1910-01-21

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 110) respecting the Al-goma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. Ill) respecting the Dominion Millers' Association.-Mr. Harris.
Bill (No. 112) to incorporate the Independent Order of Rechabites.-Mr. Ver-ville.
Bill (No. 113) respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company.-Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. 114) respecting the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company.-Mr. Forget.
Bill (No. 115) to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company, Limited.-Mr. Pardee.
Bill (No. 116) to incorporate the Toronto and Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Fowke.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: That from the second of February next, inclusive, to the end of the session, govern-714	.
merit orders shall have precedence on Wednesdays, immediately after questions to be put by members.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. URIAH WILSON.: I moved on the 18th of November last for a return showing the number of immigration agents in the employ of the government. When may we expect that return?


Mr. OLIVER.: I thought it was laid on the table some time ago, but will make inquiries.


Uriah Wilson: I inquired in Mr. Polkinghorne's office, this morning and it was not there yet.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.
['The answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) will be found in this section. In 1906, to safeguard the government, a clause was inserted that the government, at any time, could take over this project by paying the money that had been expended bv this company. That provision is Te-enacted by this Bill. So, whatever powers the company may have, the government is protected by this section allowing the government, on behalf of the country, to take over the work at any time.\nBill reported, and read the third time and passed.']
Mr. LOGGIE.: When this House rose yesterday, I had finished making some remarks on the net debt of Canada. I now propose making a few comments on our expenditure, and in that connection, I wish to refer to some criticisms passed by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). That hon. gentleman said-see page 1490 of 'Hansard':
What have you to show for the $922,000,000 less tlie $51,000,000 that has been spent in the twelve and three-quarter years. We cannot escape from the conviction that millions of it have been worse spent than wasted.
In connection with this, the hon. gentleman gives a tabulated list of expenditures. And, he uses this language:
.In eight and three-qnarter years, $57,000,000 have been expended on public works alone. I say that this expenditure is inordinate. It is indefensible and you cannot point with your finger to the compensatory advantages, to the compensatory product of stimulus or of health to warrant the expenditure of this amount of money.
I pointed out yesterday that we had received this money at a less rate of taxation than that which had prevailed under the previous government. I wish now to refer to some expenditures that, I think, we can all agree, are to the advantage of Canada. And it does seem to me it would have been much more pertinent had the hon. member for North Toronto named the expenditures that, in his opinion, it was improper for this administration to make. Let hon. members bear in mind that, during the year 1909, the amount expended in the public works of this country was no less than

$ 12,000,000 as compared with a little over $1,000,000 in the year 1896. Of what did these works consist? Well, there is all the dredging that is done throughout the Dominion, the dredging of St. John harbour of the St. Lawrence water-way, of the Northern Ontario sea-ports, if I may so describe them-inland ports but equal to sea-ports so far as transportation is concerned-and the public buildings, including the new wing to the parliament buildings here at Ottawa, a work carried on under our own eyes. And yet the hon. gentleman has the audacity to say, ' What have we to show for this expenditure?' What he ought to have done was to point out the expenditures that, in his opinion, ought not to have been made. By the way, he did say that when expenditures are contemplated the minister is buttoned-holed by the member and that expenditures for post offices are not placed where they ought to be. Speaking of the things that are not done, he says there is no such thing as taking into account the localities which are to be served and in the line of precedent, he illustrated that by the minister coming to parliament and asking $25,000 to build a post office' where there was a postal revenue of only $700 or $800. This, he said, was only an illustration of what was going on. I could not help thinking, when the hon. gentleman was speaking, that possibly we could find a precedent for that kind of expenditure. I made inquiries, and I found that in 1887, when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) was Minister of Finance, and, as such, had the keys of the country's chest, a public building was erected at Dalhousie in the adjoining county to my own. The sum of $20,000 was spent on that post office, though the postal revenue of Dalhousie at the time was only $1,012. I admit that this is a little larger than the amount the hon. gentleman named, but I wonder who was consulted on that occasion. I wonder if the hon. member for Resti-gouche (Mr. James Reid) at that time button-holed the minister and if it was because of that that this $20,000 was spent on this public building. An hon. friend beside me reminds me that of the expenditure in the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Foster's) own county at Sussex. In 1881, when, I think, the hon. member for North Toronto represented King's county, a new public building was erected there at a cost of $23,000, though the revenue of the post office there was only $1,300. Then, in the county adjoining my own, the county of Gloucester, a public building was erected in the town of Bathurst in 1886, the cost being $26,000 and the postal revenues of the place at that time about $1,300. Have we a precedent, then, may I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster)? Besides, I think he ought not to forget what the Minister of Public Works Mr. LOGGIE.
(Mr. Pugsley) stated when he asked for the appropriation which was criticised. That hon. gentleman said that we ought to have a substantial building, one built of brick, one that could be used for generations so long as the population did not increase to such an extent as to make the building inadequate for the postal service of the place. And there was the case in my own town, the town of Chatham, though to cover its whole history I mhst go back beyond the time when the hon. member (Mr. Foster) was not a member of this House. On November 4th, 1873, the Conservative government went out of office. But on the 16th of October immediately preceding, they bought" an old stone house which was converted into a post office and customs house building, and the cost was over $10,000 additional. It is true that the opposing party came into power and that the government under their control carried out what had been arranged. But, nineteen years afterwards, with the Conservatives again in power, the government abandoned the old building, after an expenditure of $20,000, on the ground that it was not suitable for the purpose for which it had been bought and remodelled. And so they built a new post office and customs house. This gives all the greater weight to the statement of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) that it is important that we should erect for these purposes buildings of a substantial nature, buildings that will meet the requirements of the public service for many years to come. So, J think the hon. gentleman from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is hardly fair when he throws across the floor the insinuation that the expenditure of public money is handled at haphazard and without precedent. I contend that we have that precedent; whether it is a good one or not, hon. gentlemen may judge for themselves.
Now, I want to say one or two. words regarding other expenditure. On the. lighthouses and coast service the expenditure last year was $2,700,000, as compared with $445,000 in 1896. Thus we are expending $2,000,000 more on the lighthouse and coast service of this country, and it seems to me this is a work that is very necessary to our commercial prosperity. It is of advantage to exporters and importers, and also to the shipping interests of Canada, to the carriage of merchandise inwards and outwards. This expenditure has enabled us to place Canada in the enviable position she occupies to-day of competing for the ocean trade, I was going to say, of the world; because it is a matter of general knowledge that the New York shipping interests are envious to-dav of the possibilities of the shipping trade of Montreal and the St. Lawrence. The expenditure on dredging and lighting our coasts, and

placing better gas buoys in place of the old fashioned buoys in our waterways, I think is all a wise expenditure. The hon. gentleman should not have made the broad remark he did, and it would be much more becoming on his part if he had pointed out the particular expenditure that is not in the interests of this country.
Now, I want to say something about the Intercolonial, because the hon. member for North Toronto is very severe in his criticisms of the management of the Intercolonial. He read a letter purporting to have been written by the late Hon. Israel Tarte, in which he claimed that the management of the road was influenced by the member of the county through which it passes. Now I can tell the hon. gentleman that I have been a member for a number of years of a county through which that road runs, which it intersects, and as far as patronage is concerned by the sitting member, I can only say that there is not a particle of truth in the statement made in that letter, purporting to have been signed by the Hon. Mr. Tarte. I think the Intercolonial is managed from a business standpoint, it is run and managed directly in the interests of the people who have made the investment. Of course, due attention is paid to its customers, and to the customs of the road. Any corporation does the same thing, any corporation would be glad to receive a recommendation from a customer, particularly if that customer gave them a large business. When they require a good man they ask the name of a suitable person from the member, and that is about all the patronage there is on the Intercolonial. I think we have got the Intercolonial at present down to a matter of business.
But the hon. gentleman asks, what have we got for the addition to capital account? He tells us that during the Conservative regime, or rather up to 1896, the amount chargeable to capital account was $55,000,000, and that since then we have added $33,000,000 to canital account because of the expenditure on the Intercolonial; and he asks the question, when is this to stop? What have we to represent that expenditure? Now, Sir, I want to point out, and I think it is important that hon. gentlemen should know, that we have some valuable living assets for this additional expenditure. For the increase of sixty per cent to capital account, we have, first, an increased milage of about 318; we, have an equipment to-day that is capable of earning $8,527,069.40, as compared with an earning power in 1896 of $2,866,000. In other words, we have an equipment capable of earning, or capable of doing work, if you like to put it that way, three times as much as the equipment was able to do, or did do thirteen years ago. The 318 additional miles of railway is largely represented by the Canada Eastern between Fredericton
and Loggieville, and by the Drummond County railway. It seems to me these facts convey a totally different conclusion to the one sought to be conveyed by the hon. member for North Toronto when ispeaking on the Intercolonial. I think we should bear in mind what the hon. member for Westmorland Mr. Emmersoni said yesterday about this railway, this great national asset, and the trend of public opinion in favour of maintaining it as a great national asset, to be operated by the government of Canada. I quite concur in what that hon. gentleman said as to the terms and the standard on which this road was constructed, that it was to be operated by the government of the day.
Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman spoke about deficits on the Intercolonial. I find on investigation that during the thirteen years the present government have operated the railway, there was a deficit six years, and there was a surplus seven years. I find that during the preceding thirteen years there was a deficit eight years and a surplus only four years. So the condition regarding deficits is not very different under this government from what it was during the preceding thirteen years.
Another matter the) hon. gentleman brought up was the amount charged to capital account during this past year. I find on referring to the blue-books that we have expended as follows:
New rolling stock	$1,353,000
Locomotives, car shops and equipment at Moncton	 569,000
New machinery for shops	 154,000
Double track from Moncton to Painsec	  199,000
Strengthening bridges	 131,000
Increasing accommodation at Halifax	 499,000
New bridge at Indiantown	 79,000
Will the hon. gentleman point out which of these items should not be charged to capital account. Then it has been insinuated that we are not keeping up the plant of the Intercolonial railway out of the revenues of that railway, but are charging it to capital account. It is true that certain items have been charged to capital account and rightly so, but listen to what has been charged to revenue out of the earnings of the railway during the past year. During the past year there have been paid out of revenue the following items:
Renewals of freight cars.. .. 100,000 Renewals of locomotives.. .. 135,000 Repairs to passenger cars.. .. 272,000 Renewals of passenger cars.. 67,000
Repairs to freight cars	 602,000
Renewals of freight cars.. .. 100,000
It is only right that the country should understand that a large proportion of the cost of keeping up this railway is paid out of the ordinary revenues of that railway during the year, and only what is looked

