government. No, Sir, that plank has been carried out.
Resolution No. 8.-To make the House of Commons a fair exponent of public opinion, and to preserve the historic continuity of counties, it is desirable that the conformation of the electoral division county boundaries should be preserved, so that in no case parts of different counties should be put in one electoral division.
Has that been carried out? Certainly it was carried out. A redistribution measure was _ brought in, and that resolution was carried out. You know that county boundaries were respected, you know that there was no gerrymander by this government, there was a perfectly fair division of these counties. And yet hon. gentlemen say we have not carried out any of the planks of our platform. There it stands. The counties are before their eyes, their own coun ties are there, and many of those gentlemen opposite know that the counties they now represent are within county bounds, and are not the same counties represented by their predecessors, when there were parts of two or three different counties thrown together in order to give a majority to one party against the other.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: What had the government to do with that? Were not the electoral divisions fixed by a committee of this House?


William Paterson: I believe they were, and my hon. friend I think was on that committee. But that just shows the superiority of our redistribution. When the gerrymander was put through in 1882 by Sir John A. Macdonald's government, was it not done in secret? A committee of their own met in a room, a dark room, and there, Mr. PATERSON.
in secret, unknown, the men they were attacking, every Liberal that had been prominent in the fight in the House against them, was marked out for political destruction by these men, by virtue of an Act of parliament that they were getting passed with their majority. David Mills, one of the ablest men in this country, was singled out for political slaughter. Alexander Mackenzie-I leave myself out, though there was not a more infamous cut up anywhere in the Dominion than there was in my county;-John Charlton, Thomas Bain, and many others. Men who had been fighting them for the rights and liberties of the people of this country were marked out for political destruction by a committee that met in secret-marked out to be slaughtered by Act of parliament. And this was carried into effect so far as the decision of a majority in this House could carry it into effect. Let me illustrate by my own riding. They took from my riding two Liberal townships, giving majorities totalling three or four hundred, and threw them into South Oxford, where, even without them, there was a Liberal majority of six hundred. Then they took from another riding a Tory township and put it into mine. Thus they sought to put me, politically speaking, to death. And one thing that kind of makes me have a warm side for my Tory friends- or many of them-is that, while their friends in this House did that infamous act, there were men on the Conservative side in that riding who said: ' This is not fair play, and wo will not stand it; we will vote for the man you are trying to kill.' And they did. And so some of us got back-some of us did not. And now my hon. friend (Mr. John Haggart), in the innocence of his heart, asks if that is the way that the Redistribution Bill that we passed was prepared. And he was on the committee with some of his colleagues; the work was done in open daylight, with arguments heard, and a unanimous decision was reached as to what was fair and desirable. And now he thinks the opposition ought to have credit for jt.


John Graham Haggart: As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) appeals to me, may I ask him to point out the distinction between the Bills that we passed and the ones passed under the government of Sir Oliver Mowat in Ontario?


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) wants to lead me on to a subject that is not under discussion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Paterson: There they are again. Can you, Mr. Speaker, see the appropriateness of that laugh? We are discussing the legislation of the Dominion parliament. And the hon. gentleman wants me to agree

that the credit for the Redistribution Bill passed under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) should go not to the government, but to the opposition.


Mr. WALLACE.: I would like to ask the hon. member (Mr. Paterson) if he can show anything more shameful in the Act of 1882 than the gerrymander of Central York by the Liberal party of 1903?


William Paterson: I refer the hon. member (Mr. Wallace) to the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart)for an answer. That hon. gentleman says that the Bill was a fair one and that they prepared it.


John Graham Haggart: The member for South Lanark was overpowered by superior numbers in the committee.


William Paterson: Why, the committee were unanimous. ,


Mr. HUGHES.: May I ask a question?


William Paterson: I would like to answer the hon. member's (Mr. Hughes') question, as he is so courteous, but I think it would be better to wait. The point is that we laid down the rule that county boundaries should not be disturbed; and, though there was the temptation to Tetum upon the heads of hon. members opposite that which they had visited upon us, Sir Wilfrid refused to act upon such an idea, but carried out literally and absolutely this plank of the platform.


Samuel Hughes: Now, may I ask a question?


William Paterson: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. minister give the population of West Northumberland and also the population of Victoria and Haliburton to show how the principle of representation by population is carried out?


William Paterson: I have not those figures. But I would ask the hon. member was not the rearrangement of the riding he represents fair to him?


Samuel Hughes: The rearrangement made no difference to me


William Paterson: Was it fair?


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman has asked me a question; I will answer it in my own way. The rearrangement made no difference to me; I would have been returned no matter how the county was gerrymandered, and no matter whether it was made into one or two ridings. But the hon. gentleman opposite could not have done better in order to produce a split in the Conservative party than to gerrymander Victoria and Haliburton as they did in the last revision.


William Paterson: But will the hon. member say that he was not satisfied with the arrangement at the time?


Samuel Hughes: The evidence before the committee will show that I fought for two ridings.


William Paterson: But I am speaking of one riding.


Samuel Hughes: But there were two in Victoria and Haliburton formerly. I fought for two; I stood in this House alone in favour of two ridings in Victoria and Haliburton.


William Paterson: I know that the Bill went through with very little discussion, and that it was- admitted, even by Conservative newspapers, to be eminently fair. And it carried out the resolution of the convention in favour of maintaining county boundaries. I come to the ninth resolution. The first I have yet to speak about. But here are seven which, it cannot be denied, have been carried out. The ninth resolution has not been carried out. It is a difficult question. I do not know that the views of the Liberal party have changed concerning this resolution that there should be some change in the constitution of our Senate to bring it more into harmony with representative institutions? But the debate and vote yesterday, together with all that has transpired since this resolution was passed, go to show the difficulties with which this question is hedged about. They go to show that though this resolution is desirable in itself, as it was then in the eyes of the Liberal party, and apparently is now in the eyes of many of our Conservative friends, yet it has not been possible to carry it into effect. But there has been an honest desire to do it. Still, here is one resolution that has not been carried out.
Now, I come to the tenth and last resolution. At the convention, so far as I remember, there was no objection on the part of any one to anv of the resolutions save this. Let me read it:
That whereas public attention is at present much directed to the consideration of the admittedly great evils of intemperance, it is desirable that the mind of the people should he clearly ascertained on the question of prohibition by means of a Dominion plebiscite.
I say, objection was taken to that resolution. The [DOT] late Speaker Anglin voiced that objection and declared that he would not be bound by the resolution. Nevertheless, the resolution prevailed, and so became one of the planks in the platform of the party, making it incumbent upon the Liberal government to give effect to it, notwithstanding that some of the members of the party might not agree. And what was

done? You know that the plank was carried out and that the plebiscite was held in its entirety. So, these planks of our platform have been carried out in as fair and honest a manner as could be desired by the Liberal government elected on the platform of which tnese were planks. _ Now, I have read these resolutions which, in the opinion of hon. members opposite, if I am to judge by their scornful laughter, we have not carried out. But I think that fair-minded people, considering these resolutions and considering the action taken with regard to these matters by the present government, will say hereafter that if any man in this House or out of it declares that this government has been recreant to the resolutions of the Liberal convention, he is to be held as one sinning against the light, and as guilty of that of which no public man should be guilty- stating that which is not true of his opponents.
Now, I come back to the first resolution, and there is where our friends on the opposite side have time and again denied that we have carried out our platform in reference to the tariff. They say that the platform of the Liberal party at that convention was a platform of free trade as it is in England. Nothing harped on more, no statement made oftener than that, no statement more untrue-I was going to say- than that statement. I have that resolution. What is it? Is it a resolution for free trade as they have it in England-free trade and direct taxation, free imports .of goods into this country? Was that the policy? No. Here is the sense of it:
That the customs tariff of the Dominion should be based, not as it is now, upon the protective principle, but upon the requirements of the public service; .... that the highest interests of Canada demand a removal of this obstacle to our country's progress by the adoption of a sound fiscal policy, which, while not doing injustice to any class, will promote domestic and foreign trade, and hasten the return of prosperity to our people.
Here is the affirming part of it:
That to that end, the tariff should be reduced to the needs of honest, economical and efficient government. That it should be sp adjusted as^ to make free, or bear as lightly as possible, upon the necessaries of life, and should be so arranged as to promote freer trade with the whole world, more particularly with Great Britain and the united States.
.Is there anything in that resolution instructing a Liberal government, when it *came into power, to depart from the principle c>f indirect taxation and to adopt the principle of direct taxation? Nothing of the kind. A tariff is spoken of, a customs tariff is to be maintained and the revenues re to be raised by a customs tariff. There M. PATERSON.
is_ not a word in the resolution that the Liberal party instructed the government, when they came in, to abandon the basis that had hitherto prevailed of raising taxes in the direct manner of customs and excise duties and resorting to direct taxes, whether upon land or in any other way, but they were to continue to raise a great portion of their revenue by a customs tariff. We have continued the customs tariff. That is the way we are raising our revenue now. We are raising our revenue by taxes on the imports into this country. Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved that, resolution. I seconded it. Sir Wilfrid, the night before, had addressed the convention. He had spoken at that convention, and when, next day, the convention came down and offered this resolution, Sir Wilfrid in moving it, said:
It will not be necessary for me to say much in reference to this, inasmuch as I am glad to observe that the Committee on Resolutions have followed largely the lines that I advocated in my speech last night.
What were they? Free trade as it is in England, to which these gentlemen say he pledged himself? You have heard it said time and again that he pledged himself that our policy was to be a policy of free trade as it is in England. While he is moving that resolution he speaks about a tariff on imported goods, and here is what he says


John Graham Haggart: Does the hon. gentleman deny that the right hon gentleman stated that the goal of the party in reference to the tariff was free trade as it is in England, and did he not again and again repeat it?


William Paterson: I do not deny it; I am going to read it.


John Graham Haggart: You do not deny it?


William Paterson: I do not deny it; I am going to read it, but I am going to deny that Sir Wilfrid Laurier pledged himself that the Liberal party would adopt direct taxation and do away with the tariff.


John Graham Haggart: Who ever said that?	.


William Paterson: You are saying it or you are trying to infer it.


John Graham Haggart: Not at all. The majority of taxes are raised in England by a customs tariff.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


John Graham Haggart: I beg your pardon. Tobacco and whisky imported into the country are subject to tariff and excise taxes.


William Paterson: Some articles are. There is no doubt about that.


John Graham Haggart: A large number of articles are subject to a customs tariff.


William Paterson: Will my hon. friend be content to hear what Sir Wilfrid Laurier did say?


John Graham Haggart: Let us have it.


William Paterson: I will let you have what he says because I want to give you the full judgment. You must not take a sentence or two out of a man's utterance and judge him from that. Sir Wilfrid said this, among other things:
I say, the policy should be a policy of free trade such as they have in England

. Mr. JOHN HAGGART. Hear, hear.


William Paterson: Now then when hon. gentlemen say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that and try to draw from that the inference that he gave the people to understand that he was going to do away with the customs tariff and substitute direct taxation they do not do what is right because why?-


John Graham Haggart: No person ever alleges that. No one would be so foolish.


William Paterson: I see that you are hit pretty hard when you begin to deny what you have been saying outside. If you want to know just what Sir Wilfrid Laurier did say it was this:
I say, the policy should be a policy of free trade such as they have in England, but I am sorry to say that the circumstances of the country cannot admit at present of that policy in its entirety, but I propose to you, from this day forward, that it should be the goal to which we aspire. I propose to you from this day, although we cannot adopt the policy itself, to adopt the principle which regulates it; that is to say, that, though it should be your misfortune for many years to come to have to raise a revenue by customs duties, those duties should be levied only so far as is necessary to carry on the business of the government.
Again he says in describing the difference between the two parties:
Their ideal is protection; our ideal is free trade; their immediate object is protection; our's, a tariff for revenue only.
And again he says, and this is another point that I want to allude to when I come to discuss this resolution more fully:
Nothing is more difficult-that is one of the evils of protection-than to wipe away protection because, under it, interests have been established which every man who has at heart the interest of all classes must take into consideration. It is always easy to increase the tariff because by so doing you increase the private fortunes of certain individuals, but whenever you decrease the tariff, it has always to be done with careful consideration, and I am sure that when the
Liberals are in power they will not be indifferent to this primary truth.
This was Sir Wilfrid's position with reference to this matter. These gentlemen. have said that he pledged himself that we should have free trade as it is in England, but they do not tell you that his tariff was a tariff for revenue only, they do not tell you that he himself, though he admired the policy that they have in England, said distinctly that it could not be adopted here for many long years to come, but that the principle which would guide us in framing a tariff should not be the principle of protection but that the tariff should be founded on the necessities of the revenue.
And these gentlemen pretend to say they cannot see the distinction, and they tell you betimes that we have taken from the old National Policy, and that it is because of that there is prosperity in the country. Well, all I have to say is that men who talk that way do not understand anything about political science. The ideal, and the immediate object of the Conservative party is protection; protection is the policy of the Tory party and revenue is only an incident of it. But the Liberal party, the Liberal party were instructed to found their tariff on the principle of providing the revenue necessary to carry on public enterprises, and if there should be protection found in it-as there must always be protection -where you have customs duties- that protection was an incident of the fiscal policy of the Liberal party and not the principle which was sought. That is the distinction between the two, and it is plain to be seen. And, any man who says that the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier or the policy adopted by the Liberal convention was free trade, free imports, is stating what is not true.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


William Paterson: I do not suppose any gentleman inside the House would say it and in supposing that it has been said outside the House, I am not transgressing parliamentary rules when I say that it is untrue. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's policy was tariff for revenue, and not free trade as they have it in England, although Sir Wilfrid did state that he admired the fiscal policy of England. That Liberal convention was a very large convention and it was attended by hundreds of representatives from all parts of Canada, except I think British Columbia. It was a convention such as I suppose our Conservative friends will have in the fall, and it is perhaps apropos that I should now point out that when a party convention adopts principles, that party when it attains power is expected to carry out these principles, and if a platform is laid down at the coming Conservative convention, then I will tell our Conservative


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: How then is it that the average percentage on dutiable goods from Great Britain is greater than on dutiable goods from the United States?


