1910-01-13

PROCEDURE-WITHDRAWING OF QUESTIONS.

['The matter stands until to-morrow.']
Mr. SPEAKER.: In regard to Question No. 4 (which appeared in the orders of the day yesterday as Question No. 24), in the name of Mr. Barnard, I desire to make the following observations:
In my opinion, there are only two ways in which a question can be properly, withdrawn when once it has been presented for answer in the House, that is, first by written notice by the member, putting the question, to the Clerk of the House stating that the question is withdrawn, or by the member, in his place in the House, informing the Speaker that he desired the question to be dropped or withdrawn.
In the British House of Commons the practice is that no member can ask a question in the name of another member unless upon the request of the member in whose name the question stands. (May 11th edit. p. 251.) The practice, however, in this House has hitherto not been so rigid as this, inasmuch as members have asked questions for other members under the assumption of an implied request, at least, and, in my opinion, it is not desirable that this practice should be changed.
On the subject of answers to questions the following is the practice of the British House. (See May, 251) :
A minister may, if he thinks fit, on the ground of public interest, answer a question appealing on the notice paper, although it is not asked. A minister may also, on the ground of public interest, or some other gronmd, decline to answer a question.
Having this practice in view, I think the hon. minister would be at liberty to answer the question of the hon. member even although the member did not call the same.



Mr. BARNARD.: It was my intentionl to reframe this question, but if the hon. minister wishes to answer, I have no particular objection.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia).: I thought it would be in the public interest to read a statement prepared for me by Sir Percy Lake, chief military adviser of the government, and inspector general, as there seems to be some misapprehension in the mind of the hon. gentleman and that of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington), the latter of whom put the same question the other day. Therefore, on the ruling of Mr. Speaker, I shall proceed to read the statement prepared in answer to this question: Sir WILFRID LAURIER.


Mr. BARNARD asked:: 1.	In liow many instances have 12 pr. B. L.
guns been supplied to regiments or units of garrison artillery?	_	...
2.	What regiments of garrison artillery is it the intention of the department to supply with these guns?
3.	Are 12 pr. B. L. guns known as field artillery guns, and are they used for purposes of field artillery regiments?
4.	Is it the policy of the department to require regiments or units of garrison artillery to train on 12 pr. B. L. guns?
5.	Is it the policy of the department to arm for training or other purposes regiments of garrison artillery with field artillery guns?
6.	Is any useful purpose to he served by requiring No. 1 company of the 5th regiment of Canadian artillery to train upon 12 pr. B. L. guns ?
7.	Why was this company selected out of said regiment to train upon these guns?
8.	Is it the intention of the department to supply the 5th regiment of Canadian artillery with horses in order to enable them to train as a cavalry regiment?'


Frederick William Borden: Instead of answering the question categorically I beg to read a statement on the subject prepared for me by Major-General Sir Percy Lake, chief military adviser of the government and inspector general:
In every fortress guns of various natures and power are permanently mounted in the batteries designed to protect the place, from guns of the largest calibre down to 12 pr. and 6 pr. quick-firing guns, and even machine guns. These are called its ' fixed armament,' and are mainly for use against ships and smaller vessels. Again, a certain number of guns are allotted to every fortress, as what is called ' movable armament,' i.e., mobile light guns capable of being moved about from place to place to meet attack in localities upon- which the fixed armament of the fortress could not be brought to bear. The guns to which, it is presumed, the questions refer, belong to this latter description of armament.
When Esquimalt was taken over from the British government, the ' movable armament ' which had been allotted to it was found to be one battery (6 guns) of 13-pr. muzzle loading guns. In other words, 13-pr. M. L. guns were included in its armament for use in repelling either a landing attack made outside the range of the fixed guns, or an attack from the land side of the fortress, upon which the guns of the ' fixed ' armament could not be brought to bear. For a few years after the departure of the British troops, these 13-pr. guns were retained as part of the movable armament of the fortress, but, in view of the difficulties experienced in maintaining their ammunition (which was rapidly becoming obsolete) in an efficient condition, and the drawback that this gun used ordinary gunpowder, and not smokeless, it was always intended to replace them bv 12-pr. B. L. guns firing smokeless powder, as soon as these latter should become available in consequence of the rearmament of the field artillery generally with the new 18-pr. guns.

The 12-pr. B. L. guns to which the question refers are assumed to be the battery of 12-pr. B. L. guns which has recently been sent to Victoria for this purpose.
Again, it is not correct to say that these 12-pr. guns, or indeed any guns of any nature, are ' supplied to regiments or units of garrison artillery.' All guns are supplied and belong to the fortress only, and the corps or men told off to work or drill with any particular gun may, at any time, be changed, and indeed often are changed as circumstances require. For the working of the particular guns in question, a company or part of a company of the 5th regiment, C. A., will now be detailed, probably the same company which, in previous years, has been detailed to train, and has trained, with the old 13-pr. muzzle loading guns, which have now- been taken away. The selection of the particular company or part of a company of the 5th regiment to be trained in the use of these guns will be made by the officer commanding the regiment, in communication with the officer commanding the Esquimalt defences.
It may be noted that, in the case of Halifax, the movable armament includes, and has, for many years past, included, among others, 15-pr. B. L. field guns, while this gun and the 12-pr. B. L. gun are in use for the same purpose in many of the fortified ports of Great Britain and the empire generally. It is considered that, for the special conditions of Esquimalt, 12-pr. B. L. guns are well suited, probably better suited than would be the 15-pr., inasmuch as they are lighter and more easily handled on bad roads.
Note.-The new 18-pr. field guns are nowhere allotted for this purpose.
MANITOBA AND NORTHWEST TERRITORY^ FISHERIES.


Mr. GLEN CAMPBELL.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask a question of the hon. the acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries. A report was made five or six years ago by the commission which lately sat in Manitoba and the Northwest territory inquiring into matters pertaining to the fisheries there. The hon. minister promised that the report would be printed as soon as possible and laid on the table. When will it be laid on the table? I regret that the hon. minister is not here to reply and regret still more the reason why.


The Right Hon.   S@: I -will have the matter inquired into at once and report as soon as I have an answer.


INDIAN LANDS IN ALBERTA.
Mr. HERRON.: I asked for a return about the middle of November regarding a sale of Indian lands of the Peigan Indians in Alberta. I am very anxious to have the return and would like to know when we may expect it.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER.: I laid it on the table a few minutes ago.


ST. PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. BRADBURY.: I would like to call the attention of the hon. the Minister of the Interior to the fact that the return furnished this House on the 11th of March is incomplete. There was a letter written by one Rainway, at Selkirk, regarding the expenditure of $500 and there are no details. There is a letter from the Indian Department calling attention to the omission. Could the minister furnish details of that expenditure?


WATERWAYS TREATY.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Might I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether or not any further progress has been made with regard to the Waterways Treaty.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Yes, there are some subsidiary negotiations going on now with the view of forming our own judgment with regard to one of the points at issue.


FRENCH TREATY.
Robert Laird Borden: It is rumored that some difficulty has occurred in connection with the ratification of the French Treaty. Is there any ground for that rumour?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: We are not aware of any difficulty, and presume that in due course it will be ratified. We have no official intimation to the contrary.


HALIFAX AND ESQUIMALT NAVY YARD.
Robert Laird Borden: Have the government had their attention drawn to some observations of Sir Wm. White, which are to be found in the London 'Times' of Nov. 19, regarding the conditions of the navy yards at Halifax ana Esquimalt?


Wilfrid Laurier: I could not answer that off hand.


Frederick William Borden: I anv aware that some correspondence has taken place and will be able to give an answer tomorrow.


Robert Laird Borden: I can read the observations, if the minister would like to hear them. They are these :
During the past summer he had visited the naval yards at Esquimalt and obtained first knowledge of its condition. Considerable extensions had been made in comparatively recent times to its workshops, store houses and plants; fortification designed to protect the harbour had been modernized but the work was incomplete. He found the fort unarmed, the guns lying on the ground at the foot of the hill in the open. The navy yard was

without a staff capable of maintaining in good condition the expensive machinery left in the work shops and in the buildings. The stores had been disposed of locally at ridiculously low prices and the naval base had been virtually abandoned and was rapidly deteriorating. From information received he had reason to believe that the naval base at Halifax was in a similar condition. Facts of this nature made clear the importance attaching to the new agreement under which these naval bases were to be maintained by the Dominion government. It was to be hoped that before long all foreign naval stations would be restored to a condition of efficiency.


Frederick William Borden: I misunderstood my hon. friend regarding the question. 1 have no information on that matter, but will make inquiries and be able to give a report if there is anything in the department.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY BRANCH LINES.
[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the second .reading of Bill (No. 17) to authorize; the government of Canada to acquire, by ; lease, lines of railways connected with the! government railways.
James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Is the House ready for the question?
Carried.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Enuner-son) desires to speak. Stand.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have declared the motion carried, and I am now putting the question, shall the Bill be now passed. I suppose this latter motion might stand.


Robert Laird Borden: When any motion is passed under some misapprehension on the part of members, it has always been usual to regard it as not passed for the time being.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend can speak on another like motion which will come up.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The motion is that the Bill be now passed.


Mr. EMMERSON.: By arrangement with the Minister of Railways, I was to have an opportunity to make a few observations with respect to the Bill. Unfortunately I was not here at the second reading, it was not possible for me to be here, and I have just now arrived. I would like the matter to stand until to-mororw.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The matter stands until to-morrow.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding;
['We will continue the debate to-morrow.']
Robert Laird Borden: .' That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.'


Mr. M. S. SCHELL (South Oxford).: In resuming the debate on the budget, I desire to join the felicitations of those who have already addressed the House on the character of the budget, and to extend to the hon. the Finance Minister my congratulations on the splendid statement which he has again presented to this House and to the country. The position which he occupies is certainly unique and unparalleled in the history of this country, and I think in the history of any country. Occupying, as he has, for the long period of thirteen years, uninterruptedly, the position of Finance Minister, he has been able to present to this House a succession of budgets that have at once given an indication of a growth, a prosperity and a development on national lines that has perhaps been unequalled in the history of any country. It is all the more gratifying to us to listen to such a statement in view of the recent world-wide depression that prevailed throughout the United States as well as European countries, and which was in a measure reflected in our own country, and which resulted in a certain recession of our trade, so that our revenue was somewhat less than it had been the year before. Last year the revenue was in the neighbourhood of $11,000,000 less than in the previous year. But we all rejoice that now there is every evidence of an increased revenue, and of a return of prosperity that will even surpass that of the record year of 1907-8. I have here a return for the month of December, from which I find that the optimistic forecast of which the Finance Minister. gave on the introduction of his budget, is more than likely to be fulfilled. For instance, we see that the total revenue for the month of December was $8,733,571, an increase of $1,550,216 or over 20 per cent compared with December of 1908. For the nine months, the revenue has been $73,390,008, an increase of $11,091,497. The increase in the customs revenue has been $9,361,421. If this increase for the month of December continues during the next three months of this fiscal year, there is no doubt that our revenue will exceed the $97,500,000 which the Minister of Finance estimated, and may possibly touch the $100,000,000 mark at the end of this current year. But there is also another pleasing fact about the returns. The expenditure, on the other hand, shows a decrease for the nine months of $3,034,492 on consolidated fund account, and of $2,290,206 on capital account. The total expenditure on consolidated fund account was $47,-

398,129, and on capital $24,026,137, of which about $17,000,000 was on the National Transcontinental railway. We rejoice in the return of prosperity that has come to us, and we believe that we are on the eve of a growth and a development that has not heretofore been reached in the Dominion of Canada.
Now, Sir, I do not propose to answer at any great length the speech that was delivered by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) prior to the adjournment of the debate. But there are one or two statements he made which I wish to correct, and to give some information that will show that he was labouring under a misapprehension in some of the figures that he gave to the House. I would not for a moment hint that he was endeavouring to create a wrong impression, or that he wished to prejudice the country against the methods of book-keeping that prevail the government offices; but certainly he used some very strong language for one who apparently was not able to harmonize the records as they appear in the Statistical Year-book and the Trade and Navigation returns. For instance he says that the Statistical Year-book gives, for the exports in 1896, $117,684,799, while in the Trade and Navigation returns they are given as $121,013,852.
There is that difference, I presume. I have not looked up the Year-book but have [DOT]simply taken the trade and navigation returns, from which it is easy to see how that difference occurs. For instance, the hon. gentleman has quoted the two years 1896 *and 1900 in making these comparisons of exports. For 1896 there was an estimated amount short reported, as it appears in the Trade and Navigation report, of $3,329,053, which, if added to the figure given in the Statistical Year-book would correspond exactly with the total amount that is given in the trade and navigation returns. It will be observed thaOhese two figures are given on the same page of our trade and navigation returns, no attempt is made to mislead or to falsify the accounts. The Statistical Year-book does not profess to give as complete a record as the returns published in the Trade and Navigation report. In the year 1900 there is an item ' estimated short reported $5,461,411.' That added to what appears in the Year-book would make exactly the amount which he has quoted as appearing in the trade and navigation returns. The circumstances in the other two years he has quoted are exactly the same, his figures are the same simply because there were no figures in that column ' estimated short reported.' Take the columns for imports. He says that the Statistical Year-book for 1896 gives $110,587,480, and that in the trade and navigation return the figure is $118,011,508. If he had given as
much attention to the task of ascertaining the exact facts as he appeared desirous of prejudicing the House, he would have had no difficulty in seeing that these reports are exactly correct. On pages 2 and 3 of the Trade and Navigation report he will find both the amounts to which he has referred. The figures in the Statistical Year-book are taken from the imports that come into the country for consumption only, and he quotes from the trade and navigation returns the total imports. Both are given in the Trade and Navigation report and both are correct, but, as I said, the Statistical Year-book does not profess to go into these figures as elaborately and as fully. If he wished to have the facts they are there before his eyes. I shall not refer further to the different figures which he quoted, but an hon. member is not justified in using such language as this:
But when we find a discrepancy of millions of dollars in corresponding statements given in these blue-books what must we expect to find in the other accounts? Is it a fact that we are standing on a volcano and that the statement given every year by the Finance Minister is a cooked statement?
Very 'strong language indeed, I think rather unbecoming language to be employed by a member without having made a very careful study of the accounts he proposes to criticise. I have been in the House five years and I do not think I have heard a single member question the correctness of the statements in the blue-books. The hon. member is apparently trying to create an impression in this country that there is *at least carelessness in the manner of computing the statistics published in our blue-books.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: What authority is there for these estimated shortages, except a fancied authority in the mind of some official?


Malcolm Smith Schell: I presume it was impossible to get the exact returns when the statements were published, but I would call attention to the fact that from 1868 to 1900 that column appears in the trade and navigation returns. Since 1900 it has been dispensed with.
The hon. member has taken exception to the methods that have been adopted in regard to the expenditure of the public funds of the country and he objects to the maintenance of the two funds, the consolidated fund account and the capital expenditure account. If he had his way he would unite these two accounts and have but one account in which all the moneys would be written up so that if there was any surplus whatever it would appear in excess over the total expenditure of the year. Personally, I prefer to take the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as a better critic in the matter of book-keeping. The system that has been followed by the present govern-

ment is exactly the same as that followed! by the government prior to 1896 with one exception, and that is with regard to the bounties that have been paid by this government, which have been charged to capital expenditure. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has clearlv explained the reasons for that change, and I think the reasons he has advanced are very good reasons. An expenditure made for the building up one of the great basic industries of this country is practically on a par with an expenditure in the way of a railway subsidy in helping a great public work.
However, I do not wish to quarrel with my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie). He says that the former government had a surplus in only one year during the whole eighteen years they were in power, namely 1882, but he says the present government has had surpluses in four years. If the hon. member is willing to concede that this government has done four times as well in the matter of surpluses as the former government, I suppose we need not complain. Following the system that has been adopted by the present government, as well as the preceding government, I wish to consider briefly the matter of surpluses as they appear in the records. You will find that under the former government they had a number of surpluses. There were surpluses during the financial years 1886-7, 1888-9, 1889-90, 1890-91, 1891-92, 189293, or in six years in a period of twelve years, they had small surpluses amounting in all to over $9,000,000. But during that same period, from 1884 to 1896, they had deficits larger than their surpluses. These deficits were as follows:
1884-	5	
$2,240,0001885-	6	
5,834,5711887-8	
810,0311893-	4	
1,210,3321894-	5	
4,153,8001895-	G	
330,500
Or a total of deficits during that period of over $14,000,000. With the exception of the year 1896-7, I am glad to say that the present government have always had a surplus. In the first year after the Liberals assumed the reins of power there was a deficit of $519,981.44, but the following year and from that to the present time they have had each year a substantial surplus amounting to as high as $16,000,000 in one year, and giving in all a total of surpluses amounting to $114,558,259, from which deducting the deficit of the first year youi have a total of surpluses during the Liberal regime amounting to $114,068,277.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question here?