upon as an addition to the asset is charged to capital account each year. I say, that to the best of my judgment, we have an asset worth $33,000,000 more than it was thirteen years ago.
I think that some of the remarks of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) were extreme. His remark about the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company buying millions of acres of land from the government at $1 an acre is an unfair statement. There is a phase of truth in it and the worst kind of representation is the one with a phase of truth in it. What does it lack. It lacks the conditions of the dollar an acre, which were settlement conditions. If one farmer buys a lot of land for $1,000 with no condition and another farmer buys the adjoining lot for $1,000 with the condition that $500 must be expended in the erection of a house, is it not a concrete example that the one plot of land costs but $1,000 while the other, to all intents and purposes, is costing $1,500? That land was sold at $1 an acre with settlement conditions which some hon. gentlemen said were onerous, the settlement conditions were carried out and the country is flourishing and prosperous. The railway running between Regina and Prince Albert, I understand, traverses a country that is productive of good crops, and it does seem to me that the hon. gentleman has hardly been fair in his criticism regarding the Saskatchewan Valley Railway Company, when he says that we sold land for $1 an acre. He should have added that we sold it for $1 an acre subject to settlement conditions.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac).: The debate on the budget presented by the Finance Minister has this year followed much the same course as in former years. Very much the same array of figures has been presented by the Finance Minister and very much the same laudation of that hon. gentleman by his followers, the same tribute of bouquets has been laid at his feet at the conclusion of his address. But, Sir, I venture to say that never before in the history of this parliament or of any parliament in the British empire, or any other civilized country, has it taken a gentleman three days to deliver himself of the load which oppressed him, as it has taken the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. In the course of my professional career I have at times had to submit to some very long and weary hours of waiting, but, Sir, I confess that this is the longest accouchement I have ever attended-and I must say that the results are exceedingly disappointing. It has, it is true, passed through all the stages of first, second and third in each succeeding day. I .thought that from the very laboured and agonizing effort of the patient we would have had at least a trip-Mr. LOGGIE.
let of ideas to have added to the political nursery opposite. But, Sir, after all has been said and we have looked about for the results we find only a heterogeneous mass unworthy of notice except from the standpoint of the curio hunter, because I venture to say when you consider that mass in its entirety you find nothing like it in the heavens above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. The hon. gentleman in his remarks referred to the hon. member from North Essex as deserving the cognomen of the baby member. We on this side of the House, and I venture to say many on the pther side of the House, consider the baby member from North Essex as a very robust and promising youngster, and I am only sorry that when the member for North Essex was delivering his maiden speech in the House the Minister of Agriculture was not in his place, for I venture to say that if the minister had been in his place he would have been induced to revise his assertion that the farmers of this country were a slipshod and indifferent class of people. The suggestion of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat that the member for North Essex is deserving of the name of the baby member recalls to my mind that there is a time in the life of men, if they live long enough, which is called second childhood, and I did think, during the course of the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, that he had prematurely reached that second stage which is supposed to be peculiar to men of riper years.
Between the severe pangs which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Loggie) seemed to be suffering during the course of his speech he was able to tell us that the Conservative party had allowed corn in free for distilling purposes. Well, I have before me the tariff of 1894 and the tariff of 1907, and I can tell the House that the statement of the hon. gentleman in that regard is absolutely incorrect, and that the duty on corn for distilling purposes under the Conservative regime was 7J cents per bushel, and the duty is the same to-day. Further, the Conservatives permitted corn which was to be planted and sown for soiling and ensilage to come in free of duty. The Liberal party did remove the duty from corn, and that was a benefit to farmers in certain parts of the country. but it bore hardly on the people of the county represented by my hon. friend from North Essex. But, when this government took the duty off American corn they neglected a splendid opportunity of conferring a great benefit upon the farmers of Canada in not exacting from the United States a quid pro quo that they would remove the duty from Canadian barley. Then, the hon. gentleman told us that the only article in regard to which the system

of protection had been retained by the present administration was bacon, on which the duty is two cents a pound, the same as it was before. He said that bacon stood all by itself in this connection. Now, I would like to know from the hon. gentleman how he could possibly make such a statement in view of the actual facts. Has this government changed the duty on butter or on cheese? Was the duty on biscuits changed? Yes, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Loggie) might answer that the duty was raised on sweetened biscuits and that is where that great and illustrious statesman, that apostle of freedom of trade, the Minister of Customs, got in his work. The duty on biscuits was raised because the Minister of Customs is directly interested in the manufacture of biscuits. But, let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Loggie) take the Liberal tariff of 1907 and compare it with the Conservative tariff of 1894 and let him look at the two tariffs for the duties on blankets, bicycles, carriages, buggies, farm wagons, cottons, boots and shoes, and then let him see whether he will repeat his statement that bacon was the only article on which no tariff change had been made by the Liberal government. The Conservative Tariff of 1894, is the same on these and many other articles as the Grit tariff to-day. The statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Loggie) is simply astounding, and I can only say that the hon. gentleman either made the asertion with the deliberate intention of misleading this country or he spoke from the depths of the most profound ignorance.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: If the remarks of the hon. member convey that any hon. member of the House deliberately intended to deceive the House then his remarks would not be in order.


Mr. HENDERSON.: He qualified that by giving an alternative which I think removed anything which might be offensive.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is the right of the hon. gentleman to himself explain his remarks.


David Henderson: I beg your pardon, Mr. Sneaker; I am a member of this House.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The remarks of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) are not in order.


David Henderson: Then it must be supposed that I am not a member of the House.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: When an hon. gentleman is called to order it is his right to explain his remarks himself and not the right of any other hon. gentleman.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Surely any hon. member has a right to express his opinion on the question as to what the rule is.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The wording of the rule is that when a question of order is raised the Speaker 'may' allow debate. The first step is that the member called to order has the right to explain his words. Until that step has been taken the other point cannot be decided.


John Graham Haggart: It is a new rule in this House that the Speaker 'may' allow a debate. I have been in the House for a great many years and the privilege has always been allowed members of the House to discuss questions of order with the Speaker and with the House.


John Wesley Edwards: Would you tell me, Mr. Speaker, what Temarks I have to withdraw?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I may not have caught the hon. gentleman's words exactly, but he appeared to me to be using language to indicate that an hon. member of this House had used expressions deliberately intending to deceive the House. If that be so the hon. member was out of order.


John Wesley Edwards: If I said he deliberately intended to deceive the House I certainly said what I did not intend to. The statement I thought I made was that either the hon. gentleman made his assertions with the intention of deliberately deceiving the country-I know he could not deceive this House-or that he spoke from the most profound depths of ignorance; either the one or the other. It seemed to me I was justified in that assertion because he is not a new member of this House, and with the tariffs before him plainly setting out that on dozens of articles the duty is precisely the same today as it was in 1894 under the Conservative government, how could the hon. member possibly make the assertion that the only item which had not been changed was the duty on bacon. Now, the hon. gentleman also referred to the duty on *oils. I find that the duty on illuminating oils in 1894 was 25 per cent and in 1907, 20 per cent, so there is a reduction there. There has been a reduction in the duty on coal oil, but I call attention to the fact that this government has done what the Conservative government did not do; in the years 1905, 1906 and the nine months of 1907 this government has paid out no less than $907,757 in bounties to the oil people. They went to the people and said: See what we have done for you. See how we have reduced the duty on coal oil for your benefit. The coal oil man did not like this. Then the government turned

around to the coal oil men and said: Keep quiet, we are experts in this business and we will put our hands in the public chest and take out $907,000 of the people's money to pay you back. That is the position.
The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat made some reference to the spending of the money of this country for public: works. It seems to me that the hon. member for Northumberland is not in a position to express an independent opinion with regard to spending the money of this country on public works. My reason for saying that is that the records show that that hon. gentleman has had his feet in the political pap trough himself and has been drawing very largely for his own benefit from the public funds.


William Stewart Loggie: I would like to take exception to that statement of the hon. gentleman. It is not a statement of fact. I have never personally had one dollar of public money from the hands of the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


John Wesley Edwards: Not quite so soon. If I have misstated anything in reference to the hon. gentleman, I will take it back, most willingly, but, if I am not mistaken,
I presume the House will bear' me out in my statement.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I must again point out to the hon. gentleman that when an hon. member of this House denies a statement made with regard to himself, that denial must be accepted.


John Wesley Edwards: Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, that if I make a statement of fact and am prepared to prove that statement I must withdraw it because another man says that it is not correct?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: No, that is
not the ruling of the Chair. The ruling of the Chair, as well as the rule of the House, is that when a menw ber ..of this House makes a statement with regard to the act of another member, and when that other member denies the accuracy of that statement, that denial must be accepted. It may be open to him by other process to proceed, tout the rule of the House is that the denial must be accepted.


Mr. SPROULE.: Would it not toe properly in order for the hon. member after that to go on and give the grounds upon which he made the statement?


Mr. MACDONALD.: Not at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I take it that is quite in order.	*


John Wesley Edwards: If you will permit me I
will

	,


John Wesley Edwards: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


John Wesley Edwards: I am speaking to Mr. Speaker at present.


Mr. NESBITT.: That does not matter.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order; I have to hear what the hon. gentleman desires to say.


John Wesley Edwards: If you will permit me I will give the item in the accounts which justify my statement, and then if you say I must accept the hon. gentleman's denial, I will do so.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think, although it may not seem fair to the hon. gentleman, that the rule is explicit, and I have in my own practice endeavoured to enforce it, that when the words or the acts of an hon. member are called in question his denial has to be accepted. There are other means, no doubt, by which the hon. gentleman may proceed, tout the rule seems explicit that the plain denial of an hon. gentleman of an act attributed to him must be accepted.


John Graham Haggart: May I toe allowed to say a word upon the subject? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) accepts the denial of the hon. member opposite (Mr. Loggie) who says that what my hon. friend says it not so. Surely my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) is entitled to make a statement justifying the statement that he makes here. Is it not open to him to say: Here is the reason I assign for making the statement, but if the hon. gentleman denies it I withdraw it?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It has not yet reached that stage. The hon. member for Frontenae has not yet accepted the denial of the hon. member for Northumberland.


John Wesley Edwards: I shall certainly abide toy your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and accept the denial ol the hon, gentleman, and I will go about the matter in another way. I find that the Auditor General-not the member for Frontenae, but the Auditor General-in his report for 1908, volume 3, page V-199, says that W. S. Loggie, not W. S. Loggie, Limited-that appears of course, in a good many oases in different parts of the accounts, as we all know, and, the hon. gentleman appears very largely in the accounts-but W. S. Loggie received moneys in connection with an expenditure made at Shippegan harbour, New Brunswick, in connection with public works.


William Stewart Loggie: I wish to say that notwithstanding what is stated in the Auditor General's Report, I have not received personally a dollar of public moneys.


John Wesley Edwards: 40 years on dutiable imports, was 23-195 and on the total imports 17-772; and the average rate on dutiable goods from all countries was 26-349 and on the total imports 17Comparing these figures you will find that the average ad valorem rate of duty charged to-day by this government on dutiable goods and on the total goods coming from Great Britain and the United States and all countries, is higher than the average rate during the 40 years on goods, dutiable and non-dutiable from Great Britain, from the United States and from all countries. That seems to me to bear out the statement made by this side of [DOT] the House that there has been comparatively little change in the tariff, that the tariff of to-day is a protective tariff in principle and in fact, as it was when the Conservatives were in power, that in fact the tariff of this government is the policy of the Conservative party carried out with comparatively few changes.
Some may say that the average ad valorem rate of duty for the 40 years is lower than the average rate charged by this government because of the revenue tariff said to have prevailed during the Mackenzie regime. But as an offset to that, I would refer to the figures of the previous years from 1867 down to the time when the Mackenzie government came into power, and you will find that the average ad valorem rate was lower then than when the Mackenzie goverinment was in power. That was the condition which prevailed up to 1878 when that great statesman, the late Sir John Macdonald, inaugurated the National Policy, believing that our people would be best served by adopting a policy which would protect all classes from undue competition by other countries. That policy was inaugurated in 1878, and that is the policy which, with slight changes, I am glad to say, is being carried out and to which the great prosperity of the country is entirely due. Another matter which is often referred to by hon. gentlemen opposite is preferential trade with Great Britain. I have only one or two figures to give on that subject. In 1896, of the total imports of Canada, 31 per cent came from Great Britain and in 1908 less than 27 per cent. On the other hand, in 1896, Canada received 50 per cent of her total imports from the United States, and in 1908 the proportion had risen to 56 per cent. Of imports free of duty, we took from Great Britain 22 per cent in 1896 and only 17 per cent in 1908, while the proportion from the United States during the same time rose from 64 per cent to 70 per cent. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that there is nothing in the argument of the adverse balance of trade. But they used to declare that Canada's natural market was the United Mr. EDWARDS.
States. For years they went up and down this country preaching the doctrine that Canada should look to the United States, and even went so far, in 1891, that they would have bartered Canada and Canada's honour for Yankee dollars; they would have given this country away to the United States, or would have adopted the policy that must have had that result. Yet the *figures prove that this country, with its population of seven million, is a better market for the people of the United States than is the United States with its population of ninety millions for us. In 1908 the United States provided us with a market for $96,900,000 of our goods, but in the same year our smaller population afforded for the people of the United States a market for $214,000,000 worth of their goods. There was thus an adverse balance of trade for Canada of $118,000,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that cuts no figure. But will any man in this House say that he would not prefer to have those figures reversed? Will any man say that it would not be better for Canada if we were selling the United States $214,000,000 worth while they were selling us $96,000,000? In 1908, we bought from the United States $1,254,704 worth of horses. And what market did they afford for our horses? They took $900,000 worth. Why was this? As I stated last session and repeat to-day, it is largely because our tariff discriminates against the Canadian farmer, that is, under the tariff arrangements, it is easier for the American farmer to bring stuff into Canada than for the Canadian farmer to get his stuff into the United States. In this same year, 1908, we bought from the United States 1,123,336 dozen of eggs, allowing these eggs to come in here on paying a duty of three cents a dozen. When the Conservatives were in power, the duty was five cents a dozen, the same as the Americans charged us. We lowered our wall, we opened our gates, and the result was that they sent over more than a million dozens of eggs. Then, we went across the ocean to hunt up a market for our surplus eggs, for the United States would receive from us only 32,991 dozen. We find a similar condition in regard to bacon. We imported 7,304,187 pounds of bacon from the United States in 1908, charging a duty of two cents per pound. But the Americans put a duty of five cents per pound on our bacon, and so we sent into the United States only 30,294 pounds. If there is nothing in this, it seems very strange that the figures should all point one way. In this great wheat producing country, we bought from the United States in 1908, 5,803,452 bushels of wheat, which we allowed to come in at a duty of 12 cents per bushel. And we sold to the United States 114,926 on which they

