PAYMENT OF FEES ON PRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) moved that the Fourteenth Report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines be concurred in. He said:	As this is a special
report recomending some changes in the rules, I might offer a word of explanation. There is apparently some anomaly in the rules of the House of Commons in respect of private Bill legislation, as they stand at present. The clerk of the committee, who is very familiar with these rules, and a very capable and experienced officer, drew the attention of the committee to the fact that a difference exists in regard to private Bills originating in this House and those originating in the Senate as respects the payment of fees. If a private Bill originates in this House, by rule 88, subsection 3, it is provided that certain fees
[Stage Direction]
shall be paid having regard to the capitalization of the proposed company; and by subsection 5 of the same rule, other fees are chargeable in respect to the borrowing powers or bonding powers of the company. If the same Bill happened to be introduced in the Senate, fees would only be charged in respect of the capitalization and no fees would be required in respect of the borrowing powers. This difference arises by the peculiar wording of subsection 8, of section 88, which provides:
The additional charges provided for in section 3 of this rule shall also apply to private Bills originating in the Senate.
But section 3 of the rule only applies to fees payable on the capitalization of the company, and not in respect to the borrowing powers of the company. The other amendments to the rules which the report mentions are merely to conform with the main objection which I have now submitted to the House, except in regard to section 87 of the rule. Section 87 provides that:
Petitions for private Bills shall only be received by the House within the first six weeks of the session.
It so happens that as a petition has to lie on the table for two days before being received by the House, the time allowed is really six weeks less two days. No doubt the intention was to allow the full six weeks, and the proposal of the committee is that me rule should be amended by inserting the words ' if presented ' after the word ' House ' in the second line of the rule, which would allow a clear six weeks after the sitting of the House for the presentation of a petition for a private Bill. There is one other change also recommended in regard to companies who seek to increase their capital stock, it being provided in the Bill of incorporation that if at any time they so desire they may increase it. There have been instances where companies have come forward with practically a nominal capital and have asked for power. In that case they pay a very small fee and subsequently increase their capital to what sum they see proper and escape the payment of the fees on the increased capital. The report proposes that in such cases the amount of the increased capital that a company desires at any time to have shall be stated in the Bill and the fees shall be paid in respect thereof.
Right Hon.   S@: I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) that he do not press this motion to-day, but that it stand as a notice for future consideration..


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stands as a notice of motion.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: 



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 157) for the relief of John Denison Smith.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 158) respecting the Bank of Winnipeg.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 160) to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill (No. 161) to incorporate the Equity Fire Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Macdonell.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 159) to create a permanent commission on the conservation of the Natural Resources of Canada.
Mr. MONK.: Explain.


Mr. FISHER.: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is introduced for the purpose of the formation of a permanent commission on the natural lesources of Canada. Hon. gentlemen will no doubt remember that there was a conference held in Washington at an earlier stage of this session at which Canada was represented, and that the report of that conference recommended and urged strongly that the countries taking part in it, namely, Mexico, the United States and Canada, should each of them establish a permanent conservation commission for the purposes of considering, investigating and recommending in regard to the development of the natural resources in their own countries. The government has judged that it is wise to accept that recommendation and has entrusted me with the duty of drawing up a Bill for that purpose. I will just say shortly that the Bill provides for a commission, which shall be an honorary commission, of thirty-two members, twelve of whom shall be ex officio members, three members of the government at Ottawa and one representative of each of the provincial governments in Canada, that representative to be, as a general rule, a minister of the province in charge of the lands, forests and mines. That will depend, of course, on the duties assigned to the different provincial ministers. That would provide for twelve members of the commission. It is proposed to provide that the twenty other members of the commission shall be appointed by order in council. The government will appoint one of these commissioners as chairman. The commissioners shall not be paid at all, but shall receive their travelling expenses when they attend a meeting of the commission. There will be one annual meeting in the month of January and other meetings shall take place at the call of the chairman of the commission. The work of the commission shall be conducted by a small office at Ottawa which

office shall be included in the inside service here and be in charge of one officer who shall be called the secretary of the commission. I think this outlines the chief details of the Bill. The Bui, which is a very short one, outlines these details and defines the objects and intentions of the commission.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Is there just one similar commission in the United States or does each state have its own commission?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is a commission appointed by the President and then most of the states-I do not remember exactly how many, but I think some thirty of them -have also created commissions. The Pres-dent has appointed one federal commission, which is not appointed under any law of congress but upon the initiative of the President.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being) called:
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: I would like to inquire from the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Lemieux) with respect to an answer given yesterday to a question on the Order Paper regarding labourers from Siberia. The minister's answer was that:
The Department of Labour has received no report as described by the hon. gentleman on this question. The only notice we have had on this matter is the mention that was made of it in the House.
I wish to inquire as to the significance of this answer whether the minister does not consider that a report is made to the department when a member, from his place in the House, reads the details to him and asks the department to be good enough to investigate the statements there contained. That is what I did, and I would like to ask the minister to make clear to us what our standing is in that connection.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Minister of Labour).: I might just say to my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Taylor) that my remark of yesterday was not intended to hurt the feelings of that hon. gentleman. I merely wished to state then that the first notice the department had received that any Siberians had come to Prince Rupert was through the remarks made the other day in the House by the hon. gentleman. The department, since these remarks were made by the hon. gentleman, has endeavoured to find out whether the statement made on the authority of a newspaper by the hon. gentleman, is true or not. As soon as we get any precise information I will let the hon. gentleman know. But I meant to say that the
only notice received of any Siberians coming to Canada was from the hon. gentleman's remarks. There is nothing in the Department of Labour to make us acquainted with any such state of things. We have written to the president of the Transcontinental Railway.



HECATE STRAIT.

Robert Laird Borden: Has the Prime Minister any information to give in reference to the statement made in the press of the United States, that the State Department of the United States has been unable to ascertain any information as to the position which Canada takes with regard to the Hecate Strait?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I do not think the question is at all as represented in the press. I have given instructions that the papers should be collected and they will be brought down as soon as possible.



HOURS OF LABOUR ON PUBLIC WORKS -ORDER DISCHARGED.

Mr. VERVILLE moved:: That Order No. 35 of the Public Bills and
Orders for the second reading of Bill (No. 22) respecting hours of labour on public works, be now called for the purpose of its being discharged from the Order Paper.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the object be to discharge the order there can be no objection.


Mr. AMES.: Why does the hon. member wish the order discharged ?


Alphonse Verville: I wish the order discharged because its discharge will enable me to bring the matter before the House this session in another form. The question as to the hours of labour on public works is, I consider, of considerable importance at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. LENNOX.: An order of the House was issued on the 3rd of March (Votes and Proceedings page 297) for a copy of all tenders received for the construction of certain sections of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway, &c., and I call attention to the fact that the order of the House has not been complied with in that the copies of all tenders for contracts have not been included in the return brought down.


Mr. GRAHAM.: I will make inquiry.



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
[Stage Direction]
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 words which were taken objection to last night seem to be entirely unnecessary; but they are in the Bill, and I do not think they can do any harm.\nBill reported, read the third time and passed.']
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker, the debate which is now drawing to a close may be said to be the first prolonged budget debate in either the last parliament or in this. We have had expressions of opinion from a great number of hon. members on the condition of the country, and with one or two exceptions where partisanship has produced a tone of pessimism, the House must note with satisfaction that the underlying current of all the addresses has been confidence in the future of our country. I believe, Sir, that the Canadian people as a whole share our feelings of confidence in Canada, and confidence in the men at the head of the government of this country who for twelve years past have given us wise administration with its consequent prosperity, and a splendid start in this first decade of this twentieth century which we all hope and believe is to be Canada's. That feeling of confidence contributed in a large degree towards the people renewing on the twenty-sixth of last October their mandate to the Liberal government to continue in the course which they have been pursuing since they attained power. Beyond all doubt we have had in Canada twelve years of sane, practical business administration; an administration not based upon theory but upon sound practical common sense guided by wise statesmanship. In the first place as a result of that administration, no matter what the depression abroad in other lands, the_ Canadian government while amply providing not only for ordinary expenditure but for laying the foundations for our future progress, has always been able to announce that the finances of the country have shown a balance on the right side of the ledger. Our population has increased year after year in a ratio never before equalled in our history and our manufactures have developed to an unprecedented extent, and the consumer has had no reason to complain of oppression because of the encouragement which the government has been able to give to our industries. During these twelve years we have not followed free trade fads nor protectionists fetishes. In the days when our Conservative friends were in power they claimed that by reason of the protection theory which they attempted to put into practice Canada would be able to pull herself up by the boot legs, and her people would become rich. This government has not hung out any false signals of that kind; it has discarded fads and theories and given to Canada a wise and practical and business-like administration. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) told us that he would plant one or two


George Perry Graham: feathers in the cap of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), but he must have felt that there were already in the cap of that hon. gentleman one or two feathers which he had the right to wear with distinction; feathers which the hon. gentleman from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) would like to have the title to wear were he himself Minister of Finance, but feathers which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) as a pessimistic developer of deficits in the days when he had charge of our finances was unable to lay any claim to. And so my hon. friend looks askance with envious eyes at the plumes which are so worthily worn by our present minister. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) told us that it was no credit to the Minister of Finance to have a surplus, because anybody could have a surplus by putting up the taxation. Well, in the days when he was Finance Minister though he imposed greater burdens of taxation per capita on the people than the hon. Mr. Fielding ever did, he was unable at any time to so manage the affairs of our country as to have a balance on the right side of the account.
One of the other pessimistic things to which my hon. friend gave utterance, and which justifies us in speaking of him as a little Canadian, was the proposition that the Transcontinental Railway should not be constructed so as to bind the whole of Canada together. He did not wish to see it built from Quebec to Moncton. I say that the man who takes that position is a small Canadian, who talks as if the whole history of this country had been written, and that we had nothing to look forward to-no hopes or aspirations of extension or development to stir the pride and the confidence of this young Canadian nation. The hon. gentleman says that it would be better to have no debt than to have that section of the Transcontinental Railway; that is his position. If that is so, then this whole northern country of Canada is to be left uninhabited, unexplored, untilled. Whatever the people of these original provinces may do in their future history, we in the beginning of this twentieth century are not going to do anything in the way of laying the foundations for that future. All that country is to be a closed book. We are going to build three transcontinental lines through the central and western portions of Canada, and are going to extend branches from them everywhere like arteries; but when we come down to the province of Quebec, to the verge of the little provinces down by the sea, our railway development must stop, and for all time to come, according to this small Canadian who sits on a front bench and sometimes essays to lead the opposition, we are only going to have one line of railway stretching from the provinces

by the sea to the central portions of Canada. No matter what progress or development the central portions of Canada may have, our provinces by the sea are to have no advantage from that, and are to be confined to the single line of railway that has been there since confederation. My hon. friend would willingly go on and spend millions in the building of Dreadnoughts in order to satisfy the aspirations of the constituency which is giving him a resting place for the time being in the province of Ontario; but he would entirely forget the smaller province which gave him birth, and would ostracise and penalize that province, and the others by the sea, by confining them to one line of railway and not permitting them to share in the future development of this country, because forsooth if we go on and prepare for the future we are going to put a little additional debt on the people of this country. Although my hon. friend takes that position, I assume that he does not speak for all the gentlemen who sit behind him. It is but natural that he should be actuated by a spirit of pessimism; but I have sufficient confidence in the Canadianism of a large number of those who sit on the left of the Speaker to believe that they stand with us in favour of preparing in our day for a Canada which shall be properly developed all along the line, feeling that because an Ashburton treaty has to a certain extent ostracised a portion of this Dominion on the east, just as the Rocky Mountains constitute a barrier in the case of our most western province, these barriers shall not be allowed to prevent all portions of Canada from becoming united together as one country stretching from sea to sea. The construction of that railway, so far as the eastern portion of this Dominion is concerned, has in my judgment become an imperative necessity, and I hope that it will pave the way at an early date to the adoption of a policy whereby the imports from the mother country which receive the benefit of the preference shall only be permitted to receive that .benefit when they enter by Canadian ports. Our hon. friends who talk about Canada for Canadians will find in such a policy an easy means of benefiting Canada in her trade relations with other countries without imposing burdens.
We are told that because the debt of this country has increased by $65,000,000 during the last ' twelve years we have reached a terrible condition of affairs. Our hon. friends opposite in eight years increased the debt of this country by $82,000,000, and they never worried about it; and while they were doing it, the population of the country stood still, and the business interests of the country retrograded. Yet we are told that we are on the verge of all kinds of difficulties and that
our credit is impaired, because the people of Canada, having made tremendous expenditures out of ordinary revenue, which have advanced this country along lines which will ensure a full return, have increased their debt to the extent stated. In the interim we have gone on increasing our population until it has almost doubled, and the wealth of our people has increased to an astounding degree. Take, for instance, the deposits in the banks of the country. In 1896, when our friends opposite went out of power, and when they had a debt which, in relation to the population, was more onerous than our debt to-day, the deposits in the banks amounted to only $193,000,000, whereas in 1907 they amounted to $654,000,000, an accretion in that respect alone of over $461,000,000. The assets of the banks have increased $625,000,000. The Dominion savings banks holdings by the people have increased $15,752,000. So that the Canadian people during the past twelve years have increased not only iif population, but in wealth; and we would be recreant to our whole duty to posterity if we did not go on with full confidence in these expenditures which are sure to yield a full return. Although the accretion to the debt took place within the last few years, very largely on account of the construction of the National Transcontinental Railway, we have also been building great public works. We have among other things greaty improved the St. Lawrence ship channel. Our hon. friends opposite claim to be the only people who have done anything in Canada; yet they went out of poweT, after almost a quarter of a century directing the affairs of this country, with the great national port at the foot of our canal system in such a condition that it was absolutely impossible for a vessel to go up and down the St. Lawrence below Montreal after five o'clock in the evening of a summer day. But the man who goes up and down the St. Lawrence to-day sees the splendid development that has gone on there. In that one port there have been returns for the great expenditures which have been made which the business men of this country appreciate to the full, and that is one of the reasons why they stood by the government last October and helped to send them back to power for another four years.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say we have not been getting a return for our expenditure. Is this expenditure in the northern country not to bring any return? These hon. gentlemen are singing the same old song that their friends in Ontario did when they were in opposition and when the Hon. G. W. Ross, Premier of the Ontario government, brought down this proposition to build the Temiskaming Railway, these good old Tories in the local House did then what

their friends are doing now. They said that railway would run through a country where nothing was growing, where nothing would be found, and they opposed its construction to the limit of their ability. Today, however, when splendid returns from that country are coming in, when we find a new mining camp developed there almost every six months, the wisdom of that policy and the justification for the money expended on that undertaking are proved beyond doubt. The development of the clay belt alone in those northern regions, as the result of the policy of the Ross government, will amply vindicate that policy. In the same way, to-day, in Canada, by the construction of a railway through our northern country, we are paving the way for a return, through the development of our great forests in that region and of our mineral wealth, which will compensate us a hundred fold. There is not a man who has any pride in his country and has marked its advancement during the last twelve years, who does not feef in his heart that we would be recreant to posterity if we did not go on manfully and hopefully to open up and develop this great north land of ours.
There is one other thing which has been developed by this debate. I have had the honour of sitting in this House for some five sessions. I have heard my hon. friends outside of this House and have read in Conservative journals something about the united policy of the Conservative party with regard to trade, but I have seen very little illustration of it in this parliament. In fact, I have seen no evidence in this parliament of our friends opposite having any policy at all on the tariff. This debate is another evidence of that fact. Ever since my hon. friend the leader of the opposition developed this theory of his about ' adequate protection '- which nobody, not even his own followers, ever understood, and which the country realizes he never understood himself-no one has attempted, speaking with any degree of authority for the Conservative party, to lay down any proposition regarding the tariff. We have had those gentlemen who claim to be the only people loyal to the mother land and who talk glibly on the platform and elsewhere about the advantages to the empire of a preference between the mother country and her colonies-we have had them telling us that the woollen industry was being ruined by the British preference.


Mr. THOBURN.: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I suppose my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Thoburn) would vote against the preference and would like to see it abolished. He gives a sign of assent. I knew he would be more frank than some of his friends who sit aTound him, who would like to see it abolished but will not venture to get up and say so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then I was amused by my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) last night. He gave us a picture of the grand old Conservative chieftain standing down at Sydney in 1878 and predicting that a great steel industry would grow up there, and he told us that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster), when he was Finance Minister brought down a proposition to establish steel bounties so as to encourage this steel industry. That is a fair sample of the way my hon. friends opposite argue. There is a steel industry down in Sydney. In fact there are two. But the iron ore which forms the basis of the development of that industry was discovered in Newfoundland some fifteen years after Sir Ghas. Tupper had made the prediction which my hon. friend so glowingly described. And the company which was incorporated for the. purpose of carrying on the 'business of malting iron and steel was incorporated since this government came into power, and I had the honour of supporting the measure to incorporate it in the local legislature in 1898, two years after these hon. gentlemen opposite had been removed from office. I know that it is the fashion of some hon. gentlemen opposite to forget the great career of Sir Chas. Tupper, the once militant leader of the Conservative party in this country. I know that his name is not a popular one with the Conservative party in certain portions of Canada, and I am quite well aware that his distinguished son,^ who was to have been an opponent of mine in the last contest in Pictou, is not persona grata with all these hon. gentlemen. But I do not suppose that it was on that account we had man after man on the other side standing up here and declaiming against these frightful steel bounties. One of them went into close figuring to show that every man, woman and child in his riding in Ontario was having a debt placed upon him for all time to come on account of this nefarious proposition of the Liberal government to grant steel bounties. Yet there aTe some gentlemen who run away with the idea that the party oppoite stands for assistance to the steel industry. It does not stand for anything. It hardly knows what it does stand for. One minute my hon. friends opposite will laud the national policy, and the next they almost unanimously vote in favour of a reduction of the duty on agricultural implements. I remember a staunch old Conservative from my province who said in this House some years ago, when the hon. gentlemen were in power: 'If you remove one brick in the structure of the national policy, the whole fabric will fall to pieces.' Well, the Conservative party made no scruples of removing any number of bricks and stones from the edifice and are going o* doing the same to-day.
My hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Arm-

strong) wants to have a lower tariff on German goods. He is continually attacking our genial Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) because our tariff is so hard on the Germans. Yesterday we had a return of that attack. He wanted to lower the tariff so that we may buy German goods. Is not that a strange story for a man to tell us who glories in the virtue of high protection ? Then adequate protection was the latest pronouncement. That pronouncement never had any tangible meaning, and has ceased to have any significance, and for five years our hon. friends opposite have been wandering in the wilderness, waiting for a Moses to come along, who, with some divining rod, would strike the water and produce some magic shibboleth with which they might gull the public. Let me recall the fact that while these hon/ gentlemen have been laying down theories here and there about what their tariff policy would be if they were in office, they have never ventured to lay down any general policy in opposition. They have never ventured to submit an amendment, declaring for any system different from that advocated by the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding). No alternative proposal of a general character to the tariff policy of the government has been made by my hon. friends opposite during the past six years. Of course, once in a while one of them gets up and wants to reduce the duties on agricultural implements, another inveighs against the steel bounties, while others, like my hon. friend from North Lanark (Mr. Thoburn) want a higher duty on woollens. And so the inconsistency goes on, with the result that this government, among the satisfactory things on which it can congratulate itself, have the fact that, after twelve years directing th* affairs of this country, it has a tariff policy which its opponents in this House do not venture to question in general principles, against which they have never moved any amendment, and in regard to which they have never set up any alternative proposition
When my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin), who spoke last night, went on to discuss what is popularly known as the coal question. T was somewhat curious as to his position. I have heard that my hon. friend had been regarded as a humorist at least at one period of his career in his addresses in election campaigns; and, though I have never heard him discuss questions on the stump, I am satisfied that he has more than lived up to any reputation that be had in that regard in his utterances on the coal duties and coal business in this House last night. His utterances will be regarded with amusement by every intelligent miner and evervbodv connected with the coal industry in the province of Nova Scotia. The hon. gentleman reached the summit of
temerity and audacity in his discussion of this question. When I heard him, I wondered if I could believe my ears, and now that I find his words in cold print I almost wonder whether I can believe my eyes. This is what he said:
I cannot allow the opportunity to go by without pointing out that the condition of the miner of Nova Scotia is to-day not as good as it was previous to 1896, notwithstanding that the men are now abie tx>
work for twelve months in the year.
That is a very curious statement. Previous to 1896, hon. members opposite were accustomed to claim that they were the sole and only friends of the coal industry of this country, and that if the Liberals ever got into power, such determined foes were they of everything connected with coal that the coal mines would be destroyed and the industry rooted out. And my hon. friend (Mr. Maddin) paid me the compliment of reading certain telegrams that passed between my leader and myself in 1896 and some further utterances made by myself a couple of years afterwards in the provincial legislature. It is not always in these changing times in Canada, that a public man can say of an utterance of his made twelve years previously that he stands bv that utterance absolutely. I myself enjoy that satisfaction in regard to the language my hon. friend has quoted as having been uttered by me in the legislature of 1898.


Mr. HUGHES.: Was that about the Highlanders?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) does not know much about the Highlanders.