Malcolm Smith Schell: Certainly.


David Henderson: Would he be kind enough to tell us what has become of all these surpluses?


Malcolm Smith Schell: 


Malcolm Smith Schell: With very much pleasure. The surpluses that have accrued to the credit of the government have been expended on capital account, and I should suppose that my hon. friend who has been in the House for a great many years would know that.


David Henderson: Then they were not surpluses.


Malcolm Smith Schell: They were surpluses over and above the ordinary or current expenditure. My hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) is too old a parliamentarian, I should judge, not to be better posted than he appears to be. He has been in the House long enough to be very well versed in the system of keeping the governmental accounts not only by this government but by the preceding Conservative government. However, he wants to know what has become of these surpluses and I have great pleasure in telling him that they have been expended on public works which stand as assets to the credit of the Dominion of Canada; not liquid assets in a sense, not interest bearing assets, but assets that indirectly contribute to the wealth and the growth and the prosperity of the country. For instance, I could give a statement of some of the expenditures that have been made from this source. Take the betterment of our canals. Does my hon. friend not consider that to be a wise expenditure on capital account; and on canals during the years of office of the present government there has been an expenditure of $28,385,227. Take again the Montreal harbour and the St. Lawrence ship channel. Who would say that is not a great national work in the interests of Canada and one which contributes immensely to the prosperity and the general welfare of our country? On improving the Montreal harbour and St. Lawrence ship channel there has been expended by this government $7,663,062. Then, in bonuses or subsidies to railways throughout the Dominion there have been expended $24,679,973; for harbours at Fort William, Port Arthur and Port Colborne there have been expended $2,276,303, and on the Quebec harbour $765,225. These are a few of the expenditures that have been made out of the surpluses to which I have already called the attention of the House. Now, I said that there had been surpluses to the amount of $114,000,000. Expenditures on capital account have been made to .the amount of $212,000,000 during the twelve and three quarter years of Liberal government. It is true that our debt has increased somewhat, and of necessity it would have to increase when we have surpluses of $114,000,000 and capital expenditure of $212,000,000, and so we have had to borrow some money to meet these extra expenditures on capital account. But,

if you deduct the expenditure on the National Transcontinental railway and the Quebec bridge amounting to $58,500,000, you will see that all the government has had to borrow during the whole, twelve and three-quarter years have been about $7,000.000. As I say, this has come from the wise management by this government of the finances of the country, so that they hail a sufficiency to meet the demands of government, apart from the National Transcontinental railway, with the exception of some $7,000,000. On the other hand, how does that compare with the record of the former government? During the whole eighteen years of their term the total expenditure of the Conservative government on capital account was $167,162,252. Did they have nearly enough money to meet that capital expenditure? No. We find that they had to borrow money, that the revenue was not sufficient to meet the current expenditure and leave any considerable amount to apply on capital account, and out of that $167,000,000 during their whole eighteen years of office they only had $49,000,000 to apply on capital account. In other words, they had to go to the English market and borrow to the extent of $118,000.000 as against the $7,000,000 that this government lias had to borrow during their twelve and three-quarter years. It will of course be said that the Conservative government built the Canadian Pacific railway. Well, eliminating the Transcontinental railway and eliminating the Canadian Pacific railway if you will, you will then see that the Conservative government had to borrow at least five times as much as the present government has had to borrow for the carrying on of the affairs of the country.
The hon. member for North Simcoe, as do many others on that side of the House, seems to think that because there is an adverse balance of trade against us it is an indication that the country is not prospering as it should. I am not very much surprised that our friends opposite sometimes think there is danger when they see an adverse balance of trade, because during their regime they had a very sad experience in that respect and perhaps it has made a very deep impression on their minds. In looking briefly into this question I find that from 1878 to 1896 the total imports were $2,044,807,768 and the total exports $1,682,592,467. There was an excess of imports over exports of $362,215,301, or an average of $20,123,000 per year for the whole 18 year period. If there had been compensating assets or sources of revenue or something to compensate for this adverse balance of trade it would not have seemed so bad, but we find that during their regime there was no material increase in population, there was no great inflow
of immigrants to the country, no great public works, apart from the C.P.R., were constructed, to stand as great assets to the country. So, I say that this adverse balance of trade was a menace, and I am not surprised that they are so much concerned when they see a small adverse balance of trade accruing under the present government. The hon. member says that there is an adverse balance of trade during the twelve years up to the present time of $202,604,892. I do not know whether his figures are correct, but I have. taken his own figures. With less than half the volume of trade, according to his figures, we have only about half the amount of an adverse balance. He says that when there is an adverse balance of trade, or even when trade is buoyant, times in the country are not so good. I take issue with him. In the first place, when trade is buoyant and is increasing rapidly, it is the best possible evidence of good times and prosperity as a whole in the country. I also take issue with him when he says that an adverse balance of trade is always a bad sign. Of course, there is a limit to which we can go with an adverse balance of trade without evil effects accruing to the finances of our country, but a small adverse balance of trade under certain conditions, is almost, I was going to say, a matter of necessity. I think I might use that expression in connection with the affairs of the country as we have seen them during the past twelve and three-quarter years. When the country is growing rapidly, when the population is increasing, when capital is coming to our shores for investment these things contribute to the increase of trade and especially do they contribute to the increase of imports. We will take, for instance, the money that has flowed into the Dominion of Canada for various purposes and see what we have as a compensating asset against this small amount of $202,000,000 which our friend says stands as an adverse balance of trade. For railway construction and for other public works it is estimated that at least $300,000,000 have come into the Dominion of Canada during the last twelve or fifteen years. The hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Fowke), from a source that I suppose is fairly reliable, stated that at least $220,000,000 have come from the United States for investment in industrial enterprises during the last twelve years. We have had about 500.000 immigrants during the last nine years from the United States and it is estimated that last year alone the 90,148 immigrants who came into Canada from the United States brought with them, on the average, $1,000 apiece. That would amount to $90,000,000. Those that came in during preceding years, numbering, as I have said, some 500,000, less those who came

in last year, have brought in at least from $100,000,000 -to $150,000,000. Some may say that this is an exaggerated estimate. It may be somewhat large but for those who have seen the class of immigrants who are coming in from the United States, farmers who have sold their farms at good prices and many of whom have brought in from $5,000 to $20,000, it is not unreasonable to suppose that this estimate is fairly correct. So that, from this source we have had brought into the Dominion money to the extent of iabout $250,000,000. I am leaving out entirely the money that has been brought by immigrants from Great Britain and other European countries. During the last twelve years immigration from Europe has totalled about 700,000 people. Possibly they have brought in $50,000,000, perhaps more; certainly they have brought in a considerable amount of money. Added to all that, political economists tell us that every able-bodied citizen who comes into the country becomes an asset worth, at least, $1,000. If we add that to the amount I have already named, you will see that we have a compensating asset to stand against any adverse balance of trade amounting to nearly $2,000,000,000. The figures are large but still they are figures that cannot b'e gainsaid. It is a fact that stands there and it, in a very large measure, answers the question: Why is it that our banks are receiving such an immense amount in deposits? Why is it that the general prosperity of the country is so evident? It is because of this large capital which has gone into circulation, and hence I say that this money which has come in and in some cases part of it going out for the purpose of buying imports, has materially contributed to what appears to be an adverse balance of trade. We know, however, that an adverse balance of trade is the usual experience of nearly all of the great countries of the world. Great Britain, Germany, France, Holland, Italy for the last thirty years have nearly always had an adverse balance of trade. The United States is frequently referred to as a country that has an excess of exports over imports, but if you go back and look at the history of the United States you will see that from 1855 to 1873 they had an excess of imports over exports amounting to $70,000,000 annually. So, I say there is no ground for alarm; in fact, there is no reason whatever for us feeling that there is any danger from the small balance of trade that has been referred to. I wish to call your attention to a statement that was made by the Vice President of the Montreal Bank in his annual report. He says:
The adverse balance of trade has thus again begun to grow, but while men and money pour into Canada from abroad the disparity need not cause uneasiness. Domes-Mr. SCHELL.
tic industries are, speaking generally, working well up to the limit of capacity. Labour is fully employed; the lumber trade has improved. The export of dairy produce has been larger than last year, with high prices ruling throughout the season, all farm products, indeed, are exceptionally dear.
That is the view that is entertained by this high authority that I have quoted.
Now, in the matter of loans, our friends opposite seem to think that the government are not effecting loans as cheaply as they were effected under their regime. Well, possibly some of the loans are not effected as cheaply. We know that money fluctuates in the money markets of the world like any other commodity. After the Boer war, money became much dearer, and in consequence of tile increase in the rates of interest, it was not practicable, in the last few years, to renew loans on as favourable terms as in previous periods. Therefore our government as we have heard from the hen. the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) on more than one occasion, found it more difficult to replace loans as cheaply as they could a few years ago, and our Finance Minister only made loans at short terms so that he might be able to take advantage of the market when, in the natural order of things, money became more plentiful. Let me read a statement which appeared in the Toronto ' Saturday Night,' written by its financial editor, and which I think bears directly on the subject :



[Stage Direction]
It may be interesting to know that while the public debt of Canada is strictly increasing, the rate of interest is decreasing. At confederation, fdrty-two years ago, the dominion paid an average rate of 5 -55 per cent on $67,069,115 which London had advanced. The interest on this which had to be remitted, either in the sale of produce or in gold, amounted to $3,700,000 yearly. After the lapse of ten years, or in 1877, the debt of the country to London had increased to $122,477,629, but the average interest rate had been scaled down to 4 -74 per cent. In the next ten years the federal debt of Canada had reached $171,075,735, while the average rate of interest had fallen to 3 -.99 per cent. This entailed the sending abroad of $7,000,000 for the payment of interest on the debt. In the next decade, ending in 1897, Canada's obligations to London had increased to $218,225,503, necessitating an annual interest of $8,125,664, but the average rate of interest had fallen to 3 -72 per cent. According to the return for the past fiscal year, our debt to London had swollen to $262,000,000, on which the interest charge will be about $9,300,000, which is at the rate of 3J per cent. In the forty-two years, therefore, of the life of the Dominion of Canada, her obligations to London in borrowings had grown from $67,000,000 to $262,000,000, an increase of $195,000,000, and while the total annual cost to the government had expanded from $3,700,000 to $9,300,000 annually, the aver-

age rate at which the borrowings had been made were reduced from 5-55 per cent, to 3-56 per cent.
There, I think is a complete answer to the contention of our hon. friends opposite that the government is not effecting loans cn as good terms as they should be able to do. Let me quote also from the remarks of Mr. Byron Walker, president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, made on his return from England this last summer:
There never was a time when the English investor was so ready to consider favourably Canadian investments. Mr. Walker said,
* As a matter of fact there never was a time when Canadian credit was so good. It is so good that we Canadians must be careful. 1 think I can truthfully say that rve have never sold the English investor bad securities. We have given him good value for his money, and we must continue to do so/
The London 'Standard' remarks:
Having regard to the present monetary conditions we think the Canadian government is to be congratulated, first upon the policy of raising money at the present moment in short term maturities rather than on stock, and second upon the terms on which the bills were sold.
It was only a few days ago that our Finance Minister cabled to his financial agent in London that he wished to avail himself of i the privilege stipulated in a loan, made in 1885, of £4,000,000, for fifty years at four per cent. That privilege allowed the government to replace that loan at the end of twenty-five years on giving six months' notice* and on the 31st of December, the hon. the Finance Minister cabled to London that he proposed taking advantage of that option. No doubt he believes that the present is an opportune time for the government to replace its four per cent loan effected in 1885 by the former government, and I have no doubt he will be able to do so on more favourable terms.
My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) seemed very much concerned about the claims that are urged by our western friends, who claim to have a record wheat [DOT]crop of 100,000,000 bushels, and he went on to say:
If they look into the trade returns, they will find that 44,000,000 bushels of wheat is the largest amount exported from this country in any one year.
If my hon. friend had taken any pains, if he had looked up the trade and navigation returns he would have found that that is not a correct statement. For instance, we find that in 1898 the exports of wheat amounted to $44,000,000, which would represent a good deal more than 44,000,000 bushels, because wheat was not woTth $1 a bushel in that year. That was of the crop of 1907 and previous years, ,not the crop of 1908. I do not see where the hon. member
found his figures, for, in these returns, right in the adjoining column he would find the returns for 1909 showing an export of $57,891,304 worth of wheat-and this would be of the wheat crop of 1908 and not of 1909, and, in addition, $7,991,517 worth of flour, making a total value of $65,882,821 worth of wheat and flour exported of the crop of 1908 and preceding years.
John Allister Currie: For the information of the hon. member I may state that the quotation was for 1908 and was taken from the Statistical Year-book and not from the trade and navigation returns. The trade and navigation returns from which the hon. member is quoting are the unrevised returns for last year. I took the latest actual figures that I could get, which are to be found in the Canadian Statistical Year-book.


Malcolm Smith Schell: I am quoting from the revised figures. These trade and navigation returns are revised and absolute. The hon. member (Mr. Currie) went back to 1908, as I have stated, instead of 1909. The hon. member referred to the crop of 1909, but based his figures on the crop of 1907. Besides, he gave the figures for wheat alone, he quoted bushels instead of dollars and he left out flour entirely. These errors made a difference of fifty per cent in the statement he presented to the House.
A good deal of attention has been given to the average rate of duty on imnorts into Canada. Almost the only criticism of the present tariff by our opponents is levelled at the rate of duty on dutiable imports. In all their statements they totally ignore the free imports. Now, that is wholly unfair. The present government, when it came into power, declared that certain commodities should be put upon the free list. Surely, that is to be regarded as a reduction-it is a reduction to the limit. We must consider the free imports, then, if we seek to arrive at a fair idea of the tariff imposed on goods imported into Canada. We find that the total free imports from 1884 to 1896 were $457,739,263. The total free imports from 1897 to 1909, a period of equal length, were $1,108,199,713, or $650,459,950 more of free imports during the latter period than during the former. If these goods, instead of being admitted free, had been charged the average rate of duty which is now charged on dutiable goods, the Canadian people would have had to pay higher customs duties to the amount of $107,586,075.


John Allister Currie: What has that to do with it?


Malcolm Smith Schell: That shows that the government has been carrying on a policy that makes for free trade to the extent of allowing this amount of goods to come in free of tariff charge.. Or, if you wish to look at

it another way:	The total free and dutiable goods imported since 1896 amounted to $2,822,097,615, had these imports been charged at the difference between the rate of duty that obtained in 1896 and the present rate, the Canadian people would have had to pay into the Dominion treasury $71,681,279 more than they actually did pay. Some may doubt these figures, but I challenge any one to disprove them. The average rate of duty is shown here in the blue-book, and I have never heard the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who is the best authority on that side of the House, dispute the correctness of these figures. And I notice that in his reference to this matter he was very guarded and was careful always to state ' dutiable imports ', thus leaving out the free imports in his comparison between the charges that were made by the former government and those made by the present government. If you take the dutiable and free imports, which is the only fair basis, you find that the average rate of duty in 1896 was 19T29 per cent, while in 1909 the average rate was 16 -.586 per cent, or a difference of $2.54 on every $100 worth of goods imported into Canada. At this rate, as I have stated, the people of Canada would have paid over $7,000,000 more than they actually have paid on the imports since 1896.
Great stress has been laid on the fact that our revenue has increased very materially, and so it is said our rate of taxation per capita is correspondingly increased. That is not a fair statement by any means. The rate of revenue has increased, it is true-it has increased per capita of the people of the Dominion from about $7 to $11. But the rate of taxation has not increased per capita, if it is properly and fairly analysed and put in its proper light, lor instance, I want to mention as an illustration a simple fact which clearly explains this point. In the town of Tilson-burg, a small town of about 3,000 population in my constituency, an American firm has established a milk condensing factory, and they have brought into that town about $50,000 worth of machinery, upon which they have paid a duty, in round figures, of $9,500, and that has gone into the revenue of the country. You may say that the people of this country have been taxed to that extent, according to the argument that is made by our friends opposite. Now I take exception to that argument; it is not fair, it is not putting the matter in a fair light! If you apply that revenue to the people of that town of 3,000, there is an addition to the revenue of this country of over $3 for every man, woman and child in the town of Tilsonburg, on that one item alone. Consequently if the .revenue has increased from $8 per head to $11 per head, here is Mr. SCHELL.	*
$3 of it accounted for in that one item. Is it fair to say to the people of Tilsonburg, you are taxed $11 per head now, whereas you were only taxed $8 in 1896? But that is not all. This, firm has also brought in capital to the extent of some $70,000, in addition to the $50,000 for machinery, which they have expended in that town for labour and material, and this also has gone to contribute, somewhat indirectly I admit, but has contributed somewhat to the revenue of the country. I mention this fact to make clear the point I am trying to put before the House. And this is an instance that might be multiplied a hundred-fold, perhaps a thousand-fold throughout the Dominion of Canada, if the subject were fully and thoroughly investigated. As I said a few minutes ago, it is believed that at least $220,000,000 of American capital has come into Canada for investment in our industrial enterprises. That capital has gone to pay revenue, directly and indirectly. Two to three hundred million dollars of capital have come in for the purpose of building our railways, and that has gone to a large extent into the Dominion treasury to pay for duties imposed on material used in the construction of these railways.