charged us the duty of 25 cents a bushel. I maintain that that is a decidedly unfair policy to the farmers of this country. I entirely agree with the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Wilcox) who touched on this matter in his very able speech the other day, and I believe the farming community of the constituency he so ably represents will back him up in what he says.	.
We have in this House a very worthy and able gentleman, who, however, so far as _ trade matters are concerned, is a rara avis. I refer to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) who is a theoretical free trader. That hon. member, so far as his utterances on trade matters are concerned, occupies a position in this House of splendid isolation. I can imagine that when he left his native land to come to Canada-and I am sure that it was a good thing for Canada when he came, and I hope that hundreds more just like him will leave their native shore to take up their home here; this country will be the better for their coming-he must have been impressed with what had been repeatedly set forth by the grit party of Canada, that they would abolish protection-that they would not leave a vestige of it-that they would cut it out root and branch-that thev would cut off the head of protection and trample on its body. I can imagine the hon. member for Red Deer, when he looked over the papers and saw utterances of that kind, would naturally ally himself with the Liberal party when he came to this country, assuming that, with the Liberal party in power at Ottawa, protection must have been abolished and free trade established. He started to build his house and found that the bricks he used were protected by a duty. The dressed lumber that went into that house had also a protective duty upon it. The hon. gentleman found that the glass put in his windows had a protective duty, nor was there any grit ready to tell him that the Conservative party when in ppwer had largely reduced the duty on window glass.. The putty the hon. gentleman used in fastening in the glass, and even the putty-knife he used in the work \\ ere protected under the tariff. Going into his house, the hon. gentleman sat on a protected chair, at a protected table, with dishes upon the table protected by duties kept up by this free trade Grit government. The food that he eats in many instances, with the exception of tea and coffee, which were made free by the Conservatives, is also protected by a duty. He steps outside to reflect upon these things. He fills his protected pipe with protected tobacco and lights it with a protected match-all under the rule of the free trade Grit government of Canada. Finally he looks around, and he spies a piece of binder .twine, and in his
joy he would decorate that piece of free binder twine with love knots of baby ribbon if it were not for the fact that the ribbon had to pay a duty. But he finds this piece of free binder twine, and he gets hold of a piece of fence wire, and he goes to work to make a fence but he has to use a protected hammer. But he finds these two things, and he lauds the Liberal party, which he calls the free trade party of Canada. He has found a piece of free binder twine and he has found a piece of wire; and he told us a few days ago that lje could not find where the Conservatives had done anything in the direction of free trade, or to help the farmer. He haj lost sight entirely of all these things I have enumerated, and which were put upon the free list by the Conservative party before the Grits came into power; and he now has the audacity to refuse credit therefor to the Conservative party.
Now there were one or two other things which are free under the present tariff. If the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), after building his house, wished, as I am sure he would, being a gentleman of artistic taste, to decorate the walls of his house with pictures, he would find under the tariff of this free trade grit government pictures which cost less than $20 he would have to pay a duty on. But if he has lots of money, and can pay $1,000 for a painting, or a pastel, then he will find that it comes into the country free of duty. Yet there are some persons who claim that this government is tending towards free trade. A few sessions ago my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaftner) proposed a resolution in this House, when the House was in committee, and what was the nature of that resolution? To reduce the duty on agricultural implements from 171 to 10 per cent. The hon. member for Red Deer says that he appreciates every move in the direction of a reduction of duty. I can understand that, holding the free trade opinions he does he is quite consistent in appreciating every reduction, no matter how small, as agreeing with his views. But I call his attention to the fact that when the hon. member for Souris brought that motion before this House, it was supported by the Conservatives, while every gentleman on the opposite side who claim that they are supporting a government which does all it can for the farmers, opposed it; and my hon. friend from Assinboine (Mr. Turriff) and my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) who, I think, were in the House at that time, also opposed it.
Now I want to call attention to a few militia matters, and I am sorry that the Minister of Militia, who was in the House a short time ago, is not now in his seat; I want to call attention to the manner in

*
which some of the money of this country has been squandered by the present administration. Take the case of the cottages for the Eoyal Military College at Kingston. They were contracted for at $77,739, 16 flat-roofed cottages, for men receiving about $400 a year. They have cost up to November 22, 1909, $90,995, being a cost over contract price of $13,256 or 17 per cent. That is not an isolated instance by any means. How did this come about? A favourite of the government is given a contract to put up a building. The first thing he has to do under his conrtact is to excavate, to make a cellar for the building. He goes to work, and after a while he comes back and says, I have found a little rock there instead of earth, and I want more money. Now the rock under those buildings was a shaly kind of rock that did not require any great effort to get it out. But he went to the Minister of Public Works, and that hon. gentleman hands over $1,777 to this contractor for what the contractor says is rock. The same thing is done in regard to other items in connection with that building. Now, when I asked the Minister of Public Works in reference to this building, what work was let by tender and what work was let without tender, I was informed that there were three items amouimng to $6,227 which he said had been let by tender, when it was subsequently shown that the only man who put in a figure on them was the man who was given the original contract. If that is not a misrepresentation of the true state of things, then I cannot understand what misrepresentation means. Then this government went to work and built some stables for the college. For these a contract was let for $6,990, and the cost was $8,573, an excess of $1,583 or 22 per cent. Those stables were built in 1905, and there has not been a horse inside of them from that day to this. Yet we are told to regard this government as one practising economy, and looking carefully after the expenditure of public money, as a government .combining all the qualities of sagacity and statesmanship. Then we have the Eoyal Military College riding establishment. That was to provide a residence for the men who were to look after those horses that, have never been in the stable built five years ago. The contract price for that building was $9,490. They advertised for tenders in 1908, the building is not quite complete yet. Now it is a singular thing that after they let a contract for the building which the contractor says is going to cost $9,490, they turn around and tell us that the estimated cost of that building is $15,000. The fact in regard to these buildings is that they did not attempt to complete them at the contract price. The contractor gets all he can grab out of them. I was in the cottages that were built for the Mr. EDWARDS.
soldiers at Kingston, and notwithstanding the fact that the contractor had drawn some $90,000 for putting up these sixteen cottages, there was not a hook nor a shelf in one of these cottages. When the soldiers moved in they had to hang their hats and coats on the floor until they went to work and put up shelves and hooks. I find in the Auditor General's Eeport for 1909 at page V-81 that in connection with the residence being put up as a riding establishment-and mark you it is a residence for people, not a horse stable, an item of $43 for a concrete manure pit. Of course they have a way of getting out of that through the kind intervention of the hon. member for Northumberland, (Mr. Loggie), who says that you must not believe what appears in the Auditor General's Eeport. The report also says that in this residence there are tin-lined oat-bins. Are they going to feed the soldiers living in that dwelling on oats. I dare say some of them are Scotchmen and would not object to oatmeal, but feeding them on oats is going too far. There are other items, such as twenty saddle racks to be put up in this residence. Why were these items attached to the riding establishment? Of course they belong to the Eoyal Military College stables but they did not want the expenditure in connection with that building to run up any higher, especially as the building was constructed five years ago, and so they charged these things to another work entirely.
Then we have the new rifle ranges near Kingston. If you travel east out of Kingston, along what is called the Front road, you pass through property belonging to this government. On the right, on the south side of this road, the rifle ranges formerly were situated near where Sir Eichard Cartwright has his residence on the property belonging to this government. For about a mile . and a half back of the butts there is government property. But Sir Eichard Cartwright wanted a portion of that land for himself. The government leased 75 acres to Lady Cartwright in 1905 for $55.25 and another 100 acres for $42.96. That is a total of 175 acres leased for $102.22, or an average of 58 cents an acre. The Minister of Militia says that land is mostly rocky and stony. The assessment roll pf the township of Pittsburg, in which that land is situated, says that there are 95 acres cleared. You would think that Sir Eichard Cartwright was getting that land cheap enough at 58 cents an acre, but I am credibly informed that that hon. gentleman has been cutting and selling wood and timber off this land which belongs to this government and which has been practically given to him for a summer residence. Sir Eichard Cartwright objected to having the rifle ranges on the same side of the road

as he lived, and consequently they were moved across the road and new ranges built at an expense of $12,000. Here again, notice the wonderful statesmanship and sagacity of this government. Just back of the rifle butts, which were built at the foot of a hill, so that when the targets were lowered to be repainted, they fell into the water, they built an embankment to stop any stray bullets which might go beyond the butts. They built this embankment of earth and built it within 100 yards of the foot of a hill which rises 12 or 15 feet higher than the top of the embankment. And yet we are told that this government is composed of statesmen and men looking after the interests of the people. In order to have the rifle ranges on their present site it was necessary to acquire property, so they bought 34-37 acres from one man, giving him $100 an acre, $3,437. Their agent then went to a couple of maiden ladies who lived alongside and frightened these ladies into selling 55-37 acres of similar land for $1,952, or $35 an acre. That is the statement of these ladies, that the agent went to them and told them if they did not accept the $35 an acre for the land, the government would take their land anyway. That is not an isolated instance. They went right along the line and ruined half a dozen farmers in that township by chopping off 40 or 50 acres from the farms, practically ruining those farms. Take a farm of 75 acres and chop off 35 acres and who wants to buy that reduced farm? It would be impossible to make a living off it. This the government have done, sending agents to these people and offering them $40 an acre, saying: If you do not take that you will not get anything. That is what this government has done and -why? Because one of the cabinet ministers wanted a summer residence on property owned by the government on the opposite side of the road. The right hon. leader of the House has in the past expressed some anxiety lest we drift in the direction of militarism. Let us see how far this government has drifted in this direction. From 1868 to 1872 the militia expenditure of this country was $5,759,487. From 1873 to 1877 it was $4,913,879. From 1878 to 1895 it was $20,889,657, which includes the extraordinary expenses connected with the Northwest rebellion in 1885. For the last fourteen years of Conservative rule the average expenditure was $1,337,604.
If you deduct the extraordinary expenditure caused by the Northwest rebellion, the average expenditure for militia and defence during the last fourteen years of Conservative rule was less than $1,000,000 per year. And yet, the leaders of the Liberal party were then howling from one end of the country to the other about the enormous expenditure on Militia and Defence.
Let lis make a comparison. The total militia expenditure from 1896 to the present, under Liberal rule, has been $48,444,801, or an average of $3,460,344 per annum, and of this the enormous sum of $23,177,120 has been expended by this 'economical, wise and sagacious government during the past four years, or an average of $5,794,280 per annum. And, we are asked to vote for next year $6,876,700, which no doubt will be swollen to $7,000,000 when we get the supplementary estimates. Compare this huge expenditure under Liberal rule with the expenditure of $947,202 per annum during the last fourteen years of Conservative rule, and which was denounced by the Liberal party then as extravagant, and as drifting to militarism. Why, during the Northwest rebellion the total expenditure on militia by the Conservative government was less than one-half the expenditure the Liberals are making in this time of blessed peace. How is it that so much money is being wasted by the present government in military matters? It is because the policy of the government is directed to keening up a lot of high officials who are simply living on the country and are absolute!" useless and some of whom draw cabinet ministers salaries. I quote from figures published in the Kingston ' Standard ', a newspaper which is usually correct in its statements, and those figures, just for Kingston mind you, show, that in the Ordnance Store Corps there are three officers drawing $5,566 per annum and that the rest of the force, non-coms, and men get $7,308 per annum. What an economical and wise government? In the Canadian Army Pay Corps there are four officers drawing $4,103. Take the district staff and there you have six or seven officers drawing $14,887. Take the Canadian Army Service Corps and you have four officers getting $3,719 per annum and the non-commissioned officers and men all told only get $7,295. Take the Permanent Medical Corps and one officer there gets $2,995 per annum, or more than all the non-coms, and men put together, and would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, he is not satisfied with that; he engages in his regular practice, draws his $2,995, takes the uniform off one of the soldiers, puts him in civilian clothes, and uses him as his man of all work around his house and premises, and the country pays for it. What a wise, sagacious and economical government. Take the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and you find that the officers draw $28,148 per annum, while the non-coms, and men draw $85,525. Out of a total expenditure of $162,000 for militia and defence at Kingstone, over $60,000 went to these officers; and that is only a small piece of it; you have got the same sort of thing, only worse, in Ottawa. Talk about increasing the efficiency of your militia, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not at the