Mr. BOYCE.: Tell us about them.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend (Mr. Boyce), I am afraid, would be too obtuse to appreciate anything in regard to the great Celtic race to which I have the honour to belong. I ventured to point out, in 1896 and 1898, that our Conservative friends claimed that they were the special friends and patrons of the coal industry, and that that industry would expire if anything should happen to the Conservative party. But, while they claimed to be rampant protectionists, and preached the glory and virtue of protection everywhere in this country, and while they were uro-tecting everything else thev were not giving the coal industry any protection in comparison with what other industries enjoyed. And what was the result. In 1896, after eighteen years of Conservative rule, in regard to the coal industry? We did not have the St. Lawrence market. In the great county of Inverness, represented by my hon. friend (Mr. A. W. Chisholm), there was not a pound of coal raised. It is true these hon. gentlemen talked about giving the St. Lawrence market to the

coal miners of Nova Scotia, but the chief colliery in my county never sent a pound of coal in Montreal during the whole eighteen years the Conservative partv were in power. And, instead of there being continuous employment for the coal miners, what was " the position? In the winter months, there was destitution and poverty in (almost every coal mining town in the province.
My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) displayed his talent as a humorist when he declared that it was a satisfaction in those old Conservative days that the men did not work in the winter time, that they had a chance to improve their minds. Unfortunately, the result of that was, that in many of the mining districts of the province, appeals were being made to the charity of the citizens during the latter days of the Conservative party's term of power. And, in 1896, under this beneficent Conservative reign, to which my hon. friend refers, the total sales of Nova Scotia coal anywhere and everywhere in this country amounted to only 1,831,357 tons. There were poor wages in ali the departments of labour in and about the coal mines, and it was impossible for the people to get along. My honoured leader, in 1896, declared to me and to the coal miners and to people interested in coal in Nova Scotia, that under a Liberal government, the coal interests of that province would be carefully guarded. And let me tell you that my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has more than fulfilled his promise in that regard. The great advancement that has come to Nova Scotia industries, particularly to the coal industry, is such that not a man in this country, I care not what his political proclivities may be, who looks at the history and the facts, but must be bound to admit the change that has come over Nova Scotia since my right hon. friend took charge of the affairs of this country and the Liberal party began to dominate the policy of the Dominion. Instead of 1,851,000 tons of Nova Scotia coal being sold, last year we sold 5,485,583 tons, an increase of 3,654,226 tons, or three times as much coal as we sold in 1896 when the Conservatives went out of power. And, as regards the home market, we supplied to it last year 4,203,134 tons, including 2,047,638 to the St. Lawrence Biver market. And we sent it from all the counties of Nova Scotia that produce coal. The county of Inverness which never produced a pound of coal in 1896 last year produced 335,000 tons. In addition to that, the last act of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, when he left provincial politics, was to introduce and carry through a policy of developing the coal industry of the Island of Cape Breton by the inauguration of the Dominion Coal Company. And the fruits Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
of that legislation are evidenced not only in our own province, but throughout the whole Dominion of Canada. No less than $40,000,000 of capital is invested in the coal mines of the county of Cape Breton alone. In addition to that, the inauguration of the Dominion Coal Company paved the way for the inauguration of the Dominion Steel Company, which is also in our province, and of which we have heard so much of late. But that is not all this government has done for the coal interest, in Nova Scotia. In 1896, in the days when my hon. friends claimed to be the be-alls and the end-alls in rendering assistance to the coal industry, not a pound of coal could be sent from Nova Scotia west of Levis in the winter time of the year. Our coal mines were paralysed when the navigation of the St. Lawrence was shut up on account of the necessity of paying two freight rates over the railroads in order to reach Montreal, the great commercial metropolis. But the taking over of the Drummond County Railway and the extension of the Intercolonial to Montreal enabled our mines to send their products into the city of Montreal during the entire year. As a result of this action the depression which existed in the coal industry during the winter, in the olden times, has completely disappeared, and in almost every instance work is going on in the coal mines continuously, in the winter months as well as during the summer months.
Then my hon. friend told us that the wages of the miners had not improved. I happen to have under my hand a return on this very point-I am sorry my hon. friend is not here. Here is an actual return ot the wages paid in the winter of 1889 in the Victoria mines in the county of Cape Breton. In January the men worked 19 days, in February 16 days, in March 19 days, in April 14 days, an average of 171 days per month. The average daily wage of coal cutters was $1.60 per day during that time. My hon. friend from Cape Breton was member of a board of conciliation which sat last year to settle some dispute between certain employees of the Nova Scotia Steel Company and the company itself, and the investigation brought out the wages that were being paid last year by this coal company. Hand miners at No. 1 colliery were getting $2.51 a day; at No. 5 colliery, coal cutters were getting $2.95, and machine runners from $4.57 to $4.70 per day. The average during the same months of 1898 was $4.50 a day, instead of $1.60 during the time our Conservative friends were in power. I am here to say that there is no industrious miner in the province of Nova Scotia who need lack work in the mines, under this government, under the hopeful conditions that exist, not only in Nova Scotia, but all over this country. There is no necessity for

any industrious miner lacking work in any of the coal mining counties of Nova Scotia. My hon. friend tells us that these miners go to the companies' stores for their purchases. Perhaps I ought to apologize to the House for going into these details, but these statements require correction. The provincial legislature of Nova Scotia, a few years ago, passed legislation peremptorily requiring that all the wages of these men employed in the mines should be paid fortnightly and in cash, irrespective of any relation to the stores. That measure was passed by the Liberal party in the provincial legislature. Not only that, but I am in a position to know that the various operators, men controlling the coal companies :n our province, are anxious to assist the miners in obtaining their own homes. Cottages are being built by the companies foT their miners, in order to provide their men with homes. My hon. friend would like this House to believe that the conditions are bad and objectionable. The fact is that these coal companies have gone to the extent of giving land free to assist their employees to provide homes for themselves about the coal mines of our province. I may say again that unless my hon. friend wants to appear before this House and the people of his own province as a humorist, I can account in no other way for the statements he made last night. So far as the record of this Liberal government is concerned towards the coal mining industry of Nova Scotia, it is one in regard to which we welcome the fullest criticism, and I for one will be glad to hear anything that any hon. gentleman can say about it. I can prove that whereas there was difficulty, whereas there was gloom and despair all over the coal mines in Nova Scotia when the Conservatives were in power, to-day we have prosperity, advancement and development everywhere.
That is one of the reasons why I would like to notice the remarks of my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith), and to point out to the government the necessity for care in observing the attitude of the United States in Tegard to this matter. My hon. friend believes that the prosperity of our coal mining industry depends largely on a foreign market. My hon. friend is misinformed in regard to that. The markets for the Nova Scotia coal mines are in Canada, are in Montreal, where we send over 2,000,000 tons of coal yearly. This talk about Nova Scotia going into the American market is not based upon actual knowledge. I notice that my friend, Mr. Daniel Mann,_ of the Canadian Northern, gave an interview in Philadelphia the other day, and he undertook to dispose of this question with a wave of the hand. My friend, Mr. Mann, may know something about building railroads, but he has a good deal to learn in regard to this coal question. I am here to say that his opinion in regard to what should be done 158
with reference to coal, deserves very little weight simply because he is not properly informed. It is one of the old theories that the Ohio and Pennsylvania people are able to send coal down to New York. It would be a very nice state of affairs if the duty was taken off by the Americans, because then of course Nova Scotia would send her coal into New York and Boston, and we would have coal coming in here from Pennsylvania. Now, these are not the conditions that exist at all. The coal conditions along the Atlantic sea-board are controlled by the coal miners of West Virginia. We do not hear of West Virginia coal coming into Canada. An hon. friend near me says it does come in. Well, that only shows how the West Virginian people are extending their operations; if they can send coal across the lakes, and up to the head of Lake Superior; it shows how completely they control the New York and Boston market. I had an opportunity of being south not long ago, and seeing these tremendous piers where the coal of West Virginia comes down from the mountains to Norfolk, and is carried in barges and schooners along the coast un to .New York and Boston. Any one who studies the situation will tell vou in a moment that the New York market is controlled completely by the coal miners of West Virginia, and that Ohio and Pennsylvania are not competitive factors at that point. The same conditions exist largely also with regard to Boston. The total coal market in Boston is not more than 5,000,000 tons, not much more than Montreal. It might be interesting to the House to see just what these coal mining people say for themselves. You find that the Pittsburg people want to have the duty taken off coal, and West Virginia don't want to have it taken off. I have under my hand a memorandum which the West Virginia people made to the Ways and Means Committee in the United States. This is what , they sav. and the wisdom of their statement will be recognized by this House:
The coal trade of West Virginia has been built up against great difficulties in the way of transportation facilities and competition in the markets, and while the operators have, of course, taken their chances in the markets, and while the operators have of course taken their chances on a revision of the tariff injuriously affecting, perhaps destroying their investments, the fact remains that the business has been created and grown under conditions substantially as they are.
There are $70,000,000 of Canadian capital invested in the coal industry in Nova Scotia in regard to which the same statement might be made with equal truth as the West Virginia operators make in regard to themselves. The business in which that capital has been invested has been created and grown under substantially the present conditions as to tariff and on the faith that

-that practically no more coal has been brought into this country from Canada when the duty has been much reduced or entirely eliminated.
It also shows another thing-that if the duty were taken off bituminous coal it would not help the Canadian people to send any coal into the United States. Then it goes on:
We believe that there is little grounds for the argument that our eastern sea-board markets would be supplied with coal from Nova Scotia, and the coal from West Virginia and central Pennsylvania displaced.
These gentlemen go to the United States government and one group say that they would like to get in here and the other group say that they do not want the duty changed. Every one can see that the question of dealing with coal duties as far as the United States is concerned is not a matter of argument and could not by any possibility be so considered unless there was some idea of a long-term reciprocal arrangement. Then you would have a proposition about which there might be some argument, but the idea that the duty should be taken off in Canada on the theory that the coal purchaser in Ontario is going to get his coal cheaper is the most delusive idea and one that is objectionable-


Mr. STRATTON.: The Canadian and American consumer pay the same price for the same coal exactly at the mine.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, at the mine. Well, my hon. friend is telling us what the conditions are now. But, my hon. friend has heard of the dumping clause, has heard of the manufacturing interests of this country coming to this government and asking them to deal with cases where Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
the Americans had made Canada a dumping ground for their products when they were in difficulty and mv hon. friend will probably find that a changed condition in regard to coal would apply there. But my hon. friend is beside the mark as regards the ordinary everyday consumers of coal. My hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) gave us the figures showing that the imports of bituminous coal amounted to 6,485,000 tons and that of this 4,311,000 tons were imported by railways. I am aware that there is a large quantity of bituminous slack coal imported into Ontario, but there is no onerous difficulty in regard to that because the duty is only 15 cents a ton-a very much lower amount than a good many of those gentlemen who buy that coal ask and obtain from this government by way of protection to the products that they want to sell to the people of Nova Scotia. There were imported into Canada 1,154,000 tons of slack coal and the total amount of coal that came in for general consumption over and above what was used by the railways was only 2,173,481; so that, one-third of the coal that comes into Canada and is used by the ordinary consumer is slack coal on which there is only 15 cents a ton and on the whole quantity of bituminous coal the duty collected from the ordinary consumer in this country is only $1,000,000 or thereabouts. The ordinary coal consumer of this country contributes to the revenue outside of the railways, which occupy a peculiar position, only in the vicinity of $1,000,000. I do not think that is an unfair contribution and it does seem to me that the integrity of this country demands that due consideration should be given to all the industries all over the Dominion. Of course in addition to that, 615,000 tons of coke came into this country, but it came in absolutely free. One result of the policy of this government in regard to this question and in regard to the tariff question generally has been that it has taught the United States people that this country is a country that proposes to do business at its own stand and on behalf of its own people. In the days when our Conservative friends were in power we were regarded as a mere football for American interests and for American statesmen and manufacturers. But the position has so completely changed that the man who sits down and reads the tariff hearings that have gone on before the Ways and Means Committee at Washington rises from the perusal of that document with the conviction that the intervening years have brought Canada into such a position that the republic to the south of us regard us as a brother country practically of equal position and entitled to the same consideration as they extend to any country in the world.


Mr. J. D. REID.: The hon. gentleman is a protectionist now.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend need not worry about my position in regard to this question. My position in regard to the tariff is one that has never been concealed and that has never been in doubt.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: What is it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am neither a fad protectionist like my hon. friend nor a fad free trader. I stand for a sound business tariff such as this government have given this country for the past twelve years, one which is adapted from time to time to meet the needs we have and which has regard to the industrial conditions of the country all over. That, I say is a business tariff and I do not wish to be considered at all as a fad protectionist or a faddist free trader. I hope my position is satisfactory to my hon. friend.


John Dowsley Reid: Perfectly - a good protectionist.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Now, the conclusion at which I wish to arrive in regard to these few remarks is that the coal duty on coal and coal products to-day does not impose an enormous burden on the ordinary consumer and is necessary in order to maintain the proper adjustment of revenue production having regard to the different provinces of the Dominion. Nova Scotia produces very few things that enter into the business life of the rest of the country, and we purchase and purchase gladly from other portions of Canada Canadian products, the result of the efforts of Canadian manufacturers and Canadian workmen. The adjustment of conditions in regard to coal, as it has been made by this government, leaves our province in its proper place in regard to the whole tariff situation. The $70,000,000 invested in that province in that great industry creates a condition which cannot be disregarded whenever any of these problems come up for consideration. The attitude of the American nation to-day with regard to these matters shows that the policy pursued by this government in regard to coal and in regard to all other questions, has earned the Tespect of the great American people, and shows that they take us into consideration to a degree that they never did before when they come to settle their tariff problems and tariff considerations. The proposition laid down by the West Virginia coal miners in regard to this question is one which should be well considered and I have no doubt will be considered by this government in whatever action' may be taken on this question. For myself, I submit that the position of affairs with regard to our relations with the United States 158i
was never better laid down than it was laid down by the right hon. Prime Minister of this country some years ago when he declared that we would send no more delegations to Washington. That policy is one which should be maintained not only in regard to this question, but in regard to all the tariff questions which affect the interests of this country. My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) in his speech last night dealt with the coal industry in Nova Scotia, and were he in the House to-day I should like to know from him what is his policy with regard to coal. We have a very aggressive paper called the 'Halifax Herald,' which is supposed to speak for the Conservative party, and for months it has been promulgating the theory of free trade in coal. A distinguished journalist very high in the councils of the Conservative party, Mr. Milner, has been carrying a campaign for what is described as a Free Coal League, but the exact existence of which, unless it is a side wheel of the modern Conservative party, nobody has been able to discover. However, the object of his campaign is free coal with the United States. In 1891 the policy of the Conservative party was reciprocity in coal with the United States, and whether or not they have changed that policy I do not know, but for my part I submit that the record of this government for the last 12 years and the results achieved prove that there is no necessity for changing the existing conditions. Of course, as business developments arise conditions may change which might warrant the situation being reviewed in the common interests of the coal industry and of the people of Canada, but, in my judgment that time has not arrived, and should it ever come I have confidence in the ability of this government to grapple with the question and to arrange it in the interest of those concerned in the coal industry as well as of the coal consuming population of the country.
Then, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maddin) attempted to show that the exodus of Canadians to the United States is as great to-day as it was under the Conservative government, and he cited as a proof that last year $2,000,000 worth of settlers' effects had gone out of Canada. I took the trouble to look at the official returns and I found that the exact amount was $1,664,662, so that the hon. gentleman was only about $342,000 out. It may, however, be interesting to look at the other side of the account and there we find that there came from the United States to Canada last year settlers' effects to the amount of $6,818,673, and that there were over $10,000,000 worth came into Canada from all countries. This is truly a pleasing change from the days of Conservative rule when the balances were largely against us. My

hon. friend (Mr. Maddin) is a pessimist. He of course followed the lead of the exMinister of Finance, who seems unable to rise above that feeling of settled gloom which has characterised him during the past three or four years in this House. Other Conservative members occasionally do exhibit some feeling of hope and confidence in their country, but the hon. gentleman from North Toronto has settled down to the gospel of pessimism and the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) seems to have caught the disease. Our people in Nova Scotia do sometimes stray abroad, perhaps because of the adventurous spirit which characterizes the sons of the heather; but, the happy fact is in evidence now that whereas in the days of our Conservative friends they went to the United States, today they are migrating to the fertile plains of the Canadian west. I regret that the sons of Nova Scotia should leave their native province, but if go they must is it not a consoling thought that they go to another part of our own land where their industry and energy are directed to the development of the resources of our own country. One of the things for which as Canadians we should congratulate ourselves during the past twelve years of our national life is that in that period Canadians have been taught to know their country and to feel proud of it; to believe in its great possibilties and to feel a certainty in its future which nothing can shake. Looking forward to the days to come, and taking a retrospect of the years that have passed in this first decade of the twentieth century, no matter what our politics, we realize that in this northern land we have a country lavishly endowed with vast resources, and a people who, not with faint hearts and doubting woTds, but with strong minds and hopeful thoughts are eager to develop these resources and to lay the foundations of a great and strong nation. I am one of those who believe that Canada is but at the beginning of her nationhood, and no matter how gentlemen opposite may cavil, expenditures have to be made to-day and will have to he made in the future to prepare our country for the high rank she is destined to take. The feeling of the Canadian people today, and we ought to be proud of it, is a feeling of confidence in the future of Canada, of confidence in this Liberal party which has governed the country so well and under whose admin-instration unprecedented national progress has been made.


Mr. WM. WRIGHT (Muskoka).: Mr. Speaker, the annual delivery of the budget speech by the Minister of Finance, dealing as it does with the financial affairs of the country and outlining the general policy of the government, opens up such a wide Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
field for discussion that no member of this House need apologize for expressing in this debate his views on the condition of the country. Before proceeding I want to refer to what has been said by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) who has just spoken. He told us he did not know what the policy of the Conservative iparty was, but I can assure him that we have had a well defined policy for a good many years, and before the hon. gentleman casts any reflections on that policy I would suggest to him and to his friends that they should endeavour to find some designation for that poor, nameless, characterless, fatherless, motherless, something of a policy which belongs to the Liberal party, and which so far nobody lias been able to christen. The Minister of Finance arbitrarily fixed the population of the Dominion at 7,000,000 and I may say that having given sufficient attention to this question to enable me to give a fairly accurate approximation of what the population of our country really is, I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) that if he gives the population of Canada at 6,000,000 he will be much nearer the mark, and his deductions as to per capita taxation and so on drawn from the population, would have been much more accurate than they were. These gentlemen opposite claim that they have stopped the exodus of Canadians to the United States but that I most emphatically deny. More Canadians are leaving this country to-day than ever before, and they are being driven out by the policy of the hon. gentlemen opposite. In that connection I wish to read one or two items which I have culled from the newspapers, and which like straws show which way the wind blows:
Toronto, April 13.-'The United States owes much to Canadian nurses,' said Mr. E. F. Stevens, hospital architect, of Boston, addressing the third conference of the Canadian Hospital Association at the parliament buildings to-day on 'Some Points in the Architecture of Small Hospitals.' ' One can scarcely visit a hospital from Maine to California without finding Canadian nurses in charge. In one hospital I visited I noticed a British flag in almost every nurse's room. I asked the superintendent how this was, and she told me that about ninety per cent of the nurses were Canadians. Thus you see that here in Canada I feel among friends.'
This prevails all over the United States. Here is another item which I cut out of a newspaper on the same day:
Seventeen families, all French-Canadians, are reported to have left the vicinity of Farn-ham, 'Quebec, for the United States.
Here is another which I cut out of one of the Ottawa papers this morning:
There are glowing reports of the success cf the Canadian society of New York, which

during the past year added 71 members to its rolls, and endowed a cot at $5,000 in the Presbyterian hospital of New York. Dr. J. J. iMcPhee is the president.
If hon. gentlemen opposite have stopped the exodus to the United States, where are the recruits coming from who are referred to there? To my own personal knowledge, there are young men and young women leaving Canada for the United States on every train that crosses the border, and in most instances they do not return to this country. I admit that there is quite an influx of Americans from the western states who are tempted to come to this country, bonused to come by the gift of $1,000 worth of land. A great many of them are coming, tempted by free land and the opportunity to make money out of the land, but a great many of them have no intention of becoming permanent residents of Canada. I will give an illustration. Being in the town of Moose-jaw about a year and a half ago, while waiting for an early morning train, I met an American who told me that he had come to Canada some five years before and taken up a homestead, brought some of his relatives, homesteaded in their name, stayed long enough to get his patent, speculated in lands in the neighbourhood, made a lot of money out of Canada, and then took his family back to the United States, and he had come over again to collect some money still due to him. He told me that he was a representative of a great many Americans who came to Canada without intending to make it their permanent home, but simply took advantage of the offer of this government to make some easy money and then go back. I do not mean to say that a large number of these people will not become permanent settlers. Once they settle in Canada, they will find it difficult to pull up and go back, but I do say that a great many come without any intention of becoming permanent residents of this country.
To return to the speech of the Minister of Finance. A great many of the apologists of the government have given a great deal of credit to the Minister of Finance for having what they call a surplus. When you have two accounts open, one a running account dealing with the ordinary running expenses of government, and the other dealing with expenditures on matters of a permanent character, it is very easy, if you are allowed to transfer from one account to another, to make your running account balance and show a surplus, and since hon. gentlemen opposite have come in they have made it easier. When the old rails on the Intercolonial become worn out and they put in new ones they charge the new rails to capital account. When a locomotive wears out and they buy a new one, they charge the new locomotive to capital account. This method of transacting business runs through all their accounts, and by doing business in that way it is the simplest thing in the world to have a surplus. I have been somewhat amused at the government and their friends adding up these surpluses year after year. They always suggest to me the story of the man who went to town before Thanksgiving to get a turkey. He bought the turkey, but also bought and consumed a good leal of liquor. But he knew that it was important that he should bring the turkey home, and he started. After rolling and tumbling in the mud a good many times, he managed to reach home, but the turkey was so muddy that it was hard to tell what it was. He threw it on the table, saying: ' Here, wife, are thirteen turkeys.' His wife said: 'You foolish man, when the mud is off we shall see whether there is one or not; but there are not thirteen.' He said: 'There must be thirteen, because I fell down thirteen times, and every time I fell down I picked up a turkey.' Those thirteen turkeys were not more visionary or harder to find than the surpluses of hon. gentlemen opposite. Some hon. gentlemen opposite suggest that it is important to know where the money came from to make the surpluses. I think it is as important to find out where the surpluses are stored and what use is made of them, and I would ask the Finance Minister to enlighten the House on these points.
We have heard a good deal with regard to the policies of the two parties of this country, as to which bears most heavily upon the general public. My own view is that the only rule that we can apply in deciding that question is to compare the amount of money that has been extracted from the pockets of the people under the respective policies. When we do that, and find that hon. gentlemen opposite have taken nearly three times as much out of the pockets of the people as their Conservative predecessors did, we must come to the conclusion that their policy, whatever its name is, has been successful in taxing the people to a much greater extent, both in bulk and in detail, than that of their predecessors. Now, it is not a very hard thing to tax the people. Some hon. gentlemen opposite thought that the Minister of Finance was deserving of a great deal of credit because he succeeded in taxing the people almost to the limit. To my mind, that is something to apologize for, not to pride themselves upon. It ought to be the policy of public men in Canada to take from the people just as small an amount in the way of taxation as possible. I lay that down as a rule, and that was the policy of the Conservative party when they introduced the national policy. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to be surprised that we should favour a reduction of the tariff under certain circumstances. Let me reply that it has always been the policy of the Conser-