John Allister Currie: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I would like to know if there is a duty, or a protective tariff, on the product of the factory which he speaks of?


Malcolm Smith Schell: I understand there is.


John Allister Currie: Then, according to the principles of the hon. gentleman, it would be advisable to take that duty off. Would he, as a free trader, be in favour of taking that duty off?


Malcolm Smith Schell: I do not see that that has anything to do with my argument at all, I think it is entirely foreign to the argument I have been making.	[DOT]


John Allister Currie: I would also ask him if the machinery is made in Canada of the same kind that was imported?


Malcolm Smith Schell: No, I understand not.


John Allister Currie: Then would the hon. gentleman consider it fair


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Malcolm Smith Schell: I do not object to any questions the hon. gentleman may wish to ask me. I wish briefly to call the attention of the House to the very large increase in agricultural exports, and when we remember that the population of the country has increased about 30 per cent, these figures will be all the more striking, as they show that the products of our farms especially have increased at a much greater rate than has the population. We find that in 1896

,our agricultural exports amounted to $14,083,361; in 1909 they had increased to $71, 997,207, an increase of over 400 per cent. Taking animals and their products, we find that in 1896 we exported $36,507,641, while in 1909 we exported $51,349,646. Or if you take the total of agricultural products and of animals and their products, we find that we exported in 1896, $50,091,000, while in 1909 we exported $123,346,853.


Mr. THORNTON.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. Where does he get these figures?


Malcolm Smith Schell: They are in the trade and navigation returns.


Charles Jonas Thornton: Where does he get his figures for 1909?


Malcolm Smith Schell: My hon. friend apparently does not know, but I will tell him, that the trade and navigation returns, while nominally for 1909, mean for 1908-9 ending the 31st of March last. So when I say 1909,
I mean the figures that were given and verified up to the 31st of March last.


Charles Jonas Thornton: For 1908?


Malcolm Smith Schell: For 1909 up to the 31st of March last, and they are here for any one to see. They are verified and correct.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Will the hon. gentleman pardon me? Has he the figures of the imports of animals and their products placed .alongside the exports in those lines?


Malcolm Smith Schell: I have not.


John Allister Currie: Has the hon. gentleman the figures for the imports of grain and farm products, so that he can place them alongside the exports?


Malcolm Smith Schell: No, I have not, I have the total exports. But I have not the imports for the different articles that are referred to.


John Allister Currie: Is it not a fact that the imports


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr.  J. A.@: CURRIE The hon. gentleman has given me permission. Will he be kind enough to state if it is not a fact that the percentage of increase in imports of farm products has been equally great with that of exports? If he reads the blue-book he will find that to be so.


Malcolm Smith Schell: I am not able to say positively on that point, but I think he is mistaken. However, I do not think it makes any difference, because the price of our farm products is regulated by the English market almost entirely; and any imports that have come into Canada have come to certain sections of the Dominion that could not get them quite as easily elsewhere in
Canada as they could perhaps from the United States bordering on that particular portion of our country. The price of those products has been affected insignificantly by any imports coming from other countries; I claim that the amount is so small that it does not make much difference to the price that has been paid to the farmers of this country for the products they have sent to the English market.


John Allister Currie: How many millions?


Malcolm Smith Schell: Less than a million.
Mr, J. A. CURRIE. Does the hon member mean to say that the imports of farm products into this country do not amount to $1,000,000?


Malcolm Smith Schell: No, I said the difference in the price that might obtain would total less than $1,000,000.
The exports of Canadian manufactured goods have been as follows:
1896	 $ 9,365,384
1909	 28,957,050
This is an increase in our export of manufactured goods of nearly 200 per cent.
The exports of the products of our forests have also increased very materially, from $26,000,000 to $39,000,000. The exports of the products of our fisheries have increased from $11,000,000 to $13,000,000 and the exports of the products of our mines have increased from $8,059,650 in 1896 to $37,257,699 in 1909. Our total exports in 1896 were valued at $121,013,852 while in 1909 they amounted to $261,512,159.	.
Some may ask what has contributed to this very large increase? I do not think we will 'have far to seek or that it will be difficult to find why we have been enabled to increase our exports in every line to which I have referred. In regard to agriculture, I think we can see the cause directly in the veTy progressive policy that has been inaugurated by this government and the very excellent work that has been done by our Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Sydney Fisher) and his able staff of officers. I do not suppose that our friends opposite will agree with me when I say that I think we have thp best Minister of Agriculture that the Dominion of Canada has ever had. He is a man superior in every way to any other man who has occupied the position which he now occupies. From the day that he assumed the position of Minister of Agriculture he has pursued a progressive policy. Our friends opposite sometimes say that the Dominion of Canada has not spent enough money on agriculture, and on the other hand they sometimes object because certain amounts are expended-I suppose that no matter which

policy is pursued they will find some grievance. May I call attention to one or two facts in connection with the Department of Agricultures? At confederation the staff employed under the department consisted of 23 permanent employees. To-day we have a staff of 516 of whom 246 are at Ottawa, and as the department is now organized it consists of 12 branches whose work is of the utmost importance. Among these branches we have experimental farms, the dairy and cold storage division, the live stock division, the health of animals division, census and statistics, seeds branch and other branches whose work may not come so prominently before the people. Shortly after this government assumed office, they decided to .grant to Great Britain a preference in our markets. Following the introduction of that preference as a part of the fiscal policy of the Dominion of Canada, we find that our exports increased very rapidly. I suppose that some will ask how the granting of that preference could affect the exports from Canada? In this way, that the attention of the consumers of England was called to our products in a new way. Up to that time our food products had not attained the position in the English market to which they were entitled. When the English people saw what Canada had done in the matter of preference, coupled with the work that the Minister of Agriculture was doing in placing before the English consumers our products in the very best possible condition, the people of England saw that our goods were better than they had supposed and they paid a higher price for them, So that our exports to England increased in a very rapid manner. Since 1898 when the preference was granted, they have almost doubled. In 1896 we were exporting some $66,000,000 of agricultural products to England. In each of the years 1907-8-9, our exports of agricultural products to England were in round figures $133,000,000. That has come about, as I have stated, largely by the placing of those goods upon the English market in the best possible condition. Prior to that time our system of cold storage was not what it should be, in fact we had practically no installation of cold storage on our steamships. The government, as you know, took that matter in hand, they granted a subsidy to one or two of the steamship lines, cold storage systems were installed on two or three boats, and after that system had been in operation for two or three years it was found that all the other companies, if they wished to secure a fair share of the trade of Canada in the products of the soil, had to provide a similar service. The result has been that there is not a steamship sailing from Mr. SCHELL.
Montreal, Quebec or St. John to English ports that has not a system of cold storage installed, so that ample space is offered to any exporter who mav have perishable products to export ta the European markets. Cool storage has also been introduced by this government and ample cool storage space is offered to the exporter. In 1900 Professor Robertson, before the Agriculture Committee of the House made the following statement:
Last season our cheese trade got the worst setback from poor boxes and heated quality it ever got. It is now in a precarious condition. I do not know of a time when it was in a more doubtful position than it is at present. We got good prices in the summer, but hot weather in August and September caused the cheese to be heated, and much of it was landed in England in poor condition. It looks as if we might receive this summer of 1901 to the extent of $2,000,000 less for our export of cheese .trade, because of the bad impression made in England last season by the poor condition in which much of it was landed.


William Cameron Edwards: Might I ask the. hon. gentleman if this government has taken any steps since 1896 to see that our cheese and butter are properly handled ,in the old country?


Malcolm Smith Schell: I am pleased to be able to answer the question by stating that the Canadian government has an inspector at London, at Liverpool, at Manchester, at Bristol and at Glasgow, five of the leading ports of Great Britain.


William Cameron Edwards: I call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the report of the Dairy and Cold Storage Commissioner for 1907, page 97, where it is stated that Canadian cheese is roughly handled in the English market, and that Canadian butter is left on the docks at Liverpool for two and three days at a time.


Malcolm Smith Schell: There may have been some difficulty in 1907, and the inspectors of the Canadian government are there just for the purpose of seeing that Canadian products are properly handled by the steamship companies. The good work they are doing is probably best testified to by extracts from letters written by English importers which I shall read to the House. I have here a letter written by Messrs. Frank Hamilton and Company, of Liverpool, dated January 19, 1909. This firm is one of the largest apple importers in Great Britain, and as I am personally acquainted with Mr. Hamilton, I feel the more confidence in quoting his statement. Mr. Hamilton has been in Montreal for many years during the apple season attending to the Canadian end of the business, and this is what he writes:
Taking transportation first, there can be no question whatever but that improvements in this direction have been greatly to the ad-

vantage of all shippers of perishable goods.
As you are no doubt aware, our firm has been for over twenty years personally represented in the port of Montreal during the shipping season, and we are therefore in a position to appreciate to the full the efforts your government have made to minimize the losses to shippers caused by neglect and delay at the ports of shipment. It is not so many years ago that a walk along the docks of Montreal would disclose thousands of barrels of apples piled in the open and exposed to the effects of the weather, both hot and cold, and with only the protection of a tarpaulin, if that, and the bottom tiers often covered with mud or coal dust.
The steamers in those days only carried some 5,000 to 10,000 barrels of apples apiece, and the shutting out of goods was the rule rather than the exception. It was no uncommon thing to have a through bill of lading in our Liverpool office a month before the goods put in an appearance. Such a state of things is now impossible, Montreal being equipped with some splendid cargo sheds which will compare favourably with those of any other port in the world, and as the railway tracks run alongside, the handling of goods has been reduced to atminimum. In conjunction with these improvements, the class of steamer using the port is also improved and it is seldom that perishable goods are shut out.
The recent concession of your government to fruit shippers of free icing of cars during transit has had a beneficial effect on the condition of the fruit arriving at port of export.
On the whole, the transportation conditions to-day are tremendously ahead of what they were some years ago, and in consequence better results are obtained when the goods are sold on the British markets.
In reference to cheese, Messrs. Lovell and Christmas, Limited, of London, write under date January 4, 1909:
In reply to yours of the 2nd inst., speaking from our personal experience, the percentage, of heated cheese throughout the past season has been practically nil. During the warm weather we brought all our cheese in cool storage, at a small additional freight, and found this precaution was of great advantage because the cheese arrived here in perfect condition, and the saving in the weight (shrinkage) almost, if not quite, covered the extra expense incurred by having the cheese in cool, instead of ordinary stowage.
In our opinion, there has been a vast improvement in the carrying of cheese during the last 10 years, and as far as the past season is concerned we do not think it could well have been improved on. We believe this is the general feeling of the trade here, especially on the part of those who have taken advantage of the cool storage on the vessels.
Messrs. Row son, Hodgson and Company, Limited, of London, write under date January 7, 1909:
Heated cheese.-Our experience is that only a limited quantity of the imports from Canada this season have shown any external or internal signs of heat-we should not think
5 per cent of the entire quantity received into the country, whereas ten years ago probably fully 25 per cent of the goods arriving suffered from the defect referred to.
Regarding the ocean carriage and landing of butter and cheese, so far as London is concerned, there has been a gradual improvement during the last 15 years, and more especially since the time that the ' cool air ' stowage has been adopted on two lines of steamers viz. the Thompson and the Allan lines.	.
Messrs. Herbertson and Hamilton, of Glasgow, under date of January 15, 1909, write:
We have pleasure in reporting that our shipments of Canadian cheese received the past season show a distinct improvement both in condition and quality compared with previous years, and are a great advance in all respects with that we were receiving, say ten years ago.
Messrs. Andrew Clement & Sons, Limited, Glasgow, write under date of January 19, 1909:	.
In 1908 heated cheese were too few to do any harm worth mentioning, and the present carrying arrangements are about as near perfect as we can reasonably expect.


Messrs. H. H.: and S. Budgett & Company, Limited, of Bristol, write:
As regards condition, we are pleased to be able to report favourably taking the season as a whole, no eases of heated or badly carried cheese having come under our notice.
I might quote at considerable length from a number of others who are receivers of our Canadian products and who are just as emphatic in stating that the transportation of our products now is practically perfect, and that there is practically nothing to be desired.


Charles Jonas Thornton: Would the hon. gentleman tell me why Canadian bacon is sometimes sold as American bacon in the English market? Why is not some effort made to prevent that being done?


Malcolm Smith Schell: I think my hon. friend is entirely wrong. This is the first time I have ever heard that Canadian bacon was sold as American bacon, because Canadian bacon is infinitely better, and the English purchaser knows it is better and it would be to his .interest to advertise it as Canadian.


Mr. FISHER.: They try to sell American bacon as Canadian.


Malcolm Smith Schell: Yes, sometimes they try to do that, so that I think my hon. friend (Mr. Thornton) is entirely misinformed. I wish to read an extract from a report of the United States Consul, Charles N. Daniels, at Sheffield, England, published in the ' Daily Consular and Trade Reports,' dated Washington, December 17, 1909, a report

that I think is rather important and which, coming from a person representing another government, I think, is of some considerable value.
From a personal interview with a dozen or more of these firms (fruit dealers) selected at random, it is safe to say that this English city consumes $15,000 to $20,000 worth of apples weekly during the season from October 1 to the middle of March or April 1. Of this amount, about three-fifths are Canadian, the remaining American. Practically all of these apples are bought of or from commission men on the wharfs at Liverpool. The tendency of the trade here is to favour the Canadian grower and packer, the reason for this being that Canada exercises supervision over the grading, packing and branding of its fruit that is entirely lacking in the American product.
A testimony of that kind, I think, would convince any one that there has been some very good work done by this government in the matter of the inspection and the handling of apples. That is a very important branch. It is one of the new branches of work that this government has taken up. We know that the way that many of our packers were packing their apples had become a scandal. There was a tendency to dishonesty and we were shipping many apples that were injuring our trade in Great Britain and in other markets in which they were sold. This government took the matter in hand and passed the Fruit Marks Act, which has been in operation now for some four or five years and any one who knows anything about the fruit trade will at once admit that the' enforcement of that Act has resulted in very great benefit to the apple trade of this country. We have, under the Fruit Marks Act, at the present time, about twenty-six inspectors whose duty it is to inspect fruit not only at shipping points but also throughout the country. We have also inspectors in the markets of Europe watching these goods as they are being disposed of there. The results that have accrued to the trade generally have, I think, meant a great deal to this great industry. This is becoming an industry of very great importance, although it has not yet attained to nearly the importance it deserves. There is, perhaps, a wider and better field for the extension and development of the fruity industry of Ontario and several other provinces of the Dominion, especially Nova Scotia and British Columbia, and if such a development takes, place, instead of exporting perhaps,' $4,000,000, or $5,000,000 annually to the European markets, we may expect to export three, four, five or ten times that quantity. I do not think there is any branch of agriculture that would give a better return than the proper growing, caring for, and handling of that premier fruit, the anMe. I know from practical knowledge of this subject that it is not at all difficult to get a return of at least $100 Mr. SCHELL.
a year an acre clear of all expenses,, clear of the cost, if the care of the orchard, the treatment, cultivation and pruning of the trees, and the picking and sale of the apples. But some may say that you have to wait for ten or fifteen years for the trees to come into bearing. That is quite true, but during these years the soil can be cultivated and almost a full return can be got from it while the trees are becoming of an age sufficient to produce fruit. But, when they do come into bearing, say at fifteen years old, until these trees are sixty or seventy years old, they may be made to produce a return that will average a profit of $100 an acre clear to the grower. I know an orchard in the county of Norfolk to which I referred in this House a year or two ago. There are some forty acres in all, probably there are about thirty-five acres under apple culture. That farm changed hands a few years ago at some $2,000 or $3,000. Again it changed hands after it had been put into a little better shape at $4,000. Within the last few weeks it has changed hands at $17,000. Having been pruned, cultivated and sprayed, the return from that orchard this vear, as I am told, is $4,000 for the fruit upon the trees. Two years ago the return was $5,500. I could give many instances that have come under my own observation of orchards that have produced a return over all expenses, of from $100 to $150 to $200 per acre. So that the work which the government have done in connection with this industry show their progressive spirit and methods. There is an item in this connection that I wish to give the government some credit for and I would like them to do a good deal more in this direction than they have yet done. They conducted some experimental work in the county of Oxford in the matter of spraying. Some six years ago they spent $200 in one locality in that county. For the last three or four years, following the work that was done in that neighbourhood, proving to the farmers the benefits of spraying, we have found that the orchards that had been taken care of by the farmers who saw the benefit of spraying, all resulting from the experiments carried on by this government have given a return of from $2,000 to $3,000 more annually than has been received from adjoining orchards where they have not introduced'the methods of spraying that were then demonstrated. That work could and, I think, should be carried out to a larger extent. In every county in Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, where this work can be done similarly, it should be done. Any money that this government might expend to advance the interests of .agriculture in this way I believe could be returned a hundredfold, or a thousandfold, in a very few years. We had a very interesting debate on technical education in this