[Stage Direction]
bottom, it is not among the men who form the rank and file that you want to commence, but you must begin at the top and weed out 'the men whose only claim on this country is the amount of attention they can attract by the quantity of gold braid and lace they can put on their clothes. But that is not all. We have in Kingston a military college which is regarded as one of the best schools of the kind in the world, and which deserves a well earned reputation because of the men it has turned out. And why is it, Mr. Speaker, that graduates of the Royal Military College must be put to one side and men brought over from England to occupy the positions they should occupy. Is that fair and just to the young men of this country? I say it is not. I am just as much a Britisher as any man in this House, but I am a Canadian and I say that if an Englishman comes over to Canada to take an additional course in our military college alongside of Canadian youth, and if there are offices which require men to fill them, I say that the Canadians should get the preference every time. Such is not the policy of this government just now, and I say it is only another instance that they are moving in the direction of militarism. The idea of this country spending $7,000,000 a year on Militia and Defence! What is it for? I ask in all earnestness for what do we spend this money. Last year when the Minister of Militia asked the House to vote $6,000,000 he said it was because of:
The necessity of maintaining an armed force for repelling invasion in case any attempt of that kind should unhappily be made.
Repelling invasion from whom I would like to know. Is it from the United States he expects invasion? If so, why did this government deliberately with its eyes wide open permit the United States to put their war vessels on our Great Lakes and absolutely place all central Canada at the mercy of that country. Why, in 1812 the American general spent one whole summer making boats to transfer his soldiers across to the Canadian side. But to-day there are hundreds of American steamers, which, protected by armed cruisers which this government in its assinine policy has permitted on our Great Lakes, can convey thousands and tens of thousands of American soldiers across to this side. Talk about a naval policy; if we are going to defend this country the place for us to start is to put a Canadian fleet equal to the American fleet on the Great Lakes. If, in the event of war-which I do not-expect and which nobody expects-in the event of war between this country and the United States, it is an undeniable fact that because of the carelessness and negligence of this sagacious government, all central Canada has Mr. EDWARDS.
been placed absolutely at the mercy of the United States.
I want to refer to one or two statements that were made during the address of the hon. member for Assiniboine. The hon. . member referred to a want of unity on this side of the House. He also referred, to tlhe naval question. He referred to the .speech made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), then to the statement made by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr.1 Monk), and then to the statement made by my hon. friend for Digby (Mr.^ Jameson).
It has been the policy of the Liberal leaders and their subsidized Grit press* from one end of Canada to the other to do their best to belittle the leader of the opposition in the eyes of the people of this country.
I want to tell them that we on this side of the House are proud of our leader. We are proud of him, not only because of his splendid abilites, but because of his uniform courtesy and unwavering loyalty to Canada and the British empire. Not only are the members on this side of the House proud of the leader of the opposition, but every hon. member on the opposite side- of the House is proud of him as well. They have a right to he proud of him, and the people of Canada are proud of him. But, forsooth, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier expressed an opinion which somewhait differed from that of the leader of the opposition. I venture to say that there is not a man on either side of this House butj what would say that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, when he expresses an opinion, is expressing an opinion which is conscientious, and I want to ask why he should not differ from me or from any man in this House if he is honestly expressing what he believes to be in the best interests of the country? Our leader is not a leader who is given to taking any member by the throat and throttling him into submission. That is not the kind of leader we' have, thank God. Talk about unity in the ranks. I am sick and tired of having that kind of talk hurled across the floor of the House. Unity in the ranks. Why, last session, the hon. member for York, New Brunswick (Mr. Crocket) put the hon,. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) through a political Turkish bath in this House that he will not soon forget. Then what did we find? After it was done, after the hon. Minister of Public Works had gone through all the processes of a Turkish bath, the massage and everything else, and after he had come out steaming hot, a vote was called. That vote meant the speedy retirement of the hon. gentleman from the position which he adorned. What was the result of the vote? The majority was cut down about one-half, because, notwithstanding the unity across the way, a great many hon. gentlemen opposite could

not swallow it and they skipped out. But their loyalty to the party came in, and they were told to come forward and sign their names to a document declaring that they believed in the integrity, the uprightness and everything else that was good and holy of the Minister of Public Works, and like little whipped school children they walked up and signed their names. Talk about party loyalty! What is the measure of party loyalty as accepted by hon. gentlemen opposite? The measure of their party loyalty is represented by sawdust wharfs, Aylesworth ditches, Saskatchewan land deals, Merwin deals and McAvity steals. How was their loyalty measured in 1891? It was measured by a policy which expressed willingness on the part of the Liberal party to barter this country and this country's honour for Yankee dollars. Still they dare to stand up and throw the taunt of a want of unity and a lack of loyalty to the party on this side of the House. Where has the Conservative party been found on every occasion when loyalty and adhesion to the empire were called for? What was the position of the Liberal party when war broke out in South Africa^? It was not until the Conservative party and public sentiment drove them, actually drove them, that they consented to allow our soldiers to go in defence of the empire. This country .made money out of that deal. Great Britain sent over $10,000,000 to this government to expend for stuff that was used during the war. Our total cost was less than $2,000,000, and we made over $8,000,000 clear money out of the South African war. looking at it from a purely financial standpoint, and it is proposed now to spend the money that we made in connection with the war, the money that was won with the blood of Canadian heroes on the veldt of South Africa, upon a tin-pot fleet. Yet, hon. gentlemen opposite throw taunts across the floor of this House as to our loyalty and as to the loyalty of the Conservative party. How many positions has the right hon. gentleman who leads the party across the way assumed in connection with this naval proposition? He came before this House last session and agreed to a resolution. He claimed in Toronto the credit for moving that resolution initiating the matter. In some places in the country, I suppose, where they do not regard it as well, blame is put on the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). But, at all events, the resolution was put through this House unanimously. Then we find another change. He comes to us and says that not a ship shall go to the assistance of the mother country without the consent and sanction of this parliament, and he calls upon the Grit organs from one end of Canada to the other to pipe that tune, and upon the hon. member for Assini-boine (Mr. Turriff) to dance to it. He
dances to it and they all dance to it. Then he goes to the Conservative city of Toronto, the loyal city of Toronto, and he tells the people there: We will send our fleet to the assistance of the motherland if she is severely pressed. He orders the organs to pipe to that tune, he orders the hon. member for Assiniboine to dance to that tune, and the organs pipe the tune and the hon. member for Assiniboine dances to it. Now he oomes down with a proposition for a tin-pot navy and, of course, they will dance to that tune. That is the measure of their party loyalty. Loyalty of that kind is a synonymous term with the word servility.
Mr. Speaker, I have probably taken up more of the time of the House than I should have done. But, at least I have not taken up three days like the hon. member for Northumberland. I thank this House for the attention it has given to me during my remarks in 'connection with the budget.
Mr.  C. L.@: OWEN (Northumberland, Ont.) My hon. friend the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) refers several times in his speech to the hon. member for Northumberland. There are two or three members for Northumberland and I would like him to be more definite and say which one he means.


John Wesley Edwards: The point raised is certainly one worthy of consideration. I, of course, made no reference to my hon. friend from North Northumberland, Ont. (Mr. Owen) but to the hon. gentleman from Northumberland, New Brunswick, (Mr. Loggie), who preceded me in this debate, and I wish that to be explicitly understood.


Mr.  E. W.@: NESBITT (North Oxford.) If I had any desire to be rude or sin against the amenities of debate, I could easily reply in like! manner to the unkind remarks made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Edwards) regarding the speech of my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie). I have no intention, however, of following the hon. gentleman in that line, nor shall I follow him through the course of his long and wearisome remarks, except to make a brief reference to that portion of his speech towards the end in which he became so excited. The hon. gentleman pointed out that in our military system we paid the officers higher than the men. Well. I think that if he would search through all the countries where there is a military system in existence he will find that the officers are usually paid higher than the men. But he should also bear in mind that the militia of Canada is a very small body and that its principal object is to train officers in case tnere might be

trouble, so that naturally there is a greater proportionate number of officers than there would be in a regular military system. As regards the cottages at Kingston, which have always bothered the hon. gentleman, at least since I have been a member of this House, that expenditure was thoroughly explained in the Committee of the Whole when the estimates were being passed. The explanation was then accepted by the House and I do not see that there was anything in that expenditure for the hon. gentleman to become so excited about.
As regards the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) I have only to say that I throw back his challenge to the hon. gentleman, and I tell him it is absolutely untrue that we on this side were driven to support that hon. minister, at any time. The only reason why the vote was less when the Minister of Public Works was challenged in this House was because our hon. friends snapped the verdict, and no one knows that better than the hon. gentleman. I do not know a man on this side of the House who was not perfectly willing and anxious to vote on that occasion in support of the hon. minister; and so far as I am concerned, I must say that I have never, either in public or private life, seen anything more disgraceful than the attack made on that minister, for which there was not an iota of proof or basis.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: And hon. gentlemen opposite are well aware of it. As regards the rest of the speech by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) it was simply the same old story told in the same old way, and it would be wasting the time of the House to discuss it.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance and the government on the very excellent budget statement brought down to the House. It is quite true, as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and other gentlemen opposite claim, that the farmers of the west are responsible to a certain extent for the financial statement and also that to the farmers of other portions of the country credit for the good results is due. And I might add that the manufacturers and their operatives, the merchants, the clerks, and in fact all the workers in this Dominion, have contributed to the great prosperity we enjoy. But that does not take away one particle of the credit due the government and the Minister of Finance. When a large manufacturing industry proves successful, no one doubts that the success is due in a large measure to the operatives employed in that industry, but none the less, no one would dream of taking from the management, on that account, the credit for its Mr. NESBITT.
good showing. It seems to me that hon. gentlemen opposite, in their speeches on the budget, ought to try to be reasonably reasonable. I have never seen anything gained by misstatements of facts.
I am pleased to know that the Minister of Finance has transferred from capital account to income the expenditure on our arms and public lands and that he has told us he agrees to a large extent with the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in his contention that the bounties should have been charged to income. Personally I think they should, but I think the explanation of the Minister of Finance is quite reasonable, when he says that he simply followed the usual system of bookkeeping and charged the bounties to capital account just as we have been accustomed to charge subsidies to railways to that same account. I notice with a great deal of pleasure the statement of the Minister of Finance that the principal bounties will expire in December, 1910, but while I agree with my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) the bounties themselves are a vicious form of taxation, I am not prepared to admit that they were unnecessary at the time. I am told that they were proposed in the first place by our friends opposite, but in any event. I have not the slightest doubt that when the government decided to pay these bounties they did so after giving the matter the most careful consideration, and I have not the slightest doubt that they were justified bv the circumstances. If you look back over the results which have followed, I do not think you can honestly say that these bounties were not justified. There can be no doubt that, in the opinion of the majority of people in this country, it was absolutely necessary to establish steel industries of our own which could compete with those of the rest of the world; and, if those industries are today on a good footing, it is no doubt due to that system of bounties. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that in this case the bounties have not been a benefit. In my opinion, they have been a great benefit to this country and abundantly justified by the results. But I am at the same time convinced that there is no longer need for renewing that system. I believe that the steel industry has been sufficiently established to be able now to take care of itself. But before leaving this subject, I would point out that, as the Minister of Customs has shown us, at the time the bounties were given there was a reduction made in the tariff which allowed outside steel to come in cheaper than it otherwise would. [DOT]
I listened with great attention to the criticisms of the hon. member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as I always do; for