vative party to lower the tariff to the lowest possible point on everything we do not produce, such as tea, coffee, sugar and other things of every day consumption. Then we would set the tariff high enough to give protection to our manufacturers and at the same time take care to see that the general public were not taxed more than they ought to be. Wherever any manufacturer in this country showed a disposition to take more out of the pockets of the people than he was fairly entitled to, we were in the position to cut the tariff from under him and in that way look after the interests of the people. We were more successful in this matter than our hon. friends opposite. They have succeeded in taxing the people abnormally. They have extracted more out of the pockets of the people than there was any warrant for. So much for the difference between the two policies. But some of our friends, when they attack the national policy say that some manufacturers and producers would take advantage of the high tariff and tax the people beyond what they ought to pay. Well, I admit there is always a danger of that, but it has always been our policy, under the national policy, to protect the interests of the general public, and I do feel that these interests were safer in the hands of the Conservatives than in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite. I need only refer to what we have heard this afternoon from my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and the other night from my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith). The hon. member for Nanaimo advocates free coal; my hon. friend from Pictou advocates the very opposite. Where is the unanimity there? What is their tariff policy-free coal or a high protective duty? Will some member of the government answer that question? I am afraid no one will attempt to answer it. They will not even give their policy a name because they want to make it all things to all men in every corner of the Dominion. In some places, it will be high protection; in others free trade; in others reciprocity with the United States; and elsewhere something else. It is one of those patent double back action arrangements which will adjust themselves to any kind of conditions anywhere.
Hon. gentlemen lay down the theory that our exports and imports are infallible indications of the prosperity of this country. I feel like taking issue with them. To my mind they are an index of the very opposite. I pin my faith to the theory that the nearer you can bring together the original producer and consumer, the better for the country. What is it that makes the farmer the most independent man in creation? Is it not the fact that within the borders of his farm he can produce a larger measure of what he needs than can any other man? What is true of the Mr. WRIGHT.
farmers is true of the country. Given a country like Canada, with all its natural resources, with its minerals, coal and iron, with its timber, fisheries and agricultural lands, is it not a shame that we should take up a policy apparently designed to make us merely the hewers of wood and drawers of water for the people of the south. What are our exports? Are they not simply the raw material upon which just as little work has been performed as possible to get them out of the country. True, we thresh wheat and ship it, and we ship it that way because we could not ship it in the stock. We cut our timber and ship it in logs because otherwise the United States would charge us a duty. If we cut it into boards, they will not admit it free. We are depleting our forests and taking out our minerals as fast as we can, and sending out our raw material to be manufactured some place else, and then brought back to this country and sold at a profit. That policy is altogether wrong. It ought to be the duty of the government to have these things manufactured in this country. If we had not half the exports and imports we now have, we might be still more progressive and prosperous. Why do we have these excessive exports and imports? Simply because we have been content to ship our raw materials out of Canada. Sooner or later we will begin to realize our mistaken policy, and realize it very keenly. The result of that poiiey has been that our young men are going to the United States where they can find the diversity of employment lacking at home. Our young men go to the United States in large numbers, and the only people whom we can keep at home are the boys who are content to go and work in the lumber woods or in the mines. To my mind that policy is altogether wrong, and it is the duty of the government to try and develop those lines of manufacture in which we have the raw material, and the brain and the brawn to convert that raw material into the goods we need. Is there any reason why we could not, if we had a proper poiiey, develop all these things here instead of sending out good money in order to bring into this country goods from Europe and the United States?
There is a feature brought to my mind in connection with this debate with which I wish to deal at a little greater length. Before doing that, I want to say a word with regard to some statements which were made by some hon. gentlemen who addressed this House. The hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McLean) stated that the, people of Canada did not want to go back to the days of soup kitchens, and he intimated that during the time of the Conservative government soup kitchens were a common thing. I want to say to him and to hon. members opposite that there has been more

soup ladled out in soup kitchens in the last two years than in any two years-or any four years-of the Conservative government. In the riding I have the honour to represent, there were more idle men last winter than in any two years of the Conservative regime. In that riding we have three factories closed that were closed within the last year or two-shut up by the policy of the hon. gentlemen opposite. No smoke comes from their chimneys, the wheels are standing still, the workmen rap at their doors in vain, and as they stand they bear eloquent though silent tribute to the efficacy of the policy of the present government. We are hopeful that possibly we may be able to start one of these again, but we are not sure. We had a linen mill started there very hopefully a few vears ago. It went on until the people found difficulty in selling their product. In discussing the matter with the manager, I stated to him that government objected to putting on higher duties, on the ground that the prices would be raised accordingly. He said to me: If the government will give us a little higher duty, sufficient to afford us a reasonable grip of the market, we are ready to give a bond to the government or to anybody in their employ that we will not raise the prices to the consumers of Canada; what we want is the market; the price is all right, we are quite satisfied with the price, but when we put our travellers on the road, they find that dealers are already supplied from importing houses in England, France, Germany, or elsewhere, making it very hard for us to carry on our business. Besides, there is the prejudice against Canadian goods fostered by hon. gentlemen opposite in the years, to them long and weary years, when they were out of office. During that time, they travelled up and down this country-and I charge them with it now-trying to poison the minds of the people against the manufacturers of Canada, calling them robbers, thieves, scoundrels and every name they could lay their tongues to. That is absolutely true; I have heard them say it myself.


Mr. PATERSON.: When was that mill built?


William Wright: About six or seven years ago.


William Paterson: Under the present tariff?


William Wright: Yes, and it has been shut up under the present tariff.


Robert Laird Borden: Misplaced confidence.	I


William Wright: I do not wish to be understood as saying that the linen mill is permanently closed. The people are hopeful
that they will be able to go on when they can get rid of their stock, or when the government come to their assistance. What is true of the linen industry is true of others; the people do not ask higher prices, but they ask the market and right there hon. gentlemen opposite and their friends throughout the country are unfair to the producers and manufacturers, of Canada. The manufacturers, as I understand it, do not ask higher prices, they only ask the market, and there is all the difference in the world between these two. Let me give an illustration. I was once in the manufacturing business in a small way, and I take this illustration from the business I know-building wagons:	Suppose a small
manufacturer is building one hundred wagons a year and feels that he ought to make $1,000 a year out of it,-he works hard not only with his hands, but with his head. To make the $1,000 he has to make $10 on each wagon. If he can make
1,000	wagons instead of 100 wagons, he will only have to make a profit or $2 each in order to make $2,000 a year, which is better for both parties. The amount of business a man can do is the important matter. A manufacturer in the United States selling in our market, while he has his own market also is at a decided advantage over a manufacturer in Canada who has only a limited market and has to divide it with a competitor, who has an advantage over him in so many ways. I am speaking not only for the manufacturers of this country but for the consumers as well. I believe that, under a proper policy properly carried out, the consumers would get their goods cheaper than they do to-day. I ask hon. members on both sides of the House:	Comparing with world-prices, are
the people of Canada getting their goods cheaper to-day than they did fifteen or twenty years ago? The answer must be, emphatically, No; they are paying more in proportion to the prices of the world than when the Conservative party were in power. Hon. gentlemen opposite say wages are up. We have not found it so in the riding I have the honour to represent. I will not say they have gone down quite to the point they reached in the days of the depression from 1893 to 1896. Wages in the lumber camps and work of that kind came down to $18 a month. Of course, at that rate the people were fed. During this winter, wages came down to $20, and, in some cases, as low as $18. But there is one great difference: There never was a time during all the years the Conservative party was in power when men were out of work; they had to take comparatively low wages during some years, but they could get work; but this winter they have had to walk the streets and could not get work. I have never had as many men at my door asking

for employment as last winter. I am not a pessimist; naturally I am an optimist. And I have not used outside this House the facts I have stated. I have never said to one of these men that it was the party in power or the policy of the party in power that was responsible for the dearth of employment. I have never tried to create discontent with the government or with the country in which we are living and which we desire to see prosper. We on this side will not adopt the tactics of hon. gentlemen opposite when they were out of power. Up and down the side lines, and through the press and on the platform they decried the country, and tried to make the people believe that they were being robbed. If we had adopted tactics of that kind at any time within the last two or three years, we could have brought about a condition that would be appalling. But we think more of the country than we do of the government benches, and we will not follow the example of hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to this matter.
Now, I have said a word or two with regard to emigration from the country. Before I take up the matter of public works, I would like to refer briefly to the subject of immigration into Canada as to what we are getting in this country in place of the young men and women who are going to the United States. Perhaps I cannot illustrate this better than to read this item from the Otawa Free Press of April 13:-
Galicians fought like demons upon the streets of Winnipeg while mad with whisky. Wild orgy in connection with the celebration
of the Galician Easter-The whole affair was
a bestial exhibition-Police had hands full
trying to arrest offenders.
Winnipeg, April 13.-Police court officials will have to take a rest to reoover from the effects of the police docket yesterday. It was +be aftermath of the Galician Easter celebration, and the names on the list looked as if tie alphabet had hteen dumped into a big bag ard each individual had grabbed a handful of letters to be arranged as best suited himself. And the mix-up in the names was no worse than the mix-up in the features of the owners. There were men with faces scratched and gashed, men with parts of their noses missing, men with pieces chewed out of their ears, men and women with bandages of all eorts and colours.
And the story told by the police who were on duty was lurid. The battle raged all over the foreign settlement, and in the later stages it was simply a case of gathering up the victims and stacking them where they would not suffer from exposure. A couple of constables would pick up a drunken man and start on a two-mile carry to the police station, but before they had gone a block they would eight a fight which looked as if murder was about due. The drunk would have to be dropped in the more pressing need, and by the tame the fight was stopped there would be one or two more in sight. There were Mr. WRIGHT.
drunken and battered men in sheds, on the sidewalks and in the ditches. A woman threw a beer keg through a door, smashing it from its hinges. Another keg went through a window. A man stole a keg, was seen getting away with it, and was hammered over the head with a stick of wood till he joined the 'dead ones/
From a point on Mangus avenue there were . three fights in sight at one time, and the police had no time to make arrests for they could not be spared from the difficult task of keeping the gangs of sots from killing each other. The whole affair was bestial in the extreme. The fines yesterday ranged from $10 down. There are prisoners awaiting trial on more serious charges, and gangs of foreigners are besieging the stations, wanting to lay information against others who beat them during the carousal.
I think, Mr. Speaker, comment is unnecessary.
Now, I wish to say a word or two on the subject of what is done with the money that is extracted from the pockets of the people of Canada for the purposes of this government. I will take up only one phase of the question, and will deal very shortly even with that-the question of public works. To my mind, the whole system under which this is managed by the government is wrong. There seems to be no plan to guide the government, and so we have large expenditures made in places where they are not needed, while other places are denied expenditures which ought to be made in the public interest. It seems that everything in this regard has to be done through the Minister of Public Works, who is supposed not only to look after the erection of the buildings and other public works of this country but to have an intimate knowledge of the intricacies of every other department, enabling him to form an opinion as to whether a public work is necessary or not. In my opinion, no Minister of Public Works could fill such a place. I think that if the Minister of Public Works looks after the erection of Public Works and sees to it that the public money is properly expended, he is doing all that we ought to ask any man to do who fills that position. The head of every great spending department ought to primarily assume the responsibility for the expenditures made for that department. If it is a matter of post offices, then the Postmaster General ought to say where the post offices should be erected, and in the same way with the Minister of Militia, who has the facts at his finger ends, ought to assume the responsibility of deciding where buildings should be erected for his department. In the same way with regard to the Minister of Railways and Canals, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and others. The Interior Department certainly ought to know whether an immigration building is needed at a certain point in the

west and whether a court house is needed at some other point better than the Minister of Public Works can possibly know. In that connection there is a little matter in the Post Office Department to be noted. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in making his budget statement said that the Post Office Department paid its way.
I want to say that, under a fair statement, of receipts and expenditures, the Post Office Department does not pay its way and never has paid its way. Large expenditures incurred by the people of Canada purely for the carrying on of the post office are not shown in the statement of the Post Office Department. We are putting up post office buildings here and there all over Canada. But, when the Postmaster General deals with the finances of his department, he leaves these buildings out of consideration-they find no place in his report. Prior to the erection of the post office, the Postal Department has been making an allowance to the postmaster or some other official to pay for the maintenance of the post office, but, as soon as a public building is erected for>
the use of the post office, the Postal Department is relieved of that charge which is assumed by the Department of Public Works. When a deputation comes asking for a post office, they ought to appear before the Postmaster General. Right in his own department he would have all the facts and figures as to the revenue and the needs of the office to guide him in arriving at a decision as to whether the circumstances warrant the erection of a building there or not. When we criticise the Minister of Public Works for erecting a post office here or there, he tells us that the people came down from there and told him that it was necessary. The result of the present management of affairs appears to be that during certain seasons, generally prior to an election, the Minister of Public Works undergoes a sort of softening process, he gets his heart and feelings in pliable condition. Somebody is sent out to the various constituencies where there are Liberal candidates to notify them of the fact. They organize a deputation and it comes down, and, while the minister is in that pliable mood, they are able to make an impression upon him which is indelible, and which he will hold when he is getting up his estimates for the next year. But when the discussion of the estimates is reached in this House and we try to press upon the minister the urgent need of public works here and there, his heart is as hard as the nether millstone or as the cement made over in Hull which we see advertised in the 'Citizen'; we cannot make any impression upon it. I have taken the trouble to go into this question to show the way public buildings of the Postal Department are erected. I take
about fifty places in which post offices have been erected-the number is large enough to give a fair estimate. I find that the average cost of these post offices is oyer $30,000. This includes the towns and villages and leaves out of consideration the large cities.
But they erected public buildings in these places, and were paying the postmasters the average sum of $150 for light, heat, rent and looking after the office, all that was necessary to carry on the business. But in these places where we got a public building for $150 per annum, they have erected a post office that cost us $30,000, and the result has been that we have an average cost for maintenance of that building of $1,200, and at 4 per cent, the average interest on that investment, is another $1,200. That gives us a charge that we have to make up of $2,400, an annual charge for all time, making no provision for finally wiping out the debt we contracted in putting up the building. That is the position. What we got for $150 before, costs us $2,400. Now I think that if better quarters are occasionally needed, by giving a large sum in rent in these small places men could be found who would be willing to make a good postal bunding and put it at the disposal of the department, and there would not be, in many instances, any necessity for the erection of a public building at such a very large cost, for which there can be no necessity. I may say that I went over 25 of these small offices to see about what the average income of the office was, and I found that the average gross income of 25 of these offices was $1,628. Now these were considered, I suppose, works of urgent necessity. I have here the list, which hon. gentlemen can see if they wish. I have also a list of 25 places which were not considered of sufficient importance to warrant the erection of a building; they had not reached that stage 'of development that would warrant the government in putting up a new building, and yet the average gross revenue in these 25 places, three of them in towns in my own riding, was $7,225. But other places averaging a little over $1,600 were considered of sufficient importance to warrant the government in spending large sums of public money. Now I charge hon. gentlemen opposite with giving more attention to party expediency in these matters than to the public welfare, and so far as the expenditure of public money is concerned, they have left public benefit out of sight altogether. It is simply a matter of trying to win elections, and of trying to please their party friends; that is the Teason they expend such large sums in places where the revenue is so small.
Now I wish to speak of some other items of expenditure. I want to take up an occurrence with which I am familiar, because

it transpired in the riding I represent, and it shows the manner in which the public moneys of this country are spent. We have a little village in my riding called Bays-ville, a little town that rests on the northwest bank of the Muskoka river, the south branch. About five years ago the government determined to put a little wharf there, and when the appropriation was voted, they started to build the wharf and spend that sum of money. A little later on, after I came into the House, they appropriated another small sum of money to complete that wharf. The contractor had started to go on when somebody, evidently from the department or under the authority of the Public Works Department, arrived on the scene and instructed him to go right across the river on the opposite side from the town, and expend the money there. So they started to build a wharf there, and the result was that we had two wharfs started, neither of them completed. Again, last year they determined to complete one of these wharfs, and a gentleman was instructed to go on again and to complete the wharf on the side where the town is situated. He started to work, but he was again stopped and sent across the river. He has completed a little wharf on the east side, and put a nice deck over it, and a gentleman who is a good party friend of this government has been appointed wharfinger. He has a little store just above this wharf, on the east side of the river, and he is the only man who can use that wharf, it is no benefit under heaven to anybody else. The government simply built that wharf for a party friend, and they have denied it to the people of the town where the wharf should be. They say to them,
' You will have to wait until some future time, the interest of our party friend is so paramount that we must look after him first.' Now in that town, which is not very large, there are two ordinary hotels, a large summer hotel, churches, stores, a post office, shoemakers' shops, and all that goes to make up a nice little village; while on the opposite side there is only one business man, and he is well looked after by this government. Now that is not an isolated instance, similar instances can be cited all over Canada where they have been looking after their party friends first, and the moneys of the people of Canada are being squandered in that way.
Now the riding I represent pays annually into the treasury of this Dominion, in customs revenue and taxes, something over $260,000. And when I come to this government and ask them to renew a little grant for the town of Gravenhurst, an item of $4,000 that was in last year, they cannot afford it. They take out of the riding $250,000, and they cannot give us back $4,000.