William Paterson: That cannot be, that cannot affect the case in the slightest degree, because if goods are put on the free list, we are in that way giving as great a benefit to the consumer as is possible. That is better than lowering the duty. The only way by which you can judge the arrangement of the tariff is by combining the total of dutiable and free goods.


John Allister Currie: How is it the same percentage applies on dutiable and free goods?


William Paterson: That is a conundrum. That is one of these things difficult to answer, because such a state of things does not exist. The hon. gentleman has made a supposititious statement which is not correct. As I was saying, we wanted to make trade freer with the whole world,-

but more especially -with Great Britain and the United States. I have shown you how in our general tariff we made reductions, and how we made still greater reductions by giving the British preference, first of of 12i per -cent, then of 25 per cent, and then of 33i per cent. Just on that point,
1 might say, with reference to the tariff on dutiable and free goods, that my hon. friend, with all deference to him, was all wrong, and that is not to he wondered at so much in his case as in the case of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who spoke actually of the bounties, we pay on iron as being taxation and added them to the rate of taxation. But these hon. gentlemen must take the average rate of duty on goods dutiable and free in order to estimate the benefit to the people from this reduction. It is an easy sum worked out by the Customs Department, as you will see by the table on page 3 of the Customs report. You will find that in 1876 the average rate of taxation on all goods, dutiable and free, was 18-28. That is that on every $100 worth of goods there was paid on an average a customs tax of $18.28. Look at that same table and you will find that last year there was only $16.11 charged on every $100 worth of goods, thus making a reduction of $2.17 per $100. But that is not, as hon. gentlemen opposite think, a reduction of $2.17 on the $100, it is a reduction of $2.17 from $12.28, or a reduction in the rate of taxation of 12 per cent. Now, if a farmer sold his wheat one day at a dollar a bushel and the next day -was only offered 88 cents, he would think that was a pretty big reduction. If a mechanic got paid for his day's work $2 and the next day found he was only getting $1.73, he would think that a pretty big reduction. Thus the reduction this government has made has been made on the imports dutiable and free.
Let me point out the distinction between the two parties in reply to the cry that we have taken up their policy. I have read you our platform. What is the platform of the Conservative 'party? Is there any distinction between the two? Mr. Borden, the leader of the oppostion, in the bu-Igrt debate of 1903, moved:
That this House, regarding the present tariff as unsatisfactory, is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians.
There is the principle of protection. The rates of duty are to be so high as to shut out from this country any goods corning from any other which would interfere with the goods to be made in this country, irrespective of the effect on the revenue. But that surely is a different policy from ours. That was a resolution of non-confidence.
It was an invitation to the people to turn us out of office because our' tariff was not right. There must, therefore, have been a distinction between the two. What was that distinction? The principle of the Conservative party is that protection is the principal thing to he considered and not revenue. Listen to an extract froni -a speech made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), as given in the ' Mail and Empire * a few years ago:
So long as we import into this country $1,500,000 of agricultural implements in less than a year, every one of which might he made hy the artisans and labourers of this country, and import that amount from the United States, a market from which our products are shut out by an almost prohibitive tariff; so long as our binder twine is largely made for us in that country:	so long as
$11,000,000 manufactured iron and steel are brought in from the United States, whilst in Canada the great natural vaults are bursting with iron and coal, and Canadian brawn and intelligence is chafing to unlock them and set these riches and resources loose; so long as our pulp and paper resources are sacrificed in another market, and we import millions of dollars worth of their manufactured products; so long as the lead smelters of the United States grow rich, whilst they nut li per cent duty upon lead in ore and 2J per cent upon lead in bullion; so long as these things are unredressed, there is a reason for the existence of the Liberal-Conservative party.
Sir, one and a half million dollars worth of agricultural implements were imported into this country last year. This terrible state of affairs, in the hon. gentleman's mind, by which the people are bringing in one and a half million dollars worth of agricultural implements, is waiting to be redressed when the Conservative party comes into power by their putting on a tariff so high that even if any man be so deluded as to think it is right to buy the goods which he wants, there would be a barrier put in his way that will effectually stop him.


Mr. MACDONALD.: Is that their policy in the west? .


William Paterson: Oh yes, this state of things remains unredressed, and it is waiting until the Tories come in to redress it. I suppose when they get together and lay down their policy, to be consistent they would have to adopt a policy of adequate protection. These goods can be made in the country and therefore it will be their policy to put on a duty so high that no one can import them into Canada. I know that in a revenue tariff there is involved as an incident a certain amount of protection. You cannot have it otherwise, unless you put on an excise duty equal to your customs duty-and no one would sug-

gest that-or else give one line of manufacturer a protection under the raising of revenue that would make his article of manufacture so high in price that another manufacturer using his article as his raw material could not carrv on his industry because the man' before him would have taken the entire benefit of the duty.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: How do you reconcile a revenue tariff with a surplus of $12,000,000?


William Paterson: By making trade freer. We do not have large surpluses if we are paying all the capital expenditure as well as all our normal expenditures of carrying on great public works. Last year when our revenue fell off $12,000,000 we came very close to coming within, the requirements of the necessities of the country.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Then you admit that it is not a revenue tariff but a protective tariff?


William Paterson: Think of a man asking me if this is a revenue tariff! When the Conservatives -were in power they raised $17,000,000 and we are going to raise $60,000,000 and they ask me if it is a revenue tariff!


George Eulas Foster: Well is it?	*


William Paterson: Does it not look like it?


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: Taken out of the pockets of the people?


William Paterson: That is a favourite argument of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and those who follow him. If we took $60,000,001 into the treasury by customs last year and the Conservatives took only $17,000,000 or $18.000,000, then they say we have wrung it out of the pockets of the people. Not at all. A * government is responsible for what? For placing a law on the statute-book that says that for every dollar's worth of goods on the dutiable list brought into this country so many dollars and cents shall be paid into the treasury.


John Allister Currie: Who pays that, the man who sends it in or the man who buys it here?


William Paterson: You are getting now on a question about which there is a diversity of opinion.


John Allister Currie: What is your opinion?


William Paterson: I think sometimes it is divided, sometimes the consumer pays the whole, and sometimes the producer has to pay a part of it. What do you think? If you bring goods into this country, you will pay the duty in the first instance out M. PATERSON.
of whomever it may come in the ultimate. We take care it is paid by the man who brings the goods into the country. We collect through customs this year $60,000,000. That will be paid by the people into the treasury to carry on the affairs of this government. Under the previous government the people of the country paid into the treasury only some $17,000,000 or $18,000,000. The paying in of a larger amount now is due to no action on the part of this government. All a government can do is to say what rate of duty shall be levied. Having done that, the duty and power of the government are ended, that is the rate of taxation. Under the Conservative government that rate of taxation was $18.28 on every $100 of imported goods, dutiable and free, on the average. That has been reduced by this government to $16.11, a reduction of $2.17 on every $18.28 or a reduction in the rate of taxation of 12 per cent. Under that reduced taxation you have this extra $60,000,000. How does it come? Through no action of the government.


John Allister Currie: You have given one-half the market to the foreigner.


William Paterson: Through no action of the government has that $60,000,000 come in. It is paid by the people of this country. No government can compel a man or a lady to go into a store and buy a dollar's worth that the person does not want. The people do it themselves, they assess themselves. If they buy they pay, if they do not buy they do not pay. But, if they do buy, then, as far as the government is concerned, it is taking less from them than the late government did.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Would not the increase in the value of the goods at the ports of entry over what it was in 1896, account for much of that difference? Has the minister calculated that part of it?


William Paterson: Why should I do that now? That does not affect my argument at all.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That increase in the values has been the means of bringing into the treasury a largely increased revenue has it not?


William Paterson: That does not affect the rate of taxation. "If the rate of taxation is $16.11, no matter what the price of the goods may be, that is all the people pay. If they bought more they would have to pay more, but the rate of taxation is not affected. The extra revenue is paid owing to the fact that the people assess themselves, not through any action of the government.


George Eulas Foster: Clear.


William Paterson: Well, 1 could pardon some of the hon. gentlemen opposite for a laugh such as that I hear from my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), but I had supposed that he would be able to see a distinction between the action of the government and the action of the people themselves.


George Eulas Foster: No, I was amused at the clearness of your argument.


William Paterson: A merit that is lacking in the hon. gentleman's own argument and, therefore, I suppose, he admires it the more.


Robert Laird Borden: According to that argument, when the farmers of the old days were said to be 'bled white,' they bled themselves.


William Paterson: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Why not?


William Paterson: There is an example of ignorance of finance that I should not have looked for in the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden). The government imposed the rates of duty that caused the hard times.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps I may be allowed a question. The minister says that it was in the choice of the people to buy or not, and if they did buy they were burdened by their own action. Why was not that as good an argument then as now?


William Paterson: It was. But under the management of that government the people were not able to buy-they could not pay.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, how were they bled?


William Paterson: By the rate of taxation and the restriction on trade. You have an illustration before you. The hon. member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has more than once used the argument that if you are receiving larger revenue it means that the government has, by its own action, taken more money from the pockets of the people. And he has before him these facts: In 1896 there was a revenue of $3,000,000 from the post office, that representing the tax on carrying letters and papers. Last year over $6,000,000 came in from that source. According to the logic of my hon. friend from North Toronto, that extra $3,000,000 has been taken from the pockets of the people by raising the taxation. According to his argument, the letter that was carried in Canada for three cents in 1896 must be carried for six cents now, and the letter that was carried to the old country for five cents must be charged ten cents now.


John Allister Currie: Will the hon. gentleman-


William Paterson: Oh, keep quiet.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Allister Currie: I wish to ask a question.	*


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman (Mr. J. A. Currie) must remember that if he wishes to "put a question it is onlv courteous that he should do it not exactly in the very centre of an argument that a speaker is making. There is a courtesy in the time in which a question is asked.


John Allister Currie: I only wish to ask


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Paterson: I have to go over my whole argument again because of this uncalled for interruption. I say that, according to the argument of the hon. member from North Toronto, the $6,000,000 raised through the post office now as against $3,000,000 in 1896 means that the letter that cost three cents then must cost six cents now, and the letter that cost five cents then must be taxed ten cents now. That is inevitable from his logic. But what is the fact? The three-cent letter is carried for two cents and the five-cent letter for two cents. And, though the rate of the tax has been cut in two, the revenue has doubled.


George Eulas Foster: Am I outside the centre of the argument now? If so, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman where he can find the argument which he has attributed to me?


William Paterson: In the hon. member's utterances.


George Eulas Foster: Can the hon. gentleman cite an utterance of mine bearing that out?


William Paterson: I can find it in this very debate.


George Eulas Foster: Then, it would be better for the hon. gentleman to cite it before making an inference from it.


William Paterson: Does the hon. gentleman deny that he has stated, time and again, that the increased revenue from customs is due


George Eulas Foster: The hon. member (Mr. Paterson) was not talking about customs tariff but about postage stamps.


William Paterson: I was using that as an illustration; the hon. member (Mr. Foster) is not so dull as not to see that.


George Eulas Foster: He attributed the postage stamp argument to me, and I am not aware

that I ever used it. If he wishes to use the postage stamp argument that is up to his capacity and he can do it. *


William Paterson: I did not attribute the postage stamp argument to the hon. gentleman. I used it to illustrate his statement that if more money comes into the public treasury through the customs duty it must of necessity have been because the government have wrung it from the pockets of the people by increased taxes? Does he deny that?


George Eulas Foster: I have no objection to the hon. minister using that argument, but I do not wish him to attribute it. to myself.


William Paterson: I have not done it. Now, as we are cross-questioning one another, will he tell me what lesson he draws from the fact that, whereas with rates of three cents and five cents on letters a postal revenue of $3,000,000 was raised in 18C6, now, with rates reduced to two cents all round $6,000,000 is raised? Does he draw from that the lesson that it is possible to lower the rate of taxation and yet greatly increase the income?


George Eulas Foster: If the hon. member wishes to know my idea, I have to clear the ground a bit by asking whether or not he looks upon the postage rate as a tax? I myself do not.


William Paterson: I would like to know what else it is. You cannot get a letter carried unless you buy a stamp, and that stamp represents a tax.


Robert Laird Borden: Are the fares on the Intercolonial railway a tax?


William Paterson: No. They go to defray the expenses of the railway.


Robert Laird Borden: The same way with the postal revenue.


William Paterson: But there is a tax represented by the stamp on'a letter.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman explain why the cost of carrying a letter is a tax, and the cost of carryin" a passenger or freight is not a tax? '	"


William Paterson: Well, in both cases; the man that travels on the Intercolonial pays, and the man that gets a letter carried pays. But here is what the government does. They say, if we carry that letter for you, you have got to pay two cents for it; and we say to the other_man, if we are going to carry you on the intercolonial you have got to pay us so much for it; and if we lower the rate on the Intercolonial it is the same as lowering the rate on the letter.


Robert Laird Borden: But why is the one a tax and the other is not a tax? I understood the hon. gentleman to say that one was a tax and the other was not a tax. Mr. FOSTER.


William Paterson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know, of course, whether it is of set purpose, to break up my argument, that I am interrupted. I can only say this, that I think what has been done is not the most courteous thing in the world, and I do not think it is the most dignified. I am not taking any offence at it. But hon. gentlemen opposite cannot put me out of my argument, whether it be right or wrong, with all the interruptions they may make. But for hon. gentlemen occupying the front benches, men who ask to be entrusted with the affairs of the country, to say that because there are sixty millions of money going into the public treasury by way of customs, when there were only eighteen millions before, and that that is due to the action of the government, when the only action the government can take is to lower the rate of taxation which determines it, the purchase being wholly voluntary on the part of the people that buy the goods, is something that I think-well, at any rate I would not like to build my reputation upon it.


Robert Laird Borden: I will not interrupt the hon. gentleman again.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The rule is that no hon. member has a right to interrupt an hon. member having the floor except on a point of order, or with his permission. If the hon. member having the floor objects to the interruption, that is an end to it, according to the rules of the House.