I am not one of those so party-bound as not to admire ability on the opposition side, and I must confess that I look upon the hon. member for North Toronto as a gTeat critical speaker, a man of great capabilities. Therefore, I was much surprised that he allowed himself-I suppose from political partisanship-to be led into some extravagant statements, if not mis-statements, such as allow even a new member like myself and one not well posted in political matters to make corrections. Before going on with these corrections, I may say that I noted with pleasure that the Minister of Finance proposed, if he could, to pay the naval expenditure out of income. While I am just as willing as any member of this House to see the naval expenditure undertaken, I think the First Minister (Sir* Wilfrid Laurier) and the government have been very wise in the proposition they have brought down. It was a very delicate proposition and required very delicate handling. It is all very well for our friends of the opposition, who have no responsibility, to say what they would do and what they would not do. But if they were absolutely responsible, as is the Prime Minister for everything he says, you would find a very different tone in their utterances. The Finance Minister having stated that he will if he can, pay the naval expenditure out of income, I think it is the duty of every one of us, no matter on which side of the House he may sit, to assist him in every way possible to carry out that intention. The Finance Minister is the one who must give final sanction to all proposals of expenditure before they are made to the House. But the hon. minister-I am very glad to say-is only human after all. And when members on this side or on the other side, press upon the minister expressions that, possibly, could be avoided, it is only human for the Finance Minister, in some instances, to give way. I heard an hon. member on the other side say in a recent speech that it was good politics for members of the opposition to attack the Minister of Finance for his operations during the year, even though expedients had been pressed upon him by those who attacked him, and that it was only baby talk for us to plead the contrary. I hope there are not many members on the other side who hold that if the Finance Minister grants a request of theirs for something to be done, they have a right to throw it up to him at the end of the year as an unnecessary expenditure for which he is responsible. The hon. gentleman who spoke in this way, I am sure, was carried away by the excitement of the debate-for I know him to be a very decent fellow at heart-when he said he thought it creditable in politics to do a trick of that kind.
Now I wish to point out one or two things that, I think, were wrong in the criticisms offered by the hon. member for North Toronto in the early part of this debate. After criticising the budget from the budget standpoint-very lightly, I must confess-he went on to say in his own inimitable fashion, ' This is a business government, now let us see what this business government does.' And he immediately brought up the old story of the Newmarket canal. For some reason, hon. members on the other side of the House always laugh at members on this side when they attack the Newmarket canal expenditure, suggesting that we are ashamed of it. Was there any intimation in our vote, when that question was challenged in the House last session, that we were ashamed or afraid of this . expenditure on the Newmarket canal? I tell you, Mr. Speaker; it is either a very bold man or a very egotistical one who will say that any public work in this country will not be necessary. When you consider the progress the country is making, who can tell that anv given expenditure of public money is uselessly made? The Newmarket canal is within very easy range of a great growing city, the city of Torontp. I am sure that I have as much reason to prophesy that we should be very well pleased with the expenditure on the Newmarket canal inside of a few years, as hon. gentlemen opposite have to prophesy the contrary. The next item the hon. member (Mr. Foster) attacked was the St. Andrew's rapids. He dwelt on this in very glowing terms, he seemed to fairly smack his lips over this question. I wondered at the time what this St. Andrew's rapids question was. I did not know much about it, so I tried to find out. I have a letter here on the subject, which says:-
The encire structure is generally referred to as ' St. Andrew's Movable Dam.' It consists essentially of a concrete submerged dam; a steel superstructure of six main spans and a shore span. The top deck of the steel structure is a concrete floor and is to be used as a highway bridge. From the lower portions of the bridge are suspended steel girders or curtain frames on which are suspended in place and so arranged that they can be rolled by means of electrical machinery, curtains, or sets of wooden laths hinged together. These curtains and their appurtenances are for the purpose of regulating the level of the water above the dam for the purpose of navigation.
Between the western end of the dam and bridge and the lockport shore is a lock for the purpose of locking vessels past the dam. The location of these works is at St. Andrew's rapids, about twenty miles north of Winnipeg. Up to the present time navigation has been impracticable, except for small boats, mainly pleasure craft, and then only at certain seasons of the year.
There is no bridge becween this point and the outskirts of the city of Winnipeg, about



twenty miles south, and the highway on top of the dam will, no doubt, be a great convenience for thac section of the country.
I think that is all I need to read as to the advisability of building that dam. There is no bridge for twenty miles between this dam and the city of Winnipeg. Does any man tell me that, in that growing country, this bridge which is a highway, and a way for both foot passengers and vehicular traffic, is not necessary in the interests of that country? Now, the dam itself is of a kind new in America. I understand that there is one similar in principle in France, but the waste gates or shutters there are raised toy hand power, whereas in the case of the St. Andrew s dam the shutters are raised by electricity. Therefore, it is the only one of its exact kind, probably, in the world. Now the hon. member for North Toronto said that this St. Andrew's dam was 35 or 40 feet above the land-so he is reported in the * Hansard,' but I understood him to say 75 feet. I have the photographs of the dam here, also the tolue prints or drawings, and the actual measurement from the top of the dam to the land of the prairie sections is 23 feet. Therefore, the approaches will only have to be built to the height of 23 feet, not 75, or 35, or 40. The hon. 'gentleman is welcome to see these photographs and blue prints, to find out whether I am stating facts. The St. Andrew's dam was quoted to us as a striking example of the prodigal administration of this government, but I think I have shown very clearly that, on the contrary, it is a proof, if proof were needed, that this government is conducting our public affairs in a business manner and in an economical fashion.
Several hon. members on the opposition side of the House, including the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Edwards), have quoted figures to show that the duties collected under this government were just as high as the duties collected under the Conservative government. Now, why they should desire to show that, is more than I can understand. I suppose that most hon. members on the opposition side are in favour of a higher tariff, they believe in a protective duty, therefore why they should desire to show that the duty under the Conservative^ government was no higher than it is now, is more than I have been able to understand. Several hon. members have contended that the duties under the old government are not higher than they are now. Now there is no use discussing so large a question as the tariff by picking out some isolated instances; the only way to discuss it is by taking the tariff as a whole. If, therefore, you take the tariff as a whole, you will find that we are at present collecting a little more than thiee per cent less duty than the old government were collecting in 1896.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Some hon. gentlemen have argued that it averages about one per cent less. The only way we can arrive at the fact is to take into consideration the free imports, and contrary to what was said by the hon. gentleman from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), they are very much greater under this government than they were under the former government. But I will not dwell on the question of free imports, as it has been lengthily discussed already.	.
I will now briefly discuss the question of loans. The hon. member for North Toronto reiterated this year that the cost of obtaining loans under the present administration had been greater than the cost of obtaining loans during the 13 years undej- the previous administration. Well, Sir, I took the trouble to look up the facts. The hon. member for North Toronto contended that on account of the additional cost of obtaining loans by the present Finance Minister, the credit of Canada had been impaired. Now, 1 take issue with him on that statement. The actual commission for obtaining loans at present is the same now as it was before, but the method of obtaining loans is different. A Canadian Minister of Finance, whether he be Conservative or Liberal, has nothing whatever to do with the form of obtaining loans, he has to adapt himself to the method prevailing at the time. At present he has to float all loans through underwriters. I am not quarrelling with that custom, because I believe it is a good one. Formerly a loan was taken on the market, and as it was absorbed it was paid over. Now the loan is floated through underwriters, they are responsible, they have to do the advertising, they have to float the loan, in other words, they have to see that the loan is absorbed, and for doing this they charge a certain commission. Our recent loans have been floated at 98$. Now, let me say that the cost during the last 15 years, excepting the few short time loans that have been effected by the present administration, is in favour of the present Minister of Finance, not against him. I may say that I think the Minister of Finance was wise in floating the short time loans. You must remember that shortly after the present government took charge of affairs the Boer war occurred, when the whole resources of Great Britain were strained, so far as her borrowing power was concerned. Immediately following that was the Russia-Japanese war, and we all know how that raised the price of money. So I think the Minister of Finance showed his wisdom very clearly, in floating short time loans in place of long time loans, until money became cheaper in the money markets of the world. Now, the only fair comparison to make between i the two periods is to ascertain whether we

are getting loans now at the same ratio as other countries are getting them, which are practically in the same position we are. I will take a country that is growing very fast, a country whose credit is excellent, and that is the independent country of Argentina. It is stated that Argentina shipped to England last year 40 per cent of her foodstuffs. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I see it stated in some of the financial papers that Argentina shipped to Great Britain last year 41 per cent, to be accurate, of her foodstuffs. Now, the figures I am quoting are taken from the London Stock Exchange annual report. In December last her 34 per cent, with a 1 per cent sinking fund, were selling at 764, and our 34 per cent were selling at 101.
Austrian 4 per cent bonds were 1 -06. Their 3 per cents were 86 and our 3 per cents were 1 '01. Russian 3 per cents were 68, Chili's 44 per cents were 96. Germany's 3 per cents were -83. New South Wales 31 per cents were 89. New South Wales you know is part of the Australian confederation. It was stated in this House by an bon. member that the Australian Commonwealth had sold their bonds to better advantage than we did. I looked in all the monetary papers I could get, I looked in the report of the London Stock Exchange but could find no quotation of the Australian Commonwealth. I did find New South Wales and some of the other provinces but none of them compared with us so far as the price of bonds was compared.
Let us look now at the prices at which Canadian loans have been issued. Some of them were:
Year.	Amount.	Per cent.	Price.1884...	.. $ 5,000,000	34	$0 911885...	.. 4,000,000	4	1 011888...	.. 11,000,000	3	92-951897...	.. 2,000,000	24	0 91
The issue of 1897, the first year that the present Finance Minister was in office, was at the lowest rate of interest. Week before last we borrowed $4,000,000 at 34 . per cent and it was sold at 99. The Indian government in the same week issued 34 per cent bonds at 961. That is the most recent sale and speaks volumes for this country.
An hon. member in speaking of the tariff accused this government of allowing food stuffs to come in and thus discriminating against the farmer. He quoted some figures of imports among them being:
Articles.	Year.	Value of imports.Provisions.. .	. .. 1905	$1,000,000te	. .. 1908	4,000,000Lard	. .. 1904	67,000tc	. .. 1908	1,000,000Eggs	74,000. .. 1908	222,000724	Articles.	Year.	Value of Imports.Butter	.. 1906	64,000ft	.. 1908	192,000Green fruit...	.. 1905	2,000,000tt	.. 1908	5,000,000
The hon. member endeavoured to prove by these figures that we were differentiating against the farmer, or in other words that we were not protecting the farmer. If you take the trade and commerce or the customs report, you will find such things as canned fruit and vegetables in which there has been a large increase and yet the hon. member said that we are not protecting the farmer. We never pretended that our tariff was a protective tariff, we do not pretend that our tariff is a protective tariff. We say-and nothing in the world, if I were to talk for a week, would make it more emphatic than these figures-that our tariff is a revenue tariff. Whether we are creditable with the fact or not, but it is a fact apparently by these figures that these things have been coming in in larger quantities in the last few years, or in other words since the coming into power of the present premier and this government. If you examine the trade returns you will find that the bulk of the agricultural products that are now coming into Canada at the time this government came into power were supposed to be luxuries. Now, owing to the fact that the people of this country have progressed, they are no longer supposed to be luxuries. Take the item of green fruit. A few years ago strawberries and ripe tomatoes and things of that kind were only brought into the cities and by a very few people. Now nearly all our towns are able to purchase these things, before the Canadian articles come into the home market. You know that owing to the climatic conditions in the United States these early fruits and vegetables come from Virginia and all along the warmer border states and beginning in a short time from this date enormous quantities of these fresh articles will come into the cities and towns of this country. The people who years ago could not afford to buy these things now use them commonly. As to the farmers of this country I venture to say that I speak for ninety per cent, yes, ninety-nine per cent of the farmers when I say that they are not so narrow that they begrudge to other people the privilege of buying these things when they cannot supply them.
The hon. gentleman who preceded me said something about eggs and butter. Do you know that some butter has been imported into this country in the last year or two? "Why? Because the price of butter rose last year and it is now sold at an enormous price in most of our cities. It sold, at from 32 cents to 35 cents and last year it rose in Montreal to 40 cents a pound. Is it

any wonder then that we imported butter? Butter can be brought in only when the price is very high. Do you mean to say we should protect the farmer more than that? Do you mean to say it is not necessary for the people of the country, the ordinary consumer, to have butter and that we should increase the duty and increase the price of butter and eggs? Why the price of eggs is abnormal, almost prohibitive now without putting on a duty. I do not believe there is a farmer in this country who would ask to be further protected. Take for instance strawberries, which will be coming in in large quantities from the other side shortly and selling at prices which are prohibitive for me but still within the reach *of many people. I do not believe the strawberry raisers of this country are asking us to put on a higher duty so as to prohibit the people who can afford to do so, from bringing in strawberries or early potatoes or butter or eggs, in case the prices are abnormal. There is no fear of any of these things coming into Canada unless the prices here are abnormal.
The hon. gentleman who made these remarks at that time dwelt at some length on potatoes. To a small extent, potatoes may be imported from the United States into the Canadian towns along the border, but I venture to say that Canadians ship more agricultural products to Detroit and Buffalo and other large towns than the American farmers send into Canada. My hon. friend told us that he would put up the Canadian tariff as high as the American tariff, but with that I do not agree, for I believe the tariff is quite high enough in nearly all instances.