Mr. WEIGHT.: Now, is that a condition of affairs that ought to prevail? Yet they have money to squander on that little wharf for a party friend; they have money for the Newmarket ditch, they have money away upon Lake Nipissing for a little place called Monette-ville, where they dredge out a channel for one man who has a little sawmill, but of course he is a party friend. That is the way the money of this country is being spent, and we decidedly objec.t to it. When hon. gentlemen opposite get up and tell us of the the great public works that cannot be stopped, I want them to stop looking after their party friends. They are squandering many, many thousands of the money of the people of Canada for no benefit whatever to the general public. To my mind it requires more than a mere statement that a work is for the general benefit of Canada to warrant us in making public expenditures of that kind.
I might go on in the same line, but I have already spoken longer than I intended. It has never been my habit to absorb the time of the House to the detriment of others, nor do I intend to do so to-night. I feel that any member of the House who confines himself to the subject can, in a reasonable time, say what he wants to say, and give all the members of the House an opportunity, at some time during the session, to express their views on public questions that come up for discussion. I feel that when public money is honestly expended, and expended on great public works that are of benefit to the public, we on this side of the House ought to give our assent, and we ought to assist the government in that matter. But that is entirely different from the wastefulness and extravagance that has prevailed all through the expenditures of this government. It is not confined to the items I have mentioned. We find Merwins all through the spending departments, we find hundreds of others who are feeding at the public crib, occupying the same position of middlemen, absorbing the wealth of the country which should be devoted to necessary public works. If the money that is being wasted every year could be put to some good use, we could carry on the business of this country without unduly increasing the public debt. But hon. gentlemen opposite will never be able to do a great deal in giving us public works as long as they continue the system which has prevailed during the past. I would urge upon them the necessity of cutting out their wastefulness, of cutting out the middlemen. Let us get an honest administration of public affairs and let us see that with every dollar extracted from the people we shall do something that will be of real benefit to them. I dissent from

the proposition that we should carry on great works, many of which will never be of any permanent benefit. I think that we should, as far as possible, pay as we go, and that we should not leave to posterity a great legacy of debt for works that will probably have tumbled into ruin before posterity arrives. The people who come after us will have their own problems to solve and their own burdens to bear. We will have pretty well cleaned out the timber resources and the minerals and will have taken the virgin elements out of the soil, so that it will be much harder then to till and to produce the wealth of grain that the people are producing so easily to-day. We will leave them problems that it will be hard for them to solve, and I think we ought not to unduly increase the public debt. We ought to see that every dollar we spend is spent in the interest of the public


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton).: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate I suppose it will be somewhat difficult to interest the House to any great degree in anything new that I may have to offer upon this subject. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wright) who has just taken his seat, has gone over the ground pretty well from the standpoint of his party, and criticised the policy of the present administration in a modest and moderate way. Speaking for myself, I have no great fault to find with the manner in which he has discharged his duty to himself, and, as I suppose, he feels he is called upon to discharge his duty to his constituents and to his party. The keynote of the hon. gentleman's speech was the reckless expenditure of public moneys in the Dominion of Canada. If there be a reckless expenditure of public moneys that is a matter of which the public, whose money is being expended should take note. It is a matter to which their attention should be called and it will certainly be the duty of the people to take such steps as are necessary to prevent any reckless expenditure of money, if reckless expenditure there be. But, we are pleased to note, notwithstanding the description that my hon. friend has given of the people of the city of Winnipeg, that we have in Canada a highly intelligent class of people. We have a class of people that, I venture to say, are as intelligent, taking them man for man, as any other number of people in any part of the known world, if not more intelligent. After the opposition, which, I presume, was doing its duty, had sifted out to the very foundation anything that could be said to be wrong about the administration, the case) has been once, twice, aye, three times submitted to that intelligent, well qualified jury, and every time they have brought in a verdict, that, as far as they could ascertain, and having had the evidence fully before them, they found no extravagance in the administration. They found that the government was capably and competently conducting the public affairs of the country, and that whatever money was expended was expended in the best interests of the people. That being the verdict of the people more than once, more than twice, I am not much disturbed by the speech made this afternoon by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. The conclusion that a large majority of the people have come to is that there are no wasteful expenditures and that if there are expenditures they are in the best interests of the country. As my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said on a previous occasion, if we are today spending $100,000,000 in this country we are spending it on a hundred million dollar country. That is the difference between the expenditure that is being made to-day and the expenditure in the days when the friends of my hon. friend were in power. They were proportionately spending very much more money than we are spending to-day, spending it with very poor results and spending it in such a manner that when the administration of public affairs was submitted to that high and intelligent jury of whom I spoke a moment ago, the actions of the government were condemned and they lost the confidence of the people. There is a great difference between the two administrations. My hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), the other night, said that the party to which he had the honour to belong never lost the confidence of the people by reason of their tariff or fiscal policy. I agree with the hon. gentleman that they did not, but he must not forget, while he and his friends are charging this administration with extravagance and mismanagement, the real reason why his party were turned out of power. While the hon. gentleman said they were never put out of power by reason of their financial policy he neglected to tell us why they were put out of power. It is no new story to this country that they came into power in the early days of confederation and that they went out of power in 1873 or 1874. Why did they go out of power then? It is well known that they went out of power, byreason, not only of reckless expenditure and mismanagement of public affairs, not only by reason of expenditures that were wasteful and could not be defended, but by reason of dishonest expenditures and by reason of shockingly scandalous expenditures that the people could not stand for and they were hurled from power. That is the reason why they went out of power on that occasion and not by reason of any defect in their financial policy. They got back to power and why

did they go out of power again? Ask them and ask the records of this country. It was because some of the canker, some of the microbe, which we heard so much about from the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) still remained. It seems that this microbe got into their constitution and the people's scourging in 1873 did not eliminate that microbe altogether. It broke forth again in 1894, 1895 and 1896, and the people were again obliged to scourge them from power. This time the people, having given them two opportunities of giving the country an honest administration of its affairs and having found that they were not capable of taking tne lesson, again turned them out of power. It seems to me that the great public have made up their minds that never again will they give them an opportunity


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. McKENZIE

of managing the affairs of this country.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: That is a joke.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Let us see how they are getting along and what gains they are making. My hon. friend from Leeds is very fond of figures, of calculations, and of discussing the question of the finery of women, blouses, gloves and all such things as that. My hon. friend dearly loves to peruse the Auditor General's Report. I fail to find it very interesting reading myself but it seems that my hon. friend, the whip, finds it so interesting that he sleeps with it under his head at night. He went into figures and he gave us a dissertation on the rule of three; but just as we have dispensed with allowing the Tory party to manage the affairs of the country so we have dispensed in mathematical circles with that ancient system, and we now deal with such problems under a more unique and mathematically correct unitary method. After hearing the hon. gentleman the other evening I tried to figure out how long it would take by the rule of three, and calculating the proportionate gain of the Tory party since 1896, for them to get back into power. I was rather sorry to discover that 60 or 70 years would roll by before, on the basis of that calculation, the Conservative whip and his friends would resume their seats on the government benches. And, that long cycle of years rendering it impossible for any one in this House to ever see the day, I passed over the question as not being within the range of practical politics. The present government is doing first-class work, the country is well governed, there is no reckless expenditure notwithstanding some irresponsible statements which have been made by members of the opposition, Canada is being developed along proper lines and so long as the government continues to do as they have done there will be no desire in the minds of the Mr. D. D. McKENZIE.
people for a change. If it were true that there had been reckless expenditure it would be a serious matter, but let me ask how it is, that the members of the opposition have challenged so very few, of the appropriations which have been passed by this House. Even if all the votes they contested were deserving of censure, it will be found that a very small percentage indeed of the vast amount of money expended during the past 12 years has met with opposition from the Conservative benches. I may say that I ran two elections for the Dominion House, in both of which I was keenly contested by a very competent gentleman, a Conservative of the old school well versed in the ways and means and the theories and practices of the Conservative party; a gentleman well capable of putting up a campaign against me or against any other Liberal who might cross swords with him. But that gentleman, capable as he was, and capable as were his supporters in these campaigns, they could not put their finger on one single dollar of misappropriated money. It is a fact that to-day there is a lawsuit pending in the province of Nova Scotia taken by Mr. Morrison against my opponent because he charged Mr. Morrison with the misappropriation of $59.37 of money belonging to the province which he alleged had been expended improperly in the painting of a bridge in the northern part of the county. This will serve to show how our opponents were driven to their wits end for scandals against this government when they had to rake up such a small matter. It is a fact proven by my experience in this House that there are more claims for the expenditure of public money coming from the Conservatives than from the Liberals. I do not think there is a solitary Conservative member who, in Committee of Supply, has not stood up manfully and pointed out where in his county or in some county adjacent there was necessity for a further expenditure of money. That being so, how is it that these gentlemen criticise the government for its expenditures. I cannot see the logic of their contention, and I am quite sure that the Conservative members themselves do not see any logic in it either.
A few days ago, at the opening of this debate, the financial critic of the opposition made some statements to which I would like to refer. I am rather disinclined to mention the name of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) because it seems to be insinuated that every new member wishes to climb to glory and fame by making some attack on that hon. gentleman. I disclaim any such intention at once. But. as the hon. gentleman is the chief financial critic of his party, and as-without disparity to any other hon. gentleman- he certainly made the ablest speech from

his side of the House, it is natural that those who follow him should be more apt to have something to say about him than about others of his friends. However, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) at the end of his very clever speech proceeded ironically to show the Prime Minister why he should be proud of his Minister of Finance. Let me say to the House that we in Nova Scotia are proud of the Minister of Finance, and we are prouder still when we know that Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific are also proud of that hon. gentleman. I venture to say,-without reflecting in the slightest degree on the popularity of any other hon. gentleman in Canada,-that with the exception of the brilliant leader of the government there is not a man to-day in Canada who is better beloved by the whole people regardless of party politics than is the Hon. W. S. Fielding. We had a trial of him in Nova Scotia for 14 years as premier of that province and his high character and reputation live to-day in the memory of our people. He has now for 12 years occupied the distinguished position of Minister of Finance of the Dominion and we have reason to be proud that although millions and millions of dollars have passed through his hands in the administration of his department, he stands to-day the same pure-minded, clean-handed, good-hearted, and upright W. S. Fielding who 12 years ago fresh from his laurels as premier of Nova Scotia, took charge of the finances of the Dominion of Canada. No man can truthfully say one word against the character of that gentleman, character or reputation, private or public life of that gentleman, and why should not the Prime Minister of this country, and why should not the people of Canada, and why should not the people of Nova Scotia especially be proud of the Minister of Finance? We are all well satisfied with his administration and with the way in which he is handling the finances of this country. The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) a few days ago delivered a very admirable address in this House, in which he discussed very ably the financial side of the budget. He pointed out that even if some of the loans were not exactly such as he would like them to be, if the very best terms that were possible under the circumstances were obtained, no fault could be found) with the Finance Minister. I approve entirely of the sensible and logical position of the hon. member. I do not profess to be a financier; I am a lawyer by profession, and I am willing to leave to other gentlemen who are experts in finance questions of this kind. Being satisfied of the honestv and ability of the Minister of Finance and of the honesty and ability of every minister who asks him for a vote of money, I discharge from my mind
at once every criticism of the finances of the government. I am satisfied that the moneys are required by every department that asks for them, and I am satisfied that the Finance Minister will find the moneys on the most reasonable terms possible. '
I have heard the criticism that this government has no policy. Indeed, the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Wright) referred to this government as a sort of Melchizedek without beginning of days or end of time, without father or mother, something that could not by any possibility be defined. I cannot understand what justification the hon. gentleman has for such a description. Perhaps we sometimes get a little off our feet or lose our head in the effort to say something clever. I do not think the hon. gentleman has improved his speech by applying such a description to this government.


William Wright: I made no description of this government. I described their policy.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is a government but its policy? If its policy is bad, it must be a poor government. We admit, of course, that taking them man for man the government are very excellent Canadians; but I take the responsibility of saying that not only is the personnel of this government all right, but its policy and its administration are equally so.
Four years ago the opposition had a policy, and, after all, as is said about questions of title to land, you have to succeed upon the strength of your own title, not upon the weakness of the other man's. So I say to my Conservative friends that if ever they expect to attain power, they must get there by the strength of their own policy, and not by displaying the weaknesses which they may discover on our side. In 1904 they had a fairly sensible policy, so far as I could understand it, and I was put pretty hard against it in my own county. They were in favour of the public ownership of railways. That is a strong policy. I do not know how wise or how workable it is in this country, particularly from the financial point of view, but it was a plank in their platform, and they stood to it.
They also had a policy of high protection -adequate protection, as they called it, which no man living or dead could describe. No man on earth could tell you what adequate protection might mean. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Mad-din) came pretty near to attempting a definition of it last night. I do not like to ask questions of a member who is speaking, or I would have asked him to define it, as I have been very anxious for four years to find some man who can do so. My hon. friend, with that jaunty way of his, referred to it as if it was very easy to define it. I was reminded of the attempt of Mr. Dooley to give a definition of Kruger's fran-

chise, of which he failed to give any intelligent definition. If my hon. friend from South Cape Breton had attempted to wade in the deep waters of adequate protection, I am sure that he would have found himself in the same boat as Mr. Dooley. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition is a clever lawyer, and definitions are not out of the line of lawyers. They are trained to understand language; but though he rather prides himself on the fatherhood of this phrase, when it comes to being its godfather and giving it a definition, like the old story of the man who could not read the letter he had writiten and sent it off saying there were better scholars in Ireland, the hon. gentleman left it to the world at large to provide the definition.
Besides adequate protection, the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite m 1904 included opposition to the Grand Trunk Pacific. They advocated opposition to the Grand Trunk Pacific. That was a stand to take worthy of a great party. They were wrong of course but they had the courage to put forward those three issues; Higher tariff, public ownership of railways and absolute and strenuous opposition to the policy of building the Grand Trunk Pacific. On those three issues they went to the country and were routed horse, toot and artillery. Hardly a man of them was left to tell the tale. But if high protection were a sound policy, if the public ownership of railways were a good policy, if opposition to the Grand Trunk Pacific were a wise policy, why did they abandon them? No political party has the right to abandon its policy simply because the people have turned it down. They should stand by their policy unitl they succeed in winning for it the approval and confidence of the people. The policy of high protection has been that of the Conservative party for a long time. Although they might abandon their theories regarding railway ownership and their opposition to the Grand Trunk Pacific, they could not very well abandon their policy of high protection. Why then did they do so? We find not a vestige of it to-day. I did not find a shadow of it in the last campaign in the province from which I come. When, shortly after the election of 1904, a commission was appointed to inquire into our trade relations with other countries, there was ample opportunity given to every man, who had views on the subject, to express them. What did we find? We found that after evidence was taken all over the country, and the tariff of 1907 was brought down, our hon. friends opposite took no action. If they were earnest in their policy of a high tariff, the time to bring forward a resolution to that effect was when the tariff of 1907 was being discussed. That was the time for them to put themselves on record..
At six o'clock House took recess.
Mr. d. d. McKenzie.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 132) respecting certain letters patent of Franklin Montgomery Gray.-Mr. Rankin.
On section 1,
Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is a Bill which we were asked to let stand last night, in consequence of some words at the end of the second clause. I have made inquiry, and find that this Bill is quite in accord with some other Bills which have been passed, and that these words which were objected to last night are in three other Bills which have already been passed by the House this session. The delay between the time when the patent lapsed and the request for legislation, was only a few weeks, and it was due to the fact of the owner being away from the country.


Mr. MACDONELL.: I quite concur in the remarks of the hon. minister. I think, if we are going at all to reinstate lost rights on the part of owners of patents because of oversights in paying the fees, this is certainly a case in which we may well do so.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If we do it for any body we ought to do it here.


Angus Claude Macdonell: This is a case in which the committee may properly exercise its discretion in passing the Bill.


Haughton Lennox: The information that the minister gives us now is in line with the information that I thought we ought to have on all occasions, when I spoke on this case yesterday. I quite appreciate that the minister is necessarily a busy man, at the same time I feel we should have some information from the minister on every occasion when a Bill of this kind is before us.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The words which were taken objection to last night seem to be entirely unnecessary; but they are in the Bill, and I do not think they can do any harm.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



['The motion will be made to resume the Comhiittee of Ways and Means for*the purpose of proceeding with the resolutions, and if there be sufficient time at a later stage, I think the intention is to take up the Grand Trunk Loan Bill.']
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, when you left the Chair at six o'clock I was going over the different stages of the abandonment of the various planks of the Conservative party in the year 1904. I had stated what those planks were, and had stated that they comprised fairly respectable issues to be presented to the people of Canada. The three principle planks or issues which we had to deal with, and upon which the ver-

diet of the people was sought in 1904 were: First, the public ownership of public utilities, particularly of railways; second, a decision upon the tariff of the present administration, contending that it was away too low, and that a mandate should be given to the Conservative party to make it higher; third, their declared policy of opposition to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Those three planks, as I say, made respectable issues, worthy of consideration by the people of this country.
There was a time when the great Conservative party of Canada claimed that they alone had the genius to rule, that they alone were anointed to rule this country, and they alone were inspired to give it a proper administration. But I am afraid, when they consider what has happened to these three planks, when the great Liberal-Conservative party of former days sit down calmly and quietly to consider the present prospects, and the evil times that have fallen upon them during the last twelve or fourteen years, they must come to the conclusion that the glory has departed from Israel, and that they are no longer the chosen race destined to administer this country. Especially I think must they conclude that they were hardly inspired when they adopted the policy of opposition to the Grand Trunk Pacific, because there is not a man in this House, so far as I can find who is willing to take the responsibility of standing up and declaring himself against the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Naturally they want to criticise and find fault with the government in connection with that work, but that is all done on side issues, because there is no one among them who will take the responsibility of standing up in his seat to oppose the policy of building that road. The other night I heard the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) speaking in this House. Now there is no person who will accuse the hon. member for Souris of being partial towards this administration, I rather think that he is a strong opposition man. I sit as his neighbour in this House, and I have opportunities of knowing the pulsation of his heart sometimes, and I think he is as good an opposition man as there is on the left of the Speaker. But he was obliged to come down the other evening and say that he could not too strongly support the proposition of building, and rapidly building, this road; that the people of the west were longing to have it built, and that everybody so far as he knew was in favour of it. He scouted the idea of any one, any one at least possessing influence, having anything to say against the proposition of building that road, and building it as rapidly as possible. I think that the hon. member for Souris is a fair sample of the western men upon the question of the building of
the Grand Trunk Pacific. But, I have further evidence in support of this contention. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) put this question very straight to the western men a few evenings ago and issued a challenge to any hon. members supporting the opposition, coming from the western country, who would dare to stand up in this House and oppose the building of this road and the giving of assistance to it as is now proposed. That being the case, I believe it will be impossible for the hon. leader of the opposition to obtain the support of the members of his party from the west unless he abandons that plank of his platform and withdraws all opposition to the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific. We must come to the conclusion that there was no particular inspiration or wisdom guiding the leader of the opposition when he made opposition to that road a plank in his plat-formand one of the great issues upon which he thought it was proper to go to the country in 1904. We must, therefore, conclude with hon. members from the west, that they are wrong in that question and that they should never have taken that course but that they should have known beforehand that the policy of building the road was one that the people approved of.
The next plank in the hon. gentleman's platform is the public ownership of railways. I cannot understand, in view of the history of this subject in this country, how the leader of the opposition came to make that a plank in his platform in 1904. He could not hope, so early in his history as the leader of the Conservative party to have gained greater confidence in the minds of his own supporters at that stage than the people had in such men as Sir John Macdonald, Sir Charles Tupper and other leaders of the once great Conservative party who had put themselves on record as being unreservedly opposed to the doctrine of the public ownership of utilities such as railways, canals and telegraph lines, but particularly railways. That was the policy of Sir John Macdonald and he was backed up by the people upon it. That was the policy of Sir Charles Tupper and he had the confidence of the people in holding to that policy. I think it was ill-advised on the part of the leader of the opposition today to have made that a plank in his platform. Having discovered that he had made a mistake, I suppose that it was the part of wisdom to recede from that position as rapidly as possible and therefore the second plank in the platform has been hurled down the stream with ^ the others. There is a question in connection with public ownership that perhaps did not receive the attention that it should have at the time. If our friends of the opposition wish to be economists, if they say that too much money is

being expended and too much money being borrowed I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the country to consider for a moment where would our financing be if the country had adopted this government-owned railway policy that the opposition presented to it in 1904. We would have to buy the property of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I want any sane man in this House to consider for a moment what the proposition would mean of providing enough money to purchase the Canadian Pacific Railway. They would not sell their railway without selling everything else they owned incidental to the railway. I want some more capable financier than I am to contemplate for a moment the task of providing the money that we would have _ to borrow in order to meet that obligation. That is only a small part of the money we would have to borrow before we could own all the railways. Our experience with government owned and operated railways is not of a character that would justify any wise leader in plunging this country into the policy of buying, owning and operating railways. I think it was a very unwise plank to put into'the platform and that the leader of the opposition and his friends acted wisely and well in dropping it as fast as they could get away from it.
But, Sir, we are told by hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House that we must be candid, honest and straightforward. These are good lessons indeed and this is advice that we should be willing to follow. If these hon. gentlemen were practising their preaching in 1904 when they were telling the people of this country that 1hey were looking for an opportunity of raising the tariff why did not they follow it up? As you left the Chair, Mr. Speaker, 1 was coming to this point. _ If high tariff is the remedy for all the ills that flesh is heir to, our friends of the opposition should insist upon that policy being adopted. They say that we are at sixes and sevens amongst ourselves upon the question of the tariff. I do not suppose that a large body of men who are supporting a government can be atone on any given question-I do not care what it is. I think it is a sign of intelligence that one hundred, or one hundred and fifty, or one hundred and seventy men, cannot agree exactly upon every given point. It would only show that we were not thinking at all, but we simply were machines who were doing as we were told because you cannot get intelligent men to agree exactly in all particulars of any given policy. It is not a sign of weakness that while upon the government side we stand firmly and strongly behind our leader, in cases where a man has a right to exercise his own judgment we are beyond and above any party. I Mr. D. D. McKENZIE.
think it is a healthy sign to show that we are capable of having differences of opinion and, if occasion requires, of expressing them. But what I wish to say to our hon. friends upon this point is that when the Fielding tariff of 1907 came before this House they had a most excellent opportunity for testing this question. That was a most excellent opportunity for them to move an amendment to the Bill for the raising of the tariff if it was too low and for the lowering of the tariff if it was too high. I was not here but the opportunity was open to our hon. friends, and I am told that when it came down to the crucial point of dividing the House upon this very important matter no division took place. What then are we to conclude? What is the country to conclude? We must conclude one of two things, either that the tariff is all right or that the opposition is all wrong. If the tariff was wrong then was the time to have put it right when it was going through the process of being made and when it was in the institution which was making it and in the only institution that had the power to make it. That was the time when the people of this country would say to the opposition: Put yourself on record as being in favour of a tariff which you eonsider to be proper for this country. But, they did not move; they did not do anything. I am not going to say that the opposition is no good. There are bright men among them and they would have discerned the weak points, if weak points there were and would have moved against them. Not having done so there is only one conclusion, and I think that the conclusion the country has reached is that the tariff as brought down by the Minister of Finance was as perfect, in view of the large scope that it had to cover and the many articles with which it had to deal, as any human institution could possibly be, and that it was the part of wisdom for our friends of the opposition not to touch it at all but to leave it as it was.
Further evidence that the tariff policy of the government is all right, lies in the fact that at the last general election no issue was raised against it, and the people of Canada endorsed that policy and returned to power the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister, and the other members of the government. It comes with poor grace from the members of the opposition to now raise the question in this House; when it was staring them in the face during the elections they failed to say a word about it. We hear our friends in the opposition repeat to-day the same old story: It is our tariff, you have made no changes ^ in it, it is the old national policy. Well, if I were called upon to prove what was or what was not the national policy, I would be dis-I posed to call the parent as the best evi-

dence of the identity of the child, and if I can, cite Sir Charles Tupper as my witness that the fiscal policy of the Liberal party is not the old national policy, I think even our Conservative friends will admit that that is pretty good evidence. At all events, Sir Charles Tupper himself claims that he was the chief author of the national policy, and now that many of the older men who were associated with him in launching that policy have gone to their reward, the testimony of Sir Charles Tupper ought to be convincing. We know that he told us, that he was in it, he was under it, he was around it, he was about it, that in fact he was the whole push, but however we may doubt that no one will question but that he was amongst the chief authors of the national policy. Now, in 1897 Sir Charles Tupper was leading the opposition in this House, and I cannot conceive that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) with all his astuteness and all his cleverness could successfully run the blockade right in front of Sir Charles Tupper and pass a tariff Bill which was in reality the national policy without Sir Charles Tupper discovered it. At all events, when the Liberal fiscal policy was launched by the Hon. Mr. Fielding in 1897 Sir Charles Tupper had an opportunity of dissecting it, and here are his words:
The result is that this tariff goes into operation and the hon. gentleman knows that the industries of this country are already paralysed in consequence, while honourable members gloat over the destruction of Canadian industries. 1 was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, of these industries in the Montreal ' Gazette,' where one manufacturer after another declared that those industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House was in charge of the fiscal policy of this country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.
I feel that so far from rejoicing at it Timm a party standpoint, I deplore from the bottom of my heart the ruin that is going to be inflicted upon the best interests of Canada, and upon its great industries. Still, I unhesitatingly say that, from a party point of view, the hon. gentlemen are doing our work; they are showing the people of this country that no reliance can be placed upon the most solemn declarations that they make either in the House or out of it; they are showing the people of this country that, having obtained power, which was all they wished for, they are now prepared to abuse that power at the cost of sacrificing the industries of Canada.
With all due respect to the calibre of the men who to-day sit on the opposition benches, I do not believe there is a man amongst them so capable of pronouncing an opinion on what is or what is not the national policy as is Sir Charles Tupper, and we have his own declaration here that 159
it is not the national policy that has been in force in Canada since the Fielding tariff was promulgated in 1897. Therefore, whatever success the country has achieved on account of the fiscal policy of the government is not due to the national policy but to the Fielding tariff. I leave it to my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) and his friends to reconcile their declarations in this respect with the strong pronouncement of Sir Charles Tupper which I have quoted to the House. They have abandoned this high tariff policy be cause they could not agree upon it. It is a great thing for them to get men from such a prosperous province as Manitoba or from the great west to support the opposition. They felt that with a high tariff policy they could not expect to get support from that country, and the leader of the opposition simply looked over these three planks of his policy and called his friends together, and said to them: ' We must dissolve partnership and leave every man to do for himself.' That was the position of the party when they faced the electors in the last general election. Is it necessary to refer to the kind of issues that were presented to the people on that occasion? I am not going to go over them. I will simply ask my hon. friends to look at what so strong a Conservative paper as the Montreal 'Star' said about the 28th or 30th of October last:


Mr. WORTHINGTON.: It is not a Conservative paper.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The paper I refer to is the * Montreal Herald and Weekly Star,' which is certainly an old-time Conservative paper, whose support in many respects has been of great help to the Conservative party. No doubt as an intellectual force it was a great stand-by. Its circulation is very large, and the views of the Conservative party found their way to many households through that medium. There were other ways in which that paper and its products, in the way of gifts of cash, were of material assistance to the Conservative party. There was another piece of machinery created for the purpose of circulating the moral influence of that paper, well known to the people of this country. These formed the machinery by which the honest cash of that paper, as no other would of course be received by it, was circulated throughout this country for the benefit of the Conservative party. But that paper, with all its love for that party, said on the 28th or 29th of October last, that there were no issues before the people to-day, that it was simply a campaign of slander. I am not going to go over the various scandals that were raised. I will merely say that the Conservative party abandoned every respectable issue that they had in 1904, and went to the country in this campaign of slander, and got licked out of



their boots. I want to know where they stand to-day. All their former policy is gone, their campaign of slander was no good, and they must have some new creation on which to go to the country again. I can imagine the hon. member for North Toronto making the same statement about it that he made about the Remedial Bill. He found that that was a poor vote-catcher, and I remember well his speech in the House: ' I have given it a trial, but while water runs and grass grows, I will never again put myself in the hands of any man as I have done with this thing.' I can imagine that after the severe castigation our friends received from the people of this country for dragging these scandals before them, they are saying, ' While water runs and grass grows, never again will we besmirch ourselves by going to the country in such filthy rags.' I hope that when they again face the people, they will face them with honest, straight business propositions.
When our hon. friends accuse us of having no policy, we reply that we have the same consistent policy that we had when the people entrusted us with the administration of this country some thirteen years ago. When they charge us with being a broken-up party and with having no policy, I ask them to take their own distances and courses and tell us exactly where they are. Are they back to the policy of 1904, or are they going to stand by the policy of slander on which they went to the country in the last election? I think it best always to go before the intelligent people of this country on good, square issues, on which the people are willing to judge the conduct of the two parties.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say that we are taking too much money from the people, taxing them too heavily. If we are, that is a serious matter. The statement which we put forth in the last campaign, and which I have heard nobody contradict, was that the average tariff of the Conservative party, while they were in power, was 18 per cent, while the average of the present tariff is 15 per cent. Now, if with a tariff of 15 per cent we get more money into the coffers of this country than the Conservative government got with a tariff of 18 per cent, I cannot understand how it can be truthfully said that we are taxing the people more than they did. A man who imports $100 worth of goods, would pay under the Conservative tariff $18 before he could take them out of the customs house, while under the Liberal tariff he would pay $15. The difference is, as has been explained many times, that more of those $100 came into the country under the Liberal tariff, that trade increased, and that out of the enormous volume of trade we got more money than they did. But it was entirely voluntary to the people. If they did not want to import the goods, there was no compulsion upon them. There-Mr. d. d. McKenzie.
fore, this argument that we are taxing the people unduly is without the slightest foundation. If hon. gentlemen opposite find it difficult to understand the operation of the tariff, let them take the administration of the Post Office Department. We have lowered the postage on one class of letters from three cents to two cents, and on another class from five cents to two cents, and yet despite these reductions in taxation, nearly double the money is going into the treasury from the postal service than did when our hon. friends were in charge, and before the rates of postage were reduced. How do they account for that? Is it possible for them to make out the argument that because we reduced the postal rates more than 75 per cent in some cases and have collected a larger amount of revenue, we are taking more taxation out of the people than we did before? I shall now leave this question of more taxation and higher taxation, because the people had the opportunity to pass upon it and they came to the conclusion that the opposition were not justified in their criticism and re-elected the government of the day.
Before closing, I wish to deal with some questions which my hon. friend from south Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) brought before the House last evening. He endeavoured to show that the Conservative party was the great party in favour of the labouring people, particularly in the province of Nova Scotia. Let me ask him what that party ever did for the labouring classes during the 18 years they were in office. Where is the Act on our statutes or where is the effort to better the conditions of the labour element during those 18 years, bv legislation or otherwise, by the political friends of the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin)? They were asked to do something for the labouring classes and positively refused. My hon. friend further went on to claim great credit for what his party had done in the local legislature. Well, I do not see how it could have been possible for them to do less than they did. Whatver position the miners in Nova Scotia hold to-day, they owe to the legislation introduced in the local House by the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding), who was then leading that House, and which was continued by his successor, the Hon. Mr. G. H. Murray. My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) undertook a few days ago to make the prediction that a certain railway, to be built in Nova Scotia, would be held in abeyance until there was an election on. I wish I never had a harder task to perform than to defend the reputation and standing in Nova Scotia of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and his successor Mr. G. H. Murray. We have had Mr. Murray leading the Liberal party in Nova Scotia during the last 12 years. Previous to the last election there were only four

men in opposition to him in that House and now there are but five. The leader of the opposition in Nova Scotia thought he was strong enough to measure swords with the bon. member foT Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) but the people of that constituency turned him down. Then he had to come back to lead his party in the local House. But after he did go back, the people of Pictou county turned him down again under an avalanche of ballots and sent a young untried man to represent them in the local legislature. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) claims that Mr. Murray is afraid of the people and is holding back a certain railway until the next election so that he may make use of that railway to carry him to power again. The idea is ridiculous. Why should the intelligent people of Nova Scotia turn down Mr. Murray? Everything we have in Nova Scotia, from a political standpoint, we owe to the Liberal party, because we have had nothing but that party in power in the local House since confederation, with the exception of a short period from 1878 to 1882- a period entirely forgotten. And to-day there are but four men in opposition in the local legislature. That being the case my hon. friend from South Cape Breton was hard up for material when he tried to make a case against Premier Murray by talking about his administration with regard to our coal industry. Whatever we have in Nova Scotia in the way of coal development we owe entirely to the Fielding legislation, carried forward by Mr. Fielding's successor, Mr. Murray. During the 18 years the Conservatives were in power in this Dominion, we had but a poor development of ccal industry. Whatever we have in Nova 600,000 to 800,000 tons during the whole course of the 18 years. But when Mr. Fielding and Mr. Murray put their shoulders to the wheel and introduced what is known as the Fielding legislation, when we got capital into the country and put our coal mining industry on the footing it enjoys to-day, that brought about the establishment of the-steel works. There can be no question that the steel works in Cape Breton owes its establishment to the greater development of coal mining which was brought about by reason of the Fielding legislation. That legislation was bitterly fought by my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) and his friends. The history in connection with that legislation is one they have no reason to be proud of. They fought it in the local House, and some Tory members from Nova Scotia forgot their responsibility, as members of this House, and broke away from every rule by going to the Governor General over the heads of the then Tory government sitting in this country and endeavouring to defeat this legislation for what purpose I do not know. But His Excellency had bet-159}
ter sense than to listen to their argument. That legislation was allowed to pass^ and we have to-day, by reason of it, this great ie velopment in Nova Scotia in the coal and iron industries and the many other industries which have sprung up in that province.
The hon. member for South Cape Breton thought proper to criticise the railway policy of the government. He has thought it proper to quote at great length from a speech I made in the House some eight years ago. I am pleased that there was nothing in that speech from which an opponent of mine to-day could get any comfort. I was a supporter at that time of any policy that would better the position of the working classes in the county of Cape Breton, and I so expressed myself. Since I came to this House, I have followed the same policy and expressed the same view. My utterances of that time were read by the hon. member last night, and I have no reason to feel ashamed of anything I then said, nor do I find that I have departed in the slightest degree from the opinions which I then expressed. I ask permission to put on record the position I took in regard to the railways in Cape Breton. Though against my wishes, I shall be obliged to read to you the views I expressed upon the railway policy of tne Tory party in the House of Assembly on February 22, 1904.
In view of these declarations by the leader of that party

Declarations made by the leader of the opposition, then in the Assembly.
-it was amusing to listen to his hon. friend Mr. Tanner, in solemn tones and feigned honesty, asking the people of North Sydney and Sydney Mines to vote both governments out of power at once, because forsooth they were not proceeding sufficiently rapidly with the building of railways. Before his hon. friend who led the opposition in the House undertook to criticise the conduct of the Liberal party in respect to the procuring of railway facilities to Sydney Mines and North Sydney he should find out if his party during the eighteen years that they were in power at Ottawa did anything in the line of extending railway construction at Sydney Mines. The proper and natural time to look after the railway comforts of North Sydney and Sydney Mines was when the Cape Breton Railway was being located and built. But, the Tory government of that day and the Tory representatives entirely neglected the interests of those towns, and established a condition of affairs that was not easily remedied. It was perfectly clear that the Cape Breton section of the Intercolonial Railway below Georges river should have been built along the shore through the Little Bras d'Or district touching the towns of Sydney Mines and North Sydney and putting them on the main line, this would have settled the railway question in these towns and in the large and populous districts of Bras d'Or and Boular-

darie. But this grand opportunity was lost through Tory neglect, shortsightness and indifference. But to-day the leaders and candidates of that party had the effrontery to hold Liberal governments and Liberal members responsible for their own criminal political incapacity. There was no doubt Sydney Mines should and must be connected with the Intercolonial Railway at the earliest possible moment. A town of the size and importance of Sydney Mines within less than two miles of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada and not connected will it was ridiculous and absurd. He had no doubt one of the first acts of the present popular and public spirited Minister of Railways would be to right this Tory wrong and give the important and rapidly growing town of Sydney Mines the privileges which were her rights.
Now, I thought it my duty to put on record the views I expressed more than four years ago, so that my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin), if he wishes to get comfort from the position I took at that time, will have an opportunity of seeing my words and presenting them to his friends as well as to hon. members of this House.
I do not think I need follow that position. I think that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) has so fully answered the arguments put forward by the hon. member for South Cape Breton that it is quite unnecessary for me to follow them further. But, before I sit down, there are one or two things I wish to refer to, matters which I would rather not be obliged to refer to. A few evenings ago, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) whatever his purpose may have been, undertook to represent in this House the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as having made certain statements reflecting upon the standing and credibility of the Conservative party. At that time, although I very much dislike interrupting hon. members who are addressing the House. I took the responsibility of saying that the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) never used the language ascribed to him. I am not attributing motives to the hon. member for Dauphin, but I cannot understand why he should undertake to misrepresent the Prime Minister unless ' it should be for some political purpose, making it appear that the Prime Minister had referred slightingly to the great Con- 1 servative party and those who compose that party. The hon. member represented the Prime Minister as having said:
I am sorry to say that it is another evi- 1 c'ence that we are not to trust Conservatives 1 vhen they pledge themselves to us as mem- i bers of this House or as a delegation.
It was thus held forth as an absolute ' truth that the right hon. Prime Minister s of this country made that statement with 1 reference to the Conservatives of the Dominion of Canada. Sir, if the Prime Min- i ister had made a statement of that kind, < Mr. d d. McKenzie.
it would be, coming from him, a very extraordinary statement. What he said is to " be found at page 3258 of 'Hansard.' I ' should not feel that I was doing justice ' to the right hon. Prime Minister if I did not bring this matter to the notice of the House and the country, if I did not set side by side with the language used by the hon. member for Dauphin that actually used by the Prime Minister, so that the people will have an opportunity of judging for themselves how correctly the language of the Prime Minister was construed, by the hon. member. What the Prime Minister said was as follows:
Why, Sir, if there is any wasted money in this instance, it was at the instance of the taxpayers of this country. We had a delegation here of the Sound electors, the best men in the riding of North York. We had the mayor of the town of Newmarket, and the leading citizens of that town and its vicinity. They were not party men, not political friends of Sir William Mulock coming here to boost his election, but men who came in their capacity as citizens, laying aside all party differences, and asking us, in the interest of the town of Newmarket and the riding of North York, to undertake this work. I remember that delegation very well; it was one cf nearly one hundred, certainly more than fifty. So large was it, at all events, that there was not room in the ordinary rooms of ministers to receive it. We had to get the use of the Railway Committee room for the purpose, and there man after man rose up ard told us that this was not a party question, but that they asked us, in the name of the town of Newmarket and the riding of North York, to give them that improvement.
Now, is the Holland river to be improved? If a boat is to be taken from Lake Simooe to Newmarket it cannot be taken any other way than the way contemplated Vy the present work. My hon. friend tells us now that all these representations made to us by men of his own political persuasion were ridiculous, and if I am now to take the word of Conservatives in the House of Commons, the Conservatives in the town of Newmarket and the riding of North York are not trustworthy and their representations are to ibe treated with contempt.
Now that is the speech made by the Prime [DOT] Minister at the time. He simply said, as I have read, that if the Conservatives treated with contempt a statement made by their own friends, he could not so treat it. But that was turned around into a representation that the Prime Minister was speaking of the Conservatives of Newmarket, and that they and Conservatives generally were not to be treated with respect. I could not for a moment, feeling as I do towards the Prime Minister, and feeling further a sense of fairness to every man, allow such an insinuation to pass without putting the facts before the House.
Now the other day the hon. member for North Toronto asked if we were proud of our Minister of Finance. In the earlier por-

tion of my remarks I said that we certainly were, and I, gave my reasons, and I intend to repeat them. We are proud of him, and we are prouder still of the great chieftain under whom he serves and whom we are all proud to follow. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) said last night a great deal about personal leadership at the next election, and he suggested that the present Prime Minister would not be leading the Liberal forces in the next election. Of course we cannot tell what will happen under Providence, we cannot tell what may happen from one day to another; but we of the Liberal party are full of confidence and trust, in view of the stalwart strength of our great leader, that he will again lead us to victory in the next election, as he has done during the past twelve years. When I heard the hon. member for South Cape Breton speaking, I could not help but think of what happened to his own party some years ago; I remembered that there are various means taken of getting rid of a leader who is not satisfactory, there is a way by which the Conservatives got clear of a man that they didn't think was just the man they wanted, but I do not think we will follow their example, I do not think we will build any such nest, nor have any such animals in it as they had in a certain institution that they called a nest of traitors. We are not going to deal that way with our leader, we will stand with him, and every Liberal from Scaterie to Vancouver will be proud to stand by him when the next election comes around.
Now a great deal has been said by our hon. friends from British Columbia about the policy of excluding Asiatics. I hear them rending the air in this House, telling how determinedly they are in favour of the total exclusion of Asiatics, they want to control absolutely the immigration policy of this country. That is all very well. But in the next breath they say we must stand true to British institutions, we must remain a part and parcel of the British empire. Let me ask hon. gentlemen how, if they are going to stand true to British institutions, they can fulfil their obligations to the mother country by opposing the immigration of Asiatics. It is well known that the total exclusion of Asiatics means nonintercourse with Japan; total exclusion means refusing to have any further dealing with that country. Some of my hon. friends from British Columbia are laughing at this. I ask them, as constitutional lawyers, as great authorities on international law, whether they think we have power to pass a law excluding people of another nation entirely from putting their feet on Canadian soil. We have no such power. There is no such power in a colony. The passing of such a law, whether in regard to Japanese, or Chinese, or Americans, would be equivalent to a declaration of war against such country. Do we possess the power to declare war-for that is what it means? When my hon. friends talk so flippantly about passing a law absolutely excluding Japanese, they are talking about declaring war upon Japan-for that is what it means. Now I would advise my hon. friends who talk that way to consult their leader and get hig opinion. He is a capable constitutional lawyer; let them ask him if it is within the prerogatives of this parliament to pass an act absolutely prohibiting an American from putting his foot on Canadian soil. I venture to think that the leader of the opposition will tell them that we can do nothing of the kind; we cannot do it in the case of America, we cannot do it in the case of Japan. Not having that power, the proper thing for us to do is to respect British Institutions, to respect the relations between Japan and Great Britain, and to be content with the restriction we have already placed upon what we consider undesirable immigration, and in this way we may obtain peace with honour with the great nations of the world. Let us continue in the paths of peaceful diplomacy, and not stir up a war, which would be the result of that unmentionable telegram if it was carried into effect.
Speaking of the leader of this government, I want to put on record testimony of a gentleman who is not a partisan of this government. I want to show what this gentleman thinks of the great leader whom we follow. The testimony is that of a man who is high in the councils of the Conservative party, a man who is at the head of a great newspaper, the Toronto News. I think it right to make this quotation for the benefit of my hon. friend from South Cape Breton, when he speaks of the possibility of a change in the leadership of our party.


Mr. BLAIN.: When was that written?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is to be found at page 356 of the * Life of Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier ' by Mr. Willison, editor of the ' News.'


Mr. WALLACE.: What date?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, my hon. friend can go out into the library and get the book. I have not the date, but I suppose it is on the book written by Mr. Willison1. It is doubtless in the library and if my hon. friend will know his way out and if he has the capacity to read it I assume that he will find it. They have such excellent public schools in Ontario that I presume my hon. friend can read and he can see this quotation for himself, which, I think is not an overdrawn description of the Liberal party. It is as follows:

Moderation is the keynote of all his career :and the secret of all his achievements. He learned at the threshold of his public life that the statesman must often resist public clamour and stand impervious to momentary gusts of popular passion and that all enduring achievements must be based in the reason rather than in the emotions of the people.


An hon. MEMBER.: Louder.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would expect from the length of the ears of my hon friend that he would hear me.
The disposition to preserve is an essential clement in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's statesmanship as indeed it must be the dominant principle of all successful government in free countries. So in the field of constitutional reform he has striven for amendment within the constitution and has quietly but firmly antagonized all intemperate agitation for radical alteration of the terms of confederation. His is essentially a constructive mind and a serene temperament. He trusts in the future and reverences the past. He will always be slow to lay destructive hands upon hallowed institutions and reluctant to distrust the ancient landmarks. His administration has been eminently constructive and progressive. Ho labours with strenuous hand and abiding faith to unify and consolidate the various elements of the confederation to promote material development and establish national selfconfidence.
All his heart and all his creed and all his hope he puts in his inspiring message to the Acadians of Nova Scotia:
' As long as I live, as long as I have the power to labour in the service of my country, 1 shall repel the idea of changing the nature of its different elements. I want to take ail the elements and build a nation that will be foremost among the great powers of the world.*
That, Sir, is a description of our great leader given by a man who was not partial to him and who has given not an overdrawn picture. We would not be ready to exchange a leader of that kind for another leader of our own party and much less for the leader of a party which is untried and out of power and which must have forgotten the lessons taught by whatever experiences it has had in the past. I have endeavoured to answer the charges that were made against the administration in so far as the small circle of the debate that I have endeavored to compass is concerned. I am satisfied that the country, financially and otherwise, is in a sound condition; I am satisfied that the administration stands to-day as high in the estimation and approval of the people as ever it did, and I am satisfied that the production of the budget and the presentation of accounts by the Minister of Finance lre honest, straightforward and true, and that that hon. gentleman would not bring anything else to the notice of the people of this country. The criticism that


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: we have heard about the bookkeeping does not hold good. It is the same bookkeeping as that which prevails in the great institutions of this country. It is not the same kind of bookkeeping that they have in the Canadian Pacific Railway, in the Grand Trunk Pacific, and in every other great institution in this or in neighbouring countries? Is not the cost of great public works charged to capital account? This is a criticism of which we heard nothing during the eighteen years that hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. We heard nothing of it during the twelve years during which the present government have been in power. It is a new criticism. It is a criticism that the people are not concerned about and one which will not alarm them. For these reasons and many others that could be mentioned I support the government as it is to-day handling the affairs of the country, and I support the Minister of Finance in the budget that he has brought before the House and the country.