House a few weeks ago. I do not think there is any vocation or calling in life where there is a better field for the introduction of technical knowledge than in the carrying out of our farming onerations, not but what many of our farmers who have no technical knowledge are successful. Keen, close observation, practical knowledge, experience, bright, clear, intellects and enterprise have combined to make many of our farmers successful, but if technical knowledge were given to our boys, if they knew the reason why certain results follow certain treatments of soils, if they knew the compositions of soils, the chemical properties of soils, the chemical nro-perties of plants, the relation of plant life to soil, the action of air, of frost, of sun, of rain, on soils, if they had the technical knowledge that could be given to them it would be of immense importance to the agricultural industry. I do not know what is the best method. I believe that the government projrose doing something in this matter, and I may say that there is no field which offers greater opportunity for the application of more advanced ideas and scientific principles than agriculture. I hope, therefore, that the government will lose no time in dealing with this subject as was proposed in the resolution discussed in this House some two or three weeks ago.
I do not wish to delay the House longer, but there is one other matter to which I wish briefly to refer, and that is the dairy industry, as it exists in the province of Ontario particularly. Our exports in that line have not increased as I would like to see them increase during the last few years. They are somewhat less than 1903 and 1904. That may be due to the seasons not being quite so favourable and the pastures not being quite so good, but it is perhaps due more to the fact that our home consumption has largely increased. Our towns and cities have been growing rapidly. As our people have increased in wealth, they are using more butter and cheese, and the increase in population has likewise' called for a greater consumption of these products. I have no doubt that not less than $12,000,000 more is used at home now than five or six years ago. But I would also like to see our exports increasing. There has, however, been some development in the output. Our government has not been slow to recognize the possibility in this direction, and have introduced what are termed cow testing associations. A number of farmers in a neighbourhood associate together and agree to have their milk weighed and tested. Samples are taken regularly to the cheese factory and a record kept so that the farmers mav know whether their cows are giving a good quality and quantity of milk or not. As the result of these asso-53
ciations, we find some very astonishing records. We have altogether seventy-two regular associations and fifteen smaller groups in eight provinces, with seven hundred and fifty-one members and 5,743 cows under test. I believe that the work is increasing. Certainly it is one which should be pushed, and everything which has been done so far only goes to prove what a vast field there is for further work in the same direction. Take the county of Oxford and let me draw attention to some herds in my own neighbourhood. There is one of eleven cows which, before the testing, produced 4,850 pounds of milk per year each. In 1908, after that operation was started, it produced 6,380 pounds. Another herd, which formerly produced 5,374 pounds each cow, increased its production to 7,243 pounds. Still another which had produced 4,360 pounds in 1903, is now producing 7,006 pounds ner cow. I could give an individual instance of a special cow which has produced as much as 20,000 pounds in the one year, but that is a very rare occurrence. There is a record of a two-year-old cow at Innerkip in the county of Oxford which gave a production of 12,227 pounds, and the weight of the butter was 452 pounds. But of course these are record figures. I have aj record of a herd of 65 cows which produced an average of 6,210 of milk each and the milk sold for practically $76 per cow. I have another herd in my mind which, I understand, has produced over 9,000 of milk per cow, and the number of cows is twenty. The milk brought in a return of nearly $100 per cow. Of course, the farmers, adopted perhaps a little better methou in the feeding and gave more intelligent attention to the care of their stock, and the result proves that this industry might easily be doubled without very materially increasing the number of cows kept. In the Dominion we have a little over 2,000,000 cows producing on an average about 3,500 pounds of milk, some make the average less, but I think if we had a correct record it would be found to be from 3,000 to 3,500 pounds a piece. If that can be increased to 5,000 or 6,000 pounds, and I believe it can, you can readily see that the dairy industry might be developed to such an extent that after supplying the whole market, which requires about $75,000,000 worth of butter, cheese and milk annually, we could export double the quantity we do now. Instead of exporting only $25,000,000 worth, we could easily double that quantity. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) deserves considerable credit for having taken this matter in hand, and I believe his officers are going to urge on the work along the lines I have indicated, and I hope for better results from year to year.
' The wealth of Canada has been inereas-



ing at an enormous rate through the wise policy of this government. I read a statement by Mr. George Parish, editor of the London ' Statist,' at a lecture given in New York .recently, in which he said that the wealth of England had increased from $20,000,000,000 in 1850 to $80,000,000,000 at present. He also said that the wealth of the United States had increased from some $10,000,000,000 in 1850 to $107,000,000,00(1- at present; that the United States had been borrowers in the world's markets to the extent of some $6,000,000,000, and that England had been lenders to the extent of $15,000,000,000 in the last sixty years.
These figures, to my mind, were very suggestive, and I wondered where Canada would come in. Of course, we are a younger country; but when we look at the accumulating wealth in our banking institutions we cannot but realize that the wealth of Canada is becoming very considerable. Hon. members who have given any attention to the statistics of banking in Canada will appreciate that statement. In 1896 the deposits in our chartered banks and savings banks were $245,000,000. The Finance Minister told us the other day that these deposits were now' $731,000,000. We find the assets of these banking institutions have increased in a similar ratio- from $350,000,000 in 1896 to considerably over $1,000,000,000 to-day. This money must certainly come from the people of this Dominion, and if they have enough money to be able tp deposit $731,000,000, it will be seen that we have enough there alone to pay the national debt, to build the National Transcontinental railway and still leave $40 for every man, woman and child in the Dominion. According to the statistics that have been furnished by the Department of Agriculture, we have $2,800,000,000 invested in farm lands in Canada. We have 26,000 miles of railway which, at an estimated cost of $30,000 a mile, would represent an investment of about $780,000,000. And we know the growth that has taken place in our manufacturing industries, from an investment of $250,000,000 in 1896 to an investment today of nearly $1,000,000,000. If you look at the assessment of our towns and cities and consider the growth of wealth reflected in these figures for Toronto. Montreal, Winnipeg and other great cities, we begin to form some appreciative idea of the growing wealth of this Dominion. This has resulted in a very large degree-not wholly, of course-from the wise and progressive policy which this government inaugurated in 1896 and has been following ever since. I realize that every honest worker in the Dominion of Canada contributes to a certain extent to this wealth and prosperity. But the government of the day, working in unison with the people of the country, are Mr. SCHELL.
helping the development of our resources and helping to build up our Canadian nationality. I hope that from the foundations which this government has laid will rise a superstructure that will ever stand as a monument to their wise and progressive policy.


Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: Mr. Speaker, the supporters of the government of late years have made the debate on the budget an occasion for a grand eulogium of the government and all its works, and the hon. member (Mr. Schell) who has just preceded me for the space of about two hours devoted his attention almost wholly to the same purpose. It may be a very good thing as campaign literature, it may possibly be in the interests of the Liberal party in the riding of South Oxford, but I fail to see that it can be of very much service to the people of this country. In my opinion, the proper usage of parliament is that this occasion should be considered an occasion upon which members who have any criticism to offer in regard to the action of the government should offer that criticism and should make any suggestions which they believe might be in the interest of the country. And I believe that if the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Schell) had devoted a very few moments of the time he has taken up this afternoon to some little criticism-and he knows as well as any member of this House that there are many points on which the action of the government has been open to criticism -or had made any suggestion of action that they might take in the interest of the country, he might have done at least some small good by the remarks he offered to this House. It is in accordance with the view I have just expressed that I have for several years past offered a few mild criticisms of the action of the government and a few suggestions where I thought they might take action in the interest of the country. In some cases, government action has followed the suggestions I made. I do not feel inclined to take all the credit, in fact, I do not care who gets the credit so long as the country gets the benefit of the action taken. In the same spirit, I propose to offer a few criticisms this afternoon and make a few suggestions, and I intend to be as brief as I possibly can.
In the first place, I would like to say a word or two in regard to the naval programme. And at the beginning I may say that I do not intend to trespass upon the debate that is to take place on the Bill now before the House. But this is the first time the government has given us even a vague idea-and it is even yet but a vague idea-of the action which they propose to take in the expenditure for the naval defence of the country. It has been

a great disappointment to me, after the great promises which were made during the debate last March, that the government have finally come down to such a miserable proposition in regard to providing for the naval defence of Canada. What they have proposed to do is to expend some $2,719,000 a year for the protection of our commerce, our coast line, and, indeed, of our very existence as a self-governing community. When I compare with this the estimates for this purpose which have been passed in the great dependencies of Australia and New Zealand, I must say that I feel simply ashamed to call myself a Canadian. I am thankful, however, that it is generally known throughout the world that there are two parties in this country and that it is only one party that, while acknowledging that an obligation is placed upon us to take our proper, legitimate share - in the defence of the country, estimate that share at a sum of something less than $3,000,000 per year. I have some respect for those who are prepared to stand up here and declare that they recognize no obligation at all, and consequently desire to see nothing done. But I have nothing but disapprobation of the conduct of those who acknowledge the obligation, and yet make up their minds that they will simply sponge upon the taxpayers of the mother country for as many years longer as the mother country will allow them to do so.
I may also be permitted to express my amazement that, after having six months to work out the plans which the government told us they had adopted for naval defence, they come down now with a statement that they are unable to give us the slightest idea as to when they expect to be able to put a single one of their new ships into oommis-' sion, or to have one of them ready built, manned, armed and equipped so as to be of some use as a fighting factor. The Prime Minister stated yesterday they had made no estimate whatever with regard to this particular matter. We must remember that if the government finally decides that these shins aTe to be built in Canada, it will be eighteen months or two years before they can begin even to lay the keel of the first of the small ships they speak of building, and many years after that, no doubt, before these shins will be ready to he put in commission. During the whole of that time we are still to remain in the position we are now in, of practically doing nothing whatever that will be of any effectual use in the defence of the country. Is the country willing that that shall be the case? I, Sir, believe that the great mass of the people of Canada desire to see Canada doingl her duty, and doing it at once, by giving the fleet unit which the imperial authorities have asked for, and giving it immediately.
Now, turning to other points in the policy of the government as they appear in -the estimates, I desire to say a few words in regard to the Hudson Bay railway. All that appears in the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1911, is a small sum for a further survey of that route. I desire to voice my strong protest against delay in the construction of that railway. The House will remember that nearly three years ago, on the 22nd of February, 1907, the Prime Minister made a declaration that ' the time has come '-those were his words-the time has come for the construction of this railway. In June of the following year, 1908, the Minister of the Interior submitted to the House, in the Dominion Lands Act, certain provisions to create a new source of revenue adequate to build that railway- that is the language he used in explaining the provisions. The House adopted those provisions, and the funds to build the railway are now in process of being made up, and a large amount of money has already been collected in that connection. A general election was pending shortly after that time, and in -opening the campaign the Prime Minister said, in September, 1908:
' The time is now-not to-morrow but now ' that this railway should be constructed. He made a most definite promise that the construction of the Hudson Bay railway should be proceeded with, and the Liberal party waged the greater part of the election campaign in the Northwest upon that declaration. It was quoted from one end of the country to the other as a -specific promise, that if the country returned the Prime Minister to finish his work, he intended to include in that work the building of the Hudson Bay railway. Yet we find that no provision whatever has been made in the estimates for the turning of a single sod on that railway, at least up to the 31st of March, 1911. I would urge upon the Minister of Finance that he should bring down supplementary estimates to provide for this necessary work. It is an absolutely necessary work if the produce of the Northwest is to find an outlet. During the past summer a large number of resolutions in favour of the building of this railway have been passed by various public bodies throughout the Northwest ; they have doubtless all been placed in the hands of the Minister, and as some of them have been forwarded to me for my information, I propose to read one -out of a great number, all couched in about the same terms. To show the feeling of the people of the Northwest in regard to this matter, I will read a copy of a resolution passed by one of the town councils in the district I have the honour to represent:
Whereas, the development and commercial prosperity of eastern Canada are largely dependent upon the grain production and pur-

chasing power of the prairie provinces of the west, and,
Whereas, the grain and cattle carrying capacity east of the head of Lake Superior is not keeping pace with the rapidly increasing production of wheat and other exports of the w est, and,
Whereas, an amount equal to the entire cost of the Hudson Bay railway is annually expended by the west on unnecessary freight charges consequent upon the present long haul to Atlantic tide water, thus reducing the purchasing power of the west and the corresponding prosperity of the east, and,
Whereas, explorers, navigators, engineers, contractors, and others familiar with the Hudson bay route, are practically unanimous as to the practicability of the route, the easy and rapid construction of the railway, and the natural harbour facilities at Churchill.
Therefore be it resolved:
That the government of Canada be requested to get busy and build 165 miles of the Hudson Hay railway in 1910, and the remainder of the road, 160 miles from each end of the line, in 1911; and during 1910 and 1911 install the necessary terminal facilities, elevators, harbour improvements, etc., to be ready for the adequate handling of traffic not later than July 1, 1912.
The House will see how very little prospect there is of the wishes of the people of the Northwest being carried into effect, when we realize that no provision whatever is being made which will enable the construction of that railway to be comj menced for the next fifteen months. Not only have towns, villages, boards of trade, and other public bodies in the Northwest passed resolutions on this1 subject, but the legislature of Saskatchewan has passed a resolution only the other day unanimously calling upon the Prime Minister to implement the promise he made to build this railway. I spoke just now of some provision being made already for the cost which this railway is likely to involve. In reply to a question I asked the other day, thef Minister of the Interior stated that there had been a sale Of pre-emption and purchased homesteads to the extent of 4,130,400 acres of land. That answer was given last month, and covered a period up to the 31st of October last. The total sum receivable on account of these purchased homesteads and pre-emptions amounted to $12,391,200, nearly the whole amount of the money which the Minister of the Interior calculated that this railway is likely to cost. Now, I spoke on this subject last year, and again I desire to call upon the Prime Minister to implement the promise which he made. The promise was made under peculiar circumstances, but circumstances which, to my mind, involved all the greater obligation, because they gave it much more weight than the people are accustomed to attach to most promises of the ministers of the Crown. The money has been provided. The House has been led to believe that this Mr. LAKE.
construction would be gone on with as soon as that money was provided, and no criticism was offered on this side of the House with regard to the provision which it was proposed to make at that time.
I mentioned the subject of pre-emptions and I desire to urge upon the Minister of the Interior that he should not insist to the letter upon one of the provisions in regard to payment for pre-emptions and purchased homesteads. There is a provision in the law that interest should be payable yearly upon the whole amount of the obligation assumed, beginning at the end of the first twelve months. If the people' when making entries for these pre-emptions and purchased homesteads had understood this provision, I should not be so much inclined to press it on the Minister of the Interior, but I believe that very few of those applying understood that there was any such provision. I looked through the advertisements which were inserted in the newspapers announcing the sale of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads, and while all other duties were insisted upon and set out at full length, nothing whatever was said about the annual interest, which amounts to $24 per annum, further than that a gentleman who had had a demand from the department to pay this interest came to me with a couple of circulars which he had received from the department, one dated in May last. That circular called attention to the duties he would have to perform in order to earn his pre-emption. It set out all the duties of residence and cultivation but said not one word in regard to the payment of annual interest, and it was only several months later, when the first payment of interest became due, that he received a notification that there was any payment of interest to 1 be made. I think it would be found that a large number of people who in good faith made entry for these pre-emptions believed that no such payment would be demanded from them and a great number of them are not in a position to make such payments. A great deal of hardship will be caused if this is insisted upon. The Minister of the Interior told us the other day that those who did not pay would render their entries liable to cancellation. He said:
His failure to do so renders liis entry liable to cancellation.
It is a terrible position in which to place the enormous number of new settlers in that country who simply have not got this money to put up the payment of the annual interest, and I earnestly trust that the Minister of the Interior will take up this matter and will find some way out of the difficulty and not have all these homesteads liable to cancellation. I do not intend to discuss the policy by which the lands of the provinces in the Northwest are