Mr. BLAIN.: What about pork?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am a farmer and I will tell the hon. gentleman that the tariff on pork is quite high enough to suit me, and I suppose I am about as greedy as any ordinary farmer. We can raise pork to-day against the American farmer-


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman differs from the hon. gentleman who represents the other part of this county, who moved to increase the duty on pork.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I cannot help what my hon. friend from the other part of the riding may do, but giving jny opinion as a farmer and not from any party or political point of view, I say that the present duty on pork enables us to compete with the pork producers of the United States, and I do not believe that there is any general demand amongst the farmers of Canada for an increase in the duty. I may state that with the exception of the town I live in, my constituency is agricultural, and before coming to this session I held three meetings in my county and at every one of them I asked if there was a man present who wanted a Mr. NESBITT.
higher duty on pork, and I got not a single affirmative answer. In my own experience I sold pork last week, and I sold some in November and October, and I got a very high price, a price which I am afraid was more than the ordinary consumer in Canada can afford to pay. So far as the Canadian farmer is concerned, there is no necessity in my opinion to put a higher duty on pork. Of course, the heavy pork used by lumbermen in the woods is imported, but I do not think the farmers should ask the government to penalize that by increasing the duty when there is in my opinion no necessity for it.


Richard Blain: Last session a large deputation, including representatives from my own county, interviewed the government, asking for an increased duty on pork.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have no wish to quarrel with these gentlemen, but I certainly am free to give my own opinion on the matter. My hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Miller) tells me that the Canadian agricultural paper is opposed to increasing the duty. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say a word about this story we casually hear from gentlemen opposite, that we do not give a preference to England. I speak entirely apart from any party motive, and 1 say that the reason why we do not appear to give a preference to England is that most of the free goods come from the United States, where they are produced, but if you look at the goods which pay duty you will easily discern that we do give a preference to England. Then again, I believe that the English manufacturers could very materially increase their trade with Canada if they took, proper means to do so. It is the commercial people of England who are largely at fault if they do not do a more extensive trade with Canada, because I believe that the ordinary manufacturer in this country would prefer to do business with England, if he could do it on an equal basis. But, the United States travellers are in our offices every day; they study our wants and they supply our demands, while the English traveller comes seldom and if he has not the goods we want he leaves us at that and does not try to meet our requirements. If the English manufacturers would study the trade conditions in Canada, I venture to say that in a year from now the balance of trade in manufactured goods would be turned from the United States to England. And, as to this adverse balance of trade against us, I cannot agree that it is to our disadvantage. When we go into business as individuals, we have first to erect our buildings and get in our machinery and be prepared to supply goods before we get a return. I believe that Canada is identically in the position of an individual in that respect. It is just starting up in business, and it is progressing so fast that the only

*wonder to me is that the balance of trade against us is not double what it is. When we are prepared to do business, as we will be in the course of a few years, the indications are that our exports will be great, and in the meantime the balance of trade against us, is simply an indication of the enormous energy and progress which this country is making. I for one am not disappointed that the balance of trade is against us, and I believe it will continue so for the next five or ten years, or so long as we are progressing as rapidly as we are.
Now, I believe Sir, that this government is not only doing the best it can for the present-and without fear of contradiction I hold it is doing remarkably well-but, it is looking to the future. The government has had engineers surveying the Welland canal, it has had engineers reporting on the Georgian Bay canal, it has had engineers reporting on the Hudson Bay railway, and all with a view to the future. And, let me say here, that the present Minister of Finance to whom I give all possible credit is one of the most capable men I have ever met in my life. They know very well that as long as the Transcontinental railway is going on it is impossible for us to do more at the present time. But, they are looking ahead fust the same as the manager of a large corporation looks ahead and that is all that we expect them to do. Whenever we are in a position to do so, this government, led by the right hon. the Prime Minister, of whom we are so proud, will undertake these other great works. That is all we can do. Now, I desire to say a wo.rd with reference to what the hon. member for Frontenac said as to their being proud of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I find no fault with that. There is no man in this House, even on his own side, who respects the leader of the opposition more than I do. But, I do not see why the hon. gentleman should get into such a flurry because somebody may have taunted hon. gentlemen opposite with not being proud of the leader of the opposition. As to the taunt thrown back on us by the hon. gentleman, there has been no time since I have been in this House when we followed the Prime Minister no matter what we were asked to do. We have had no reason that I know of since this government came into power to dispute any course that the Prime Minister has asked us to follow. I hope and believe that we never will have as long as the Prime Minister is spared, and I hope that he and also my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, will be long spared to guide the affairs of this country of ours.
At six oclock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No. 58) respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company-Mr. Mc-Giverin.
On section 5,
Nothing in this Act shall affect or impair the rights of the government of Canada under or by virtue of the provisions of the section submitted by section 5 of chapter 128 of the statutes of 1906 for section 43 of chapcer 103 of the statutes of 1894.
David Henderson: I see the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) in his place, as he always is, and I would like to ask him a question. What would be the effect if the government should decide to take over this whole work before the expiration of the time allowed by this Bill? Will the fact that we are extending the time for such a long period be a hindrance to the government in that case? May not the company say: We have rights to da with this matter for so many years, and we do not think the government should interfere with those rights. I believe that if ever this work is to be constructed it will be by the government and not by a private company.


Mr. GRAHAM.: The answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) will be found in this section. In 1906, to safeguard the government, a clause was inserted that the government, at any time, could take over this project by paying the money that had been expended bv this company. That provision is Te-enacted by this Bill. So, whatever powers the company may have, the government is protected by this section allowing the government, on behalf of the country, to take over the work at any time.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 29) respecting the Columbia and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Goodeve.
Bill (No. 36) respecting the Union Life Assurance Company.-Mr. McGiverin.
Bill (No. 59) respecting the St. Maurice Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Mayrand.
Bill (No. 68) respecting the Kettle River Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Burrell.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 78) respecting the Edmonton Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 98) respecting the Trust and Loan Company of Canada.-Mr. Doherty.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding: 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.'
Mr. GLEN. CAMPBELL (Dauphin).: I had hoped that I would not have to rise and address the House to-night, because I have been, with other western members, attending hockey matches the last few days, and my voice is not as good as I would like it to be. I tried to borrow the voice of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), but although he and I are always on friendly terms, he will not assist me to that extent, There are two or three matters upon which I would like to touch briefly. The first one relates to something that was said by the right hon. the First Minister, I think on the 16th of December, in answer to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). That hon. member asked him if he had made up his mind what seat he would sit for, and he replied in these words:
The moment the question is put in this way, 1 have no hesitation in answering it.
I am sorry the First Minister is not in his seat at this moment. Inasmuch as I had brought to his attention some days previously the question of his holding two seats, I feel that his answer I have just quoted was somewhat of a reflection on my courtesy. I do not want the right hon. gentleman, or any other hon. gentleman in this House, to think that I would be discourteous to him as a gentleman, in any way; but I always hold myself ready to fight gentlemen who are opposed to me in all matters political. If it was discourteous in me to put my question on that subject to the First Minister in the words that I used, I will have to reconsider my practice, and guard myself against falling into the error ^ of taking a precedent from the First Minister and using his words, as I did on that occasion. He told us, after speaking at some length upon the question, that he had not been asked to resign, either by one party or the other, in Quebec East or in the city of Ottawa. I used his words some days afterwards, and asked him if he had been asked to Asign, and he evidently thought that I was discourteous.


Mr. GRAHIM.: He surely knew that in the city of Ottawa there were several gentlemen of his political persuasion who were very anxious that he should resign, because they were fighting among themselves for his position when he vacated it. Their action reminded me of the text:
They parted my garments among them, and for my vesture did they cast lots.
That is what his friends have been doing in Ottawa, and when the vesture descended on the shoulders of one of those gentlemen in Ottawa a few days ago, the hon. the First Minister had to go out and take it back from him.
I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the speech of my hon. friend from Red Deer on the tariff. You will remember, Sir, that last session when I spoke of my hon. friend in this House, I used toward him some of our western language, and spoke of him as a political maverick. When I was listening to him the other day discoursing on the policy of this government in regard to bonuses, I was really glad, because I felt that the time had come to get a rope and catch him and put a brand on him. I felt sure that the hon. gentleman would be on this side of the House in future. But before he finished his speech I realized that had any of us on this side of the House been so ill-advised as to take him into our arms, and into our fold, and put a brand on him, we would before long have been arrested for stealing. When he wound up his speech I felt perfectly sure that if the Conservative brand was found on him, whoever put it on him would have been up for cattle stealing, or maverick stealing rather, and for the reason that my hon. friend would have been found, where he always is found, sucking the Grit cow.
He was somewhat unfair when he spoke of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in such a way as to lead the people in the country to believe 'that he formed part of a manufacturing firm. The hon. gentleman would have been a great deal fairer had he taken as an object lesson some of the gentlemen on his side of the House, who are the strongest protectionists in the country. Take, for instance, the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Harris). There is in the agricultural implement business in Canada a great octopus which has the farmers of the west in its grasp, and the hon. member for Brantford is connected more or less closely with that octopus in his business. The building up of that business has been due to this protection which my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) decried, and therefore the hon. gentleman would have been fairer had he cited in his argument the name of that gentleman. Or he might have taken my hon., friend from Kingston (Mr. Harty) one of the best and

dearest old protectionists in this House, and one of the great props of the present government. Or he might even have gone into the very inner circle and given us the name of the minister who spoke so loudly the other day-the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson). Why did not my hon. friend take him as an example, for he is one of the best protected manufacturers in Canada. When the Minister of Customs was speaking the other day so loudly of the reductions in the tariff, I thought he must have made a mental reservation .in favour of the biscuit business and considered that business as an exception to which the tariff for revenue principle ought not by any means to apply. He might also have spoken of my hon. friend the member for Proven-cher (Mr. Molloy), who is not a manufacturer, who comes from my own country and is one of the closest friends I have in this House personally, but f*om whom I differ absolutely in politics. The hon. gentleman might have spoken of him as<a protectionist, because he belongs to one of the closest protective associations which flourishes in Canada-a protective association that will allow no one, no matter how well qualified, to practice the profession it protects, unless he has taken a three year's course in a college; and yet up to last year there was not a college in the west where a Canadian could perfect himself to practise that profession. I was going to refer for a moment to my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark)-to that part of his speech where he spoke of some little incidents that came within his experience when he first went farming; but my hon. friend from Fronte-nac (Mr. Edwards) has so well spoken of that experience, that I shall not now touch on it. I listened with considerable pleasure to my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin) ; but I regretted that a gentleman of his ability should have undertaken the task of whitewashing the immigration policy of this government. But before touching on that point, let me say that I have seen in the newspapers lately the statement that we were going to lose him from this House, that he was going_ to be given a position of much greater importance locally-the Attorney Generalship of Saskatchewan. I want to congratulate the province of Saskatchewan as well as my hon. friend. Should that report prove true, I am sure that both sides of the House will regret his absence; but in the same newspaper article I saw a reference to the Premier of Saskatchewan to the effect that he was to come here and be a member of the cabinet. Well, should I happen to be in the House when Walter Scott re-enters it, I shall make that a red letter day in this parliament, because I will make the charges to his face which I have made behind his back and which are true. I do
not say this because Walter Scott is a Liberal or because I have any personal spite against him. In fact, I do not know him, but I say it advisedly. I have seen the proofs and I believe he is absolutely a Judas, a traitor to the people. But what I wish particularly to refer to is the statement of my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin) made with regard to the Galicians. Let me compare the treatment meted out to these people by the two governments. The Liberals, it is true, brought them out. They brought hundreds of them into my special district, the district of Dauphin. They dumped those people into that country without giving them any proper aid to enable them to select fit lands. They put them into a country where there were stones and sand, stumps and soakage from the mountains; and when they did not have the stones and stumps, they had the brush and the bush, and the Liberal government expected those people to be able to take care of themselves. They did nothing further in their interests. But on the other hand, when the Conservative government of Manitoba found that those people had come into our midst, that government recognized the fact that they had to be taken care of and that the best policy was to make as good citizens out of them as we could and as fast as we could. Our Conservative government in Manitoba went to work and gave grants of public money to the Galicians for the purpose of draining their settlement. They not only gave them the money, but gave them the work, so that these Galicians had the money expended among themselves granted by the government for the purpose of making good roads. Our Conservative government went further. They sent educated men among those people to teach them the English language and other things necessary.
They sent agents among those people to educate them so that they would.learn that the school influence was the best influence to show them how to become good citizens. After a year or two of labour in that way the various settlements of Galicians realized that the government were trying to do something for their benefit and finally in almost every school district we have a school among the Ruthenians. We did more than that. We established training schools for the young, smart, bright men of the Galicians, one in Brandon and one in Winnipeg, for the special purpose of training young men to go out and teach schools among their own people and educate them in citizenhood as we want it in Canada. All those efforts have proved fruitful. We have all through Manitoba, in almost every district where there is any considerable settlement of Galicians, Galician councillors elected by their fellow settlers, both Galician and English and taking