John Allister Currie: You will please remember, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman asked me to wait until the end of his argument, and then he would answer me, and that I have done. I wanted to-know now if he will answer the question.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman must resume his seat.


William Paterson: I decline to answer it.


John Allister Currie: I just wanted to know


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I will have to name the hon. gentleman if he continues in his present course.


George Eulas Foster: Ah, this is the first time-we have heard anything about naming a member.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Hon. gentlemen will acknowledge that I have been very indulgent so far, hoping that hon. gentlemen themselves would observe the rules of debate. Every member in this House has an interest in seeing these rules observed.


William Paterson: I decline to answer the question, not on my own account, not because my argument may be wrong, but because they are not going to prevent me from mailing my argument. I take it as a.

compliment, because hon. gentlemen do not make this noise and these interruptions unless they feel hurt by the argument. But when I find the leader of the opposition taking part in these interruptions, then it is the dignity of the House that I am concerned for; for they are distinctly lowering it by their continued interruptions.


Robert Laird Borden: I rise to a point of order. I do not think the hon. gentleman has a right to allude to me in that manner. I asked him three or four questions, I understood with his consent. If he had declined to permit the questions he should have said so. I certainly understood that I had his consent in asking them. I think he ought to withdraw the expression he has used. The mere fact that he was not able to make good his distinction should not cause him to lose his temper.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


William Paterson: I would be happy to withdraw, I do not want to give the least offence to my hon. friend opposite, if he will promise to be good from this out. Now, Sir, I was pointing out the difference between the two. I was saying that the resolution of the leader of the opposition was a declaration of want of confidence in the government, asking that the government be turned out because it did not adopt what he called adequate protection. I read an extract from a speech of the hon. member for North Toronto in which he pointed out the large agricultural imports into this country, and I was alluding to the claim of hon. gentlemen opposite that we have carried out their National Policy, and that whatever success has attended the administration of affairs by this government, is due to that policy. I pointed that out as a distinct difference between the two parties. Their policy has been the protective principle, that is, to make their tariff wall high enough to shut out goods from coming into the country; whereas we arranged a tariff so as to. produce a revenue necessary to carry on the affairs of the government; and while there is protection wherever there are customs duties, if it be only 5 per cent or 10 per cent, that protection exists only as an incident and- not as a principle. The principle of protection carried to the extreme for which these hon. gentleman stand, was illustrated by one of their speakers the other night, when he was giving the history of the protection of the woollen industry in England. He went away back to the time of King Edward the III, and he told us what was done in those days to protect the woollen industry. He told us that if a man wanted to ship wool out or to bring woollen goods in, the law was that he was to be
fined; and if fining him did not stop him, then they were going to kill him according to law, he was to be put to death. Well, that would be extreme protection, it would be adequate so far as that man was concerned, no doubt about that. What is adequate protection? Why, it is one that will shut out this million and a half dollars' worth of agricultural implements that the hon. member for North Toronto tells us about, that are coming into this country. Therefore, he says there is need for the Conservative party. Now, I was going to point out to you that the object of our tariff plank was to make trade freer with the whole world. That I have shown we have done, by increasing the number of articles on the free list, by reducing the duty of those on the general list, and by the heavy British preferential tariff. But we have done more than that. We were to have the tariff so arranged that trade should be freer, that it should promote domestic and foreign trade. Well, it has been so arranged. Under it the domestic trade has grown to enormous proportions; we cannot tell until our census is taken again how great that proportion is. With reference to our foreign trade, we know it has been so arranged as to make a marvellous change. In 1896 our total imports were $118,000,000, and our exports $121,000,000. In 1908 there were $370,000,000 of imports and $280,000,000 of exports. It was so arranged that the foreign trade of this country has sprung from less than $240,000,000 to' in 1908, $650,000,000. Have we carried out the platform in that respect? We were instructed to so arrange the tariff that it'would hasten the return of prosperity to our people. Did we do it? Scarce had we accomplished it before prosperity was in sight and it has been going on ever since. The people know that is the case.
Now, then, I want to touch upon another thing. The hon. member for North Toronto the other day asked the question: Have you made trade freer? Where have you made trade freer? That was one of the things laid down in your platform. I answer: We have made it freer for the whole world in the reductions that we made in our general tariff. We have made it, in addition to that, still freer with Great Britain, still freer with New Zealand, still freer with South Africa, still freer with India, still freer with the West Indies, still freer with Guiana, still freer, lately, with France, and we have made provision for freer trade with other countries if they desire it by our preferential tariff. There has been a continual carrying out of the principle which was laid down by the Liberal convention. Every principle laid down by that convention with reference to trade matters has been followed out by this government. I want to just touch

barely on one of the statements that the hon. member for North Toronto made in regard to some advice that he gave to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. He said that when the revenues are buoyant the Finance Minister should lay aside some of the revenue for lessening the debt. That may have some- merit, but let me tell the hon. gentleman he has lost sight of the fact that it was better for the Finance Minister not to do as he says he should do. Why? Because the very expenditures that he has made have secured in a large measure the great prosperity that you have in the country. That is easy to be seen by any one wlio gives the subject any thought. If you have taken your surplus funds and have made an investment of them that will bring you back ten, fifteen or fifty-fold it is better than laying them aside. He says that out of your abundant revenues you should lay something aside, and he takes it for granted that if these expenditures had not been made we would have had these abundant revenues all the same. But, you would not have had them? The money is coming back as the result of the wise expenditures that have been made by this government. Do not lose sight of that.


George Taylor: Like buying sawdust wharfs.


William Paterson: No, not by buying sawdust wharfs; no, no. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. G. Taylor) wants to know I will touch upon that for a few minutes. Where have the large expenditures been? The hon. member for North Toronto asked us to state what we have got that stands and is useful to this country, and is either productive or stimulative for the expenditures of these millions of money that he was alluding to at that time. I will tell you some of the things we have; it would take too long to give the whole list.


George Taylor: Commence with the Quebec bridge.


William Paterson: No, I will tell you where I will commence; I will commence, first, with the statement that we have secured population through the expenditure of many millions by our immigration department. Is there nothing lasting o.' beneficial in the immigrants that are coming into this country by hundreds of thousands? We spent seven or eight millions, it is true. But what are the returns? Half a million of people coming into the country-we are told, in one year-and bringing with them $80,000,000 or $100,000,000. Is that a wise expenditure? Who says it is not? Second, our Intercolonial Tailway has been improved. You say there is no net revenue to-day, but is there no benefit to the people who use that road, Mr PATERSON.
no convenience, no advantage given by that expenditure? More money to be expended by the local governments through the increased subsidies given. Some millions have gone in that. Is that any benefit? It has gone back to the people, it has gone to the governments of the different provinces to be expended for the benefit of the people, and these people are the people of the Dominion. Has that money been wisely expended? It has gone to the iron and steed industries through bounties. There has been an expenditure of millions in that way. Has there been any resulting benefit from it? I am not go-ng to enter into a discussion of that question. The Finance Minister spoke in reference to it. There may be different views, but I want to tell you that these bounties came to be raised to what they are because we lowered the tariff on iron and steel, and it was made up in that way. We were enabled to reduce the duties on these articles through the bounty and the reduction of these duties meant a reduction in the raw material to the men who make the implements the farmer uses and to the industries in which iron is used, and in that way we have got the benefit. Just in passing let me say, because I am not going_ to argue or enter into a discussion of this question to-day, that we certainly do not give bonuses just for the fun of the thing.
I might remind you of another statement that the Prime Minister made in speaking of that policy. He said that we were to lower the rate of taxation and we were to do this without doing injustice to any classes. He emphasized that in the speech which he made by saying that when duties have been in force once it is not a very easy matter to reduce them because new industries have sprung up, but when you want to reduce them it ought to be done with great consideration and he was sure that when the Liberal government came into power they woulcl, not be indifferent to that primary truth.' We found the iron and steel industries in existence and the duties that were upon their products under the tariff of protection was $4 on pig iron and $10 on steel. We reduced the duty on pig iron to $2.50 and the duty on steel to $7. If we had done that without giving them increased bounties we should have done the injustice to them that was pointed out by the Prime Minister when he spoke at that time. That was our reason for doing this and it has been done. Now then if the steel and iron bounties, or any other bounties, are given for the advantage of some individuals alone, and have no national importance, they cannot be justified. That is the test that must be applied. If you give bounties they must" rest on the principle of the national importance of in-

dustry. We may differ in our views on this point, but I hold that these industries are of national importance. I hold that they are of -such great benefit, so widespread in their ramifications, that the whole country is benefited by these industries being in existence. I was struck when I was at Sault Ste. Marie by a statement which was made by one of the gentlemen who was connected with an institution there. I did not undertake to verify it, it may be an extravagant statement-I cannot say-but it struck me as an extraordinary statement when he told me that that industry located at the Sault employed more shipping tonnage than all the tonnage employed on the inland waters in moving the whole crop of the Northwest down to the ports of exit. I have not verified it, but it gives an idea of what strength there is in this. Perhaps the same cannot toe said of the oil industry, but at all events it was an industry whi'ch had been kept in existence by all the governments from -confederation down, and in order to lessen the duties which were paid toy our people on this article of prime necessity in the rural parts of the country especially, the duty was reduced and the oil producer was compensated by a bounty. The lead industry was the same. Cheaper transport for our products through improvements of our harbours: Montreal, Toronto, Fort William, Port Arthur, Port Col-borne, St. John, Halifax, Quebec and our lake and open ports generally; (6) enlarged canals and free canals; (7) improvement of the St. Lawrence river route; (8) cheaper transport on ocean steamers through a bonus; (9) cheaper transport through aid to railways toy bonus; (10) the -Crowsnest Pass railway through a bonus; (11) the Transcontinental railway through local expenditure and guarantee; (12) the South African expenditure (a direct expenditure); (13) the place we -occupy to-day in the thoughts of other nations. These are assets; these are all contributing sources to the magnificent prosperity we have in the country now. Why, Sir, the sending of these volunteers to South Africa raised high the fame of Canada. That is an asset and though it may not be direct it has been of vast indirect benefit to the country. Why did we improve the St. Lawrence route, and why did we enlarge the harbour of Montreal? I represent a rural constituency in part, and we are 400 miles from Montreal and several hundred miles further from the mouth of the St. Lawrence, but I am voting to -deepen and to light and to buoy the St. Lawrence river and to enlarge the harbour of Montreal. Is it because I like the people of Montreal better than I like my own constituents? Certainly not. Is it that for the pleasure of the thing I vote to spend millions of money, some of which was contributed toy my rural constituents, to im-67	'
prove our navigation facilities? No. Why is it then? It is -because, as I have often told my people and they agree with me, I want the harbour of Montreal enlarged because I want more ships to come to that port. 1 want more ships because the more ships the keener the -competition for cargo, and the keener the competition the lower the ocean freight rate, and because every cent reduction in the cost of transportation is a cent in the pocket of the producer. Who can tell the amount of permanent benefit that has -come to the farmers of this country from the expenditures we have made on the harbour of -Montreal and the improvement of the St. Lawrence? That route has been made so safe that ocean liners can come up there through the dark hours of the night as well as in the daylight. Time has been saved, risk has been lessened and freight has been lowered to the consequent profit of the producers of our exports. That is an improvement which is paying good interest on the investment t-o all the people of Canada. And so with the improvement of the harbours on the lakes: Fort William, Port Arthur, Midland, Victoria Harbour, Goderich and all these. That work is not done for the benefit of the people living in the locality alone; it is done to reduce the cost of transportation and, I say it here that if there is any benefit to be given to the agriculturist by way of lowering the tariff, just and equitable, the agriculturist is entitled to it. But, I hold that more can toe done to benefit the agriculturist of Canada toy reducing to him the cost of getting his goods in the market than by a reduction of the tariff. A reduction in the tariff is all right so far as you can go, but the farmer is vastly more' interested in the wise expenditure of all the money that comes into the public treasury, contributed by all classes as well as by himself, in bettering the facilities for transport aqd cheapening its cost. If by improving our transportation facilities we can reduce by two or three cents a bushel the cost of landing produce in the -consuming market, fancy what a benefit that is to the producer in the west, not only on one year's crop but on the crop of every succeeding year. Take, for example, the $3,360,000, contributed to the treasury by all the people of Canada, which this government gave to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to touild 330 miles of a railway from Lethbridge to Nelson. Our opponents spoke of it as the Crowsnest deal or the. Crowsnest steal, and they tried to magnify it into a scandal although I notice that this year they have dropped it. They do not refer to it any longer. There was an expenditure of some millions, concerning which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) asked what had we accomplished by it. What did we accomplish? Sir, we secured the building of that



road. We have had a tract of 330 miles of undeveloped country opened up, in which there are towns, cities and villages and a mining population, producing wealth, adding revenue to the treasury by the taxation they pay. But that is not all there is in that bargain. One of the conditions on which we paid that $3,300,000 was that the Canadian Pacific railway was to give us
50,000	acres of coal land which they had acquired from the British Columbia government. That is our national asset to-day; and the fact that we have fixed $2 as the maximum price of the coal that may be sold there, is of untold benefit to the people who have to buy coal in the Northwest. That alone is an item which would justify the transaction. But what more did we do? It will be remembered that in the bargain made by the old government, the Canadian Pacific railway were not obliged to reduce their rates until their road earned 10 per cent net. Well, Sir, that was a contingency very unlikely to happen, and therefore this government, when they made the bargain with the Canadian Pacific railway to give them $3,300,000 to build that road, stipulated for a reduction in the freight rates on their whole system. By that means, we obtained a reduction which we could not have got otherwise. Among other reductions in freight rates, was a reduction of three cents per 100 pounds on all grain coming out of that country. What did that amount to? Figure it out, and you will find that the farmers, within four years, got back the whole of that $3,300,000, and they are reaping a proportionate and like benefit until this day and will be for all time to come. And yet we are asked in what manner we have promoted the prosperity of this country.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Might I ask a question? How many bushels of wheat are freighted over the Crowsnest Pass road which the hon. minister is speaking of?