being still retained in the hands of the Dominion government. "To my mind this great hardship must sooner or later be redressed and the provinces of the Northwest must be placed on an equality with the other provinces of the Dominion in this respect. At the same time I think it right to call the attention of the House to a development that has recently taken place and which shows the difficulties -which the retention of these lands by the Dominion government is creating. I may say that I do not consider that these questions of land in the Northwest ought to come before this House. They do not come before it in connection with the lands of any other province in Canada and yet every one of these matters has to be brought before this House and the time of this House occupied in discussing it. The lands of the different provinces, under the constitution of Canada, of right belong to the people of those provinces and they are the ones who should have the sole right to deal with them. A short time ago the statement appeared in the newspapers that the premiers of the three provinces of the Northwest, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, had asked that the administration of the school lands and the funds arising from their sale should be handed over to the provinces. I need not mention that this was a policy which was advocated by the Conservatives time and again and opposed by the Liberals, even by those who represented constituencies in the Northwest. It was put into definite shape in the year 1908 when a resolution was moved by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) from this side of the House providing:
That the Bill be not now read the third time, but be referred back to the Committee ot the Whole with instructions to amend the same by providing that, pending the transfer to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, of the Dominion lands within their respective boundaries, the school lands and all funds arising from the sale thereof, shall be handed over to the control and administration of the said respective provinces, according to their interests therein and according as the said respective provinces shall be ready to accept the same.
This resolution was voted down in this House and I regret to say with the assistance of members representing parts of the Northwestern provinces. I sincerely trust that the government will see the error of their way and will now reverse their policy in this respect, especially as the prime ministers of the two new provinces, in whose elevation to that position the government exercises such a very strong influence, are themselves now asking that this measure should be taken. I would again remind the Minister of the Interior of the necessity of providing for higher education in the new provinces, by means
of grants of land as an endowment for their provincial universities. In 1885, the Conservative administration of the day set aside 150,000 acres of land as an endowment for the university of the province of Manitoba, and I think that in consideraion of the further advance that we have made in the knowledge of the- great benefit that education is to everybody, we should not be behind hand in following such a good example and should not delay any longer in making [DOT] a considerable grant of land to the two new western universities, especially as land is being taken up so rapidly now that the time is very limited within which there is likely to be good land still available for that purpose. In the year 1908 this matter was also brought very definitely before this House in the form of a resolution moved by myself:
That the Governor in Council shall forthwith institute such proper inquiries as may be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining what quantity of Dominion lands in each of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan should be set aside and appropriated for the purposes of higher education, and that thereupon, after obtaining the consent and approval of the governments of the said respective provinces the Governor in Council shall set aside, appropriate and transfer, to the said respective provinces the quantities of said lands so ascertained for the purposes aforesaid.
That resolution also was voted down by gentlemen on the other side of the House, including members from the new provinces concerned. I again express the hope that the government will reverse their policy in this respect, and that they will, even at this eleventh hour make some provision for the universities of those two provinces.
Nothing whatever has been done to remove what my hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) called the villainous exemption from taxation which is enjoyed by the Canadian Pacific railway throughout Saskatchewan and Alberta. Rightly or wrongly the exemption was given; it was part of the bargain made by the Dominion government for the construction of a great federal undertaking the Canadian Pacific railway and it is not right I siay that all that burden should be placed upon the shoulders of the prairie provinces. In 1905, Mr. Walter Scott the present premier of Saskatchewan made the statement in this House that the Prime Minister had promised him that measures would be taken to remove this unjust exemption from taxation, and although the Prime Minister stated that no such promise had been given he certainly led the House to understand that the government would take some steps to remove this injustice. I hope that the Prime Minister will now conclude that the time has come for him to take up the matter and give immediate relief. ,

The reports in connection with the distribution of seed grain in 1908 have now been brought down. It will be remembered that in the early spring of 1908 the government decided to make a distribution of seed grain to the settlers of Alberta and Saskatchewan who were suffering from the want of seed grain because of a frost which had visited certain sections. The government delayed action most unduly in my opinion, and great expense was caused by this delay as a considerable quantity of the seed had been sent out of the country and had to be brought back again at excessive cost. The price was so high and the conditions so onerous that a number of. the settlers, although they were absolutely without seed, decided they would not accept it, and so a considerable quantity remained in the hands of the government and had in. be disposed of at a loss of over $100,000, although at the same time certain settlers who wanted seed grain had to go without it. The opposition at the time called the attention of the government to the onerous nature of the conditions which they proposed and moved that the payment for the seed grain should not be insisted upon within one year as the government had proposed. Every Conservative member voted that at least two years should be given to the settlers to make payment, but I regret to say that every Liberal member voted against that proposal. The result was that although the value of the grain supplied by the government amounted to $401,027 within the one year specified by the government, only $28,118 had been paid back by the settlers. This shows how absurd the provision insisted upon by the government was, and it also shows what a lever was placed in the hands of the supporters of the government during the election which took place shortly afterwards who told the settlers that if they voted for Liberal candidates they would take care the government would not insist on payment for the grain within one year.
For the last two years the members on this side of the House have been urging upon the government a measure which the grain growers of the Northwest consider to be of vital importance to their industry. We have asked that the government should operate the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. In this connection my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. SchaffneT) moved last year:
That it is the opinion of this House the present system of operating terminal and transfer elevators is detrimental to the interests of the western grain producer, and that the government should take immediate steps to operate the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur and the transfer elevators between these terminals and the Atlantic sea-board.
That resolution was opposed by the members on the other side of the House and was not carried. Since then new conditions have arisen:	The government of
Manitoba has agreed to introduce a Bill establishing a line of internal grain elevators as a public utility, owned by the public and operated by the public. The legislature of Saskatchewan has accepted the same principle. This means that so far as the elevators at initial points are concerned the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have promised to provide such elevators under government ownership and operation. Now, a great deal of the benefits which will undoubtedly be derived by the grain growers of the west from the policy of the local governments will be lost unless the Dominion government is prepared to implement that by taking over the operation of the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. I would prefer to see the federal government own these elevators, but it has been pointed out that it would involve a very large initial expenditure. I understand, however, that both the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian Northern railway companies have stated that they are prepared to let the government operate their elevators. I have no doubt that the owners of the other elevators would also agree to the proposal. So that the bugbear of finding a large sum of money to purchase these elevators outright need not stand in the way of the government taking them over, paying a rent for them, and operating them in the interests of the grain growers of the Northwest.
I notice that- the government are bringing in Bills to amend the Grain and Inspection Acts in some minor details. I am prepared to agree that a considerable amount has been done of recent years in the way of improving these Acts, but they are not yet perfect, and I would earnestly commend to the Minister of Trade and Commerce certain proposals which were made at a meeting of the grain growers of Manitoba recently held in the city of Brandon for the amendment of the Grain and Inspection Acts. They are comparatively small matters and yet they are matters of very great importance to the grain growers of this country and I trust that we shall see most of them embodied in the Bills which the government now have before the House. The grain growers are a wideawake, useful and a most able body of men, and I have been impressed by the splendid -work that they have done at the conventions. The very high order of thinking and the high order of speaking that one hears at these conventions show that they are thoroughly imbued with a desire to promote the interests of the grain growers of that country. I trust that the very greatest consideration will be paid to the


Richard Stuart Lake: proposals which they have made in regard to the important Acts which especially concern our interests in the prairie provinces.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Stuart Lake: There is another matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the government-another problem which I wish them to take in hand and endeavour to solve. It is not very difficult of solution, and if they will try to live up to the character given them this afternoon by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Schell), they should certainly be able to provide a solution by a wave of their magic wand. I refer to the question of providing harvest help to the Northwest. That is a very serious question indeed. During the past harvest, we had most excellent weather and every facility for getting in the crop; and yet the difficulties in the way of procuring help were so great that it was only by tilt narrowest margin we got that crop saved before the winter set in. We have had an enormous growth throughout the Northwest, and there can be no doubt that the expansion is likely to increase in the near future, but unless some arrangement be made for a . better supply of harvest help, that development is likely to be cut short. If people grow crops and then find it impossible to save them, they will not continue to increase their acreage, which would be a great set-back to the country. I would, therefore, most earnestly recommend the government to take this matter into their consideration. Up to the present it has been left entirely to the railway companies and to private enterprise and it is time the government took hold of it. If they cannot find a means of meeting the difficulty, they should appoint a commission to find out some way by which help can be obtained during the brief period of harvesting. I haye had several suggestions made to me in the Northwest, but I do not think it necessary to enumerate them -at present as there will be abundant suggestions if the government take up the inquiry, as I trust they will in the very near future.
My h-on. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) has been held up to us just now by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Schell) as the greatest Minister of Agriculture we have ever had. The minister has, -according to my hon. friend, performed such great prodigies that I have no hesitation in asking him to perform one more, and that is to -do something to put our cattle industry on a better basis. I am speaking more particularly of the cattle industry in the Northwest. I have been a very long time in that -country and have1 seen the cattle industry there in a very flourishing condition, but for several years
past it has been steadily going down hill, and it is time the government did something to put it on a better footing. For many years past the Minister of Agriculture has taken no steps whatever to have the cattle embargo removed by the mother country. He has taken, as far -as I can learn, and as far -as answers given in the British House of Commons indicate, no step whatever during many years* past to have that embargo removed. The ministers in the old country ought to be very friendly to the hon. gentleman and no doubt should be anxious to do something in return for the indirect assistance he has given them. It was our minister who, by his utterances to a great extent, let them out of the preferential tariff difficulty. He made the statement that the farmers of this country did not desire any preferential treatment for their products in the markets of the old world. That was -a -statement which w-as certainly made use of by the ministers in the old -country. It w'as very useful to them when the colonial prime ministers were endeavouring, at the conference of 1907 to obtain some concessions from the mother -country in that respect. If the Minister of Agriculture is not able to prevail on the English government to remove that cattle embargo, he ought to turn his attention to some other means of getting our beef products marketed in a better condition in the mother country.
We had a disquisition this afternoon on the question of surpluses. Well, we are a practical people, and when we -spend more money than we earn, we call the difference a deficit. They do the same thing in Great Britain and the United States. Why -should we depart from that common sense policy and try to make out that we are having surpluses when, as a matter of fact, we -are having deficits from year to year. I am very glad that the Finance Minister adopted the recommendation from this side -at the last session -of parliament, and charged the armaments of our militia and the expenditure on the Dominion land surveys t-o consolidated fund account instead -of to capital account. The hon. gentleman told us that he did not think any parti; cular reference had been made to the subject came from this side, but, speaking for myself, I made that suggestion when the budget was being discussed at the last session. The hon. gentleman cannot get Tid of deficits by any juggling with accounts. They are there all the same. Take the bounties paid. They should be charged to consolidated fund account instead -of to capital account, as is done at present. They certainly should be charged against current expenditure because they are only another form of protection and are given to the manufacturers in lieu of protection. Political economists generally speak of the bounty system a-s the most per-


Mr. L. A. A. RIVET (Hochelaga).: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to answer either the criticisms or suggestions which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) has offered to this House this afternoon. I believe, however, that I should devote one or two observations to some of the subjects he has touched upon. The greater part of the hon. member's address has been devoted to questions largely pertaining to the country which he represents particularly in this House, and, as I claim no special authority to discuss these subjects, I shall not follow him upon that ground. The hon. member prefaced his observations with a reference to the question which now occupies the attention of the whole country, the question of naval defence. If I remember his words correctly, he expressed his hearty concurrence in the policy adopted by this government.


Richard Stuart Lake: No.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: I understood him to -say that-the principle of coming to the rescue of the mother country was the right principle, but the government was not going far enough, and should do a great deal more. That is the way I understood the hon. member.	[DOT]


Richard Stuart Lake: That is right. I did not understand the hon. gentleman's meaning.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: That is what I was coming to. I must say that I do not entirely share the views of the hon. gentleman; and I will not surprise any one in this House by say that I propose, in all earnestness and sincerity, to support the policy propounded by the government. It is my belief that this policy is based upon a sound principle, that it is an application of a principle which is common to every one, which is in the heart of every one, the principle of self-defence. But I do not propose to give my views on that subject to any extent, because I shall have an opportunity of doing so on the second reading of the Naval Defence Bill.
The hon. gentleman has also referred to another subject which I consider of vital interest to this country, he has touched upon the construction of the Hudson Bay

railway. I really cannot understand the criticism of the hon. gentleman, after the position taken by this government upon that question. If I understand correctly the position taken by this government, the country is pledged to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, and so far as the resources of Canada will permit, the construction of this railway should be proceeded with as quickly as possible. But I may be permitted to observe that I am rather surprised to hear hon. gentlemen opposite criticise the expenditures of Canada as being extravagant, while on the other hand, hon. gentlemen like my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake), are constantly rising in this House and crying out for a larger expenditure.


Richard Stuart Lake: Does not the hon. gentleman know that the government has set aside a special source of revenue, created by Act of parliament a couple of years ago, to meet the construction of this railway?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: Does the hon. gentleman ask if the construction of this railway will .create a new source of revenue?


Richard Stuart Lake: No. A source of revenue was provided for by the Minister of the Interior in the Dominion Lands Act in 1908, according to which the revenue from preemptions and purchased homesteads should be applied to the cost of building the Hudson Bay railway, and the fund already is something over $12,000,000.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: I am not familiar with that question. All I can say is that I am confident that the government will act fairly by the hon. gentlemen opposite, and will proceed with the construction of the Hudson Bay railway as soon as, and as fast as, the resources of the country will permit. Now, Sir, I propose to make some general observations upon some of the features of the document which is called the budget speech. About tw'o months ago, in this House, an event took place of more than ordinary importance for the representatives of the people and for the entire country. In the fulfilment of a constitutional duty, with his accustomed eloquence, the Minister of Finance, as administrator of the finances of Canada, gave a solemn account of the national assets and liabilities of our Dominion. Even as men of precaution, so Canada needs each year to be posted on the true financial standing, the extent of her obligations and possibilities, so as to safely prepare for future contingencies; and it is the business of the Finance Minister to make known, clearly, loyally and exactly the situation.
It is a delicate and difficult task, and it demands complete impartiality, a jealousy of the truth, all the truth, be the consequences what they may for the min-Mr. RIVET.
ister and the government to which he belongs.
In full justice to the minister, and despite all assertions to the contrary, we must say that he fulfilled his duty, in this regard, most scrupulously and in the accomplishment of his mission he merged the politican in the guardian of the country's affairs. And, without >any misgivings, the honourable minister was enabled to enter sincerely and honestly on an examination of Canada's financial situation-for, in all ways that situation is encouraging and should be, as it has been, approved of by the whole country.
Not only does the budget show a considerable and normal increase in revenue, expressed in round figures by 17 millions, but, from a hurried glance at the economic condition of the country, it is clear that such growth in revenue is merely the natural result of the general prosperity and not, as has been pretended, of increased taxation.
Yet, despite its favourable characteristics, the budget speech could not find favour with its official critics. Our friends on the left sought to drown the optimistic note in the minister's address with the old cry of alarm.
As usual it was the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Foster) who constituted himself the apostle of pessimism. He is a powerful speaker, a well informed debater, possessing a prodigious memory, a great flow of language, and a remarkably sophistical talent. He excels especially in so manipulating facts and figures as to make them correspond with his own theories. In listening to him one might be tempted to apply to him the remarks^pf Beacons-field in regard to his illustrious adversary Gladstone :	'A sophisticated rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity and gifted with an egoistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable . and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent or to glorify himself.'
Rising after the hon. minister, the hon. member felt the difficulty of his task; wherefore he saw fit to draw upon all the varied resources of his oratorical talent, and as usual with him, he made a great display of words. Yet, no matter what good or ill may be said of his financial criticism, it would be difficult to credit him with anything new; and the same may be said of all his friends who followed in his footsteps.
Despite their thirteen years of opposition, our opponents, like the Bourbons of France, have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. When, then, will they ever have any other criticisms than the following to make
(a). The assets in the budget increase