Mr. G. H. BRADBURY (Selkirk).: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended taking part in this discussion if it had not been for the fact that there has been so much elasticity allowed and so many new elements interjected into the debate. The fact that there have been some statements made by hon. gentlemen which deserve some consideration from some one coming from the province to which I belong is my justification for participating in the debate. Last evening there was a speech delivered by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) who, in his fiery eloquence, seemed, for a moment, to lose control of himself and who used language regarding some of the statesmen in the western country that I think was utterly uncalled for and that, in his sober moments he would not be guilty of. Speaking of the Attorney General of Manitoba he made the statement that that gentleman had prostituted the machinery of justice for the purpose of aiding the election of the representatives that came from that province. There was no statement ever made on the floor of this House more foreign to the real facts than that. There is no question that the Attorney General of Manitoba, knowing something of the record of the Liberal party and of the Liberal machine in that country, did, at the solicitation and request of the candidates, name provincial constables to man the polls and see that the Conservative party had the opportunity of having a fair and honest vote recorded. It became the duty of some of these provincial constables to arrest some of the heelers of the Liberal party, men who were caught red handed in trying to defraud the electors of the province and to deprive them of their votes. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) had a fling at the Attorney Gen-

eral of Manitoba, and on his own ipsi dixit without producing any proof, he stated that the Attorney General had prostituted his office, citing as evidence of that the fact that he been assailed on the streets of Winnipeg by an irresponsible person who might well pray to be saved from his friend. It was unfortunate that the hon. member (Mr. Neely) introduced that person into this discussion, because if there is a man in Manitoba who ought to regret his conduct it is that very man who assailed the Attorney General from behind his back. It was one of the most uncalled foT and cowardly assaults that could be imagined, and the only excuse is that the offender was not responsible for what he was doing. He was brought before the police court and Pushed just as any common criminal would be punished for the oflence. That surely is not a very enviable position for a prominent lawyer in Winnipeg to be placed in, and it would have been much better for him if the hon. member for Humboldt had not dragged the incident into this discus-
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) also stated that the electors of Saskatchewan were given an opportunity to vote as they saw fit and that in that province there were no padded lists such as there were in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity of stating that there never has been in the whole history of Manitoba electoral lists as fair as are the present Manitoba lists. The charge that the lists were unfair was made on the floor of this parliament by no less a person than the right hon. the Prime Minister, and it was repeated in the city of Winnipeg by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). The leigslature was sitting at the time and a committee was appointed to inquire into the matter, and although the member for Brandon was subpoened he failed to appear before the committee to substantiate the charge he made in the Winnipeg 'Free Press'. However, the inquiry was held by the committee and it was no doubt attended by the Liberals of the province, and judge after judge was examined and every cne of them testified to the fact that so far as they knew the Manitoba electoral lists were absolutely fair.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: Who had charge of the lists?


George Henry Bradbury: The judges.


William Henry Sharpe: Complete charge?


George Henry Bradbury: Yes, complete charge of the list after they had left the registration clerks. Compare the conditions in Manitoba with the conditions in Saskatchewan, where in Prince Albert two or three men left that city to hold polls in three distinct parts of the province, and only travelled a few miles into a little bluff
where they opened the ballot boxes, made the lists on the ground, manufactured 130 odd votes, and were not even generous enough to record a single vote in favor of the Conservative candidate. These men came back to Prince Albert and their candidate was declared elected. The judges of that province, three new men, one of them Chief Justice Sifton, held that the law was such that they could not take notice of this dastardly act committed by these men, and they confirmed in his seat the Liberal candidate. But the facts were laid before the legislature and the Premier of Saskatchewan and his followers were shamed into declaring that election void and giving the seat to the Conservative candidate who honestly deserved it. Now,
I had the honour of contesting a constituency in Manitoba, and I never during the whole campaign heard my opponent raise any objection to the electoral lists on which he was contesting the election. On one occasion he did say that electors had been left off the lists hy the judges, but this had heen through some clerical error and that was the sum and substance of this grievance. So far as the lists themselves were concerned he was forced to admit, and his supporters in the campaign were forced to admit, that they were absolutely fair in that constituency as they were all over the province. My hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) deplored that a man who had not a seat in this House should have been attacked when he had no opportunity to defend himself, but in the same breath he assailed members of the Manitoba government and he charged the Premier of that province with having subsidized a railway into a sand pit for his own benefit. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to give that statement as flat a denial as the rules of this House will permit, and in justice to the Hon. Mr. Roblin, a man whom we all admire and look upon as the greatest premier Manitoba ever had, I will place his statement on 'Hansard.: We in Manitoba realize that the government that has been given to the province since Mr. Roblin became premier, has been the best government the province of Manitoba has ever enjoyed. This matter came up in the dying days of the recent session of the Manitoba legislature and Mr. Roblin made the following statement as reported in the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' of March 11:
Premier Annihilates so called Sand Charges of the Opposition.
A frank, thorough and convincing explanation of the attack hy the opposition on the Premier's business connections and the guaranteeing of certain lines of the Canadian Northern Railway was made by Hon. R. P. Roblin before the close of the legislature yesterday.
The following is the Premier's statement:

Premier's Statement.
Before the orders of the day are called, I desire on a question of privilege to occupy a few moments of time in which to make a reference or statement regarding a matter which was under discussion yesterday in this House, upon a motion made hy the honourable member for Lansdown (Mr. Norris). I propose to do so for the reason that any one who may have been enough interested in the matter to read anything that has been published concerning it, may have the facts in the case.
When the matter was introduced yesterday f withdrew from the House out of respect to the rule and practice that when any member is directly censured by a resolution for any act of his, he shall withdraw until the matter has been discussed and dealt with. I would have preferred to have remained and made the statement at the time could I have done so without violating the rule to which I have referred.	j
History of Case.
In order to give a minute detail of my relation or connection with what is called the 'Eli Sand Company ' and the * Gunn Sand Company,' I shall be compelled to go back to the time when the province took over the Northern Pacific and in turn leased it to the Canadian Northern. Among the other things that were taken over as assets and properties under the lease was found a ballast pit at Eli, and a short branch thereto, located some mile and a half north of the main line, about thirty-five miles west of Winnipeg. No bonds were guaranteed on this line then or any time since.
The Canadian Northern found that the roadbed required ballast in order to keep it up to an efficient state and they undertook to secure from the Eli ballast pit the material for such work. They only operated for a short time until all the ballast that was fit for a roadbed was exhausted. The pit worked out into pure sand.
They then abandoned the pit as a source of supply for railway purposes and immediately began searching for another pit. They finally located one and bought it, at Birds Hill, which they are now using. They secured a charter from the legislature to build a line out in that district several miles beyond what is now their gravel pit. They completed the line to the pit; they partially constructed, I understand, several miles beyond, known as the Dundee line.
Necessary to Construct Line.
It was absolutely necessary in the public interest in order that they might have ballast to keep their roadbed in shape to handle passenger and freight trains that they have this pit. They came to the government and 6aia that in view of our blanket mortgage they were compelled to ask us to guarantee the bonds that they might raise the money for the construction of that line.
Delegations had waited on the government from that district-that is, the district farther out than the gravel pit-for this extension. Knowing that it wae necessary for them to have the ballast and that it was in the interest of the public for them to use it, the government guaranteed their bonds for $10,000 1 Mr. BRADBURY.
a mile. They have operated it continuously ever since as a ballast pit, having taken out thousands upon thousands of carloads of material for their yards in Winnipeg and for ballasting the line between here and Emerson, between here and Portage la Prairie, and between here and Carman.
Business Proposition.
I will now go back to the time when the Canadian Northern abandoned the Eli ballast pit, to show where the Eli Sand Company began. When the ballast was exhausted by striking pure sand, this fact came to the knowledge of myself and some other gentlemen, and as building sand was in good demand in the city, we thought it a good business proposition to secure the pit and bring the sand to Winnipeg for sale.
. ^he land in question was owned by a private individual. I bought the land myself in trust for the other gentlemen and myself and held it until we had exhausted the sand in the pit, when the land was sold for the benefit of the parties who were originally interested. There was no written agreement between the gentlemen and myself but simply our verbal understanding of the operation.
Initial Point.
This statement gives you the initial point of the starting of the Eli Sand Company. While we were operating the Eli sand pit representations came to us from all over the province for the extension of the Canadian Northern system, as was our announced policy. You will remember that this was about 1903. Among the many who came to solicit the influence of the government were several large delegations from Gimii, and Icelandic River districts, from Stonewall town and from the country east and north of Shoal lake. So strongly did they press, headed by the members for Gimii and Rockwood, for an extension that the matter was taken up with the railway company. The company said that they would consider an extension from the point on the old Hudson Bay line in a northeasterly direction; but they would not go to Stonewall, and they further wanted the government to give an assurance that no other company would ^extend lines in that northern country, especially from Teulon north as well as from Winnipeg Beach north.
Of course, the government could give no such assurance; but we assured them that if they would construct we would guarantee their bonds and they could build out a reasonable distance that year and the local business would justify the extension even though the Canadian Pacific did extend their lines.
Agreed to Certain Distance.
They agreed to do thi9 for a certain distance. When it became known that this line was probable, a gentleman who owned 240 acres of land along the projected line, and which was said to be a gravel, ballast, sand pit, met those who were associated in the Eli Company and asked if it were not possible to arrange a company to handle the material at that point. The result was a company was formed. I had a small interest in that company. I have it yet. The company owns the land at that place.

There was some sand and ballast taken out from that particular pit, but not in any great quantities. As it developed, there was no quantity there for commercial purposes.
Pressed for Extension.
The government guaranteed those .bonds on that line and have been pressing the railway company for an extension ever since, supported and backed by the people who live in that district. Only a few days ago a large deputation, headed by the member for Rock-wood, waited upon the government and presented a petition, signed by nearly five hundred names of residents from the present end of the track, praying for an extension. The matter is now still being considered by the company and I hope to succeed in getting the extension.
The line that is built handles freight only in carloads, is a great convenience to the people and absolutely satisfactory to the district.
Birds Hill Line.
I now come to deal with the sand shipped from Birds Hill-not the company which was incorporated to operate out on the Hudson Bay line. They had no pits with which to operate and in the location of the Birds Hill ballast pit it was discovered that there was a large deposit of sand, convenient to the line that ran to the ballast pit. Arrangements were made by which the company agreed to haul the sand that we might load to Winnipeg at the ordinary rates or charges for such service.
I was one of the gentlemen interested in the handling of sand from Birds Hill to Winnipeg until the end of the year 1907. I then withdraw, for the reason that I refused or declined to make any financial arrangements in order that the business might be continued ; and the remaining gentlemen who were interested, so far as I know, have continued the business down to the present.
Tariff an Ottawa Matter.
I further wish to state for the information of the House and the country that the tariff of charges are the regular ones, and are filed at Ottawa with the Railway Commission of Canada, open to the inspection of all who desire to examine them.
I have stated the facts exactly as they are and I am satisfied to leave the matter with the House and with the people of this country. I cannot hope to satisfy any one who wishes to make political or party capital out of the fact that I have used the Canadian Northern Railway as a transportation line for handling articles of trade that I was properly engaged in. Neither can I hope to satisfy the individual who will claim that I have no right, being a minister of the Crown, to engage in commercial pursuits.
.	Right to Trade.	_
1 do not believe, however, that any good citizen will deny me the right to trade and conduct a commercial business where I receive no favours from any one in so far as the transportation of my commodities, whatever they may be, is concerned, over a line of railway that has been projected and aided in the public interest.
I submit this statement of facts as a full and complete justification for the course that
I have taken, and therefore a complete and absolute answer to the criticisms that have been made upon my business relations in this connection, and repeat my regrets that the rule and practice of the House prevented me from being present when the matter was up for discussion.
I am handing this statement to each of the three papers, published in the city, for publication.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say a word more in this connection. The premier of Manitoba has been assailed in this House in a manner very ill-becoming a gentleman having a seat in this parliament, and especially a young man coming from the sister province. The only ground he had was dame rumour, and while he was so glib in criticising the action of another member for daring to allude to a gentleman who had not a seat in this House and consequently could not defend himself, it ill-became him to take advantage of his position to assail those who are not members of this House and consequently have not the opportunity to defend themselves.
I want to deal for a short time with another question, one of great importance to Manitoba, and that is the land question.
I was rather amused when I heard the Minister of Finance, a few days ago, make the statement, in his speech on the budget, that the Liberal party stood for the policy of the land for the settler and not for the speculator. That statement was endorsed by the hon. the ex-Speaker (Mr. Sutherland). But what are the facts? These hon. gentlemen surely do not imagine that the country forgets some of the notorious land deals which have taken place under this government. Take for instance one of the first which occurred after this government came to power. They had been very glib all over the country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, impressing upon the people that not one acre was given by them to a railway company, while the Conservative party had given away millions of acres for the construction of railways, but the Liberal party had secured railway construction without giving a subsidy of one acre. But what are the facts? In 1882 there was a charter granted for the Hudson Bay Railway. That charter carried a grant of 640 acres per mile, for the mileage in Manitoba, and 12,800 per mile for the mileage outside that province. When these gentlemen came into power that charter was in existence but had not been acted on and was dying a natural death; and if they had been sincere in their pledges, they would not have given one acre of land to that company and would have refused to extend the life of its charter. But they gave an extension of the charter on three or four different occasions, thus securing that land grant to the Canadian Northern, and they allowed the Canadian Northern to absorb the Hudson Bay Railway grant. That com-

pany built about 320 miles of railway in an almost opposite direction from that defined in the charter, and this government allowed the Canadian Northern to get for the road they had already built out towards the Dauphin country 6,400 acres per mile; and when they went west from Irwin to The Pas and built 97 miles of railway, they got about
1,200,000	acres of picked land out of the Saskatchewan district for the construction of that road.


Mr. MOLLOY.: Was the land granted by the preceding government or hy this government? Or did this government carry out the contract made by its predecessors in office.


George Henry Bradbury: The land grant was voted for the Hudson Bay Railway in 1882. I do not think that hon. gentlemen opposite were in office then. But the Hudson Bay Railway Company did not take advantage of that land grant. The charter practically died on three or four different occasions, or would have died if it had not been renewed by hon. gentlemen opposite. Consequently they aTe directly responsible for the fact that that land, which was granted the Hudson Bay Railway Company, was absorbed by the Canadian Northern for the extension of their line in a direction different altogether from what was at first intended. Another feature was this. The Canadian Northern secured 12,800 acres per mile as soon as they left Manitoba. They huilt about 97 miles outside of that province, from Irwin to The Pas, and secured something like 1,241,600 acres of picked land in the Saskatchewan valley. If that land is worth what the people of the west say it is, about $6 an acre, we find that the Canadian Northern secured for that 97 miles over $7,000,000 worth of land, and they secured that from those gentlemen who claim that they are holding the lands for the settler and not for the speculators.
There is another notorious deal on which I wish to touch on for a moment or two. I refer to the Saskatchewan land deal. My hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) dealt with that question last night in a very laboured manner, and in a way which showed either that he did not understand the subject or that he was not altogether frank with this House. The facts were simply these. This government allowed a few political friends to secure 250,000 acres of picked land in the Saskatchewan valley for $1 an acre. They had the privilege of nicking these lands out of nearly a million acres, and within a very short time these gentlemen sold that land at from $6 to $10 an acre and pocketed about $1,760,000, which should have gone to the settlers. A gentleman who had the honour of occupying a seat on the government side of the House was one of those who secured that land at a dollar an acre and who shared in that enormous profit. And still we are told that the right hon.


George Henry Bradbury: gentleman who leads the House and his government have been conserving the lands of the. west for the settlers and not for the speculators. We remember the many land scandals ventilated in this House last session; we remember the grazing leases, covering some 372,000 acres of land alienated from the Crown for a period of twenty-one years with the right of purchase at about one-tenth of $1 an acre. This is the way these gentlemen have been conserving the land for the settler.
Another matter has been dinned into our ears every time an hon. member rose in his place on the other side to address the House on the land question. We have been told that the Conservative party gave to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company 25,000,000 acres of land that we practically gave the whole Northwest away for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. When the contract for that railway was under discussion in this House, we did not find the leader of the opposition, the present leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the men who sat around him giving to the government of that day any support in the carrying out of this great undertaking. They come before us to-day and tell us what they have done for the west. But, Sir, we who knew of the events of that time remember that the Canadian Pacific Railway was built in the face of the most unscrupulous opposition ever offered to any public undertaking, and that opposition came from men who occupy the treasury benches to-day. When this land grant was given to the Canadian Pacific Railway, what was land in the Northwest worth? I remember that when I went to that country myself in 1881 I went by way of the United States. Stopping off at St. Paul, I saw bills as large as the picture of her Majesty the Queen that hangs in this chamber posted up in the St. Paul station, giving the speeches of Sir Richard Cartwright and other leaders of the Liberal party on the subject of the Canadian Northwest. Immigrants who were going through were taken by the American officials and shown the opinions expressed by these men of our great west. 'There,' they said, 'you can see that these men say that this country to which you are going is only fit for Indians and buffalo.' And in this way they induced these people to settle in North Dakota or South Dakota. To-day, these speakers on behalf of the Liberal party hlame the Conservatives for aiding the construction of the Canadian Pacific with this grant of land. But what is the history of the Liberal party in relation to the land grant for that road? On the defeat of the Conservative party in 1873, Hon. Alexander Mackenzie came into office. He and Hon. Edward Blake, one of the greatest Liberals, I suppose, this country has ever produced, but he had no faith in the

great west, had no faith in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. But I suppose they felt they were forced to go a certain distance in that direction on account of the compact entered into by Sir Jchn A. Macdonald in bringing into confederation the province of British Columbia. Their scheme was not to construct the Canadian Pacific Railway as we have it to-day ; they started off with the idea that they would build from the head of Thunder Bay westward. I have here the statutes, and they show that Mr. Mackenzie and his government at that time provided that the road should be built in four sections, and that 20,000 acres of land and $10,000 in cash per mile should be given toward it. This applied to every branch line as well as to the main line. When you figure it out you learn the startling fact-which our Liberal friends do not know or they would not be so prone to throw this land grant into the teeth of the Conservative party-that the Liberals of that day were willing to give, not 25,000,000 acres of land, but 50,000,000 acres and $25,000,000 in cash for the construction of the Toad. There is no one who has lived in the western country for a number of years and seen the steady progress made there that ever thinks of blaming the Conservative party for building that road under the conditions accepted at that time. What would the great west be to-day if the Canadian Pacific Railway had not been constructed? Where would the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) be? He would not be living in Humboldt, And my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) would not be here to-day. That hon. gentleman has only been in this country seven years, yet he lectures this House on the policy we are following in this country, and though he does not come out squarely as a free trader, gives us a speech along those lines. I do not intend to refer particularly to what the hon. gentleman has said, but I may say that he is in very bad company for a free trader when he supports the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his ministers. We have to-day the national policy as firmly as it ever was fixed in this country, and we are thankful to know that the Liberal party, when they came into power in 1896, had not the courage of their convictions and dared not put in practice the policy that they had enunciated all over this country for eighteen years. And that very fact largely accounts for the great prosperity Canada has enjoyed during the last ten or twelve years of the regime of these hon. gentlemen.	.
Now, I wish to refer to a matter in which I am directly interested in connection with this land question. While listening to the speeches of hon. gentlemen claiming that they believed in a policy that keeps the land for the settler and not for
the speculator, I was forced to recognize the fact that they preach one doctrine in this House and practice something altogether different in the western country. About a year ago we had, adianent to my own town, an Indian reservation. This covered about 50,000 acres of tile best available lands in the province of Manitoba. There was supposed to be an agitation for the surrender of that reserve and the removal of the Indians, but just where that agitation came from I have failed to find out. I have lived in the town of Selkirk off and on, for the last twenty-eight years, and there has been no agitation along these lines there. But something had to be done for the boys and the government had to give them a chance to get in on a land deal. So the surrender of that great reserve was decided upon, and a commission was sent down to Selkirk to arrange that surrender. The present Chief Justice Howell, of the city of Winnipeg came down to Selkirk to arrange with the chief and council. When they came there the chief and council would have nothing to do with them, refused to meet them, or to discuss the surrender of the reserve. But these men were determined that the reserve should be surrendered and thrown open, that a few of their friends might reap the benefit. So an arrangement was made by two or three citizens of the town who were approached, and the Indian chief and council were got together. There was some deal arranged with the chief and council to this effect: These men were to be bribed, were to be bought, to betray the rest of their band, and they were promised five times as much land as the ordinary Indian got as an inducement to secure the consent of the band to a surrender. I am told on good authority-I do not make the statement because I have not got the proof-I am told, however, on the best authoiity that the Indian chief and council were promised $200 cash in addition, 5 times as much land as the other members of the band were to get, for inducing the rest of the band to agree to this surrender. Now what occurred ? These men agreed that every soul, every man, woman and child on that reserve, should receive 16 acres of land ; this, Mr. Speaker, was given as an inducement to these men to agree to surrender. In all, it amounted to something like 25,000 acres of land. This was the first experience these Indians ever had in possessing anything that they could transfer or sell. They were always regarded as incompetent, and I confess I thought mvself that they were incompetent to hold land or transfer it. But the parties who were arranging this deal no doubt had this matter all studied out before the arrangement was made.
Now then, these men suddenly found themselves possessed of 16 acres of choice