William Paterson: The reduction I speak of applies to the whole system.


Glenlyon Campbell: Has any wheat ever been freighted over that road?


William Paterson: No, but there has been wheat freighted over the other portions of the Canadian Pacific railway system.


Glenlyon Campbell: I thought the hon. gentleman was speaking of the Crowsnest Pass road and of the expenditure on it.


William Paterson: There has been no wheat freighted over that road.


Glenlyon Campbell: Then I do not see where the minister's argumenf~comes in.


William Paterson: That is because you did not rightly grasp the bargain. Under Mr. PATERSON.
that bargain, grain all over the Northwest territory which comes out on the Canadian Pacific railway system is carried at a reduced rate. If there be 40,000,000 carried on the Canadian Pacific railroad, that is carried at the three cents per 100 pounds reduction. Just think of it. The direct recipients are the men who grow the grain. It might be said that in fairness some of that money ought to have gone into the public treasury, but the farmers are the ones who get it directly. When they come to market their wheat, the buyer knows the ultimate price in the market'to which the wheat is going. He has to figure the freight and insurance charges and all the other expenses in order that he may know what margin there will be for him and what price he can afford to pay. And when he knows that he gets a reduction of 3 cents a hundred pounds on the freight, he is able to give the farmer the benefit of that at once, and it goes at once into the farmer's pocket because he gets it in the extra price which the wheat buyer is enabled to pay him. What does that mean to the people in the Northwest? While I do not undervalue their request for a lower tariff, what is that in comparison with the benefit they can derive from the wise expenditure of. money out of the public treasury to which all the people in the country contribute? It means millions. Whenever you can lower the insurance or the freight rates by deepening the St. Lawrence, by lighting it, by enlarging the harbours-every time you can take a cent off the cost of the transportation of the produce of this country, that is a benefit to the men who raise the crops. While I give every credit to my hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture, for the steps he has taken and is still taking, in order to benefit the producers of this country, that is only a minor matter as compared with a wise expenditure of the public money in improving and cheapening the lines of transportation, and in this way giving our farmers money far in excess of what they would get had not these additional facilities been provided out of our public revenue. The great producing class of this country is the farmer, and therefore every reduction in freight is a reduction which goes into their pockets. More than half the total exports of this country are the products of the farm, so that the man who raises those products is the one who gets the benefit of the reduced rates secured to him by the expenditure of public money.


Glenlyon Campbell: Might I ask another
question? Do I understand that owing to this legislation in reference to the Crowsnest Pass railway the freight rates on produce in the northwest were reduced three cents to the farmers?


William Paterson: Three cents a 100 pounds, yes.


Glenlyon Campbell: This is the first time I understand that because it is not the case.


William Paterson: Then the hon. gentleman will be obliged to me for telling him.


Glenlyon Campbell: For the information as it comes, but not for the fact.


William Paterson: I think my hon. friend will find it is correct. That was one of the conditions of the bargain made with the Canadian Pacific railway. We gave them $11,000 a mile for the building of 330 miles of railway. That was larger than any bonus given to any other company, the bonus generally being $3,200 a mile, and in some cases $6,400 through very difficult country. That subsidy was given not to build the road alone, but to secure to the people of the west the great boon of having a reduction in freight rates of three cents a hundred pounds for all time to come. In addition to that, lower rates were to be given on goods imported into that country, coal oil, agricultural implements, &c., so that, taking these things into consideration and remembering that the money has been paid back-although of course it went to farmers it was still paid back -and on that one item in four years there has been an immense relief to these people. I give it as an illustration of all the other expenditures. By wise expenditures of that kind you are benefiting the country, you increase your revenue, you have one of the greatest resources of the prosperity of this country. I have spoken at length. I do not apologize for it. I do not mean to say that I have spoken longer than I intended. _ When I rose I felt, whatever others might feel, that there were some things I wanted to say, things that in my judgment should be said, and I made up my mind I would take up as long as it required me if my physical force enabled my voice to reach your ears. I recognize the fact- that in the ordinary session, deducting the time devoted to routine proceedings, there is only between two and three hours of time for each member of this House to occupy the floor. I auite recognize that the large part of the time that might fairly be allotted to me has been consumed by me on this occasion and I therefore will endeavour to keep as quiet as possible during the remainder of this session.


Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma).: natural resources than to their management of the finances of the country.
What position does my hon. friend take now in regard to Providence? Providence is surely at fault now. Under the Conservative government, Providence was doing -all the work. Now my hon. friend says, with his right hon. leader, that our prosperity and the wonderful progress this country has made are due to the wise policy of the Liberal party. Then my hon. friend touched upon a very interesting feature of the history of his party, the Liberal convention of 1893 at which he and some other hon. members on that side were present and the official report of which I hold in my hand. And this he did quite without any necessity, because I do not know that the subject has been raised in this debate. He takes upon himself'the somewhat onerous task of justifying the planks of that platform and of proving that each one of them has been kept by the party and not broken and disregarded. Well, Sir, there was a Liberal convention in Ottawa in [DOT] 1893. These hon. gentlemen having been then about fifteen years out of office, and, hungering for the sweets of office, they desired a platform upon which they could come into power. And so they met in solemn council in Ottawa to provide means by which they could satisfy the electorate that they ought to be elected to office. They, apparently, did not meet with many disagreements as among themselves and they parted after expressing by suitable resolution confidence in the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who now leads this House, and singing ' For he's a jolly good fellow.' I can only say that, especially with regard to carrying out this platform and the promises which he made at that convention and afterwards made in the province of Quebec and in the west, there never was a ' jollier fellow ' in the history of Canada. For, as a ' jollier,' the right hon. gentleman is most successful. In the art of * flim-flamming ' the electorate the right hon. gentleman is a past master as a 'jolly fellow.' The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) forgot some things concerning the carrying out of the principles of that convention, especially with regard to free trade. By reading the records of the convention, he tried to show that what the right hon. Prime Minister meant was not free trade as they have it in England-that that never was promised by the Liberal party of Canada. He read a certain portion of the hon. member's (Sir Wilfrid Laurier's) speech declaring that he would apply the principle as nearly as he could to work out the beneficial results which he expected would flow from it. Either the Minister of Customs is losing his memory or he did not see fit, when he was going into ancient history, to tell the House all he knew about Mr. BOYCE.
the statements made by the present leader of the House on the principle of free trade. He forgot to tell us that all that the right hon. gentleman said on the subject of free trade was not said in the convention hall. The right hon. gentleman had to satisfy parties in the west, and people down by the sea, and manufacturers of Ontario, upon that question. Arguing the matter years after the event the Minister of Customs forgets what the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) himself cannot forget, and what he dare not and cannot deny-his own utterances to the people of Manitoba in the city of Winnipeg in 1895. Let us see what he said and compare that with his attitude as interpreted by the Minister of Customs. The right hon. gentleman has heard these words time and again, but it would be a pity should he forget them:
I come before you to-night to preach to you this new gospel of free trade. I denounce to you the policy of protection as bondage. Yes, bondage. And I refer to bondage in the same manner in which American slavery was bondage. Sir, our policy is freedom of trade such as exists in England, such as is practised in Great Britain. I propose that we should follow England's example and open our ports to the products of the world. In the city of Montreal, the Liberal party believes in free trade on broad lines such as exists in Great Britain, and upon that platform, exemplified as I have told you, the Liberal party will fight its next battle.
The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) forgot that expression, as he forgot some other matters, one of which is very fresh in our memories. He forgot the very interesting debate upon the Senate which we had yesterday and on which, I believe, the hon. gentleman cast his vote. He will remember the words of Sir Oliver Mowat, chairman of the Liberal convention, and he will remember the speech made by the Bight Hon. Sir Bichard Cartwright on that occasion in which he said:
I think, Sir, we all agree

That is the great Liberal party of Canada agree.
I think, Sir, we all agree that the constitution of the Senate as it at present exists is a blot upon popular government and upon free institutions.
And there was a plank in the platform to reform the Senate and remove that blot upon popular government and free institutions. But what has the party of the hon. gentlemen opposite done to remove that blot? Time after time discussions have taken place in this House on the subject of reforming or ending the Senate. Has my hon. friend (Mr. Paterson) lifted up his sonorous voice in favour of making good

that plank of the platform of the Liberal party ? I do not think so. I certainly have never heard the hon. gentleman speak on that question before. The hon. gentleman dealt also with the question of expenditure. He says that the Liberal party promised at that convention that the extravagance which they said was rampant under the Conservative party then in power should be checked and that there should be economy, wise economy, in the expenditure of the people's money. Well, I think my hon. friend's memory must be equal to the task of remembering some of the instances in which that plank has been violated. I think he remembers several instances in which motions were made in this House, and matters were brought to the attention of the government, in which an unwise expenditure, a very dishonest expenditure was the subject of very severe criticism, sometimes defended by my hon. friend, sometimes allowed to go in tacit silence. But we can refer to one or two instances of unwise expenditures. We have been treated lately to an incident of unwise expenditure-I refer to the Sawdust wharf which has been mentioned this afternoon; and there are others which make up the history of the life of this government, with mentioning which I will not weary the House at this time. But this remains, that whereas, under the Conservative government there was economy of administration, there was an attempt made to keep those, who were handling the people's money down to the letter, of their duty, and to see that every dollar of money was employed in the proper channel, yet how has that been swept to the winds by this party who promised to see that every dollar of the people's money should be wisely, honestly and economically spent. I will just quote one instance that occurs to me. and that is an instance where an official of this government were not exactly, what one might call, living up to the letter of honesty, I refer to the case which was the subject of a resolution in this House two or three years ago, a case in which an employee of the Immigration Department of the government was convicted of stealing from a person with whom he came in contact as search officer. He was sentenced to a term in jail, he spent the term in jail, and when he was released, largely by the very wise, the paternal act of the Minister of the Interior, he was rewarded by being put back in the position, with his' salary raised, and the scope of his duties extended. That is an incident of how the Liberal party has carried out that plank in their platfrom.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 36) respecting the Union Life Assurance Company.-Mr. McGiverin.
On section 1,-first instalment on shares.
David Henderson: What is the meaning of that clause? I do not see the promoter of that Bill in the House; neither do I see the chairman of the Banking and Commerce Committee. It seems to me that we have no one here to vouch for this _ Bill. Certainly, if we are going to proceed with the Bill the promoter of the Bill at least should be here. This, to my mind, is a very important Bill and one which I thought should not have passed the Banking and Commerce Committee. I know there are others of the same opinion as myself. We were not at all satisfied with it and before we proceed with this Bill I think we should have the promoter of the Bill, or the chairman of the committee, to explain what the various clauses mean and why the company is asking for them. Some very peculiar things came up in the Banking and Commerce Committee in regard to this Bill, and the House is entitled to a great deal more light on the Bill than what we are going to get to-night, in the absence of the two gentlemen who are especially interested in promoting the Bill. I do not know what the government thinks about it; the government is very weak to-night, very lame. We have no one here to take charge of government measures except the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham). He is usually in his place. I commend him for it. I wish I could commend some of the others for diligence just in the same way, but I am sorry to say I can not do it. I do not know whether they have gone down to tne city to take part in the election that is going on at the present time.


Mr. TALBOT.: They have gone to the hockey match.


David Henderson: They have gone to the hockey match. Well, if it has come to this that ministers of the Crown, when important measures are before the House, have nothing better to do than attend a hockey match, I think we had better adjourn parliament until the hockey matches are all over.


Mr. GRAHAM.: I think I will send for the leader of the opposition.


David Henderson: I understand the leader of the opposition is very well oc-

cupied to-night and possibly my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals will find out on the 29th of this month that he is doing mighty good service. The leader of the opposition is a free commoner. He is not bound to be here every night. He has lieutenants to look after the interests of the opposition, but the government is always supposed to be here. Here is a Bill respecting the Canadian Pacific railway and I am glad to see the Minister of Railways and Canals in his place. Here is another respecting the Canadian Pacific railway. The minister is in his place to see to that also, but there is another Bill respecting trust and loan companies.


Mr. LAVERGNE.: The Minister of Finance is here.


David Henderson: Just arrived in time to escape castigation. I am delighted to see him. The Finance Minister is one of those men against whom we can say very little for non-attendance. I commend the minister for it. You will find him here late and early attending to his duties. I never knew him to go away to a hockey match when important business was on hand and I think the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) was too fast when he informed us that the ministers of the Crown, except the Minister of Railways and Canals, had all gone off to the hockey match. I hope that before the committee rises the hon. member for Bellechasse will rise in his place and do the Minister of Finance the justice of saying that he made a mistake and that he was not well informed, as he is nearly every time.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: It is quite true that I made a mistake, but I did not think that my hon. friend's swallowing powers were as good as they are.


David Henderson: If the hon. member for Bellechasse has anything worth swallowing he can depend upon it I will open my mouth. I am here to listen, I am here to take note of what is going on, I am here to watch legislation and if men are not here who ought to be here to attend to matters of this kind I am obliged to express my opinion of them. This is not the first time that I have prevented a Bill from going through simply because the promoters of the Bill and the chairman of the committee were not present. I feel very much like taking that stand to-night. I am not going to boast of my power because I may not have a sufficient number behind me if the government should choose to divide on the question and call upon their friends to put the measure through with or without consideration, but I believe the good sense of the minister will cause him to reflect and I say that the course which I have taken is I the proper one to pursue. I remember that ' Mr. HENDERSON.
on former occasions the Minister of Finance has agreed with me that it is a proper thing to object to a Private Bill going through when the chairman of the committee or the promoter of the Bill is not in his place. I feel like appealing to the Finance Minister to-night to support me and I am inclined to think that if I do he will be gracious enough to do it. He may go wrong sometimes, like the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) who addressed us this afternoon for nearly two and a half hours, when he undertook to show that the ten planks in the platform of the Liberal party, as laid down in 1893, had all been carried out. I do not think the Minister of Finance would get up in his place and support the Minister of Customs in that. I think he would modify his language somewhat, but I think the Minister of Finance would support me in the contention I have raised that we should not proceed with this legislation in the absence of more information, the information that can only be given by the promoter of the Bill or the chairman of the committee that had it in charge. Now, I am going to appeal to the Minister of Finance if I have not taken the proper stand, if this is not the proper mode of procedure. This is a very important Bill, a Bill that passed through the committee, and I say now, and I appeal to the judgment of other members of the committee, that we were not satisfied at all. We had our doubts about the Bill in the Committee of Banking and Commerce and I am rather inclined to think that the Minister of Finance will give me some support in stopping the progress of this Bill until the men come in who have the right to vouch for it and whose duty it is to explain it. I appeal to the House to prevent this bad example being set. I ask the Minister of Finance who is leading the House this evening to assist me in not letting Bills go through in this way.