so much the worse for the poor consumer who has to bear the burden of the taxation imposed on him by the administration; notwithstanding the well known fact that the average of taxation on the consumer has been reduced three points, and that the total revenue could only increase in the direct ratio of the purchasing power of the Canadian people.
(b). The expenditure is lower than the revenue; that expenditure is still too high, is the chorus of' our critics, for the government's policy is one of extravagance, as regards the public service, while, individually, in the estimates they complain that certain districts are ostracized as far as public works are concerned.
Here we have the amusing spectacle of an opposition that finds fault with the total expenditure, while it complains of its insufficiency in matters of detail. This was the position of the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia, (Mr. Barnard), whose speech was a long philippic on the ill-treatment of his province by the government. According to him, British Columbia does not receive its due amount of public moneys, in proportion to the importance of its sea-ports. On that reasoning, Montreal ought to get 45 per cent of the moneys voted for public works since 45 per cent of the foreign business of Canada passes annually through Montreal. But our friends on the left have a logic that will not bear sifting.
The increase of the public debt is also a favourite theme with them. Canada's credit, they say, goes from bad to worse, because since 1896 the public debt has increased. It has long since been seen that such increase is not alarming and that it presents no analogy with what took place under the Conservatives. Under their government they borrowed to cover the rising deficits, and to meet expenditure chargeable to revenue. Under Liberal management the government borrow to defray the cost of permanent works that increase the assets of the country, such as the Transcontinental railway which marks the greatest addition to the debt, while Canada's credit is in no way decreased thereby, for in a few years the interest accrued will be paid by the Grand Trunk Pacific.
Again we have the eternal refrain of scandals in the administration of certain branches of the service, scandals that have been twenty times explained away and which are constantly repeated by those gentlemen, inspired perhaps by the old saying: ' Lie and lie ever, something will always stick.'
I do not propose discussing to-day, either the country's budget or the machinery of the public debt, or any other questions belonging to the financial aspect of affairs; no more do I desire to take up the criticisms of the opposition regarding the public service. That duty has been well performed and, moreover, by their votes in 1908, the Canadian people have done ample justice to the subject. But as the budget speech sets forth, in a proud and defiant manner, the admirable economic status of Canada, I desire to take advantage of the latitude allowed in this debate to briefly indicate the general effects of the government's policy as far as concerns the advancement and progress of the Dominion. Undeniable is the general and pheno-minal development of Canada under the Liberal government. But the contrast between this condition and the state of stagnation under the Conservative regime is calculated to afford subject matter for serious reflection to our friends opposite. Still, instead of taking a lesson and reforming their party, our friends to the left lose themselves in fruitless recriminations which constitute the main feature of their criticisms. Here are the leading samples: Canada's progress cannot be denied, they say, but that progress is the result of the general economic laws that are felt even in a more pronounced manner in all countries. Or else: Canada's development is fictitious, since our foreign trade shows an ever increasing balance against us. Or else: No matter how great that prosperity, the government has no hand in it, or, in any case, it is but the application of the policy and methods of administration taken from the old regime.
I do not now intend to dwell on all that is specious, contradictory and ill-founded in these arguments of the opposition. But I desire to give them an indirect answer and I invite your attention to those two propositions: .
1.	Since 1896 has Canada grown in proportion to the aspirations of its people?
2.	Is that advancement absolutely foreign to the action of the public authorities, or, on the contrary, is it due in a certain degree to that influence?
1. To the first question statistics reply in the affirmative.
In every sense Canada's economic situation has been a revelation to the world. On this score our country to-day holds a model place, the envy of all civilized nations. Apart from the fluctuation of population, it is agreed that the best barometer of a country's material progress is the position of its leading industries, the volume of its trade, and the condition of its working classes. What does that barometer indicate for us? According to the Minister of Finance, Canada will soon have a population of seven millions. This increase of prosperity, inasmuch as it is the two-fold) result of a regular repatriation of our people from the United States and an increased immigration of the best elements. Men do not seek homes in a coun-

try that is economically depressed and without a national future.
Agriculture is the fundamental source of Canada's prosperity. I've never yet heard any serious denial of this fact. Abundance, comfort, happiness and even wealth in our agricultural classes constitute a fact unprecedented in our annals. The law of supply and demand acts in their favour in a most marvellous manner, until through the increasing value of their products, they have become almost a privileged class in the community.
Statistics establish in a striking manner the industrial and commercial progress of Canada. I shall not at this moment weary the House with statistics which have very often been quoted. I shall simply say that Canada stands second to none in the list of new and developing countries. From the statistics supplied to me by the Department of Trade and Commerce, I see that in a comparison of the nrogress of trade per capita for Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain and the United States for the latest available period, Canada has a proportion of total trade per capital of $89.97 as against $58.11 for France, $60.24 for Germany, $118.29 for Great Britain, and $35.30 for the United States, so that in this respect we rank second to Great Britain. It has been claimed' that this comparison is fictitious. This claim has been advanced by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). In order that I may do no injustice to the hon. gentleman I quote his own words:
The gentleman proceeds as follows:
I say that when under our adminstration and its policy you have an adverse balance continually increasing, something is wrong in connection with that trade policy, and it ought to he the duty and endeavour of the government to so arrange its policy that this adverse balance should be made as small as possible, that it should he reduced instead of continually advancing.
Now, Sir, how often are we called upon to refute this old friend the argument as to the balance of trade. The hon. member for North Simcoe also dwelt upon this question of the balance of trade and he was particularly eloquent in reference to the different schools of political economy. May I be allowed to quote from the French author who deals with this question very ably. Leroy Beaulieu writes :
That doctrine of the balance of trade, or of the utility of the excess of sales over purchases, attractive as it may he, is erroneous; it is based on an incomplete interpretation of facts. During the course of the 19th. century experience has given it a most formal denial. Thus England, which is the richest country of the world, for over half a century, in a most energetic form, shows a very extensive excess of importations over exportations. Great Britain is not the only country Mr. RIVET.	,	*
in a like position. France is in the same case, though in a lesser degree.
Now, why is this? It is because certain elements which tend to bring to the country a certain proportion of gold are not taken into consideration in the official returns, and if you allow me I will refer to the case of the United States in this connection. It is true that our trade for the last fiscal year, with the United States, shows an adverse balance of $79,000,000 but we find from the immigration statistics that during the last year over 90,000 immigrants have come to this country from the United States and according to the superintendent of immigration they have brought with them property to the value of $90,000,000, and by this means alone more than compensating for the balance of trade against us with the United States. On this example the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite falls to the ground.
On another side, it seems to me that that excess in American imports could only seriously affect the economic situation in Canada by its effects on our manufactured products. But the regular advance and the extremely encouraging condition of our industries ought to reassure us on tyiat score. In this sense our op-ponents' arguments fall fiat and something else must be invented to mask our splendid development.
From a social standpoint Canada holds a most advantageous position. Warfare of classes is unknown here, and the relations between labour and capital are more harmonious and more beneficial than in any other part of the world. Contiguity of a country where the social questions often create nightmares, seems in no way to have affected the peaceful character of our labouring classes. Thus in every way the admirable material progress of Canada, and the magnificent national evolution that has realized the dream of its people, have justified for our country the title of a nation so aptly applied to it by the Prime Minister.
If we look into the causes that produced the state of things we find them divided into many different categories. Our opponents, as I said, have undertaken to explain away, in their own way, this sudden and marvellous change. For them, Providence, that treated them as would a stepmother, and in 1896 came back to maternal tenderness, the laws of economy and the initiative of our population, are the sources whence flow, they say, this wonderful phenomenon; this bad Liberal government was careful not to help in any way. A wonder they do not accuse it of having opposed the movement.
Thank God, Mr. Speaker, we do not forget that to Him we owe the fertility of the soil; our national resources, the development of which creates our wealth; our climate, rigorous but healthy, that is a mag-

net t-o draw to us the best possible immigration. Far be from us the idea of lessening the active and effective participation of our honest, laborious and progressive people in the grand work of Canadian prosperity. It would be equally childish to maintain that the application of economic law to the conditions of labour and to the natural elements found in the land, could be fruitless. But in contradistinction to the opposition, we claim that the co-operation of these elements is reduced to a minimum under the influence of a government that is unworthy of its mission. And this brings us to the answer to that question: In what consists the operation of power in a country like ours? Which of the two following ideas should prevail in the administration of the government? Is it the Cesarian idea of a state Providence that absorbs all the national life and constitutes itself the conservator and regulator of all individual energies which it paralyses with an excessive protection? Or, is it the doctrine of the free school-let go, let alone-that assigns to the state a merely passive role, under the false pretext that the economic and social mechanism should be completely abandoned to itself in order to produce a maximum of energy and wealth? Neither the one nor the other of these two extreme theories should serve as the basis of governmental action, and it is at an equal distance from both that the true function of a democratic state should be found. About seventy years ago, Lord Macaulay took upon himself to define that part in a precise manner in one of his admirable speeches on electoral reform. Lord Macaulay said:
The end of government is not directly to make the people rich but to protect them in making themselves rich; and a government which attempts more than this is precisely the government which is likely to perform less. Government do not and cannot support the people. We have no miraculous powers, we have not the rod of the Hebrew law-giver -we cannot rain down bread upon the multitude from heaven-we cannot smite the rock and give them to drink, we can give them only freedom to employ their industry to the best advantage, and security in the engagement of what their industry has acquired. These advantages it is our duty to give them at the smallest possible cost.
It follows from this definition that if the government is not qualified to be and should not be the foster father of the people, it should not either ibe content with being exclusively the guardian of security, order and justice. While respecting the domain wherein private initiative finds most profitable action, the state owes it to itself and to the people it governs, to second with all its power the collective efforts of the community and to direct that community in the way cf its temperament, its
aptitudes and its calling. Now, we have ever held and we still hold that the government has faithfully fulfilled that mission, and because it knew better than did its predecessors its own role, it has powerfully contributed to the wonderful impetus that lifts Canada high up in the region of economics. In defying us to prove this assertion, our adversaries forget that it is often impossible to indicate the immediate results of a special measure, but it is easy to estimate or analyse the general work of a ministry, or of a parliamentary majority and to appreciate its influence on the lifa of the country. It is unnecessary to make that analysis or express appreciation of the ministerial work done, but, after the recent attempts to deprive the government of the credit due it, I may be pardoned if I briefly refer to the subject.
It suffices to glance at the geographical and ethnical conditions that obtain in Canada to be convinced that its development, economically speaking, depends on four principal factors: 1. A wise fiscal policy; 2. An active and sound immigration; 3. A rational policy in regard to means of transportation; 4. Harmony and peace between different classes and races. I claim that the Liberal government has approached and solved each of these problems in a vigorous manner, in a spirit and with a knowledge of the country's needs, all of which were absolutely unknown under the old regime.
The present fiscal policy is merely the protectionist policy of 1878, they say, with slight variations. Even were such the case, we could triumphantly answer that the success and beneficial results of a policy depend less upon the underlying principles thereof than upon the wise application of it.
But is such the truth? Are there not in the government's customs reforms special traits to which the old national policy of our friends to the left have no resemblance? What was the predominating characters istic of the old Conservative policy? Privilege; that is to say, being conceived and established to protect the manufacturing industry, that policy paid attention only to and was solicitous only for that one branch of national production.
From 1878 to 1896 the trend of the customs tariff bears the impress of that idea: the industries first, the other classes afterwards. So that, what originally, and in the mind of Sir John A. Macdonald was intended as a financial expedient became, under his successors, the base and pivot of a fiscal system under which the vast majority became tributary to a small minority.
So that, independent of the injury resulting to the larger number, from the two-fold point of view of finance and economy, that systematized protection brought about two principal results that its founders had not foreseen, that is to say, the insufficiency

of the revenue derived from that source, and the instability of a tariff that was constantly changed desoite the incessant requests of manufacturers.
In order to remedy the injustice and inconveniences of such a policy the Liberal party proposed to substitute for it -a revenue tariff based on an equitable redistribution of custom dues, in conformity with all the needs of all classes of society.
Having secured control in 1896 the Liberal party put its programme into execution, and the success which crowned its efforts prove it was right.
I heard the other day a very curious argument from the iron, member from North Toronto. After having given different classes of schools of economics, after having pointed to the mercantile school, to the agricultural school, the industrial school and to the high protectionist school, he said: ' Now, to what school do the members of the present government belong? ' I have only to say that if some of the members of the present government profess to belong to one of these particular schools, they must not be judged by what they think, but they muist be judged by what they do. That is to say, that the government of this country is not composed of theorists but of practical men who do not profess to belong to one school more than another, but who recognized conditions first and then endeavour to apply tllieir measures to the facts as they -arise according as the best interests of the country demand.
Now, that no radical change was effected in our fiscal system, that the tariff was only reduced three points, that some of our leaders were accused of going back on their ' free trade ' flag, are all speciou-s criticisms that do not very much interest the people of Canada. What the country knows and understands is that the fiscal policy of today is governed -by facts and not theories, and that the tariff established by the Liberals feeds the public revenue in a manner unlooked for and assures a sufficient protection to Canadian industries.
I merely refer, in passing, to the different aspects of the present tariff: the preference given to England, which has had, despite all to the contrary, excellent results, and which our opponents would gladly hide if they could; the German surtax, -a just return for lack of favour; the intermediary tariff which brought to our fiscal system an element of elasticity that increases its effectiveness; all measures of Liberal origin, which have imparted a great impetus and a lasting stability to our fiscal system.
If the Conservative party lays claim, as its own, to the fiscal policy of the government, it cannot surely have the same pretension regarding the immigration policy which it fought against in a most determined manner and which it still likes to criticise in every possible way. A large Mr. RIVET.
volume could be made of the speeches delivered by our friends on the left, great and small, in denouncing the methods adopted by the Interior Department, in the recruiting of immigrants. In their day they had a safe way to escape like criticism; simply by abstaining fr-o-m all immigration. Then-apathy in that direction, was as culpable as their indifference regarding the exodus of our own people to the American republic. To console themselves for having done nothing when in power, they now try to cover up the results obtained by the ministerial policy, under petty considerations of detail. It would be puerile to think for -a moment that the opposition's criticisms and ill-advised curiosity regarding the North Atlantic Trading Company coull change public opinion, for while the course of the opposition shows it to be devoid of public spirit, the influence of the stream of immigration to Canada since 1896 has been conducive to the progress of the Dominion. We are right in saying that o-ur country is one of the largest, the most beautiful and the richest in national resources in the world. But the country, to reach its rightful economic rank, needs arms and capital. The immigration campaign -carried on so actively and devotedly by the government has given us -both of these.
The hon. member for North Toronto is glad to be able to say, with Sir Edward Ciouston, that the magnificent harvests of the west saved Canada from the crisis of last year. Can the hon. member pretend Uiat such harvest grew alone like mushrooms without the aid of the thousands of immigrants that the government's policy brought into the west? Here is another point on which the government -can fairly lay claim to a share in the prosperity of the country.
I will now ask, Mr. Speaker, to be allowed to briefly touch upon the government's policy in regard to transportation. In a vast country like Canada the transportation highways are like the arteries and veins in the human bo-dy, they are indispensable to its economic life -and its fecundity.
Acknowledging this truth the government was led to make the creation and development of the rail and water highways the two grand works of the administration; the Department of Railways and Canals and the Marine Department. Each year large sums are voted for these two great public services, either to improve the waterways and ports, in order to draw a share from the advantages afforded by nature to our country or for the construction or subsidizing of new railways. This is an expenditure that the people of Canada will always look upon with favour, as long as it is carried on in a judicious manner, for it ever contributes to the commercial and industrial supremacy of Canada.
The government's policy regarding our

transportation highways bears the mark of a solicitude and remarkable spirit of progress. I do not pretend that the Conservative government misunderstood its duty in this connection, but I fear not to say that the Liberal policy, in this regard, is more methodical, more enlightened and more daring than that of its predecessors.
From 1896 to 1908 statistics show that the sum of $121,215,115 was used in the improvement of transportation facilities. That sum was principally divided between the canals, the St. Lawrence channel, the Canadian defence harbours, the subsidies to railways and the cost of the Transcontinental. Which means that such expenditure was not made at hap-hazard for local works, more or less justifiable, but in accordance with a general plan of improvement confirmed by the recommendations of a special commission and in a manner to derive the most profit possible from the geographic conditions of Canada, in view of the traffic between the east and west and between the St. Lawrence ports and those of Europe.
Such is an essentially national policy that our opponents may have sometimes criticised in details but of which they can neither blame the directing spirit, nor disallow the beneficent results. Moreover the construction of a second transcontinental line and the henceforth assured supremacy of the St. Lawrence route, which have heretofore been two points of resistence in the government's transportation policy, exempt me from all necessity of commenting upon the effects of that policy on the destinies of the country.
A few days ago, the New York 'Herald,' in an editorial referring to the port of Montreal and the St. Lawrence route, pointed out the dangerous rival our country might become in regard to transportation. I am confident the government will not stop short in its splendid pathway, that it will save itself no sacrifice, compatible with its resources, to preserve and augment the advantages flowing from its water-ways. Our neighbours are not inactive; they devote vast sums to their ports and canals. During recent years, the project of the Georgian Bay canal has given them reason to reflect, and to redouble their efforts to improve their own water-ways. In the interests of our metropolis, in the interests of all Canada, I again appeal for the construction of that canal, the utility of which was foreseen by the great explorer Champlain, and the accomplishment of which is destined to affirm for all time the commercial supremacy of Canada.
In fine, Mr. Speaker, I desire to remark that the government, by its social legislation, and by its conciliatory policy between the different races, has succeeded in putting aside two great and serious obstacles
to the general progress of Canada. In Canada, as elsewhere, two great forces co-operate in all industrial production-capital and labour. On the organization and functioning of these two forces, and their reciprocal harmonious relations, to a great extent, depends the success, as well as the industrial prosperity of the country. The Conservative party, during its long tenure of office, seems to have misunderstood the part taken by labour in the general economy, and to have exclusively showered its favours on capital.	'
No one would dream of blaming the Conservative government for having encouraged the use of capital in the industries had it not stopped half way, and neglected to accord the workman a share of its solicitude so generally granted to the capitalist and the industrial contractor. It was reserved for the Liberal party to look after the workman and to assign him a place in the legislation and administration of the country. From its first moment in power, that party set itself to re-establish between the two great elements of national production, that equilibrium of justice and protection necessary to harmonize their relations and to maintain social order. The measures flowing from that policy, amongst others, may be called the creation of a Labour Department, the ' Labour Gazette,' the Labour Act, the abolition of the sweating system, and the Fair _\Yage Act, and finally, the Lemieux Act, the success of which has challenged the admiration and envy of the older countries that had wrestled with the social problem. In this regard, the Liberal party not only has the well-merited approval of the labouring classes, but has also assured to the industries an indispensable element of nrogress and prosperity.
How can I pass over in silence the admirable work of national pacification which, for twelve years, the government has carried on with the marvellous results that have so affected Canadian unity? The favourite motto of the Conservative party,
' divide ut imperes ' has vanished * from the councils of the nation. In its place an ideal of harmony and union reigns, drawing the two races closer to each other, and inspiring them to common action and collaboration in the work of erecting the edifice of Canadian prosperity. It was that ideal of union and harmony that inspired the government with the conciliatory policy which allowed it to satisfactory settle the ticklish questions of religion and race which, at other times and under other conditions, would have widened the gulf between the two principal ethnical groupes of the Dominion. And yet, what violent assaults were not made upon this phase of the ministerial policy, when racial passions were kindled and fanned into fury by the extreme wings of the opposition. Do we not still hear the echoes of the