land in this settlement and they were immediately besieged by a few men who wanted to pick up those allotments. Last session, I think it was, a question was asked on the floor of the House whether any protection could be given to a purchaser from the Indians of one of these 16-acre lots, and the answer given by the Minister of the Interior was, if I remember right that the Indians had nothing to sell until the patent issued, and that the Interior Department would not protect anybody who purchased this land. Now, Sir, the ordinary man on the street tools it for granted that this land could not be placed on the market until these patents were issued. But there were a few political friends who were on the inside. There was one gentleman who made a trip to the city of Ottawa and got thoroughly posted, and he came back and started in to buy. He and his friends got from the Indians some kind of a quit claim deed, I do not know exactly what it was, but they got something anyway that held, and they bought these lands from these Indians at the very best bargain could they make. Now, every one in this House knows how incompetent the Indian is, how improvident he is, how little able he is to protect himself against a keen speculator. The government, I understand, had supplied the Indians with a solicitor to look after their interests in the surrender; and they had an Indian agent there who was supposed to protect the rights of the wards of the government; but the result has been that both the solicitor and the Indian agent worked hand in hand with the speculator, and the Indian was practically beat out of his land. That land which was worth $15 or $20 an acre, fell into the hands of a few of these men at a figure averaging something like $3 per acre. ,
Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me to make this transaction as plain to the House as I would like. But if you can imagine 25,000 acres of land divided up into 16-acre lots; no man knew where his lot was going to be situated. They formed what they called the Northern Land Company, every one of them being political friends of the government. I venture to say from my place in this House that there was not 100 acres out of that 25,000 acres of land that passed into the hands of a Conservative. There was not a Conservative in the town of Selkirk dared to invest $1, because he had no protection. He felt that he was at the mercy of the Indian agent and of the Indian Department; there was no guarantee that he could get his patent, or that he would be protected. It was arranged in such a way that no man but Liberals could buy these lands, and Liberals did buy them. Now what happened with the balance of this land? There was something Mr. BRADBURY.
like 25,000 acres of land left after these men had picked this 25,000 out of the 50,000, because when they had the right to locate this land they haa tne right to pick. They went round and located this land in blocks, in some places of 100, or
1,000	acres, just as they could manage to buy it. The balance of this 25,000 acres was put up to auction, and some of the men who secured this picked land for about $3 an acre, when they were bidding against each other for the remnants of that reserve, much of it very inferior land in comparison to what they had bought for $3 an acre, they had to pay three times as much at auction as they had paid for the picked land on that reserve which he had bought from the poor unprotected Indian. Now, this will give you some idea of the seriousness of the hon. gentlemen apposite when they proclaim the doctrine of the land for the setters and not for the speculators. Every acre of that land has fallen into the hands of speculators.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the Minister of the Interior, whom I see in his seat, what might have been dene with that land. We have on the shores of Lake Winnipeg, west of the lake and north of Teulon, 3,000 or 4,000 settlers, Ruthenians, Polanders and Germans, as fine a people as ever went into that province. This government placed these men on lands utterly unfit for human beings to live on. In the spring of the year they have to wade in water up to their waists to get out to a settlement. Last year the local government undertook to drain some of that district, and spent a sum of money to help them, for all of which they received, not the thanks of the Liberal party or press of Manitoba, but the severest and most unfair criticism for that expenditure. If the Minister of the Interior and the government had been anxious to secure the land for the settlers, they could have taken that 50,000 acres of the finest land in the province, surveyed it into 100 acre lots, and sold it on 25 or 30 years purchase to these people, and we would have had one of the finest settlements in the province of Manitoba at Selkirk, and the land would have passed into the hands of settlers and not into the hands of speculators. But that is not the policy of the present government. The Liberal party or the Liberal heelers of that district, because, unfortunately, we have a number of them around Selkirk, would have had no opportunity of making the rake-off they have made out of that land. You cannot buy an acre of the land of St. Peter's reserve which was bought for $3 last year at less than $10 to $20 from the men who hold it at the present time. I intend placing on record a letter which I have from an Indian chief. This may be the last opportunity I will have, and I want the

House to become aware of just how the Indians feel about this matter. I know that the Indians have complained bitterly to the minister and the Indian Department about the treatment they have received. They are the wards of the government. We, who have gone into that country and have had occasion to mix with that class of people, know that these Indians had one of the finest reserves in the province and they deserved better treatment than they have received. The letter is as follows:
Selkirk, February 25, 1909.
G. H. Bradbury, M.P.,
Ottawa.
Dear sir,-We. the chief and council of the St. Peter's band, beg leave to make a statement how we were used in regard to the sale of our lands.
The government had given these Indians a new reserve on Lake Winnipeg and they had been out apparently visiting this reserve.
After coming back from the lake, Mr. E. Rayner came to the chief councillors and asked U9 to give him part of our land for security and so he would help us through till the patents came. He asked us, how much we would want per acre. I told him not less than $15 an acre. So he said all right, and when the patents came he would complete the bargain. So we went on getting the goods from the store until we received a letter from Frank Pedley saying that the Indian Department would not recognize any bargain made by the white people. Then Mr. Rayner said to us that he would not give us anything more until our patents came; so we did not get anything after that. On the

The date is left out, but I think it is on the 26th October.
-Mr. William Frank came to Selkirk and wished to meet the chief and council. So we e*me up to Selkirk, met Mr. Frank and he told us that he wanted to buy lands from the Indians. The chief and the rest of the councillors did not say anything to him. I spoke to him and asked him what authority he had to buy land or who permitted him, for the Indian Department had sent a letter to us iby Frank Pedley saying that he would not recognize any bargain made by a man for buying land. He said that he would buy anyway and take the risk.
It was not much of a risk in this case.
The rest of the chief and council were against me saying this to Mr. Frank. But, he went on buying land and he asked us to be at Selkirk while buying from the Indians, to be witness to this bargain or deeds, he, riomisintr to help us as much as he could. Afterwards he promised to give us $2 per day. So it went on in this way. We helped him as much as we could and about the month of duly, 1908. he told us that he would take all the lands that we had given to Mr. Rayner and would pay what he had given us. He said that he would not pay us $2 per day, but that he would search the best land near Selkirk,
that would be worth $25 per acre, and that we would get all we needed. He said: I will hire two rigs from Mr. George Eickenson's livery stables and will drive around to search for the good land. We drove around west from Selkirk and not very far from the asylum he took locations for the chief, and councillors Williams and Harper, and none for W. H. Prince, councillor, but he said that he would look for land for me at East Selkirk. So he did start next day and we found good land at East Selkirk. He located there for $25 per acre and then he asked me if I could wirk for him while he was at Selkirk, promising that he would give me $50 per month. 1 consented and I went on working for him. He paid me all right for two months and after that he did not give me anything, but still I was working for him. And he did not give us much money, he got rather awkward himself to us, so we talked to him one day that he ought to treat us Wetter, because we want to live. We don't want to work for nothing. Then he got rather mad, so he said to us, the chief and councillors, he got mad with me and said to me: ' Be careful what you say to me or else I will take off your coat of office as chief and councillor, for you are drinking.' Then I said to him: 'Who learnt us to drink? for you gave drink sometimes in the morning.' He did not say anything more. We after that, asked him to make a proper settlement about our land he took but as he would say that he would treat us right, not to be afraid of him, he went on like that all along till this month, February, I asked him to settle with me for my land. Before Councillor Williams, he said to me 'I overpaid you; there is nothing coming to you.' I asked him how that could be. He said ' I am only allowing you $6 per acre for your land. I said to him * I am not such a fool to give you my land for $6 per acre when I can easily get $15 per acre.' And I said to him ' I will try and do something to make you pay what you promised for my land.' He promised to give the chief and councillors if they would help him to the end buying land $100 each as present and promised to give $25 per acre for all the land we, the chief and councillors, received in settlement, but after securing our land and patents only allowed us $6 per acre. This is the way the speculators are aided and allowed to rob the poor Indian.



[Stage Direction]
Chief.

[Stage Direction]
Councillors.
This gives you an idea of how these speculators have handled the Indians and how little the government have interfered to protect them. The point I want to make is that these Indians were the wards of the government, that it was the duty of the Indian agent to see that these men got justice instead of which the Indian agent and the solicitor who was appointed and paid by this government to take care of the interests of these Indians were in collusion with the speculators, and the Indians in that case were beaten out of their just rights. Now, I have taken up all the time
[Stage Direction]
I intend to in this debate. I just want to say that I do not honestly think that the government have any right to claim that they have in any way preserved the lands of the Northwest for the settler. In every case where there was an opportunity to hand the land out to their friends and to speculators it has been done. When we look at the manner in which they have dealt with our great fishing interests in that country, when we think of these great fishing rights that they gave to two or three men, when we remember that a lawyer in Montreal secured Athabaska lake, or 10,700 square miles of water teeming with beautiful fish and the whole of the Nelson river down to Hudson bay for $10, when we remember the McNee lease which gave that gentleman nearly 300 square miles of James bay for $10 a year, and when we remember the Mackenzie lease which handed over Lesser Slave lake for $10 a year we can easily see that these gentlemen have not been guided by a desire to protect the settlers in any one case. I congratulate the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) for having had the courage, in face of the opposition and political influence that was brought to bear, to cancel these leases. I believe that he is being pressed at the present time for a lease of Lac du Bonnet, and if he yields he will put himself in the same position that his predecessor was in when he granted the leases that I have been referring to.
John Patrick Molloy: Mr. Speaker, I would not have taken part in this debate were it not that certain statements have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite regarding events in the province of Manitoba which I think it my duty to correct. I have the greatest respect for the hon. gentlemen on the Conservative benches who come from the province of Manitoba, and I think that we Manitobans should all have a friendly feeling for each other, but, when Conservative members from the province of Manitoba make statements which are not founded on fact I will have to be excused if I express my dissent. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) stated, evidently without any knowledge whatever on his part, that he had come to the conclusion that the Minister of Finance was a great joker, and I might return that compliment by saying that in my opinion the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sharpe) is the greatest joker who has yet spoken in this debate. Among other things he talked about Bill Miner. Do you know Mr. Speaker, what I think of Bill Miner and the Conservative party: I believe that the Conservatives are jealous of Bill Miner because while Bill Miner got into a hole he got out of it, and the Conservative party have got into a hole from which they are not able to extricate themselves. In my opinion Bill Mr. MOLLOY.	.
Miner is a cleverer man than all the Conservative party put together. We were given to understand that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) was going to make a charge in regard to the escape of Bill Miner, but he failed to do so up to the present because perhaps he knows that some people who have been making charges in connection with the escape of Bill Miner are in an unenviable position. Take the case of ex-Warden Bourke who was brought into the courts of the country and who had to make an apology and undertake to pay the costs in connection with the suit. The gentleman who compelled ex-Warden Bourke to make that apology and pay the costs also brought a case against the paper owned by the hon. member for New Westminster.


James Davis Taylor: That statement is altogether untrue.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: A point of order has been raised and I will hear it stated before giving a decision. Who raises the point of order?


Mr. FIELDING.: I raise the point of order that the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Taylor) has said that what an hon. gentleman on this side of the House has stated is absolutely untrue. That is not parliamentary and cannot be upheld.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Does the hon gentleman from New Westminster wish to speak to that point of order?


James Davis Taylor: Speaking to the point of order I wish to refute what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Molloy) stated


William Stevens Fielding: That is not the question.


James Davis Taylor: I have the floor, and I am speaking to the point of order, I wish to say that what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Molloy) has stated as reflecting on me, and mentioning my name in connection with his statement, is not true.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The question now before the Chair is as to whether the point raised is a point of order, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Taylor) must not enter into further detail but must speak to the point of order.


James Davis Taylor: Speaking to the point of order I wish to ask your ruling whether it is proper when a member of this House makes a statement, no doubt unintentionally, which is not true, the1 hon. member against whom that statement is directed is permitted to say that it is not true. If I am not within the rule of order and you so rule Mr. Speaker, I will ' of course unreservedly withdraw it.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It appears to me that the member for New Westminster is privileged to say that the statement made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) is not correct. The word ' untrue ' is not desirable language to use in parliament, but as the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Taylor) is denying what he is in a position to deny without attributing falsehood to another hon. member, I am not prepared to rule it out of order.


John Patrick Molloy: I do not think the hon. member (Mr. J. D. Taylor) will deny that ex-Warden Bourke did apologize to Mr. McIntyre and that he agreed to pay the costs in conection with the suit. Now, I did not intend to cast any reflection on the hon. member for New Westminster, but what I intended to say was that the press reports stated that Mr. McIntyre who got this apology from ex-Warden Bourke had entered an action against the paper that I understand is owned and controlled by the hon. member for New Westminster. If that statement is not correct I am quite willing that the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Taylor) should state whether or not Mr. McIntyre has entered a suit against his paper.


James Davis Taylor: That is an assertion which I have already stated to the House is not true.


Mr. NEELY.: What part of the statement is not true?


An hon. MEMBER.: What have you got to say about it anyway?


James Davis Taylor: I do not think that hon. gentlemen opposite have the privilege of cross examining me on this occasion.


John Patrick Molloy: I take it for granted an action has been entered against the 'Columbian' owned by the hon. member for New Westminster.


James Davis Taylor: No.


John Patrick Molloy: The hon. gentleman would like to be enlightened on that.


James Davis Taylor: I state again that the hon. gentleman is not correct in saying that any action has been entered against the 'Columbian.' If he will permit me I think I can give him information which may save him from further confusion. I wish to state for the information of the House that the matter as to which Mr. Bourke apologized to Mr. McIntyre is altogether foreign to anything which I have ever mentioned in this House; it is altogether foreign to any issue that has been brought before the House, and it simply arose from Mr. Bourke's supplying the name 'McIntyre' to Miner's statement, when all that the convict said was that his lawyer had done so and so. That matter I have never referred to either in the House or out of the House; I have said nothing at all in reference to Mr. McIntyre.


John Patrick Molloy: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) is satisfied with that explanation it will satisfy us and we have no complaint to make. The hon. gentleman from Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) quoted from the 'Free Press' a statement made by the Hon. Clifford Sifton and commenting on it he said:
When the last election was over the right hon. Prime Minister '(Sir Wilfrid Laurier) asked the hon. member for Brandon the reason why the elections had gone against him in the province of Manitoba, and the hon. member for Brandon made practically the same reply to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister repeated that same statement or pietty nearly the same statement, on the 22nd of January last in this House. I claim that if the statement made by the Prime Minister on the floor of this House on the 22nd January last is true, and if the statement made by the hon. member for Brandon in this interview with the Winnipeg ' Free Press * is true, I, for one, have no right to a scat in this House. If those statements are false, as I claim they are absolutely false, then the hon. member for Brandon has no right to a seat in this House.
I would like to know what reason or justification the hon. member for Lisgar has for pronouncing on the right of the hon. Clifford Sifton to a seat in this House when he has been duly returned by the electors of the constituency of Brandon. He went on to say:
I do not intend to dicuss the merits and demerits of the Manitoba voters' lists at the piesent time, more than to say that the electoral lists for the province of Manitoba are the fairest lists that are compiled in Canada to-day.
I do not intend to discuss the merits and demerits of the Manitoba lists as they exist to-day, but I will say that they are the most unfair lists compiled in the Dominion of Canada to-day. At the proper time I will discuss the Manitoba lists as no man who ever sat in this House could discuss them, because I can discuss them from actual experience of the doings of the political machine in that province. No man ever sat in this House in the same position as I am in. I am here to-day because I was beaten out of the seat I won from the Attorney General of the province of Manitoba by the returning officer and an unfair list in the constituency of Morris. The hon. gentleman says that the judges have complete charge of the list. I say that is not correct. I am not privileged to say that it is untrue.


William Henry Sharpe: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Can a voter be put on the Manitoba voters' list without the

sanction of one of the judges of the province of Manitoba, or can a name be taken off the list without the sanction of one of the judges of the province of Manitoba?


John Patrick Molloy: 
Mr. STAPLES.: Is there not provision in the Manitoba Election Law whereby persons can be put on the list by another person when the persons who should be on the list are unavoidably absent?


John Patrick Molloy: That is all right if he is a Conservative, but otherwise not.


William D. Staples: Has not a Liberal the right to make application for a person who is unavoidably absent but who has the qualification to go on the list?


Mr. S. SHARPE.: 


John Patrick Molloy: If you follow the letter of the law, and if the registration clerks are fair and square and manly, and will give to a Liberal what they give to a Coi>
servative you should be able to do it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Patrick Molloy: The boot is on the wrong foot. If they will do it; but the registration clerks will not do it in the province of Manitoba. I challenge the hon. member to name one instance where a Liberal, in that portion of my county where a Liberal applied, succeeded in getting a Liberal on the list.


William D. Staples: I want to ask the hon. member the names of those three persons.


John Patrick Molloy: I will have to name them from memory, and I will not say I am absolutely correct. You told me the other day that you knew their names.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order. The hon. gentleman must address the Chair.


John Patrick Molloy: The name of one, I think, is a Mr. Macdonald, and another was Mr. Pedley. The other I do not remember, although I have met him. No doubt the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) has met him because he is an out and out partisan Tory. And very proud he was of getting on the list without having been put to the same expense and trouble as his Liberal neighbours. But there was one of those three, manly enough, straightforward enough, over and above board enough, and frank enough, who, when the matter was explained to him in which his name was added to the list- Tory though he was-call him Tory or Conservative, or that choice name Liberal-Conservative-he refused to vote for the Attorney General on the 7th of March, 1907. But there were two added, and the election was a tie, and he got the benefit of those two who were added by John W. Parker.


William D. Staples: I wish to correct the hon. gentleman. He knows that under the law John W. Parker could riot possibly add those names to the list. Therefore he should not accuse a man who is not here to defend himself.


John Patrick Molloy: Under the law, if it was meted out to Liberals, as it should be, as well as to Conservatives, perhaps he could not, but he was in snooks with the Tory registration clerk. Let me tell the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) that the same John W. Parker, with the registration clerk, put on a man not later than last year who was in charge of an elevator nine miles from the seat of registration. Will the hon. gentleman deny that? And I will give him the name of the registration clerk-Mr. Conrad Dausie, of

Jean Baptiste, Manitoba. He came to me and begged for mercy and asked me not to put him to trouble and expense. He said he acted as he did because the man could not afford to lose his time. Therefore he travelled nine miles from the registration booth and put on that man, who had charge of an elevator at a place or near a place called Stanford, nine miles away. If the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) will give an instance in his county, where a registration cleTk consented to drive nine miles out of his way to put on a Liberal, I will give $100 to any hospital in the city of Ottawa or of Manitoba. There is a straight challenge and I am always as good as my word.
I will give it to a hospital in the constituency represented by my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe).


George Henry Bradbury: Will the hon. gentleman allow me? The statement he made a moment aeo was that two or three names had been added on illegally. The challenge issued by the Premier of Manitoba to the commission granted by the House was to prove there was one added on or left off illesrallv. Whv was not that accented? Why did not the hon. member for Brandon or somewhere else face that commission?


John Patrick Molloy: What the Liberals asked in the local legislature was this: They asked that- a commission be granted, and they made seven distinct charges, and they wanted to go back to 1903, when personal registration was first introduced in Manitoba, and the Roblin government refused that.


William Henry Sharpe: Why did they want to go back to 1903?


John Patrick Molloy: Does the hon. gentleman mean to tell me that the Attorney General does not know the three cases I have mentioned? Why, he has been dreaming about them ever since. They have helped to keep him alive politically, and the hon. member for Selkirk knows that. He knows the facts just as well as the Attorney General for Manitoba. They are not so indelibly stamped on his memory perhaps as on mine, but he has seen them published from time to time, and he knows that my opponent holds his seat by virtue of the vote of the returning officer of Manitoba- the smallest majority of any minister in the Dominion. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) goes on to say:
I was elected in the constituency of Manitoba by 105 of a majority. If the government will appoint a royal commission to inquire into the lists in that constituency, and if ttev can find 106 Conservatives improperly put on that list, or 106 Reformers improperly left off, I will resign my seat.


William Henry Sharpe: Read it all.


John Patrick Molloy: I intend to read it all, but was giving it in junks on the instalment plan:
If they can find 106 Conservatives improperly put on that list or 106 Liberals improperly left off, I will resign my seat provided the hon. member for Brandon will agree to resign his, if his statements, are not true, as I claim they are not.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Patrick Molloy: The hon. member foT Lisgar must think we are pretty dense. He says: ' I will resign if so and so will.' But he knows full well that he cannot resign. There are just two ways in which he can avoid the election petition-by appointment to the Senate or death. We will take mighty good care that he will not get in the Senate for a long time to come, and I hope, as he is a fairly good fellow, that he will not die and avoid the petition in that way.


William Henry Sharpe: I am just as free to resign my seat as the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) is free to resign his.


John Patrick Molloy: The hon. member for Brandon did not say anything about resigning his seat. He has never been defeated He has had 25 years of parliamentary experience in this House and in the local legislature. He has been thirteen or fourteen years in this House, and when the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) is a member of this House as long as my hon. friend, the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), he will have something to boast about. I would advise my hon. friend from Lisgar to keep in mind the old maxim, that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If he should resign before the term of this parliament expires and face his electors in the county of Lisgar, he may not come back. Strange things happen in elections, and I would advise him to stick just as fast to his seat as he possibly can. He tried to get elected in 1904 but failed, but the lists perhaps did not then help him out as we believe they did the last time, which is the reason he is here now. So that I will close here, so far as that idle boast is concerned.


William Henry Sharpe: It is no idle boast at all.