Mr. A. M. MARTIN.: In justice to the chairman of the Banking and Commerce Committee it is only fair to say he is engaged at present at a meeting of the committee on the race track gambling Bill. He has been in that committee since seven o'clock and may be there until nine o'clock.


George Taylor: I just left the committee and I saw him there.


William Stevens Fielding: Although the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill is known to be a great athelete, I am sure he has no intention of neglecting the progress of the Bill. I do not think there is anything to be gained by pressing the Bill if objection is taken, and there will be no trouble at all in letting it stand over.


David Henderson: I think that is proper. Shall we say 'stand.'
Progress reported.


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 96) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 97) respecting the Pacific and Atlantic Railway Company-Mr. Tolmie.

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for the second reading of Bill (No. 99) respecting the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Burrell.
Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The hon. member in charge of this Bill is not present and perhaps the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) will intimate mat it should stand over as he did in the case of the other Bill.


David Henderson: This is only a second reading.


William Stevens Fielding: This is the second reading of the Bill, and the House will have an opportunity of dealing with it later on, so that I hope the rule laid down by my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) will not be enforced too severely.


David Henderson: I do not think it should be invoked on the second reading of the Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: I have heard the hon. gentleman invoke the rule against the second reading. I would not like to think that he has any partisan feeling in the matter; I would not like to think that he objects to a Bill because it is in charge of an hon. member on this side of the House, while he would wish to jolly along a Bill which stands in the name of one of his political friends. That would take away from the character for impartiality which my hon. friend wishes to maintain.


David Henderson: I thank the Minister of Finance for his very kind expression. All I had in view was to give my hon. friend time to get his wind. I had no intention of delaying the Bill, but there was an object in just wasting a little time. The Minister of Finance knows how that works. .


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

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider ways and means for raising a supply to be granted to His Majesty.
Arthur Cyril Boyce: Mr. Speaker, when you left the chair I was commenting upon the somewhat extraordinary speech which the Minister of Customs treated the House to. I was referring to the contention which the hon. gentleman made with a great deal of vehemence, that the pledges of the Liberal convention of 1893 had all been honourably carried out by the Liberal government. I do not see the Minister of Customs in his place to-night, and probably the remark that some of the ministers had gone to the hockey match applies to him. I am sorry he is not present that I might remind him of the speech he made at that convention. The hon. gentleman spoke there, and the report tells us that he was received with loud and continuous applause and that he had to tell the people to keep quiet because even he could not make himself heard above the din. He spoke especially with reference to the trade policy of the Liberal party in support of the resolution denouncing the principle of protection as radically unsound and unjust to the masses of the people, and declaring that any tariff changes based on that principle must fail to afford any substantial relief from the burdens under which the country laboured.
I quote from the words of the Minister of Customs:
You have laid down and emphasized again the principle held by the Liberal party in this matter of trade and commerce, that in the levying of the taxes of the country, regard should be had only to the necessities of the revenue and that the government should not seek by tariff legislation to favour any particular class in the community. I say this is no new principle. A revenue tariff was in force when our late leader, Alexander Mackenzie, who has gone to his long rest, held the reins of power; and he and his government fell because he would not yield to the cry for a protective tariff. From that dav to this the Liberal party have not ceased to proclaim that they believed that it was not right or just that protection, as a principle, should be recognized by the government of the country, and that they believed that the duty of the government was to raise the necessary revenue to discharge the duties devolving upon the government and to leave the people free to work out their own destiny, giving no undue advantage to any one portion of the community over another. And to-day, Sir, you have embodied that principle in the resolution now before us.
So that the hon. gentleman's memory was slightly defective when he tried to make out that the tariff for this country was not a protective tariff. His colleague, the Minister of Finance, will not deny that it is. How does the hon. gentleman, the Minister of Customs, reconcile the language he used in supporting that resolution which formed one of the ten planks of the Liberal platform, with the remarks he made to-day and with the budget we are now de-

bating. In that language he said lie was -in favour of a tariff for revenue only, whereas to-day he is lauding to the skies what is a moderately protective tariff and a tariff in some respects a great deal too high to suit some hon. gentlemen opposite.
These are anomalies with regard to which the hon. gentleman was very weak, and it seemed to me he was rather gratified when he was interrupted, as the interruption gave him the opportunity to assume the semblance of wrath and some little time to consider how he could best square himself with his former professions.
My hon. friend spoke about another platform-the platform of prohibition. Did his party carry out their promise with regard to that platform? They passed a resolution on the question of prohibition. Did they carry out what they promised in their speeches on that resolution? We know what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) said. He said that if his party were elected, it would carry prohibition if such a measure had a majority in the country. Well, a plebiscite was taken and there was a majority in favour of prohibition, what has my hon. friend to say now? These hon. gentlemen, who were so lavish in their professions, took on themselves the responsibility of saying that the majority in favour of prohibition was not large enough to carry such a measure into effect.
There is one feature of the hon. minister's (Mr. Paterson) speech to which I cannot help but refer as it touches the question of the franchise law. I have no intention of discussing the amendments made by this government during the session of 1908; but if there be any more striking evidence of the desire of this government to secure unfriir elections, to gag the majority of the people and prevent the will of,the electors from being known and acted on, than the amendments to the Franchise Act put through by this government in 1908, I should like to know where it is to be found. They were simply intended to put a muzzle on the voters in the constituencies of northern Ontario, and they stand to-day as a monument greatly to the discredit of this government. The Franchise Act in 1908 created new regulations for making votes which resulted in a most outrageous state of affairs. That state of affairs I shall not enter into now, because it will form the subject of another discussion, but the people resented that outrageous condition. The opening of the Printing Bureau on Sunday by order of the Secretary of State, the running of special trains at the expense of the government, and a large expense it was, to carry voters' lists and constables, and the mounting of polls out in the bush by constables-all these things testify to one of the greatest outrages ever committed against the electorate. In order to carry out an election


Arthur Cyril Boyce: in the riding of western Algoma, in order to enable this government to secure a majority in that riding and in the riding of East Algoma, there was a special train run from Ottawa starting on a Sunday. The Printing Bureau was opened by order of the Secretary of State on Sunday in order to print those voters' lists and send them on that special train and give to the government candidates whatever advantages might thus be gained. That was one of the results of the working out of these splendid franchise amendments to which my hon. friend pledges his support. All I can say is that when the true facts of the working out of that Act are made known, my hon. friend and the Prime Minister will realize that what was said when that franchise amendment was before this House in 1908, had a great deal of truth in it, and this amendment did work an outrage on the rights of the people.
We are gratified- by the condition of affairs as shown by the speech of my hon. friend on the budget. We know that this is an era in which Canada is enjoying great prosperity, that our resources are being developed, that our coal and oil lands are being developed, and that our timber resources are growing, but no man in his sober senses-certainly not the Minister of Finance-will say that for all these good things we must thank the Liberal party. The Minister of Finance may say that the Liberal party have made the most of what Providence has so abundantly endowed the country with, but hi will not go as far as the Minister of Customs did and say that while, under Conservative rule, Providence was responsible entirely for what little prosperity he grudgingly admitted the country then enjoyed, the prosperity of these late years, our great wheat fields, our girand mineral resources, are due to the policy of this government.
We have heard from time to time of the expenditure and it struck me that the Minister of Finance in speaking was rather proud to be able to say that we had reached what he called the hundred million dollar mark. It seemed to strike a peculiar note, . rather a jarring note to any person who had heard the minister and his colleagues in days gone by denounce an expenditure of $40,000,000, aye $38,000,000, as not only extravagant but as a crime and a shame. Four million dollars, three million dollars less would be quite enough to carry on the government in this country. I shall not draw a sharp contrast between the condition of affairs when we had an expenditure of $38,000,000 and $40,000,000 and to-day, when we have reached what the Minister of Finance, very proudly calls the $100,000,000 mark, but I can certainly say some things with regard to the method of making expenditures of public money. Contemplating an expenditure of $100,000,000 per

annum one cannot but feel that there are expenditures which may have been greatly misdirected, and that the whole scheme of expenditure for public buildings and public improvements calls for the careful revision by the government in the interest of the public welfare. What is the position now with regard to public buildings? Is there any governmental or departmental arrangement whereby when a post office building is necessary for the public service in any part of Canada, the Postmaster General makes a requisition on the Minister of Public Works and the building is put up? No, Sir, the very last man to be considered when a post office is needed in a constituency is the Postmaster General and the very last consideration which is given to the question of the erection of that building is whether it is required for the public service and for the convenience of the public. We have many instances of that. The Minister of Public Works will not say that when a requisition is made for a post office building or a customs building he consults and acts on the endorsauon of the Postmaster General or the Minister of Customs nor does he refer to the post office returns at that point. Otherwise we would not find in the estimates such an outrageous amount as $25,000 for the erection of buildings in places with a postal revenue of $700. But the Minister of Public Works has a peculiar method of getting rid of this enormous expenditure of $100,000,000, a peculiar method of spending the peoples' money. As I understand it is the bounden duty of the minister as a trustee of the people of Canada to spend the money taken from the people of Canada by taxation in the interest of the people of Canada for their purposes and for their services. Does he do that, does he pretend to do that? Instance after instance has been quoted in this House where the hon. gentleman has not done that, I believe that it has been proved to his satisfaction in this House that he has not done it, yet the hon. gentleman makes no comment, he simply persists in that method and in that line of expenditure, flattering himself that in doing that he is winning over the majority of the people of Canada who can be effected in the different ridings by the expenditure of public money. May I ask when the Minister of Public Works took the right to spend government money on private property? When did he become vested with the power, without the consent of the owners or the exercise of the right of eminent domain, to improve another person's private property with the money of this government? My hon. friend possibly knows to what I refer. During the last election he was very busy with his appropriations in the riding of West Algoma for wharfs, &c., doing his best to curry favour by paying out of the peoples' money in
order to win the peoples' votes for the government candidate. I do not mind the hon. gentleman adopting that petty and miserable form of bribery in my riding; it suited him and I am sure there was not one vote in that riding which was affected by the expenditures he made in it, but I did resent his action when in fulfilment of a pre-election promise he appropriated $3,000 to alter, repair and generally improve a wharf which the government did not own, in which the government had absolutely no interest, and with respect to which the minister had no correspondence with the owners. This was a direct bid for votes, it was a payment for votes of the peoples' money for a work the profit of which went entirely to the benefit of private individuals. Does my hon. friend deny that? Does he state that the government had any interest in that wharf or in the approaches to it, that the government was ever requested by any one interested in the wharf or the approaches to expend that money upon that private property? No, I tell my hon. friend and he will not deny it that the Liberal candidate during or after the last Dominion election requested the Minister of Public Works to expend $3,000 upon that private property, and, docile in such matters, absolutely careless as to what the conditions are, wilfully ignorant and blinding his eyes to the fact that nobody had requested him to spend money on that private property, having no other reason than that he was asked to do it by the person holding the Liberal patronage in that riding and for the purpose of making, as he thought, a few votes by the expenditure of a few miserable dollars, filched from the chest of the people of Canada. There, Sir, is the grand, broad principle of economic expenditure of the peoples' money.


William Pugsley: If I may be allowed for a moment: I have not the slightest idea of the property to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) refers. If he would be good enough to name the place, I shall make it my duty to inquire into the circumstances. I may say, it is not the policy or practice of the department to spend money on private property-


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am glad the hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley) has said that. He says it is not the practice of the department-


William Pugsley: Would the hon. gentleman please give a little further information. When was the work done?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Improvement and repairs. The hon. minister has an item in the estimates for it-$3,000.


William Pugsley: Oh, no. I understood my hon. friend to make the statement that the work had been done-


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I did not make that statement.


William Pugsley: He said the work had been done by the government upon that wharf and wanted to know what warrant there was for spending the public money on private property. I can say to my hon. friend-and he ought to have known it -that, with regard to this wharf, no moneys have been expended upon it; and, knowing that, I think he ought not to have made the statement he made to the House.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am in the judgment of the House: What I stated was that the minister had appropriated $3,000 for the purpose of repairs and additions to that wharf, and that he had made that appropriation simply at the request of the defeated Liberal candidate in the last election.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman will pardon me again: He says that I have made an appropriation. Any appropriation must be consented to by parliament, and, before a single dollar will be expended upon the property the title must be acquired and vested in the Crown.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I will take the minister upon that statement. He is responsible for the public works. For what purpose does he put $3,000 in the estimates for a wharf in which, according to the language used in this House by myself, the govern-, ment had absolutely no interest?


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend not know that before the title to a property can be acquired, parliament must vote the money? Only after that is done are the necessary steps taken to acquire the property. Those steps will be taken, as they always are in such cases, before a single dollar is spent upon the property.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. minister is getting still deeper in the mire. He is on, record in this matter, yet apparently he does not know it. He told us in this House that absolutely no negotiations had been entered into for the purpose of acquiring that wharf and that the government had no interest in it. And I have letters from the owners to the effect that they have not been approached by the minister, and, if they were, had no desire whatever to allow the minister to acquire any interest without their permission.


William Pugsley: They will not be approached until parliament votes the money for the purpose.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: For what purpose?