danger raised by the attitude of the statesman who personifies that policy, when, in the midst of the conflict of ideas, he arose to the heights of genius, calm and dignified, to apply the remedy suggested by both justice and national interest.
It may be too early yet, Mr. Speaker, to ask all parties and all political sections to praise without stint the great wisdom which saved Canada during the religious crisis of the years that have gone. But if it be true that distance imparts to men their true stature, and, when the jarrings and discords of their day are quieted, calm and immutable justice renders to each his due; if it be true that the judgment of posterity corrects the errors of contemporaries, I am certain that impartial history- the great judge-in speaking of the present premier, will say, as of the King now gloriously reigning, that he was the ' peacemaker ' of his country; and thus will history accord him his most glorious title to the admiration and gratitude of the Canadian nation.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to say a word about the influence brought to bear oij the national situation in Canada by the diplomacy of the present ministry. I know that the word diplomacy ' makes our friends opposite smile, for they never could admit or understand our country enjoying the national prerogatives claimed for her by the Prime Minister of to-day. Yet, it is historically true, that abroad, as well as in the mother country, the diplomacy of our Canadian statesmen has brought to Canada an increase of autonomy that has enlarged its prestige and its possibilities of the future. We may well say that, if the inflow of people and of capital is abundantly apparent in Canada to-day, it is thanks, in a great part, to the independence and extreme liberty that affects our relations with other countries and that gives a colour to our fiscal policy. In this sense again the external policy of the government has been a great factor in our economic system.
I beg pardon of the House for having inflicted upon it this long list of acts and facts that henceforth belong to history. I would not have gone over them had not our friends opposite, despite all evidence to the contrary, persisted in the fiction that Canada's progress has been absolutely foreign to the operation of our administration. It is, therefore, necessary, from time to time, to take up the gauntlet and to show, were it only briefly, that in ours as in all other countries there exists between the government and the people, between the life of the people and the action of the government or parliament, a close relationship, the real influence of which varies according to the spirit and the methods of the men in power.
I know that, as adversaries will pre-Mr. RIVET.
tend that the ministerial party follows the pathways traced out by the Conservative policy; and they think thereby to silence us and to defy us to point to any new markets open to Canadian exportation. This last argument falls to the ground before the Franco-Canadian treaty, which in the minds of the most eminent business men, is destined to have a great effect upon our trade with France. I may add that the preference accorded New Zealand gained that colony as a market for our preserved goods from British Columbia. But there is a still better answer to that objection, as I believe experience has taught that- it is more profitable and rational for Canada to foster systematically existing outlets by means of new agreements and more active and better organized propaganda, than to make new contracts, practically one-sided, with people who are, as yet, unacquainted with the advantages of trading with Canada.
To the general remark that the government's policy has been a Conservative policy with a Liberal label on it, I reply by drawing your attention to the two fundamental characteristics of the present administration-those that essentially dis tinguish it from it's predecessors. The first of these is the Liberal idea of liberty and progress, in contra-distinction to the reactionary principle that is at the bottom of all Conservative policies-especially in England and in Canada. It has been said of certain nations that by temperament, tradition and vocation they were advance guard nations. History also shows that the Liberal party, in England as in Canada, has been in the vanguard, that is to say, it ever saw higher and farther along the way that democracy travels.
Since 1896 the Canadian Liberal party has sought to be faithful to its principles and its mission and has applied to the entire administrative mechanism a spirit of initiative, a daring in conception and a sense of national responsibility, all of which you vainly seek for in the policy of lethargy, privilege and routine that marked the old system.
Such is the first mark of distinction between the present government and the Conservative government. There is also a second one-it consists in the judicious application of principles to the changing conditions of our society and to the fresh needs created by its evolution. Mr. W. J. Bryan, in 1896, in Chicago, said: ' Changing conditions make new issues. The principles upon which democracy rests are as everlasting as the hills, but they must be applied to new conditions as they arise.' An English statesman also said: ' Political doctrines were not like the axioms and definitions of the geometer, of intrinsic truth, wholly uninfluenced by ti me and place, their worth and force depended on

experience and were necessarily as changing as the circumstances on which all experience is founded.'
Such has been the Liberal party's line of conduct since 1896: to adapt the principles of governmental science, which science is essentially experimental, according to the conditions of a new country, which is in a state of economic and national transition.
It was by adhering faithfully to these two political truths-progress in liberty and the wise application of ideas-that the Liberal party was enabled to draw order from chaos, reform from inertia, prosperity from stagnation.
Beaten again on this latter issue, still our opponents will not lower their arms. With a zeal worthy of a better cause, and in default of better resources, they will try to view the government's administrative record, in order to point out, from time to time, in the glass of their imagination, the few specks that are to be seen on the bright sun of the Liberal policy.
Such were the tactics whereby they sought to regain that power that they certainly did not lose through any too pronounced administrative honesty. The success that has accompanied those tactics is far from causing us to regret it, but, it seems to me, that it should cause our friends opposite to open their eyes. Our opponents should prove that in the traditions of their party, in their programme and in their political ideas, they present the country with a more enlightened, more honest and more progressive administration.
Unhappily, for them, they have not and they cannot present such a certificate of capability. So far they have confined themselves to a purely negative role, and they have not revealed any of the characteristics required in the government such as a programme of positive reform, and a dominant and uniform political conception of the great problems of national interest. The programme formulated by their chief at Halifax, disregarded by some, repudiated by others, was soon wrecked and, I doubt, if one could even find some of its debris at the convention announced for next autumn.
Now I do not propose to dwell upon the hopeless division that prevails to-day in the councils of our good friends opposite. The leader of the opposition was eloquent yesterday when he propounded a policy of assistance to the mother country and of defence to Canada. Immediately after he sat down his lieutenant for the province of Quebec (Mr. Monk) rose and expressed his indignation because he had not been consulted on the policy to be adopted in this regard.
Driven about by winds that blow now from east, now from west, with a crew divided as to the course to follow, and in 59	'
regard to command, very like a dismantled ship, without a compass, running aimlessly through a fog, the Conservative party is surely not sea-worthy, nor would it be safe to trust the destinies of our country to such a wreck.
Now, Sir, I do not wish to pose as a prophet, but. I can see what is coming. 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 by juggling this country into the vortex of militarism. 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 it should be driven out of power as unworthy of the confidence of the Canadian electorate. Under such circumstances, it is wise for the Canadian people to cling to their true friends, to support the men who have exercised their power with patriotism and devotedness, and whose ability and character are on a level with the grand and difficult task they so splendidly accomplish. To-day, as yesterday, problems, affecting the future of the nation are set for the consideration of the government. The solution of such problems requires unity in direction, regularity in administration, courage and devotedness in execution. Where are we to find these essential conditions if not in the government that has tested them for thirteen years, and that, in the face of an opposition divided beyond repair, is now prepared to settle, in a spirit of union and patriotism, one of the most vital questions that can possibly affect the Canadian nation?


Mr. THOMAS CHISHOLM (East Huron).: We have listened to-day to two very well prepared and eloquent addresses from the government side of the House. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Rivet) who has just sat down has certainly made some very severe charges against the old Conservative party. I think, however, we can discern a certain weakness in the foundation of his arguments. He seems to have directed the greatest part of his energies against men who have ceased to be members of this House, men who are dead and gone, men who were in this House at one time but who can never return to it. Now I think we should always speak well of the dead. I would just say in regard to the Conservatives who have been so roundly abused here



to-night, that there are not half a dozen of them at present in the House. The Conservative party, with which much fault has been found, were driven from power in 1896, and there is no possibility that dead men can return. If they were here, if one of them should rise and take my place, I am sure that all that has been said against them would soon be annihilated and would have very little force in it. It is not, I think, a brave act to attack men who have gone, and who have no opportunity to return and defend themselves. It is not necessary to go into details in regard to this matter.
The two last speakers, who gave us a great deal of information and whose speeches certainly were very well delivered, seemed to be a little wrong in, their bookkeeping. The hon. gentleman for South Oxford (Mr. Schell), in discussing the public debt, quoted a certain amount of debt with which he said the Conservative party had to contend at confederation. He forgot to tell us that the very act of confederation implied that the government in power at that time had to assume certain burdens as the very foundation of confederation. They had to assume $109,000,000 of debt from the different confederated provinces. This is laid to the charge of the Conservative government but it could certainly not have been avioded. They had also to build the Intercolonial railway as one of the conditions of confederation; the maritime provinces came into confederation with the understanding that the Intercolonial railway was to be built, the Conservative government of that day built it and it cost the country $50,000,000 to do so. They completed it, they were bound to complete it and no blame could be laid to their door for carrying out the agreement made at confederation. British Columbia came into confederation with the understanding that the Canadian Pacific railway was to be built to the Pacific -ocean. The Conservative government agreed to do that at confederation and they fulfilled their contract. It cost the country $62,000,000 but the government was certainly not to blame for doing that, that was something which it was impossible for them to avoid. It was understood and it was only right that if these large amounts of money were to be spent on the maritime provinces, and for the benefit of British Columbia and the west, a certain amount of money should also be spent in the two older province.s and from $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 were spent in deepening the canals and improving the waterways. Adding these four items together, the $109,000,000 of debt taken over from the provinces, the $62,000,000 spent on the building of the Canadian Pacific railway, the $50,000,000 spent on the building of the Inter-Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
colonial railway and the $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 spent in deepening our canals in Ontario and Quebec, and it will be seen that every dollar of debt that was on the country when the Liberals came into power is accounted for, -and every dollar of that debt was in fulfillment of the conditions of the pledges that we assumed at confederation. The Conservatives during all the years that they were in power did not run the country into debt a solitary dollar according to that estimate. They governed 'the country and built- post offices, wharfs, harbours, public buildings, purchased and paid for the Northwest Territories and they also built these magnificent parliament buildings and paid for every one of those without leaving any debt on the country beyond what was involved in the very beginning of confederation. The Liberals came into power in 1896 and they have run this country into a debt of $80.000,000. What have they'to show for it? They have a partially completed railway- they have completed no great work. However, it is not necessary for me to defend these Conservatives of old days, these men are not coming back to this country and it is not necessary that I or any other person should talk longer on that subject; that is ancient history and I feel that if the two eloquent speakers who addressed us to-day had spent their time in discussing present- day affairs, it would have been much better for them and for us and we would not have lost so much time. They were also wrong in their book-keenim* in some other respects; in fact as I followed the particulars as they were brought out item by item in regard to the finances of this country and the condition of affairs, I came to the conclusion that the whole system of government bookkeeping in the departments in Ottawa and elsewhere is defective, and misleading. The more it is examined, the worse it appears.
It seems to me that if it had been especially devised for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the Canadian public and the Canadian electorate it could scarcely have done so more effectually than it does. Every business man knows and we all know that in any properly arranged system of book-keeping vouchers or receipts must be produced to prove the accuracy and bona fides of every separate item of expenditure, fraternal societies, joint stock companies, school trustees, village, township, county, and town-councils are all rigidly particular in this respect. They insist that everything shall be made absolutely clear and satisfactory, not only to the auditors and the people's representatives, but also to the people themselves. Yet, in the highest book-keeping establishment in the land, in the departments here in Ottawa where we

are told that high salaried accountants are so numerous that they are said almost to be falling over each other, Conservative members of parliament who are really the peoples' auditors, are not allowed even to look at vouchers or original documents. It appears that the Liberals are treated very differently in these departments. Liberals from all over the countrj, it appears, can come into these departments and carry off anything they like, because in East Huron, in the last general election, Mr. Blair, a Liberal lawyer from Goderich, was able to flourish and to read in my presence in a public meeting original documents which he said had been taken from the files here in Ottawa. I would like to know why it is that Conservatives are not given equal privileges? We all know that the auditors of the people, that is the Conservative members of parliament, would not be allowed to go into the departments and look at these documents, much less to put them into their pockets and carry them away into the back lines to bulldoze the people and contradict those who rise to make statements and who have not equal opportunities and so are not in a position to prove the inaccuracy of the statements made. I would ask why is this unfair advantage given to Liberals? Why this lack of manhood and British fair play? Why this discrimination against Conservatives -and I would ask with particular emphasis why this secrecy? Is there something to hide? I really believe that there is. In fact there is suspicion abroad that if the truth and all the truth were known about the system of book-keeping that we have in this country and about the records that are made in the departments and the transactions that should be there recorded, whether they are or not, that then these brazenfaced Liberal heelers who go around the back lines with their pockets loaded with original documents taken from the files of the departments would be compelled to give up the game and hide their heads in shame. This thing has not been carried on very long in these departments, we can fix the time fairly well when this new system of book-keeping was introduced. It is only two or three years since one of our most open-minded and fairest minded ministers was compelled to admit that the book-keeping in his department was so entangled that it was absolutely necessary that expert accountants should be called in to unravel the difficulties.
It appears, however, that the confusion was so great and the blunders so numerous that no Canadian expert accountants could be found who were fit for the task and consequently a crowd of so called New York expert accountants were engaged and brought to Ottawa and some of these wonderful bookkeepers were paid by the govem-59J
ment as high as $70 a day and their board. They began their instruction in true Tammany fashion by charging $85 each as railway fare between New York and Ottawa although at that time the first-class passenger rate between these two points was only $22, and they finished up their work by each of them charging something like $5 a day for board, although Mr. William Jackson, Conservative member for West Elgin, stood up in his place in parliament and stated that he had boarded and roomed in the same house with some of these men and he said he would stake his position in the House of Commons on the statement that these men did not pay more than $1 a day each for their board. To cap the climax they marched off to New York without leaving any proper vouchers for the $46,000 of good Canadian money which they had received. Expert accountants they certainly were. And I have no doubt that if a thorough investigation were made of the book-keeping in some of the departments of the government it would be found that they left behind them some very apt pupils and perhaps good imitators. Think of an accountant who after a year's book-keeping could hold out in one hand $16,000,000 of a surplus while in the other which he hides behind his back you find an accumulation of debts and liabilities amounting to the enormous sum of $45,000,000. That man may not be a Yankee but he is certainly an expert. In the good old days when there was nothing to hide, book keepers made use of a profit and loss account and they were always able to prove the accuracy of their work by means of a trial balance, but nowadays losses are charged up to capital account and paid out of moneys borrowed for permanent improvements, and then afterwards1 so manipulated that they are turned into profits, or made to look like profits, and I have no doubt that after a while many of them will be shown up as actual assets of the Canadian people. For example, the government let the job of building an important railway bridge over the St. Lawrence river to its friends under the name of a joint stock company, limited. Remember it was ' limited.' The company mismanaged the plans or the work or both, in such a way that when the structure was nearly completed it tumbled bodily into the river. In the meantime the individual members of that company are said to have become wealthy; in fact some say they have become immensely rich, while the poor little limited, paper, sham, company became bankrupt leaving something like $6,000,000 of debt. Well, the government took over the debt and charged it to capital account and paid it out of money borrowed for permanent improvements, and the result no doubt will be in time that this bridge- the real cost of which will have been im-

properly increased by $6,000,000-will be held up to the public by some future Liberal historian (or perhaps expert accountant) as one of the assets owned by the Canadian people.
Again, there is a collision between two tugs and $7,000 damages were paid by the government as a result of that collision, and the government charged that amount up to capital account and paid it out of moneys borrowed for permanent improvements, and I suppose that after a while they will be able to make out that $7,000 as an asset of the Dominion. Then again, there is an accident on the Intercolonial railway, the track is damaged, the rails are broken, the engines and cars are knocked to pieces, new equipment has to be bought to replace that which was damaged, and do you think the government charges that up to running expenses? Not a bit of it. Although the train was injured while it was running I suppose, they charged the damage up to capital account and they add that sum to the original cost of the intercolonial railway. As I told you in the beginning of my little speech, up to the time the Liberals came into power the Intercolonial had cost $50,000,000, but to-day it has cost the country $81,000,000 or an addition of $31,000,000 to the cost in 13 years. Now, suppose a farmer had a farm and stock and implements valued at $6,000, and he employed a manager to run his farm for him and to keep his books. At the end of the year the farm manager may find he has $200 of a surplus; he may find that after 'paying all expenses his books not only balance but he has $200 cash on hand. He can honestly report to the farmer that he has a surplus of $200 and if he should invest that $200 in a horse that wias worth $200 he could still honestly report that he had a surplus of $200. But, the next year when he would come to balance his accounts he might find no surplus. He would not like to report that to the farmer and he might call in a New York expert accountant and the New York expert accountant "would say to him: take this horse valued at $200 and to the $200 add $5 for shoeing out of the	current running
expense and add it to the value of the horse, and in that way you can increase the value of the horse and decrease the current expenses. Then add again to that $60 for the veterinary surgeon who had to be called in to attend the horse, when he had run away and injured himself; deduct that from your running expenses also and add it to the price of the horse. Then, add to the value of the horse $30 for attendance and $70 for his feed and take that out of current expenses and you will add further to the value of the horse and lessen your current expenses. Then, take $100 for the new buggy that had to be Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
purchased for the one which vras destroyed when the horse ran away, and instead of charging that to current expenses put it on the price of the horse and you will be able to show by your books to your employer that you have a horse valued at $465, that you have lessened your current account by $265, and that you have a surplus of .$530 for the year. That would be all right perhaps the first year, but after it had gone on for about twenty years and the old horse had come to be valued at $4,000 or $5,000 in the manager's books, the farmer might come to examine into this matter and he would say: It is very strange that tire older this horse becomes, the oftener he runs away, the more he eats, the oftener you have to call in the veterinary surgeon to attend him and the more buggies he destroys when he runs away the more valuable he becomes. He would say: There is something wrong here. I think that is just about the kind of bookkeeping we have in the departments at Ottawa and that our surpluses have just about as much basis as the old horse surplus would have.