a great part in the local government in various districts in Manitoba where they are. They are improving very fast. The Minister of the Interior said a few years ago and reiterated the other night, that they were not desirable settlers. Some years ago in speaking of them he traced their genealogy in the older countries for some hundreds of years and showed why they had been detrimental to Austria where most of them come from. He said that the Germans there were glad to ship them out here, and I suppose because the Germans are glad to ship any class of people out this government, with its brilliant immigration policy, ought to be glad to receive them. He said:
Where those Galicians have settled, some of the other settlers have moved away.
Asked by some hon. member: Why? he said:
Because they are not desirable neighbours.
He went on to say that there those people settled in any locality they depreciated the value of the land for that very reason, and that they were not in any way qualified to raise the morals of the people where they settled. He reiterated that the other day and I want here to take exception to it as I have, always done. Those people are neighbours of mine, they live within a mile of me, some of them, they came there eight or ten years ago, and have been good settlers. They are liked by the people in my country and are making good by being appointed to positions of trust by the settlers where they live. * The trouble with the immigration policy of the present minister and his predecessor is that proper pains have not been taken to get the right kind of Galicians, and when they did get them, no matter what kind they might be, they did not take care of them in the proper way aftea bringing them to this country, they left it to the local governments entirely to take care of the people after dumping them by hundreds in what was to them a foreign country. But while I uphold the bringing out of good Galicians into this country I cannot at all agree with the policy of bringing out these Doukhobors. Surely my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr.. Gash) or my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin) cannot believe in that policy because they must realize that an immigration policy to be at its best must bring out settlers who from the moment they arrive here make for the betterment of the country, not people like those Doukhobors who are aliens in thought,, ways and deed to the native Canadians. These people came out here absolutely and intensely ignorant. For instance they started from their homes on several pilgrimages towards the east and Mr. CAMPBELL.
what were they looking for, on those pilgrimages ? They were looking for the Saviour, and as I saw it stated in the papers in the west the personality they were surely not, in your opinion, the right who brought them out to this country, after whom they were called 'Sifton's pets'. They were surely not, in your opinion, the right kind of immigrants to bring out. They were absolutely ignorant or absolutely immoral. They were a menace to the people living in that country. Had the minister been living on the route of their pilgrimage, had any hon. gentleman in this House been living on that route with his>
wife, his sister, his cousins or his aunts, or any female relatives, would he think they had a great immigration policy that brought out these poor people to this country who were so absolutely, innocently indecent or indecently innocent as to parade the country with what God pht on them when they were born. These are the facts of the case. No man can say it is not true, no man dare say that this is a good state of affairs, that these were a good kind of immigrants, and I see by the papers that this immigration policy of the government is bringing some 4,000 or 6,000 or
8.000	more of these people out.
If they do so I would advise the ministry
to put one Doukhobor in each township throughout the length and breadth of Canada and not allow them to locate in villages which in our past experience has resulted in so much trouble and expense to the country. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) referred to the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company, and I know there are a good many members on the other side of the House who are tired of that subject. I do not wonder at that because I -was tired of it half an hour after I heard it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clark) stated that the Conservatives had not properly laid the matter before the House, and he proceeded to tell us all about it, but he omitted from his tale two or three very important considerations. The first and most important point is that it was not
250.000	acres of what is generally called Dominion lands that were given to the company by the government at $1 per acre; it was 250,000 acres of land that had been set aside for homesteading. Then, it was not 250,000 acres of land in one block but it was 250,000 acres scattered all over the country and which was to be patented according as the entries and sales were made. I will show you how it worked out, and I will quote the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' an authority which I do not often cite, but which will not be rejected by any Liberal in the House. The policy of the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company was to blanket the homesteads in the district and they ad-

vertised all through the United States inviting people to come to Saskatchewan and get a free grant of 160 acres alongside which the company would sell another quarter section. When a man spent his money examining the lands in the district and went to the land office to make an entry he would be told that James Smith had already applied for the land, and he would go out disappointed, but he would meet the Saskatchewan Valley Land agent outside and this fellow would tell him that he could fix the matter up for him, and if he bought a quarter-section at $5, or $8, or $10 an acre he would give him another quarter-section adjoining. In this way the company used what belonged to the people of Canada to enrich themselves. The best way to judge of the whole transaction is, not to take the views of party heelers and officers of the company, but to take the opinion of the people who actually knew what was done and to consider the financial success of the company. Everybody knows that the company made out of our Canadian lands given them in that way over $2,000,000 and I hold that was a steal from the people because whatever that company could do in the matter of disposing of these lands the government itself could do it if it went about it the right way. In this way we had the scandalous and nefarious Saskatchewan Land Company deal or steal, or whatever the government would like to call it. Another scandalous feature of the immigration policy of the government was the sending to the old country of political heelers as immigration agents. One of the most rabid Liberals in my district, rabid as the worst Liberals are from lack of knowledge, in order to repay him for his election services, was sent to the old country at $100 a month and his expenses, although he never earned $100 a month in his life in a legitimate way, and the result of his labours in the old country was to bring back just two farm hands. Hundreds of dollars were spent to get these two immigrants and no one will deny that that is a ridiculous policy. Now, my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. - Martin) spoke very feelingly about the Grand Trunk Pacific, and as to its being a colonization road, and of the hundreds of miles that separated it from existing lines of railroads. Well, there are now 795 miles of the Grand Trunk Pacific built from Winnipeg to Edmonton and for 485 miles it is closer than ten miles to the existing railway tracks. I heard the Minister of Railways state in the Railway Committee last year that it was the general railway policy of the country to have no road closer than eight or ten miles to an existing railroad unless for some geographical reasons, and there is certainly no geographical reason why the Grand Trunk Pacific should be so close to existing railways. There is no excuse because when the building of the road was before this House the minister assured the people that the road was being built for colonization purposes. He said something with reference to prices, but colonization purposes was the cry that was taken before the people of the west. Vote for us and we will build this road to open up the new country and we will be able to control rates, which is a matter of tire very greatest importance was the cry of the Liberals.
Let me make a comparison as between the two parties with reference to rates and railway buliding. In Manitoba, some years ago, the Conservative government, under Mr. Roibilin, created a railway policy. When that policy was published first every Liberal in Manitoba, without exception, I think, said it was ill-advised, unwise, unthought out, ruinous and outrageous. There was no adjective in the English language that they could possibly use that they did not use against that policy. His policy was to give a guarantee of -bonds to the extent of $10,000 a mile for which he got, first, a mortgage on the road, rolling stock, stations-, terminals, cars and all the property of the railway company; second, a pledge that wherever settlers went in Manitoba the road would be built as far as it was possible to carry out that undertaking and, third, control of the rates in so far that before the roads built under that policy were running two years the rates were reduced over the whole line of the Canadian Northern railway to Fort William four cents per 100 pounds. That is the bargain he made. The Liberals decried it, but the Liberals found that they had to get some railway policy in order to get the railway companies to build. They adopted a policy, but instead of giving $10,000 a mile they gave $13,000 and they have no control over the rates farther than the Railway Act gives them control. Saskatchewan and Alberta adopted this policy with the result that they increased the price of railway building in Manitoba. In Manitoba now a railway company can hold up the government when they want roads built, because they are in a position to say we can get better terms in Saskatchewan and Alberta where they have increased the price $3,000 a mile. Therefore, the Liberals have raised the cost of railway building to the people. In the west the same policy has been enunciated by Mr. McBride. He has given the Canadian Northern railway a guarantee of $35,000 a mile to build in the mountains. Surely there is no Liberal in this House or out of it who- will dare to get up and say that is too much, because they have to tell us that the Grand Trunk Pacific in the same kind of country is costing at least $75,000 a mile, a sum for which this country will have to be responsible.

I desire to refer to another matter, and I do so because I think it is necessary in the interest of good administration and of the proper conduct of the business of this House. When questions relating to expenditures, &c.,are up before a committee of this House there should be some method of preventing a minister from getting up and absolutely misleading by his words the members on this side of the House. I have been led to refer to this by the conduct of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) on several occasions. If there is any hon. gentleman in this House who thinks I am wrong, I would be very glad to prove my statements. I just bring it to the attention of the House, and I hope it will go to 'the proper quarters so that we will not get misleading statements in the future from a gentleman who ought to remember that he is an honourable gentleman and that he is addressing hon. gentlemen on matters that relate to the public business and which are in their care.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I do not just
know the meaning that the hon. gentleman desires to convey by his remarks, ibut if his intention is to cast any doubt on the honour of any hon. gentleman in the House it would not be in order.


Glenlyon Campbell: You surely do not wish me to withdraw the word 'honourable is that what you are objecting to?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman, as I understood him, was referring to statements made by a minister which were misleading. I do not think that he said ' deliberately misleading,' but were misleading, and he proceeded to use the word ' honourable,' I thought, in a manner that intimated rather dishonourable. If I am wrong, the hon. gentleman knows his meaning, but I thought it my duty to point out that doubt cast upon the honour of a member o.f this House would be out of order.


Glenlyon Campbell: I said practically what you thought I said, but there is one point that you overlook. I said I was willing to prove the veracity of my statement, if any hon. gentleman thought I was wrong. It is a matter of fact, it is not a matter of desire on my part to say anything wrong about any hon. gentleman. I am only stating a matter of fact.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the statement is the hon. gentleman's understanding of a certain condition, there would be no objection, but I always feel it my duty, where any apparent doubt is cast upon the honour of any member of this House, to call in question, as strictly as the rule will allow me, any such statement. The impression was somewhat given to me by the hon. gentleman's remark that some doubt Mr. CAMPBELL.
was cast upon the honour of a member of this House. I accept the hon. gentleman's statement as I understand him now to intimate that it was not intended to do that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As I understand, he was calling in question the veracity of a statement of fact, and if he were in possession of information that justified him taking? that ground, it does seem to me that he should be at liberty to present the evidence which justifies the allegation. If he is in a position to do it, I think it would be quite right to allow him to do it.


Glenlyon Campbell: I want to state to the House that ever since I have been in this House I have always-and I believe every hon. member must say the same thing- realized that the Deputy Speaker was making every effort to give us all fair play regardless of which side of the House we were on, and I am quite willing to bow at all times to his judgment in matters that appertain to the rules. There is one matter further to which I wish to refer, and I shall be very brief. We have vast expenditures being made on various public works. Well, there is one public work to which I wish to draw the attention of the government, and which I think would be of greater importance than any other they could undertake. I refer to the building of a canal system from Edmonton down the Saskatchewan river to its junction with Cedar lake at a place called Van Home, then cut across eight miles to Lake Winni-pegosis, thence down the Winnipegosis to Meadow Portage, a cut of one and a half miles, ten feet at the highest into Lake Manitoba, and from Lake Manitoba, a cut across into the Assinboine river. A canal of that kind with less than fifty miles of actual work and with less than ten wing dams on those various rivers would enable the people of Edmonton to ship their coal and. grain right into Winnipeg, the hub of Canada. A work of that kind would be surely far and away ahead of such a work as the Newmarket ditch, which is a ditch built where, I understand, there is no water, and where, if there was water, there are no boats; and where, if there were boats, there would be no freight; and where, if they could get freight, there is no place to take it. But if the government would build the canal I am asking them to undertake, that would be of real benefit to the people of the west and of all Canada and do something in the way of giving us an output for our traffic which would be exceedingly profitable. There is only one other remark I would make and that is with regard to the members from the west. I happen to be a Conservative and there are many who happen to be Liberals, but the interests of our people are the same, and I think the time has come when the men of the west, Liberals and

Tories, ought to get together and unite on any question of policy that will be of benefit to our people; and if they should do this, there are enough of them here to make any government sit up and listen and take notice.