William Pugsley: To acquire the property.
Mr. PUGSLEY


Arthur Cyril Boyce: There is no vote for acquiring the property. That is where he has mistaken the proposition.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman knows what the minister intends better than the minister himself does, all right.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What the hon. minister proposes to do is to repair and add to property owned by private individuals without consulting those individuals. That is on record in 'Hansard'.


William Pugsley: No such thing.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I regret that the hon. minister's recollection of what takes place in his department is so meagre. But I shall take occasion before I resume my seat to put before him his exact words in that connection. It is futile for the hon. minister to try to draw a red herring across the scent. That appropriation speaks for itself and his own language speaks for itself. There is an appropriation to prepare and add to a wharf, and there is his statement that that wharf is private property and that the government never had any interest in it. And here is one of the votes of item 148 of the estimates :
Kensington wharf-additions and repairs, $3,000.
Yesterday, my hon. friend was questioned and gave answer as follows:


Mr. BOYCE:: 1.	Is the Kensington wharf, near Desbarats, U est AJgoma, the property of the government of Canada? If so, when was it acquired, how much was paid for it, and from whom was it
purchased?
2.	How much land was conveyed with the wharf to the government?
3.	If the wharf was not purchased by the government, is . there any contract in writing between the owner thereof and the government with regard to the use of the same?


William Pugsley: 1 and 2. No.
3. No.


William Pugsley: Is not that entirely correct?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Yes. There was an earlier question answered by my hon. friend. He stated that there had been no negotiations for the acquisition of that wharf. He stated also that the government engineer had reported, not that it was desirable to purchase _ the wharf, but that repairs and alterations to the wharf would cost $3,300. And he puts $3,000 in the estimates for repairs and additions to the wharf belonging to private parties who never asked for it, his only reason being, I venture to say, that the person who has the patronage of the riding as defeated '* Liberal candidate asked to have it put there

for political reasons-to influence votes. And for that reason the minister filched out of the appropriations, $3,000


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I call the hon. gentleman to order. I think your ruling would be that he must take back that expression.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think that the expression ' filched ' is unparliamentary.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I bow to your ruling. Mr. Speaker.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I would call attention to this further:
Members may discuss various questions on a motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair, without movin'? any amendments thereto, a great latitude being' always allowed on such occasions; but they may not refer specifically to any vote which has passed or is about to be discussed in committee.
If this has been referred -to Committee of Supply, it cannot be referred to on this occasion.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then, I will leave the Kensington wharf to the tender mercies of the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: I think the hon. member is tired of it himself.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: By no means. These are refreshing instances, and I notice that they arise much more frequently during the hon. gentleman's term of administration. Let me refer to another item which assists in making up the expenditure of this country to the splendid total of a hundred millions. I refer to the dredging on the Nipigon river during 1908. That is such a beautiful transaction. In years gone by, there has been a great deal of comment on the method on which dredging contracts were let, especially dredging contracts on the Great Lakes. I do not know any more startling example of contracts being let for political purposes on the eve of an election, and at rates so wholly disproportionate to the value of the work, without advertising, without notice to the persons who receive _ the contracts, than the Nipigon dredging. I will only refer to it shortly. Just before the election of 1908, without a contract, my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works set the Great Lakes Dredging _ Company to work dredging out the Nipigon. I say without contract, because the contract was not signed until some time after they had been set to work. There were no advertisements for tenders for that work. My hon. friend, of course, will not deny that. The work was commenced on the 8th of September, 1908; no contract had been signed then. There was $57,459.45 paid between that and December, 1908. The price per cubic yard, scow measurement, of rock was $3, other materials. 45 cents. He says:
Q. Were tenders invited for the work?-A. Yes.'
Q. If so, bow many tenders were received, who was the successful tenderer, and was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer?- A. There were no tenders ever invited for this work. There were tenders invited by public advertisement for other work which did not include the Nipigon dredging.
Later on, in answer to a subsequent question, my hon. friend said that after advertisements had been inserted it was noticed that the Nipigon work had been omitted from the advertisement, and he remedied that by sending a private intimation to certain dredging firms.


William Pugsley: To all the dredging firms operating on the Great Lakes. That is my recollection of it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Quite so. It was intended to include this. These are my hon. friend's words.
It was intended to include the name of Nipigon river in the advertisement calling for tenders for dredging required at Bow-manville, Green Shoals, Jack Fish bay, Leaf, New Castle, Rainy river and Spanish river, which was published in the newspapers between the 3rd and 17th July, 1908 (list of news]vipers annexed). But the name was inadvertently omitted, and, as soon as this was discovered, the following letter was sent to-
Giving the names of the firms.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman says that the notice was sent only to certain firms; hadn't he better give the names?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: If my hon. friend will allow me to finish the sentence, I will satisfy him. He says that notices were sent to such and such persons. The House will remember the answer my hon. friend made just now, that the notice was sent to all the firms. But it is a significant fact that no notice was sent to the Great Lakes Dredging Company, and their name is not included in the list of firms to whom notices were sent. But they got the contract just the same, and they got $58,000 paid during the election year, and they got 45 cents per cubic yard for digging out sand from Nipigon harbour, where the same firm only got nine cents in Port Arthur.


William Pugsley: They did not got 45 cents per cubic yard, the hon. gentleman is entirely in error. That is 27 times too much.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: For the same stuff in Port Arthur they got nine cents, the same firm, but without any notification, and on the eve of an election; without a contract, because they did not have a contract, they were set to work in such a hurry. They got 45 cents per cubic yard for sand; for other materials the rate in Port Arthur harbour, 9 cents, the same as the same firm got by public advertisement. That is a sample

among many. That firm has been paid now upon that work $107,650.83. That is a very small percentage of the splendid expenditure of $100,000,000 to which the Finance Minister refers-on the Nipigon river work alone, and most of it was paid, a good percentage of it was paid, just during the months in which there was so much need in that wide and sparsely settled country to convince the electors of the purity of the administration and of the progress of the party represented by the hon. member for Thunder bay and Rainy river (Mr. Con-mee.)
Now, Sir, I have heard my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works speak with reference to the necessities of a post office in the town of Steelton. I have heard him say in public that it was a necessity, and that it was very strongly urged. It is an important town. The revenue of the postal department and the requirements of the public service demand that such a building be erected. I say to my hon. friend now that he had better employ the public money in the commencement of a public building in Steelton, the town within the corporate limits of which are situated one of the greatest steel industries in Canada, rather than fritter away the money by repairing and altering, and improving other people's property. I give him that slight hint, and I hope he will take -it from me in the spirit in which it is given. I also suggest to him that he immediately take some of the money which he is squandering at the extravagant price of 45 cents per cubic yard in Nipigon harbour, paid to the Great Lakes Dredging Company, and build the rest of the post office at Steelton, and so give to the public there the service they stand sorely in need of, as the minister has been made aware of by petition and by deputation, and has substantially acknowledged the justice of the request. We have other examples of the splendid expenditure of $100,000,000, and some of them have been referred to in this House. There is no better example that occurs to me at the moment than the splendid waterway which in future will be a monument to the great progress, at any rate to the great expenditure, of this government, and that is the Newmarket canal. My hon. friend, I quite believe, concurs in the magnificent utility of that work, a work that must make this government a laughing stock to both Liberals and Conservatives alike.
Now, Sir, I desire to refer for a moment t ) the expenditure on the Militia Department, and I regret that the Minister of Militia is not in his place. An hon. gentleman suggests that he also has gone to the hockey match. But perhaps not. With regard to the Militia Department I have but little to say. The militia of Canada costs us $6,000,000 a year to maintain. About a Mr. BOYCE.
million dollars a year, in round figures, is expended for the upkeep of agriculture. A comparison is not very much to the credit of this government. There have been criticisms, Mr. Speaker, about the manner in which the Militia Department has been administered, and those who did venture to put their nose into the department and begin to lift lids and turn things up went and wrote down about it that it was top heavy, that there was too much expense at the top, that it was overpaid, and I think there was some suggestion made that there w-as need for reform. There is certainly need for some reform all along the line. The Minister of Militia was anxious to mimic the English system in regard to the government of that department, but it did not turn out as satisfactorily as he thought it would and the sooner he drops that system and gets down to some practical one, and one which will conduce to the best interests of the country, the better it will be. I speak feelingly upon this subject. I speak with a view to local considerations because it seems to me that it was a mockery that with this expenditure of $100,000,000 a year by the government and an expenditure of $6,000,000 a year for the militia, when the town of Sault Ste. Marie got into dire straits, when men were rioting, turning over street cars and committing disorders of that sort, it could not have the protection of the militia without being called upon to pay dearly for it. The militia was called out, they sent up these gilded gentlemen with their clanking swords and spurs, they paraded through the town, went through their little drills, came back to Ottawa a day or two afterwards and the department sent in a bin for $8,000. This government is now suing the town of Sault Ste. Marie to recover this sum for services that were absolutely required in defence of life and property and in a time of danger and emergency. It seems to be an extraordinary circumstance that the Militia Department can make regulations by which the already heavy burdens of the town of Sault Ste, Marie are made much more grievous by this claim which is made for policing the town in an emergency like that. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that when Canada is maintaining, at an expense of thousands of dollars a year, this Militia Department, a lot of gilded mummery, as far as I can see, disturbances, such as I refer to, cannot be quelled except at a rate per diem or at the rate which the government-claim from the town of Sault Ste. Marie, amounting in all to $8,000. What is the use of our paying for a police system if every time the policeman is sent out to discharge his duty there is an extra amount payable while he is at work over that which he is entitled to receive when he is idle? I earnestly hope that there will be some practical reform in this direction,

and that the whole of the department which, from the little experience I have had of it, seems to be greatly in need of reorganization, will be thoroughly investigated and reorganized. I believe that if these reforms are put into practice a better state of things will result.
The districts of northern Ontario from which I and some of my fellow members have the honour to come as representatives in this House, have developed tremendously during past years. As we know, since 1904, the construction of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway has opened up tremendously rich deposits of gold and silver-more silver than gold up to date. The extension of the line has further developed the tremendous clay belt tributary to its junction with the main line of the Grand Trunx Pacific now under construction, and it will make a capital channel of communication when that road taps the Transcontinental. I should like to have seen the attitude of this government towards that railway a little more generous than it was. It is a railway that has abundantly given returns for its expense. I certainly think that this government, in view of the splendid purpose that it was to serve in the development of the country, might have given to that road the assistance which it was suggested at one time should be given. The Algbma Central railway, another railway which is projected to Hudson bay, will cross the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern railway, when it is built across the continent, and the Grand Trunk Pacific and will reach Hudson Bay. The Bruce Mines and Algoma railway is another railway projected to Hudson bay and these two railways, as the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, will run through a country which is rich in mineral and timber. The building and government assistance of these roads are very much to be wished for at an early date. With regard to the Algoma Central railway we have every assurance that within a short time it will be in connection with the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway. This leads me to make the comment that the prosperity of Ontario during the last, say five years, has greatly contributed to the coffers of this Dominion. I never heard hon. gentlemen during the last Ontario election say that the increased revenue of Ontario which flows from the natural resources of the country was due to the wise and economical management of these resources, but on the other hand they declared it to be simply a matter for which Providence was responsible, although they claimed that the growth and development of the resources under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government were due to the
economical manner in which they had been administered.
There was a reference in the speech of the Minister of Finance to the steel bounties, and I listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. gentleman had to say. I know something about the history of these bounties as applied to the town of Sault Ste. Marie. I remember being in the town before the bounties were applied and I know something of the history of these industries. The steel works of Sault Ste. Marie are, I believe, second to none in Canada as far as their capacity and equipment are concerned. I believe their output is not the largest in Canada at the present time, although I am not sure about that. I think it is not as great as that of the Dominion Iron and Steel company, although it is growing almost daily under our present conditions. Some hon. gentlemen object very strongly to the paying of bounties to steel and iron industries. The subject, of course, is one upon which there is a great difference of opinion, and I have heard hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House express opinions against bounty-fed industries. But we have practical results up there from these industries and we have practical results from the stimulus given to iron and steel industries all over Canada. As far as I can see, both from theory and the practical results which I have seen, the granting of bounties on iron and steel has not been a detriment to the progress of Canada, but it has been a stimulus to the great -iron and steel industries as, I think, the returns, which I propose to refer to presently, will show.
My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who I am sorry is not in his seat, denounced bounties upon purely theoretical grounds and he quoted some noted political economists in support of his conten-tention. But political economists differ with regard to the bounty system, and where you find that without any drain on the people of Canada a great industry is started up, and prospering, and increasing almost daily under the encouragement of bounties, that is the best practical answer to the theories of the economists. However, I desire to deal with practical things and I shall not discuss theories with the member for Red Deer further than to quote for his information what Professor Marshall says with regard to bounties:
Principle of economics:-
It might even be for the advantage of the community that the government should levy taxes on commodities which obey the law of diminishing return, and spend ' part of the proceeds on bounties to commodities which obey the law of increasing return.
It is an undoubted fact that the ' steel and iron industries-I speak especially in

211&
regard to the Sault St. Marie industry has been the parent of minor industries; it has caused the increased importation of machinery which gives a large increase to the revenue; it has brought about general prosperity, increased the population and enabled the people to earn more and to buy more. That beneficial condition during the last two or three years is going to be enhanced greatly in the near future. The Algoma Steel Company which is a subsidiary company of the Lake Superior corporation has recently had invested in it a large amount of English capital and it contemplates great and immediate development. A new merchant mill with a capacity of 600 tons per day or more will be erected as also a new blast furnace, a number of open hearth furnaces and a cokeing plant. Six and a quarter million dollars of capital will be invested in that enterprise and that is no small matter to the country at large. The building of a new cokeing plant means that instead of bringing a train load of coke each day from the United States, the coal will be manufactured into coke at Sault Ste. Marie and the by-products, such as gas and tar, will be extracted and utilized, and employment will be given to 3,000 additional men. That work will now be done by Canadians who will utilize the resources of the country, and in future that money will not be sent to a foreign country to pay for the coke. But more than that, it means cheapened cost of the finished product and with an output of from 800 to
1,000	tons of steel rails per aay, 50 cents per ton less in the cost of production means a tremendous advance in the industry. The Sault St. Marie company realizes, as I think the country realizes that the day must come when the fostering care of bounties will be withdrawn, but for the present at all events I sincerely trust the Finance Minister will not reverse the policy of the government in granting bounties to the iron and steel industry. This is a critical time in the history of these industries; there are 5,000 or 6,000 people employed directly and indirectly in the enterprise and it is not an industry that can be created in a day. It has had a somewhat chequered career; it has had to contend with serious difficulties at the outset, and I can assure the Minister of Finance that it is only now that the dark cloud is being dispelled and that the company is getting on a solid basis. For the next two or three years that industry will need the stimulus which the bounties give and it is in the interest of all Canada that they should be continued. Let us see how the steel trade of Canada has grown in recent years. I do not want the Minister of Finance to understand that I am giving his government the credit for the Mr. BOYCE.
great growth that has resulted from the bounties on iron and steel.