Mr. THOMAS A. LOW (South Rrenfrew).: $247,790,232 for the twelve years ending the 30th June, 1908. For the twelve years prior to 1896, our exports of butter amounted to 57,247,699 pounds as against 259,655,811 pounds during the twelve years ending 1908. For the ten years prior to 1896, the total products of the farm exported including butter, cheese, bacon and nams, am unted to $146,558,000; and for the ten years after 1896, under the able administration of the Minister of Agriculture, these same products amounted to $369,404,000, or more than two and a half times the total under the ten years of Conservative rule. These are some of the results due to the policy and expenditures made by the Minister of Agriculture.
Just a word about the woollen tariff, the pet theme of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). One would imagine from his speech that our farmers were materially affected by the woollen tariff of the present administration. But what do we find? Let us see how much my hon. friend and his associates assisted the farmers during the eighteen years they were in power and how their woollen tariff affected the farmers. I find that when the Conservative government came into power in 1878 our farmers were then receiving for their wool thirty cents per pound, and in 1881 they received twenty-five cents per pound. I hope my hon. friend from Lanark will listen to these figures. In 1884, wool took another drop, and for three years the farmers received an average of twenty-two cents per pound. In 1887, it took a further drop down to twenty cents, and in 1891, it went to eighteen and a half cents. Yet the gentlemen, whose party was then in power, congratulate the farmers for having received so much for their wool ,and for having benefited so much by the Conservative policy. During five years prior to 1896 under Conservative rule, the price paid was eighteen and a half cents; but for the last five years under the administration of^ this government, notwithstanding the claim that the preferential tariff worked so badly for the farmers, they received an average of twenty-four and a half cents per pound for their wool as compared with eighteen and a half cents. And the only reason why our farmers are going out of the wool-growing business is because there are more profitable things for them to go into. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) criticised this government because our farmers are not exporting so much wool to-day as they did in 1896. Well, the government have no control over the exportation of wool, and the market is open to-day just as it was in 1896. But the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is liable to charge this government with anything. I heard him last session hold it responsible for the destruction of the business of a couple of mills which were burnt down Mr. LOW.
some twenty or thirty years ago. Therefore I am not surprised that he should refer to the farmers' business as being destroyed by the government of the day. When 1 spoke last year on the wool tariff I referred to a woollen enterprise in which I am engaged in Renfrew. I am glad to tell my hon. friend that our year's business has just been made up and we find we have had another prosperous year under the tariff of the present administration. My hon. friend from North Lanark (Mr. Tho-burn) will tell the House how the tariff works so much against the woollen men, but notwithstanding the tariff has been so damaging to the wool business, it is reported that out of that same business my hon. friend has made the large fortune of $250,000 and he is still a young man, and I have no doubt that before he leaves this world his fortune will be doubled, and I only hope it will. I myself am engaged in the woollen industry and I am particularly pleased with the tariff. But there is another industry in the town of Renfrew in which I am interested and in which the capital invested amounts to some fifty or sixty thousand dollars. If the Finance [DOT] Minister, when he revises his tariff, will include the articles manufactured in that factory in his revision and give them the same protection as the woollen men receive, I shall be perfectly satisfied. I am not finding any fault with the tariff, but there are some fifteen or twenty factories manufacturing these articles in Canada, and the time has arrived when they should be protected to some extent, because the articles I refer to are on the free list.
And now in conclusion let me say that I hope the Prime Minister, as president, and the Finance Minister, as vice-president, of the great national company., may be long spared to guide the destinies of the people of Canada.


Mr. J. A. SEXSMITH (East Peterborough).: I have listened with considerable interest to the speech on the budget and the lengthy debate which has followed. I was surprised to hear the hon. the Minister of Finance make the statement that there would be no tariff changes this year. There are many changes which should be made and made at the earliest possible date in the interests of our agricultural population. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Low) spoke quite fluently about the woollen industry. When the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) talked about that industry a short time ago, judging by the expression of some of the members of the opposite side of the House, it was to them an industry to be laughed at rather than discussed. I am perfectly satisfied that the hon. member for South Renfrew has never taken the trouble to study the magnitude of that industry or what it has done for

other nations. Before I sit down, I hope to draw the attention of that hon. gentleman and of the House to what that industry has done and is doing for the great countries of the British empire and of America. Speaking on the subject of agriculture, I feel, as one inexperienced in making speeches and in view of the magnitude of that industry, that I shall not be able to do it justice. However, I am a farmer myself, and if there is anything in the world I am proud of it is of that fact. Not that there are not other high callings in life, but to my mind there is no higher calling than that of tilling the soil and producing food for the nation. According to the statistics of the government, the farmers of Canada last year, in one branch'of their industry alone, added to the wealth of the nation, $432,992,100, this being the value of the field crops. I contend, I think, rightly so, that every dollar produced from the soil is a dollar added to the wealth of the country, for no part of it is taken from the natural resources of the country, but, if a proper system of cultivation be used, that production can go on and on through all time. In addition to the amount I have already stated, we may count $200,000,000 or $300,000,000 to represent the other products of the farm, bringing the sum total of the wealth produced by the farmers of Canada last year close to the billion dollar mark. Y'et in the face of this, we find one of the ministers of this government, if he is correctly reported, a short time ago practically asking the people by their votes to discriminate against the farmers as representatives in this House, declaring against a candidate on the ground that he was not a trained advocate and therefore not able to represent his constituents. I think we have a right to hold the government responsible for these statements. It seems to me the reason they do not want farmers here is because the farmers, through long practice of economy in making a living, on coming here will be, as I was myself, astonished at the extravagant expenditure of the government along many lines and will go back and tell their fellow-farmers, so that it would not be well for the government. I cannot think of any other reason.
As to the woollen industry, concerning which my hon. friend (Mr. Low) has spoken so elaborately, I think that if that hon. gentleman had studied what this industry has done for other countries and how it has been fostered by other countries, he would have come to the conclusion that it is well worth while to do something for that industry in Canada. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his budget speech the other day tofd us that the government had paid $13,009,000 in subsidies to the steel and iron industry in nine years. That industry is not what you would call a natural industry of
the country; yet we have fostered it and spent upon it millions of the hard-earned money taken from the pockets of the people of this country, while the woollen industry, which has done more for the nations of the world than any other, and which is a natural industry, and which did not cost this country one dollar, has been practically throttled and put out of business.
There are three great essentials in the foundation of a nation, especially in a country with a climate like ours-food, fuel and clothing. I am glad to be able to say that we are in a position to supply food for ourselves, and I hope that in a short time we shall be able to supply food for the whole British empire. As to fuel, we have it in abundance; we have deposits of coal that are practically inexhaustible. There is no reason why we should not provide clothing for the people, but that industry does not seem to be regarded by hon. members opposite as worthy of consideration. In 1899, there were 270 woollen mills in Canada; in 1908 these had decreased to 197. Now, I will ask the -members of the government: Can we, having the remedy in our own hands, allow this condition of affairs to continue? According to the United States census of 1905, the capital employed in the textile industry in that country was $1,343,324,605, and the value of the goods produced per annum is $1,215,036,190. The woollen industry, which is one of the textile industries, employed $477,000,000 and the annual value of its product was $517,000,000. Now, these are figures that, in my opinion, are well worth looking into. When we look over the great manufacturing industries of the United States, we find that the production and manufacture of food employ more capital than does the textile industry. We find that the iron and steel industry employs more capital than does the woollen industry. But if you take into account the labour employed in the manufacture of textiles into clothes in the United States, you will find that that industry gives more employment to labour in that country than do the iron and steel industry and the food industry combined. I contend that the value of a great industry to a country is to be judged by the number of people to whom it gives employment. Taking that into consideration, surely every hon. member of this House will admit that the woollen industry far exceeds every other.
Now let us look at Great Britain. The textile industry in Great Britain represents a capital of $1,250,000,000. It is the greatest export industry in that country, and it employs directly and indirectly about 5,000,000 people. I would like hon. gentlemen to pay strict attention to these facts. The textile industry in Great Britain employs about one-tenth of the entire

population, according to the statistics of last year. Onc-half of the total exports of Great Britain are textile goods. They consume 657,000,000 pounds of wool, of which 100,000,000 pounds are home grown. Now we have been told that we cannot produce wool in Canada, but that we must turn our attention to, something else. We find, however, that in England they are able to raise sheep on their high priced land, and to produce wool to such an extent that they have 100,000,000 pounds to consume at home, and exported besides
31.000.	000 pounds.


Thomas Andrew Low: Would the hon. gentleman like this country to adopt the woollen tariff of Great Britain?


John Albert Sexsmith: I will deal with that point later on. I think I can show that it might be better to adopt a protective system all through. The woollen industry in England has grown up behind the most severe tariff walls that we ever read of.


Thomas Andrew Low: Is that tariff in existence to-day?


John Albert Sexsmith: It was in existence until the industry reached a position where it could compete with the whole world. There were produced last year in England 131,000,000 pounds of wool'. I draw attention to these facts to show the great importance of the woollen industry. In France, the textile industry employs 2,008,000 people, and has an ' output worth
235.000.	000 francs. Germany employs more people in the textile industry than in any other industry, and produces wool-len^ goods to the value of 266,233,000 marks. It is the same with some of the smaller nations like Belgium, Holland and Switzerland. Now if the hon. gentleman will listen, I will tell him how this industry was fostered, and he will conclude that it was not by accident that it attained its present enormous proportions. I want to show the means adopted by some of the great nations to build un this industry. We will have to go back some distance in history. In the 12th century we find that under King Henry II wool was the greatest export of England. One writer says that all the nations of the world were clothed with English wool, made into cloth in Flanders. To become as rich as a Count of Flanders was to become very wealthy indeed. It was King Edward III who really created the woollen industry in England, for he sent into Flanders to introduce into England those Flemish woo) workers who, at that time, were experts in the manufacture of cloth. Up to that time England hardly knew anything about the manufacture of cloth, ror she exported all her wool. King Edward III introduced these wool workers, who came and settled


John Albert Sexsmith: production of the wool to the finished product it would mean many million dollars more for the farmers and labourers of Canada. As has been pointed out the balance of trade against us with the United States is something to be deplored. I have here a statement of our exports to the United States and our imports from the United States, and in that table I have been careful to include only purely agricultural products which are of interest to the farmers of Canada and of which we produce an abundance in this Dominion. The first table shows as follows:


IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES TO CANADA, 1909.
[Stage Direction]
Total breadstuffs (under duty).. .. $11,425,804 (free)	 3,795,734
Total	$15,221,538
Green apples	 224,896
Total provisions (lard, butter,
cheese, &c.)	 3,791,939
Animals (not including animals for
-export)	 960,584
#ay -	  126,738
Vegetables	 795,791
Gram products (bran, flour, &c.)..	424,639
Total agricultural products.. $21,546,125
Now, the market gardeners of the United States have a market of 80,000,000 people in their own country and the market gardeners of Canada have a population of we will say between 7,000,000 and 8,000,000 people to supply, but the market gardeners of the United States are protected and the market gardeners of Canada are not equally protected and the market gardeners of the United States have been able to send to Canada vegetables to the value of $795,791. Now I have here a table showing the Canadian exports to the United States, and I have taken similar articles to those mentioned in the former table of the United States exports to Canada:

[Stage Direction]
Animals living	 $ 1,796,992
Total breadstuffs	 21592^969
jjruits	 '38(1870
Hay	 35 008
Provisions (butter, cheese, eggs,
bacon and liam)	 382 xis
Vegetables	"	507 119
, Total	$ 5,695,076
lotal trade, exports and imports. $285,265,717
Imports	$192,661,360
TxPorte	 92,604,357
Difference in favour of United States	$100,057,003
It will be seen, therefore, that the Canadian farmers and market gardeners have been able to sell to the 80,000,000 population of the United States only $5,695,000 worth of these natural products, while the American farmer and market gardeners have Mr SEXSMITH.
been able to sell to the 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 Canadians $21,546,000 worth. Thus, the farmers of Canada are to this extent forced out of their own market and obliged to pay the freight for the transportation of their products to other markets of the world. That is the kind of treatment the farmers of Canada are receiving from this government all along the line. I remember from my boyhood days hearing the Liberals when in opposition talking about capturing the markets of the United States for the Canadian farmers and having reciprocity. The Liberals are in power; have we reciprocity to-day?
William Cameron Edwards: They forgot all about it.


John Albert Sexsmith: Yes, they forgot all about it and the balance of the trade between us and the United States is to-day $98,000,000 worth in their favour, deducting the imports of bullion. I contend that the United States last year took that amount of money out of the pockets of the people of Canada and carried it away to their country. I do not believe there is a minister in the cabinet to-day who would conduct business privately with, a man who always wanted an advantage of from ten to twenty per cent, and yet, that is the system under which the people of Canada are forced to do their business with the United States. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I am not a high protectionist, but I am an adequate protectionist I believe in fair trade, and if the United States put up barriers against us I believe we should do likewise. Let us see how the duties on Canadian products going to the United States compares with the duty on United States products coming into Canada. The following statement will show.
Canadian
Hay, per ton.. .	duty.	duty.
	$2 00	$4 00
Butter, a lb.	0 04	0 06Cheese, a lb	
Bacon and hams,	0 03	0 06a lb	0 02	0 05Eggs, per doz.. ..	0 03	0 05Barley, per bush..	0 15	0 24Potatoes, per bush	. 0 20	0 25Oats, per bush. ..	0 10	0 15Pease, per bush. ..	0 15	0 40Beans, per bush. ..	0 25	0 45Wheat, per bush. .	0 12	0 25
Any fair minded member of this House will admit that there is nothing fair about that for the farmers of Canada. I do not think that the government have at all taken into consideration the interest of the producer. Had we similar tariff to that which they have in the United States on these articles they would not cost the people of this country one dollar more. There is another thing in connection with the woollen business that I was grieved about last year. I noticed that the Minis-

ter of Agriculture said something about our farmers raising sheep, and his remarks upon that occasion showed that he has not a very high opinion of them. He stated in the House last year that the farmers of the Dominion are a slip-shod set of people and that they lacked industry and enterprise. That will be found in ' Hansard ' of March 31, last year. That seems to he a remarkable statement for the Minister of Agriculture to make about the farmers of this country.
In conclusion I would advise the government to take a little more interest in the farmer and spend a little more money upon them. This brings a thought to my mind. Technical education which was under discussion a little while ago, was shelved as far as this parliament is concerned, perhaps for twenty years. It is a very important question. There is no reason why the Dominion government should not have a technical school at least at every experimental farm and at any other points in the Dominion where they would deem it necessary. I had no intention at all of making any remarks on the budget but I was compelled to do so because of the indifferent way the agriculturists and labourers of this country have been treated and because of some of the remarks which have been made recently in regard to this matter. I would ask the government at the first opportunity to see if something cannot be done to protect the markets of the farmers and the market gardeners of Canada


Mr.   M.@: CLARK moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Mr. HUGHES.: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We will continue the debate to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 14, 1910.