Mr. ROBERT SMITH (Stormont).: I do not consider it necessary that I should at this stage of the debate take much time in replying to the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Campbell). I notice that he has thought it necessary to make one more reference to the fact that the right hon. the Prime Minister held for a certain time two seats in this House. That is a subject which seems to have caused a great deal of anxiety to hon. gentlemen opposite and given them the opportunity of ringing the changes on the outrage thus committed on the electorate. But, let me just point out that it was due to the course of action of parties, who were acting on behalf of the Conservative party, that the city of Ottawa was deprived of representation in this House the whole of last session. Hon. gentlemen opposite were within their rights in protesting that seat. The law allows that to be done, but the law was taken advantage of, not for the purpose of exposing corruption or unseating an hon. member, but for the sole purpose of working out some trifling party advantage. Hon. gentlemen opposite were not concerned at all about depriving the city of Ottawa of representation during a whole session, but solely with the view of acquiring some party advantage b^_keep-ing a protest, which was not intended to be acted upon, dangling over the head of the leader of the government. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) made a very strong reference to the premier of the province of Saskatchewan, and I regret verv much that he did not carry out his declared intention of waiting until the premier of that province had a seat in this House. The hon. gentleman referred to him as a traitor and a Judas, and I think it would have been more fitting to the credit and dignity of the hon. gentleman had he waited until Mr. Scott were actually present and could reply to any charge in person.
The hon. gentleman found a good deal of fault with my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) in connection _ with his stand on the question of the tariff. Well, I was anxious to learn what were the views of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) on that same question. We have had a good deal of discussion on it from hon. gentlemen opposite, but not one of them has announced any policy whatever. It would have been interesting had the hon. member undertaken to tell us whether he was in favour of reducing the present tariff or whether he was in accord
with the majority on his side in advocating a general raise in the duties. But we have had no declaration of policy on his part, and in that respect he has followed closely in the footsteps of other hon. gentlemen opposite.	, ,	.	, .,
We have heard a great deal about the general extravagance of the government, but no attempt has been made to enter into any analysis of the increased expenditures of which these hon. gentlemen complain. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) started off with what no doubt was intended to be the main criticism of the government's management of our finances. In that criticism he made a general comparison of the expenses m 1896 with those of 1909. He chose a year in which there was very little capital expended by the Conservative administration and he bulked capital and ordinary expenditures together. He ignored the fact that since this government has taken office the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific has been entered upon, entailing the largest capital expenditure ever made in connection with any government railway. Adding the ordinary and capital expenditure of the two periods he made a comparison, and pointed out that in 1896, under the Conservative regime, some $42,000,000 were expended, whereas in 1909 the expenditure amounted to $133,000,000. But comparisons made in that way without any analysis are very misleading. What is necessary is to investigate these figures in detail If we confine ourselves, in the first place, to the ordinary expenditure m these two periods, then there was an expenditure in 1896 of $39,000,000 and m 1909 of about $84,000,000, but a very large part of the increase is entirely represented by cross entries. For instance, there is the running of the Intercolonial railway, the annual expense of running that road is part of the ordinary expenditure of the country according to our system of bookkeeping. You will find that the government expenditure on that Toad caused by adding new branches increased enormous-lv and forms part of the increased expenditure of which those hon. gentlemen complain. On the other hand, these expenditures are represented by an almost corresponding increase in the receipts of the road. Ihus, these figures represent merely cross entries. To make a fair comparison of expenditure we must deduct almost $5,000,000 from that item alone. The expenditure of the Post Office Department is another item standing on exactly the same footing. Then, there are the increased subsidies to the provinces-almost $5 000,000 of increased expenditures is represented by that item. If we take all the amounts from the public accounts which aTe mere cross entries of that kind, we

2272:
find that they male a total of about $19,000,000, and this sum must be substracted from the $84,000,000 in order to make a just comparison between the annual ordinary expenditures of the country in 1896 and in 1909. Even after that deduction is made there still remains a very considerable amount of increased expenditure to be accounted for. If hon. gentlemen opposite desired to draw any useful lessons, they would analyse that expenditure and point out to this side of the House the portions of it and the total amount that are unjust and unnecessary. Some items of expenditure have been increased enormously, and have been increased for the benefit of the country. Let me give one example. In the item of lighthouses and river lighting, during the last years of the Conservative regime, the total expenditure was less than half a million dollars, to-day it amounts to about two and a quarter millions. _ I contend that that is an increase that is entirely justified in the interests of the public. Our system of navigation has entirely changed since 1896. Deep waterways have been established from Dort Arthur to the ocean, harbour improve ments have been made and lighthouses have been established, all these things helping greatly to cheapen transportation it.1S., by fforng into_ items of that kind in detail that a true idea can be formed of the justification that exists for the increase in the ordinary public expenditure.
hnn "rnwi V6ry extraordinary comparison &entlemen opposite make is as to the capital expenditure in 1909 and in 1896. As 1 said, they select a year in which the capital expenditure was something between three and four millions of dollars and compare it with a year in which the greatest expenditure is made in the construction of the great National Transcontinental rail-[DOT]Wa7-i t*lese hon. gentlemen try to justify the comparison by saying that dur-me their regime they also constructed a great transcontinental railway. I take issue with them on that point. When they were in power and procured the construction of the Canadian Pacific, they did not procure the construction of a railway that belongs to Canada. The expenditure was handed over to a private corporation, and every dollar of money that was paid out of the public treasury, and every asset of the public that was turned over for the construction of that road, became the property of that private corporation. The road now being constructed and for which this government is now making capital expenditure is a road which, when comnleted. will belong to the people of Canada, a road for which a rental is to be paid beginning a short time after its -construction. So, there is no comparison between the expenditure on a transcontinental road made by the Conservative government and the ex- Mr. ROBERT SMITH
penditure on the National Transcontinental made by this government. Then it is contended, in comparing the debt incurred by the two governments, that it was made in the same relation, because the Transcontinental road was a part of the expenditure that went to increase the debt during the Conservative regime and the expenditure on the Transcontinental has caused the increase incurred- by this government. Again, I say the case is entirely different. The expenditure made by the Conservative government in connection with the Canadian Pacific railway is not all represented in the public accounts. A large portion of the expenditure made by Canada for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway was not in cash, but in the form of lands and of road already constructed. This constructed road which was handed over to the Canadian Pacific railway company represented an ' expenditure of $30,000,000, which had been made prior to the accession of the Conservative government to power. These constructed lines are not represented by the increase of the debt made under the Conservative government, nor are the 25,000,000 acres of land-an asset of Canada-* which passed from being the property of the people to being the property of a private corporation. If this government had undertaken to build a transcontinental road under a similar bargain, they might have alienated the public lands and secured the construction of the Transcontinental road without the expenditure of a single dollar in cash out of the public treasury of Canada and without adding a single dollar to the debt of this country.
Now, I wish to say a few words in reference to the remarks of the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers). That hon. gentleman entered into a somewhat poetic representation of the actions of his party in connection with the government of this country, and took a somewhat poetic license with the facts. He contended that the Liberal party had opposed all the great measures put through by the Conservative party, and which, he claimed, had resulted in the present greatness of the country. He contended, in the first place, that the Liberal party of Canada had opposed confederation, and that Sir John Macdonald and his government' and party were the only ones responsible for that great Act and consequently for the greatness of Canada to-day. I think the hon. gentleman's memory is entirely at fault. As a matter of fact, Sir John Macdonald and the Conservative government, up to a very short time before the principle of confederation was adopted, had opnosed that principle against the Liberal party of this country, and it was only at the last moment that the Conservatives, joining with the Liberals, formed the coalition government to put through the measure. The hon. mem-
[DOT]2273

ber said that the Liberals had opposed the Canadian Pacific railway. I deny that; his memory is again at fault. Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, during the time he led the administration of this country, endeavoured to construct the whole of the Canadian Pacific railway by a bargain with a company on the basis of a land- grant. He failed to obtain favourable terms of that kind, and his government proceeded to construct that road as a government work, and, at the time Mr. Mackenzie left office, there had been an expenditure in actual construction of that road of no less a sum than $30,000,000. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite are, continually proclaiming throughout this country that Alexander Mackenzie and his party had opposed, tooth and nail, the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. The facts are that the Liberals in opposition opposed the particular terms of the bargain which was made by the Conservative government for the construction of that railway. They opposed for instance, the monopoly clauses, they opposed the clauses that allowed alternate sections of land to be laid aside and accumulate in value through the efforts of the settlers on the other sections. They opposed the exemption from taxation, and made other exceptions to the terms, hut it cannot be said that the Liberal party were opposed to the principle of constructing the Canadian Pacific railway, or that they ever intended to put any obstruction towards the accomplishment of that great work.
Now the hon. gentleman also thought it would be desirable that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) should hold some revival meetings for his side of the House; and shortly afterwards he gave us a very glowing account of the virtues and patriotism of the Japanese people. When he was waxing so eloquent concerning the virtues of these people, I thought perhaps it would be a good thing for him to hold a few revival meetings with the hon. members from British Columbia upon his side of the House. One would suppose that if these people possessed all the good qualities so eloquently described by the hon. gentleman his political friends would not have such a tremendous dread of rubbing up against the Japanese.
He also undertook to tell us that an immense amount of corruption had taken place since this government came into power, and he regretted very much that there seemed to be no virtue left outside of the Conservative party. I wondered if the hon. gentleman could not remember a few things that were not exactly virtuous on his own side of the House, in the midst of his own party. When he was going so deeply into Canadian history, he might have gone back for instance to the original bargain for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, which led to the great
Pacific scandal and the hurling of his party from power. If he had come down to later times, he would remember that it was this very corruption that was mainly responsible for the hurling of his party from power in 1896. Yet the hon. gentleman seemed to imagine that there was no virtue and no honesty outside of the Conservative party.
Now the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Boyce) had considerable to say in connection with the action of the Department of Militia and Defence in charging up to the town of Sault Ste. Marie the expenses of sending troops up there to quell dis-* turbances, or to maintain order. He had a strong opinion that the minister ought not to have rendered any bill for that service. Now, Sir, the Militia Act clearly defines what shall be done in such a case, the law is established by this parliament, and one would imagine that hon. gentlemen opposite would consider it to be the duty of any minister to fulfil the law, whatever it is, that he finds on the statute-book. Yet the hon. member for East Algoma makes it a subject of complaint that the Minister of Miiitia did not violate the law on this occasion, and that the town from which he hails did not have the advantage of that expenditure at the expense of the public treasury of Canada, without any authority of law. That hon. gentleman, and some others who have spoken, have taken a good deal of exception to what they call the fuss and feathers of the Militia Department. They have contrasted the total expenditure of the Militia Department in the latter years of Conservative rule with the total expenditure of to-day. Well, this is the first time I have heard that argument within this House. Upon the hustings this is a favourite theme with Conservative orators. I watched with some interest the submission of the militia estimates during the last session of this parliament, and I was astounded to find that, notwithstanding all the criticism of a general character that had been indulged in by hon. gentlemen opposite on various occasions, they allowed the estimates of the Militia Department to pass through this House practically without a dissenting voice. Now I claim that if these gentlemen, sitting on the other side of the House as guardians of the treasury, as they pretend, and knowing as they pretend to know, that there is absolute extravagance and waste in connection with these militia expenditures, it is surely a part of their duty as critics of the government to raise these objections when the estimates are being passed, if there are unnecessary officers in connection with the department, why is it that these hon. gentlemen, or some one of them, did not rise in their places and protest against the salaries or allowances for these unnecessary


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. FISHER.: There are no resolutions to be proposed to the committee in view of the fact that there are no changes in the tariff; but it is the custom to keep the Bill in committee during the session. I will therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


David Henderson: What effect will that have upon the subsequent proceedings? If it is called again next Monday the debate may go on.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It might, but the keeping of the Bill in the committee is pro forma entirely. The Finance Minister always wishes to keep the Bill of Ways and Means open during the session. That has always been the practice.


Richard Blain: When may we expect the return ordered on December 6, showing the number of officials in Ottawa having living apartments supplied by the Crown?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I understand it will be laid on the table early next week.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 9.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 24, 1910.