William Stevens Fielding: I would never suspect it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Well, I can tell the hon. gentleman that I am frankly prepared to do him justice and to give him and his government the credit that I believe is due them. In that respect I might mention that the making of coke from soft coal is rendered a great deal cheaper bv the draw back included in the tariff of 1907. In 1881 the value of the products of iron and steel was $16,943,321; in 1891, it was $29,874,437; in 1901,	$34,878,402; and in
1906, $53,125,265. So that there has been a steady substantial growth in the steel products of Canada, and my hon. friend will see that the growth between 1881 and 1891 was much greater in proportion than the growth between 1891 and 1901.
Then with regard to the average production, according to the tables, each iron and steel worker produced in 1881 on an average $1,237 worth; in 1891, $1,365 worth, an increase of $128 per man; in 1901, $1,409 worth, an increase of $34 per man; and in' 1906, the average production per man amounted to $1,752. The bounties paid by the government upon steel alone during 1908 amounted to $1,019,201, and on pig iron to $863,819; and on the manufacture of steel to $347,135. The manufacture of pig iron is in itself a very important industry in this country. It gives employment to a very large number of men and keeps going a large number of subsidiary industries. The Lake Superior corporation is now putting in a plant for the manufacture of pig iron which will, when completed, furnish enough pig iron to caTry out its own work without having to import pigf iron from any other country or concern. We, therefore, look forward to the dajt when Canada will supply iron and steel for her own manufactures. There is the Dominion Iron and Steel Company in the east, and there are the Soo industries immediately on the great lines of transportation to the west which find a ready market for their products in the gTeat west. Therefore, I hope that durng this period of transition in which these plants are being strengthened, the government will be lenient, paternal and progressive with regard to these bounties upon steel and iron products.
Before I take my seat I must refer to a matter which is possibly the most important that has ever come before the Canadian people. I refer to that paragraph in the speech from the Throne regarding Canadian naval service. When the fathers of confederation met within these walls to lay the charter of this great commonwealth, there were many misgivings expressed as to the outcome of confederation. My hon.

friend the Minister of Finance had very great misgivings. They were so acute that he moved a resolution in Nova Scotia in 1884 asking that that province be taken out of the union and made into an independent province. One hon. gentleman in 1867 spoke with much trepidation about the defenseless condition of the country. He wanted to know how it was going to be protected against foes by land and sea, and he pointed to the large extent...of border that lay exposed to an attack from the country to the south of us and the immense coast line on the west, east and north absolutely undefended. Other hon. gentlemen, but to a lesser extent, expressed their apprehensions on this point, but there was an hon. gentleman on the government side in those days. Dr. Tupper, now Sir Charles Tupper, who gave a quiet, calm and dignified reply, to the effect that when this country was confederated it would not lose its status as an important colony of the British realm, it would not be divested of its allegiance to England, ibut would stand for everything British and imperial, and in .time of danger England would protect this country as she had always done and we had nothing whatever to fear. That was England's guarantee at that time. England stood by Canada in the days of her youth when Canada could not protect and provide for herself. We have since had occasion to face difficulties and crises, and on every occasion Canadians have emphasized their desire to stand by the mother country, have burned with indignation when she was insulted, have mourned with her when she mourned, and fought with her when she was attacked.
That has been the sentiment of Canada's sons, that has been the sentiment that dominates Canada. Canada from ocean to ocean from south to north, is exclusively and exceedingly loyal and nothing that Canada can do to cement the ties that bind her to the mother country, will, in my opinion, be left undone if the Canadian people are allowed to have their say. There has recently arisen an alarming condition in respect to war against England. We have not simply idle rumours, we do not bring to this House merely the talk of the man on the street, we are face to face with what we are_ told by the greatest authorities on that subject in the empire, and the British people have been warned by these authorities, that the day is not far distant-some one suggested twenty years, and Lord Roberts' reply was twenty months-when you will find a directly hostile attempt to question England's supremacy of the seas. Other statesmen have spoken on the same question and given the same warning. I notice that an American magazine recently sent to a writer to Germany to make a personal and critical examination of the conditions in Germany, to ascertain whether
the rumours with regard to the preparations there and her intention with regard to British supremacy had any foundation. The report made and published in the magazine was by no means re-assuring to the people of Great Britain. It was shown that Germany was, to the limit of her resources, building vessels of the highest class of efficiency whose only use could be that they should be placed in commission in the German ocean and the North , sea to challenge England's supremacy in that sea. I do not wish to refer to the subject matter of the Bill now before the House, but the question is what is Canada going to do in this matter? The Prime Minister proposed a policy of a Canadian naval service which will mean the gradual education of men for the navy, their enlistment and training so that they can take their place oil the ships which it is the policy of the right hon. gentleman to build. His reply to the call from the other side is that we shall start now to build a training school and gradually work up so that in fifteen or twenty years we will be in a position to meet the crisis which threatens us in twenty months. The right hon. gentleman's policy further is that Canada shall in the future build war vessels to defend our coasts; but when you contrast the class of vessel which the right hon. gentleman announces this government will construct with the vessels of foreign nations, you are struck by the fact that not only can these vessels not be put into commission in time to meet any such emergency as we are told is threatened, but when it is put in commission, it will not be useful at all as a fighting or defensive factor, because all of the proposed vessels together will not have power enough to meet one vessel of the type which the German empire are building as rapidly as they can. I feel very keenly the necessity of Canada at once doing something to emphasize her position in this matter. The position of the leader of the House is not an answer to the situation, there is no answer to the call for arms, no answer to the threat of danger, no answer to the threatened attack on England's supremacy of the seas in the proposal to establish a Canadian naval service. It is not a question of what the right hon. gentleman proposes to do-fifteen or twenty years from now-to defend the empire and cement the ties that bind us t,o the mother country; it is not to emphasize our allegiance fifteen years from now that the people of Canada are crying out. What the people of Canada want is to demonstrate here and now that Canada amongst the foremost nations of the earth, Canada in all her pristine strength, with her magnificent resources behind her, with her splendid expenditure of $100,000,000 of which the Finance Minister so proudly speaks, is able to do, must do, and will cheerfully do her



hon. friend and his party were making. On that occasion Sir John A. Macdonald concluded his eloquent speech by the memorable words: ' A British subject I was bom and a British subject I will die.' My right hon. friend, as leader of the opposition, came into this House, and in the debate on the address delivered himself in the words that I will quote, and I commend them to him in the light of some of his recent utterances:
Sir, I am free to admit, that I, for one, when I made up my mind in favour of this policy, looked up first and last to the interest of Canada, and not to the interest of England. I am a British subject and I never forgot it yet, but while I am a British subject I remember that I am also a Canadian and I sit in the Canadian parliament. Let the British subject who sits in the British parliament look after the interests of England. When this confederation was organized (and no one knows it better than the right honourable gentleman himself) it was organized with a view of forming a nation of this United Canada. The honourable gentleman must have foreseen, since this was to be a nation, that some day or other the interest of this young nation would come in conflict with the interest of the motherland.
The hon. gentleman further proceeds:
It is absurd to suppose that, situated as we are, the interest of Canada will always be identical with the interest of Great Britain. Some day must come when these interests will clash.
Well, Sir, I sincerely hope that the day has not come when, in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman, the interests of Canada clash with the interests of Great Britain upon so great, so vital a question as the protection of the empire. I cannot believe that the right hon. gentleman would yield to the application of any one of these sentences to the present crisis. But why does he not meet the situation, why does he not do something to satisfy the people of Canada that he is at least as ready as New Zealand and Australia, very much weaker parts of the British empire, to help the mother country? I do not wish to suggest that the right hon. gentleman is desirous of serving the exigencies of party politics. I sincerely hope that the right hon. gentleman will free himself from all those bans and stand free and broad and all powerful as representing the free Canada that is behind him on this subject. It he will only speak and speak now and express the same willingness that other less powerful colonies have done to do their part I am sure that he will not lack in that applause from the people of Canada which he loves so much to hear. On the general ground and having regard to the general scheme, I do not like the proposition that the right hon. gentleman makes at this juncture in regard to the creation Mr. BOYCE.
and organization of a Canadian navy service. I do not like it. I do not think that it will redound to the credit of Canada. I do not think it is an answer to the question that Canada is called upon to answer I think, and I say it with much respect, that the right hon. gentleman is evading that question and I hope he will recover from his indisposition to speak and that he will speak to the issue and speak freely and clearly. This proposition will not raise Canada's reputation in the eyes of the world. It will not give to Britain's foes that greater respect which otherwise they would have had if Canada had taken, or if she would now take, a different stand. It will not strengthen the loyalty of Canada's sons, it will not strengthen the ties which bind us to the motherland, but there is the crying danger that it will serve political expediency and that it will shelve a very difficult question and one which the right hon. gentleman in times past has shown reluctance to face. It will satisfy some wavering followers who do not like to touch questions such as this and who would be better satisfied by a policy of masterly inactivity rather than bv a policy of instant activity. It will provide in its working out a great many public works in constituencies where they will be most useful and it will provide for patronage and all the other public evils from which this countrv has suffered under this administration. These are greater questions even than the question of supply and demand, than the question of revenue and expenditure, than the question of an expenditure which has reached the hundred million dollar mark. This is a question as to what is going to be done, a question of the duty of the _ moment, a question of whether Canada is going to face that duty, or whether Canada is not going to face it and it is not a question that the people, to whom this government has to answer, will allow the government to drop whenever they have an opportunity of passing upon that subject. In 1908 there was a "brilliant spectacle in the old city of Quebec, the tercentenary, marking a very important epoch in our history and one in which we all gladly joined. The Prince of Wales as the heir apparent of the British Throne, was there, it was a brilliant assemblage, it was a magnificent scene and a splendid page of history was written for Canada. But of what avail was all that display of loyalty? Of what avail were all those professions at that time, when after the tumult and shouting die, when the captains and kings have departed and when we are face to face, as it were, with wars and rumours of wars, there is absolutely nothing done or nothing suggested that should be done to meet the emergency which may be imminent, or which, as I fervently hope and pray, may be far off.	_

Is it not enough that it is threatened, is it not enough that it has been the subject of grave fears and alarm in England? Is it riot enough that the people of this country are satisfied that something should be done? I cannot help tout refer to a speech that was made in this House very recently by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Rivet) which contains a very remarkable paragraph upon this very question. The hon. gentleman does not give to the House any information as to his own views upon this subject. He is content with hurling criticisms and snarling at the position of the opposition in regard to it and hoping that the position of the opposition will be as he prognosticates. He says:
I have good reason to fear that the opposition are preparing to raise prejudices in the province of Quebec against this government, and more particularly against its leader, in the coming election, on this very question of naval defence. The Liberal administration and its faithful supporters will be charged with having been traitors to the interests of Canada at large, and particularly with having betrayed the interests of the French Canadians of the province of Quebec. On the other hand, I perceive the argument they will use in some of the other provinces. They will contend that the present government have not gone far enough in their policy of naval defence, and that because the government has not adopted a policy directly opposed to the wishes of the Conservative party in Quebec, it should be driven out of power as unworthy of the confidence of the Canadian electorate.
What does that mean? It' means that my hon. friend is constituting himself a prophet and that he is himself raising the ground work for a quarrel that I am constrained to believe he dearly wishes would come along so as to enable him to protect himself and to give argument for the position which possibly he will desire to take later on. I desire to express tire hope that the inactivity upon this question of the Prime Minister will not satisfy the Canadian people and will not satisfy the world. I will quote from a poem which has recently been placed in my hands upon the question of a Canadian navy which appears to contain some truth with reference to the situation as it is before the public to-day. I quote this, not because I think this House is fond or hearing poetry, but as an indication of what the Canadian people are feeling and expressing upon this question of instant and immediate assistance being rendered and being effective and ready in case of the emergency with which we have been threatened.
O, for a Man! to stand for us within our Council Hall,
With good red blood in heart and veins-and answer England's call!
To cut the Party questions from This Question all should feel,
68J
And sever Truth from Falsehood with the sweep of polished steel;
Nor prate of ' Finished work at Home,' as though our goal were won!
(Thus should be keep our house, nor leave the wider work undone.)
No Opportunist! but a Man! to give-and Now-To-day!
To meet the danger as it comes, and hold the Ocean Way!
Pour out the millions-Not a Gift-part Payment that we Owe!
Then, build the true Canadian fleet with healthy growth and slow.
Yea! build the linked navies up-in concert -One to be!
To hold that Vital Cord of Life-the Empire of the Sea!
Sir, there is a sentiment in that verse which demonstrates the growing sentiment and perhaps the dominating sentiment of the people of Canada. I gladly place it on record because I feel it contains much with which the people of Canada are strongly in sympathy. I believe, Sir, that Canada will stand firm to the empire. I-believe, Sir, the day will never come when the Canadian people will shrink from doing their duty towards the empire. In all her strength and in all her pristine magnificence Canada can do much, and Canadian prestige can do piuch to stop this war of construction. If Canada as the right hand of England, if Canadians as the sons of England were to come forward and say: We are heart and soul with the motherland in this crisis and a challenge of her supremacy of the sea is a challenge to Canada, what a powerful effect that would have upon the situation. Canada's sons are ready to-day as they always have been ready to answer to the call of the empire, if call there should be, which God forbid, I tell you Sir, that if that crisis ever arises there will be no room for questions of diplomacy, for sunny smiles, for sympathetic words, for motives of political expediency to hold the Canadian people from doing their duty and their full duty and their instant duty to rush to the assistance of the motherland. Only by that magnificent sympathy and only by that great prestige shall the British empire maintain herself and expand and progress with Canada in the front rank; Canada with all her resources, in all her magnificence, in all her wealth; Canada increasing year by year in population and resources, Canada the most important factor in the British empire, in her strength, in her power and in her ability to serve and fight for the empire, demonstrating the truth of the words:
Wider still and wider shall thy hounds he set,
God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet.	.	... ibi-iAi


Mr. J. G. TURIFF (Assiniboia).: Mr. Speaker, at this late stage of the debate, it is not my intention to take up at any length of the time of the House. I shall deal particularly with the question of the adverse balance of trade which our friends on the other side have had so much to say about in the debate. But before entering on that subject let me refer to some of the criticisms which have been offered on the naval policy of the government, not only by the hon. member (Sr. Boyce) but by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) who I am sorry is not present tonight. That hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake) made the statement that it was proposed to spend the miserable pittance of something like $2,700,000 a year on the navy Had he listened attentively to the speech of the Prime Minister he would have known that it is proposed during the next two or three years to build a unit which if built in England will cost $11,000,000 and if built in Canada 33 per cent more or $15,000,000 and which will cost about $3,000,000 for its upkeep on the English basis, and possibly $5,000,000 a year in Canada. There is an expenditure of $15,000,000 to start with and an additional expenditure of $5,000,000 a year, and yet the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake) says that the government proposes only spending $2,700,000 on the navy. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake) also toid us that he was ashamed to acknowledge that he was a Canadian, and he said that we were sponging on the mother country and would likely sponge on her as long as she would allow us. Well Sir, I am sorry to think that any Canadian is ashamed to call himself a Canadian. We on this side of the House are proud to call ourselves Canadians and we stand as one man for the proposal of the right hon. the Prime Minister in connection with the Canadian navy. Every man on this side of the house bar none, is heartily in favour of the proposition made by our right hon. leader. Can the gentlemen on the other side of the House say as much? No. If the member from Qu'Appelle has anything to be ashamed of at all he should be ashamed of belonging to a party that does not know where it stands on this question. The leader of the opposition is the only man on ..that side of the House who has'taken a pretty decent course on this question and he has supported the resolution which was passed last year and is doing his best to stand by it, but his followers will not stay by him. The other day we had the spectacle of the leader of the opposition making one proposition and then his lieutenant getting up and making a proposition diametrically opposite, and then a supporter from Nova Scotia getting up and making, a third proposition.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr Lake) would have us believe that the party opposite are ready to do ever _ so much for the empire. Let me remind him that his party were in power prior to 1896, and I defy him to point to anything they ever did on behalf of British connection or any assistance they ever rendered the British government in any British war. Did they ever organize and pay a contingent to go over and fight the battles of the empire? No, it remained for this government to do everything practically that has been done to better the conditions between Canada and England and strengthen the connection between the two. Who was it sent over the first contingent? It was this government. Who was it that relieved the British taxpayer from the expense of keeping up the forts of Halifax and Esquimalt? Hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were in office prior to 1896, had the opportunity of doing the same thing. Did they ever suggest anything of the kind? Never. Who gave a preference to British goods in the Canadian market? It was the Liberal party. Who now comes forward with a proposition to spend millions of dollars on the building of a navy and its maintenance? It is this government. Therefore, it comes with very bad grace from hon. gentlemen opposite to make the criticisms they have made and such as we have had from the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Boyce). He took up some two hours and a half repeating for the most part the speech he has already made every session during the past four or five years. He criticised in a general way the expenditure of the Finance Minister, -but when the expenditure in his own constituency was in question, he came forward with a whine and asked that it be continued and that millions of dollars a year should still be paid out as bounties on iron and steel. I cannot agree with him. I do not propose to discuss what good has been accomplished by the $15,000,000 or $18,000,000 we have paid out in bounties on the production of iron and steel. I listened with great attention to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance when he referred to that question in his budget speech, and I trust that these bounties have had the good effect he says they have had, but taking that for granted, these establishments are now in a very flourishing condition, they are making a great deal of money, their stocks are above par, and their watered stock, which represents nothing at all, is selling at a market value of tens of millions of dollars. In the face of that condition, I trust the Minister of Finance will turn a deaf ear to the hon. member from East Algoma who asked that these bounties be continued. There is this further to be said. If these bounties were being used for the development of Cana-

dian mines and ores, they would not be so objectionable, but for one ton of Canadian ore that is smelted, there are many tons of foreign ore. Practically the whole output comes from foreign ores, so that we are paying millions of dollars for developing mines in foreign countries. The time has come when we ought to cease paying those bounties and let those industries look after themselves, which they are now well able to do.
- I wish particularly to make reference to the adverse balance of trade we have heard so much about. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Poster) was not quite honest with the House and the country when he tried to blame the government because we bought so much more goods from the United States than we sold them. But if the policy of the government be wrong, it would be a very easy matter to rectify it by taking all these articles from the free list and putting them on the dutiable list. When the Fielding tariff was introduced in 1897, some 75 or 80 items were taken from the dutiable and put on the free list. If we put these back on the dutiable list, and charge them a heavy duty, we would stop a great deal of the importation from the United States which goes to swell the adverse balance of trade which my hon. friend spoke so much about. Well, I have taken the trouble to pick out the different items of the free list which we buy in the United States, and I invite the hon. member for North Toronto or any hon. member to make a motion to put any one of these items back on the dutiable list. Not one of them would dare to do so because, if he did, his supporters would not back him up; or if they did in this House, the supporters of the party in the country certainly would not. Almost every one of these items is required for the farmer, the fisherman or the manufacturer. They are nearly all for the benefit of the manufacturer and incidentally for the benefit of every consumer in the Dominion. The first item on the list is live animals. That is admited free for the improvement of the stock. Then there is the item of settlers' effects, would any one suggest putting them on the dutiable list? The next item is asphaltum, of which there is none in Canada. Would you suggest making every one who wants to use it pay a tax when it is not produced in Canada? Another item is books. What are those books? They are principally educational books, bibles, prayer books and books for the blind. Would any one suggest putting a tax on these ? Another item which amounts to nearly $4,000,000 is corn. That is used altogether by the farmers for feed and was made free for their special benefit. No one would suggest a heavy duty on the importation of corn for the feed of animals. Another item that runs up to
$15,000,000 is anthracite coal. That comes in free of duty. That comes into Canada from the United States free of duty. We do not mine anthracite coal in Canada to any extent, the only place I know of where it is mined being near Banff. There only a small amount is mined and it is shipped for only a short distance in that western country. Would any one suggest that we should prevent the importation of anthracite coal? There is scarcely a man in the House who does not use it, our people must have it, and placing a duty on it would noit stop the importation but simply cause the people of Canada to pay twice what they are now paying for it.


Mr. BLAIN.: Is anthracite coal any cheaper in Canada since the duty was re- ' moved?


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, anthracite coal is cheaper in Canada by just the amount of the duty. If the duty was on it to-day it would be just that much dearer than it is. Another large item is cordage. That is used altogether for binding twine, for the farmers and fishermen. Cotton is another heavy- item running up to $7,000,000. .Would any one suggest that raw cotton be put on the dutiable list? No one would suggest such a thing. It is for the manufacturers and helping the manufacturer it incidentally helps every one, because there is no one who does not consume cotton to a certain extent. Drugs represent $5,000,000. Those are for the manufacturers altogether. Fertilizers, various articles for the fishermen, such as nets, flax, hemp and jute for the manufacture run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then we have green and ripe fruit coming into the country, $3,500,000. While there is fruit grown in Canada this comes in at a time when Canadian fruit is not ripe. In the western country we get carload after carload of that fruit, every little town brings in ripe and green fruits by the carload and to suggest putting on a duty would be absurd. Furs represent $2,000,000. Grasses, fibres and straws for manufactures represent $1,500,000. Rubber not produced in Canada, $2,500,000; hides, $1,500,000; iron, steel, &c., that is manufactured Swedish iron, wrought for horse shoe nails, represents nearly $5,000,000.
Will any hon. gentleman opposite suggest that these articles should be put on the dutiable list? If they cannot suggest that why should they complain all the time that the tariff of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is not in the interest of this country and that we should not buy such an amount of goods from the United States when here on this list I have named of free goods there is over $85,000,000 and they go to make up practically what is called the adverse balance of trade. Not one hon member opposite would move that any o'

these items should be put on the dutiable list.
Oils come in free to the extent of about $2,000,000. Optical and mathematical instruments, paints and colours, plants and trees, resin, rennet, salt for the fishermen, seed bulbs all come in free and settlers' effects represent $5,761,000. This is not money that these settlers bring in but simply the goods they bring in. Would any one suggest that these items should be put on the dutiable list? I do not think so. We are spending money every year bringing in settlers. We are bringing in hundreds of thousands and naturally they bring in their effects. These go to swell the amount of goods we buy from the United States, but it does not show that the condition is not a good condition, that the tariff is not a good tariff and in the interest of the country. The very fact that gentlemen opposite would not move to change any one of these items, is, I think, proof conclusive that the items are in their proper place on the free list, and when we buy more goods from the United States than we sell to them it is because it pays us to do so and because we cannot get the goods as cheaply or as satisfactorily in any other place.
Raw silk for manufacturers, mill stones, turpentine, wood and manufactured wood come in free to the extent of $6,000,000. That affects us very much in the west. We import a great deal of lumber from the United States and all rough lumber comes in free of duty. No one in that part of the country would think of reimposing the duty on lumber simply because lumber is a necessity for the settlers and the cheaper we can get it into that part of the country the better. So I think the criticism levelled against the tariff is not a fair or reasonable criticism, and, as I said before, I do not believe that even the men who make the criticism think that it is right; it is made only and altogether for political purposes.
My hon. friends from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) and Lisgar (Mr. W. H. Sharpe) dealt to a limited extent with the Hudson bay railway. Their criticism was that the road was not being built fast enough. I may say to my hon. friends that they need not worry at all, that road is going to be built. The Prime Minister has stated that the road was going to be built and I would ask my hon. friends to point to a single instance where the present Prime Minister has stated that the government were going to undertake and carry out a great public work, in which they have not done so. He never makes a promise that he does not carry out. The criticism has been that it is taking too long, that this promise was made in 1908. I am as anxious as any member in this House to see that railway built, and built as early as possible. I believe that Mr. TURRIFF.
railway will be a success, that the Hudson bay route will be a success, but it is not absolutely certain. I am free to admit that there is a certain amount of experiment about it, and if ever there was a case where a government was justified in taking every possible means, every measure it can,, to get full information about a route, to get the road built in the proper place, and' to have the terminals at the proper place, it is in connection with this Hudson bay road.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: Have the government tried to find out anything in connection with this road?


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, I am pleased to be able to answer my hon. friend that the government have been hard at work for the last year and a half finding out the best possible route to Hudson bay, ascertaining the best place to end the road, whether at Fort Churchill or Fort York. It is a matter of great importance to this country to ascertain where the road should go. They have surveyed both routes, and during the past summer they were engaged in finding out whether the harbour at Fort York would be as good a harbour as that at Fort Churchill. If the harbour at Fort York is a good and satisfactory port it would be shorter and would save millions of dollars.
I do not think there is going to be any delay by taking the proper precautions in the first place. A great deal of money may be saved in this way-the spending of $100,000 in the making of proper surveys may be the means of saving millions upon millions. We do not want to be in the same position as the Canadian Pacific railway is in to-day-for that company is spending $10,000,000 every year to -change their route. Why, because, in the first place- and I am not throwing any blame on them now-the survey evidently was made hurriedly and not enough time, care or money was expended upon it. Had this mistake been avoided, millions of dollars would have been saved to-day. So, the government, I say, is amply justified in being careful to get full and absolute information. I do not believe for a moment that the right hon. Prime Minister or the government have any intention of delaying the building of that road. Why, even if the Hudson Bay route should not turn out to be as successful as we all hope it will, the road will pay for itself practically as a colonization road. I think we can all be proud of the fact that until you get away up into the polar regions there is no part of Canada in Which you can build a road but it will make a traffic for itself. We have that proven by the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway which extends from North Bay northward to connect with the Grand Trunk Pacific. The building of the Grand Trunk Pacific through Ontario and

Queibec will have this result that you will have a new Quebec and a new Ontario that, in 'the years to come, will rival the older settled portions of these provinces. The same thing applies to the Hudson Bay railway. You talk about sixteen millions of acres of clay land in the province of Ontario-and remember that sixteen million acres is a whole lot of land. Right on the line of the Hudson Bay road towards either Fort Churchill or Fort York, the road will go through a clay belt greater in extent than all the land in cultivation to-day in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta put together, which lands today are producing over 200,000,000 bushels of grain. There is a great extent of good land away north of Lake Winnipeg and on to Hudson bay. So, I say, the government is doing well in this matter, and hon. members opposite need not be a bit worried. That road is going to be built, and built as quickly as the government can find the proper place to build it. We shall soon know whether it is to be the great success we all hope it will be. I have no doubt about the matter, and I think that there can be very little doubt in the minds of any, of the ultimate success not only of the road but of the route. The road will afford us a much shorter route to the old country, it will afford us a better market and it will regulate freight rates. And so it will be a benefit not only to the west but to the eastern country as well. I am not going to take up more time. I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Air. Fielding) on his budget speech, but I think it is even more to the point to congratulate the country on having a Minister of Finance who is able to give such budget statements as the hon. gentleman has been giving us for the last thirteen years. And I say, long may he be spared to Canada to give just such satisfactory budget speeches as he delivered to the House the other day.
On motion of Mr. Wilcox the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

Wednesday, January 19, 1910.