John Patrick Molloy: He knew he could not resign, and if he did resign he has every reason to believe he would not get back. If he will face the election petition, which I believe he will have to do, perhaps he will be very glad to resign. How would he like that? There is quite a diherence in doing a thing voluntarily and being compelled to do it; and the hon. member for Lisgar had better sit as close to his seat as he possibly can and just as long as he can, and we will take chances on his coming back on the next appeal to the people of Manitoba.
Now, I think I have disposed of the state-



ment that the judges make the list. There is one point in connection with the list on which I will barely touch. If the registration clerk is fair and honourable, no man gets on the list except the man who applies personally and takes his oath; and if that list is brought before the judge and revised by the judge, the judge is absolutely helpless unless somebody takes interest enough to appeal against a name. Names are appealed against by different people in different constituencies, and they are often upheld by the judge who declares that they have the right to be on, and I think in the majority of cases they have the right to be on. We have every confidence in the judges of Manitoba. But the fact that the list can be stuffed was sworn to by Judge Ryan of Portage la Prairie, an appointee of the Canadian government in this investigation which went back only to the list of 1908 and which the government would not carry back to 1903. Judge Ryan, who is one of the ablest and most reputable men in Manitoba, said that the list could be stuffed. He did not pretend to have knowledge of it being done, but I say it has been done and I say that men from the province of Manitoba in this House believe-or, at least, they have good reason to believe-that it has been done.


William D. Staples: Read what Judge Ryan said on that point.


John Patrick Molloy: You read it. The hon. gentleman asks: Will this government appoint a Royal Commission? I will send him back to his political chum the hon. member for Lisgar of the province of Manitoba to ask them to grant the commission that is practically demanded by the people of Manitoba to determine whether the lists in Manitoba are stuffed, and whether the system of appeal on the lists is fair and square. And let them go back to the year 1903, and we will undertake to prove, as I have said before, not only that the list was unfair, but that it was the most unjust list in the Dominion of Canada. That is the reason the members for Manitoba sitting on the other side of the House are so much in love with that system-because it had a good deal to do with them getting to this House in the election of October 26, 1908.
Something was said here the other night [DOT]-and I think the statement was challenged -as to the prostitution, of justice in the province of Manitoba. Justice is being prostituted in certain cases for political effect. And I am making the statement that it has been done in my own county; and I make the statement also that I believe these cases are known to hon. members from the province of Manitoba. I will mention one,-the case of Dominion City. The party there was sentenced by the


John Patrick Molloy: e magistrate appointed by the Attorney Gen-l eral's department of the province of Mani-
-	toba to a term in the common gaol. The l party was taken to Winnipeg, but great
-	political influence was brought to bear- f at least the local member for that county 1 thought so,-and it is a matter of history r that that party was back in Dominion City t the same day and before the constable who s had taken the one convicted to Winnineg.
; That cannot and will not be denied by any 3 man from the province of Manitoba.
*	Mr. STAPLES. What was the name of ' the person?
*	Mr. MOLLOY. Krivel. Then, take the ! Lac du Bonnet liquor case. The house of a i man there was, to use the common expres-i sion, ' pulled,' and he was fined for running l what is commonly known as a ' blind pig.'
>
But the party thus fined was an active ; political worker, and this was during the , election of 1904. The magistrate received a . telegram signed ' Colin H. Campbell,' * Do . nothing in the Lac du Bonnet case until
you hear from me,' or words to that effect. And nothing has been done from that day to this. If my memory serves me well, there have been 40 odd political cases since the present Attorney General took office-40 odd charges including arrests. And I will ask the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) ot any other hon. member from the province of Manitoba, to name a case where a man was charged with a political offence and was ever brought to trial by the Attorney General's Department. The last is the celebrated Ingram case in Brandon. This man had acted as returning officer in the last Dominion election. Was he brought to trial? No. He was arrested, not prosecuted but persecuted, for political effect, and they tried to make a deal with the Liberal party, and according to the statement of Ingram they failed to make the deal and did not carry on the case. They dare not carry on this case and they know it.


Mr. SOHAFFNER.: Tell the House what Ingram did.


John Patrick Molloy: I will tell what he did, and I will tell everything he did. I have already told what action the department took to punish the crime.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Tell about the prosecution.


John Patrick Molloy: There was no prosecution and he knows it. So far as the remarks of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) are concerned, that hon. member' is a personal friend of mine. It is not necessary for me to deal with any statements he made. My hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) handled the ' Tall Pine ' from Dauphin to a finish the other night. It will be quite a while before the hon. member for Dauphin will make

an insinuation, much more a charge, while he is a member of this House.


William D. Staples: He made a charge.


John Patrick Molloy: He did not. He hinted at what he thought had been told by a another man who, he said, occupied a seat in this House, but he did not make a charge. And no man sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker, has dared, since 1896, to make a charge against any hon. member of this government, present or past.
So far as the remarks relating to the Grand Trunk Pacific are concerned, I am sure that I never heard of any Conservative in Manitoba opposing the building of that road. Though they spoke of it as an enormous cost to the people, they were afraid to say-at least they did not say-that they were opposed to the building of the road. They did not care apparently what it cost so long as they could convince the people that they were in sympathy with the building of the road and that the road would be built. And I think that in that they took proper ground. I think that their constituents, whether they ever return them to this House again or not, will appreciate their action in relation to the Transcontinental. There are few men west of the lakes, whether Liberal or Conservative, who will oppose the building of the Transcontinental. Liberals would not be here if they opposed it, and some Conservatives who are here would never have had seats in this House had they dared to oppose, even in the most feeble way, the building of this road.
As regards the remarks oi the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) regarding the tariff question, I am sorry for him. He is the only one, however, west of the lake who bears the name of Conservative, who dared to get up in his place in this House and say he was a protectionist. He said it out and out, and in a manly way, and I give the member for Dauphin credit for that. But I must say this, that I believe he has made a mistake, and the proof of that will appear when he appeals to his constituents again. But that of course is his own business. I am glad from a party point of view that he made the statement, because I believe it will be his undoing. Personally I am sorry for him. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) did not state that he was a protectionist, not yet; nor did the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) state that he was a protectionist, although he did move a resolution asking this government to reduce the tariff on implements from 17J to 10 per cent. But the people of Manitoba have a pretty good idea of the stand the Conservative party takes on the tariff. I am free to state the stand I take on the tariff, regardless of who is in power, regardless of the fact that I am a supporter of the Liberal government. I say here that I would not support an in-160S
crease in the tariff. It is wrong from a western point of view. 1 believe the consumer pays the duty, and I believe the consumer west of the lakes has a greater need of a reduction in the tariff than he has of an increase in the tariff, so far as the necessaries of life are concerned. Therefore I will not support any increase in the tariff, I do not care whether a Liberal or a Conservative government is in power.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: To what extent would you vote for a reduction of the tariff?


John Patrick Molloy: Lower than you would. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) threw a number ot bouquets to the Liberal government for Manitoba, and I do not blame him. I do not blame any Conservative member from the province of Manitoba who will stand up and support, so far as they dare, and as long as they dare, the party that holds sway in the province of Manitoba, for they have been a great help to the Conservative party in the Dominion in the past. They may be a great help to it in the future, but we do not think so, for we believe they will not be there. The hon. member for Selkirk says the present premier of Manitoba is the best they have ever nad, but I take issue with him. The best Conservative premier that Manitoba ever had was the honoured, the late lamented John Norquay, honest, great-hearted John Norquay. He was a good man, he meant well; but the other fellows, all they meant was to win, and they generally did it, and I give them a certain amount of credit for it. The hon. member for Selkirk, in praising the party that holds sway in Manitoba, did not tell us anything about the number of cheques that were proven before the Public Accounts Committee of Manitoba to have been paid in his constituency a few days prior to the last Dominion election. If my information is correct, there were 141 cheques for various amounts, signed on the 21st and the 22nd day of October. They were paid in some cases, if my information is correct, at the very polling booths on the 26th October, and the man that paid them took the train back to Winnipeg on the 27th day of October, and his name was Szablowski.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman in his romancing, but I just want to tell him that he is entirely wrong. I did tell the House that the government had done work in the constituency of Selkirk, I told the House that they had received unfair criticism for trying to drain a district in which the government had put people, a district that was not fit to live in. Now the hon. gentleman says that cheques were paid out at the polling booths on the 26th October. I say his statement is absolutely incorrect.

5071


John Patrick Molloy: I said if my information was correct. But I will challenge the hon. gentleman to this statement:	Is it a fact
or is it not that cheques were issued by the provincial government and paid in that constituency between the 20th and 26th October, for public works?


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. gentleman asks me a question. I want to be honest and frank, I will tell him that I could not answer that question because I do not know.


John Patrick Molloy: It is sometimes a good thing not to know. There are many things, particularly if your election is contested, that it is better not to know. But there are many things that happen in an election that the other people find out later on.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Patrick Molloy: I am not charging my good friend from Selkirk with having done anything, far from it, I have great respect for him. I think he did pretty well, but I think he got a lot of help, according to the public accounts investigation held in the last session of the local legislature. Those who had any experience in elections know that 141 cheques of various amounts are likely to be a great factor in an election. Supposing they were paid out in the county of Provencher, they would be a big factor. In that case it would go to my opponent, and in that case there was a certain amount went to my opponent, but it didn't help him very much. The hon. gentleman spoke of the harm that a certain gentleman in Winnipeg did himself. Well, the opinion of the magistrate was that it was not a great offence, because he was only fined the small sum of $20, and there were many men in Manitoba who told me personally that they would be quite willing to pay $50 to do the same job. The hon. members for Manitoba have heard the same thing, no doubt they would willingly have paid $50. As regards the statement that has been made concerning the list in Saskatchewan, I have not heard any complaint made except in the Prince Albert election for the local House, where I believe the facts would rather go to show that the candidate opposing the Scott government was unfairly dealt with in the northern polls. The Liberal legislature, however, gave that gentleman his seat without his having to fight for it. Now my hon. friend from Selkirk resented something that was said about the premier of Manitoba by the hon. mem-oer for Humboldt (Mr. Neely). All I can say is that during the last session of the legislature, Mr. Ross, the member for Springfield in the local House, used words to this effect : * Grant me a committee of investigation, and I will charge that the premier of Manitoba has used his position Mr. BRADBURY.
for his personal enrichment, and if I do not prove that charge, I am not fit to keep my seat in this House.' Will any member from the province of Manitoba deny that those words were used, or words to that effect? I have no quarrel with the premier of Manitoba. He is a political opponent. He will remain that and I will remain what I am, but I simply state what a duly elected and respected member of the legislature of Manitoba said to the premier of that province. What happened? Was there a committee of investigation granted? Not at all.


George Henry Bradbury: What was the committee of investigation asked for?


John Patrick Molloy: The House prorogued next day and it has stood that way ever since.


George Henry Bradbury: What was the committee of investigation asked for? What was the occasion of it?


John Patrick Molloy: It was asked for in reference to a statement you made


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is irregular to speak in that way.


John Patrick Molloy: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. It was that the premier of the province of Manitoba was a party in a sand pit which he was using for his personal enrichment and further the member for Springfield, at the nomination in the county represented by the hon. member for Selkirk, stated two weeks ago, that he still stood by the charges made against the premier of Manitoba, that he still would prove that he was a partner in a deal known as the Eli sand pit deal.


George Henry Bradbury: I thought I had made it veTy plain and frank in my statement. I said that the premier stated that he was a partner in the Eli Sand Company, that he held stock in it, that he had a small interest and that he went into it as a part of his legitimate business.


John Patrick Molloy: Did he grant a committee of investigation?


George Henry Bradbury: What for?


John Patrick Molloy: To inquire whether he used his position for his personal enrichment as the premier of Manitoba. The fact remains that this railway refused to carry the produce of the farmers along its line, but consented to do so about a week before the House prorogued. Now, I may be wrong, but I do not think so. I will let my statement go as being correct. As far as the Department of Justice being prostituted in the interest of the Conservative party is concerned, if I may be permitted to do so I will file a statement.


Haughton Lennox: I rise to a point of order. I let the hon. gentleman go on with this kind of thing before, but I understand that you cannot attack a judge or use offensive language towards any of the Courts in Canada.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have not heard any reference to a judge yet.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman speaks of the prostitution of justice.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand him to speak of the Department of Justice.


Haughton Lennox: Justice can only be administered by the judges.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The Department of Justice was referred to.


Haughton Lennox: Justice is administered by a judge.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


John Patrick Molloy: I state in addition to what I say now that there is no charge against any judge in any part of Canada, let alone the province of Manitoba, but the Liberals charge that the Department of the Attorney General of Manitoba was prostituted for political ends. When I was interrupted by the hon. member for South Simcoe I was proposing to read a statement by Mr. Ingram, who was made to suffer for his affiliation with the Liberal party. If I may simply give the title of the article and then allow it to be put on ' Hansard ' I will be willing to do so; otherwise I will be compelled to take the time of the House while I read it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read it.


John Patrick Molloy: Mr. Daly was the gentleman who opposed the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) in the Dominion election.
-who represent the Crown in this matter, to attend for them and enter a stay of proceedings in this case.
I telephoned Mr. Darrach as to the indictment and he informs me that no indictment has been lodged with him. He thinks an indictment should be drawn and that the stay cf proceedings should be inscribed upon it. I hardly know what course to take under the circumstances but you are at liberty to treat this letter as a stay of proceedings or evidence of the Crown's intention to enter a stay of proceedings upon any indictment that might be found or presented in accordance with the information and commitment.
You are at liberty to notify the judge of the ccntents of this letter and to intimate that so far as the Crown is concerned there will be no necessity for his attendance at the court house on Friday next to deal with this case.
If you require anything further you might let me know and I will do my best to adjust matters so that the case may be finally disposed of as before stated.
Yours faithfully,


J. P. CURRAN.
[Stage Direction]
That is the partner of the man who was instrumental in having Mr. Ingram arrested and who was Minister of Education in the Manitoba government. Here is Mr. Ingram's statement and hon. gentlemen opposite can make any statement that they see fit and that they believe is correct in rebuttal of what Mr. Ingram says:
To a representative of the ' Free Press ' who interviewed him, Mr. Ingram made a statement of the case, which is given below. It is the most interesting expose yet made of the manner in which the Conservative machine uses its power of arrest and prosecution as a political weapon and asset.
' I was arrested,' said Mr. Ingram, ' on the evening of the 26th of October, charged with adding the name of William Nicholls to the voters' list in polling division No. 3 in the city of Brandon and with scoring out the name of Dan. Hugh MacCullough from the same list. In the first place the names on the Dominion lists should be exactly tke
[Stage Direction]
same as on the provincial list; the duty of the county court judges in preparing the lists for the Dominion elections is confined to the allocation of names. However, it is necessary that the judges should make copies of the provincial lists with the names thereon properly allocated to the proper constituencies and these written lists are thereupon sent to the King's Printer who prints them for use in the election.
I would ask my hon. friends from Manitoba to pay particular attention to this:
'About a week prior to the date of the election Judge Cumberland, of Brandon, came to see me and stated that either through his error or through the error of the King's Printer, he did not know which, the name of William Nicholls was left off the list in polling division No. 3 in the constituency of Brandon. He stated that he would like me to add that name to the list if I, as returning officer, had the power to add it. I replied to the judge that the provisions of the Dominion Election Act did not seem to impose upon the returning officer the duty to make any changes in the list, and that I was not disposed to make any changes in the list in view of the fact that such conduct was open to criticism on the part of either of the political parties.
Judge Approached by Conservatives.
' Judge Cumberland in reply stated that so far as the Conservative party was concerned there would surely be no complaint; that his excuse for coming to me in regard to the matter at all was that Mr. Bronsdon, who was the chairman of Mr. Daly's executive committee, had been to see him and requested him to arrange with me to make the changes which were subsequently made in the list, that is to add the name of William Nicholls which was evidently left off in error and to score out the name of Dan. Hugh MacCul-lough which was repeated on the list. I told the judge that I would think it over and see him again about it.
I submit that that was an absolutely fair proposition. The judge, according to Mr. Ingram, stated that perhaps through error he had left off the name of Mr. Nicholls or perhaps the printer had left off the name of Mr. Nicholls and that through error the name of Mr. MacCullough appeared twice. The position was a fair and manly one that the name of Mr. MacCullough which appeared twice should be stricken off and that the name of Mr. Nicholls who was entitled to vote should be placed on the list regardless of the party to which he belonged.
' After a lapse of two or three days I happened to meet the judge when he again asked me what I had decided to do about changing the list. I told the judge that the decision I had come to was this:	I would wait until
the day of the election and if William Nicholls was absent from the city and did not apply to me personally to be placed on the list I would let the list stand as it was, hut that if Mr. Nicholls came to me on the day of the | election and personally applied to be placed Mr. MOLLOY.
on the list, I stated that I would take him to the booth and in the presence of all the officials of the political parties and in the presence of the deputy returning officer, I would make the change.
'Judge Cumberland was satisfied with my decision in the matter and on the day of the election Nicholls met me on the street and complained that his name was not on the list and asked me to put him on. Whereupon I told him that if he would call at polling division No. 3 an hour or so afterwards that he would be able to vote, as I would, in the meantime, go to the polling booth and make the changes necessary to enable him to vote. According to my arrangement with Nicholls I called at the booth and made the change after explaining to the deputy returning officer and to the persons engaged by the political parties present why I proposed to do so. Some objectiou was made to my changing the list. However I made the change and subsequently Mr. Nicholls called at the booth and voted. I did not know then, nor do I know now which candidate Nicholls supported or what are his political leanings.
' I might say that before telling the judge that I would make this change in the voters' list I had looked up the law on the subject and I was satisfied that unless the chango in the voters' list was made maliciously or with corrupt motive that such an act could not amount to a crime. I was abundantly satisfied in my own mind in the present case, at all events, that such an act could not be a crime as it was done in the interest of justice to both political parties and to Nicholls. Certainly the striking out of a repeater from a voters' list could not be considered a crime.
' Shortly after I made the change in the voters' list on election day, I was at Aagaard's cafe in the city getting a lunch, when I met Mr. Coldwell, Mr. Daly, Mr. W. A. Macdonald and Dr. Macdonald, the foremost men in the Conservative party in Brandon, and they made light of the incident and joked me about it considerably until I came away from the cafe, when the Hon. Mr. Cold-well said that if I behaved myself during the afternoon that they would let me go, meaning by that, I dare say, that unless some greater political offence were committed there would be no notice taken of the change I made in the list. This speech was made in a joke.
Shortly after I left the cafe I was called upon to sign, as returning officer, a warrant for the arrest of Brownlee, the license inspector, for interfering with a Dominion officer in the discharge of his duty. This warrant was issued and Brownlee was arrested, being held in restraint until the close of polling. Shortly after Mr. Brownlee's arrest I ran into Mr. Coldwell on the street. He asked me if I had caused the arrest of Brownlee and I stated that I had. He expressed his disapproval of it in violent language, and I told him that I did not value his opinion on a subject of that kind. He immediately turned round and said, ' I will fix you for this,' and struck out for the Conservative committee rooms where X am informed by Lawrence Armstrong, the man who laid the information against me, that Mr. Coldwell made him swear out an information against me. As X stated above, I was arrested and held under

arrest until I had arranged for bonds in the sum of $4,000 to appear the following morning for my preliminary hearing. The case was adjourned for a week and on the following Monday I appeared. A second adjournment was asked for to wdiich my solicitor objected.
Mr. Curran, acting for the Crown on that occasion, called me into the office of the chief cf police and asked me what proposition I had to make. I said I did not understand him. He said., ' Well, you are tied up with a criminal case, what proposition are you prepared to make to get out?' I said I did not understand what he was driving at, and lie said it was easy enough for me to make a proposition that would save me from further pi oseeution. He remarked that Sifton's return had not yet been made. I told Mr. Curran that I had no proposition to make and he then said: 'We will adjourn the case for another week and in the meantime we will see what can be done/ Before the case came up again I had occasion to see Mr. Curran on other business in his own office, when he informed me that had it not been for the arrest of Brownlee in all possibility, I would never have been arrested. He said he was still hoping to receive a proposition from me. About this time I was endeavouring to make the count of the ballots in order to make my returns to the department at Ottawa, and Mr. Curran had caused a search warrant to be issued and placed In the hands of a constable who appeared on the 6th of November, the date upon which I undertook to make the count of the ballots and this constable demanded the voters' list out of the ballot box for polling division No. 3. I refused to allow him to have the box or the contents of it and adjourned the count for a week. When I undertook the second time to count the ballots I had a proper force of policemen to prevent any interruption of the proceedings and effected the count of the ballots.
When my case was again called before Magistrate James evidence was taken. The only witness was Robert Purdon who acted as deputy returning officer for polling division No. 3. He deposed that 1 had entered the booth on the day of the election; that I had explained why I wished to make a change in the voters' list and that I did make the change in the list. He swore also that he was satisfied that I made the change from no improper motive, with no intention of committing crime; that he had know'n me for many years and that he knew that I would net do anything improper, if I knew that it was improper. However, on the strength of this eVidence Magistrate James committed me for trial.
Shortly before the Virden election came off I met Mr. G. R. Coldwell at the Canadian Pacific Railway depot. He was waiting for a train and I had to see him in regard to the sale of the Brandon Trust Company charter in which I had an interest in common with Mr. Coldwell, and several others. 1 had received an offer for this charter and discussed with him the acceptance of this offer. After l had concluded my conversation in regard to the charter, Mr. Coldwell asked me what 1 was doing about my case. I replied that 1 had done nothing; that there was nothing I could do; that the matter was in the hands of the Attorney General and that I did not
see that there was anything for me to do but wait for my trial. ' Do you mean to run the risk of a trial ? ' he asked. I said, ' Yes,' as I had no option in the matter.
Mr. Coldwell then said, ' Well, you have the whole matter in your own hands and you can go to trial or not, just as you see fit.' He further said, ' What I want you to do is to take the matter up with Mr. Sifton and induce him to effect a withdrawal of the petition filed against Alex. Haggart in the city of Winnipeg? He stated that an offer had been made to the Conservative party in Winnipeg to withdraw all the petitions filed against the Conservatives except Alex. Haggart on condition that the Conservative party withdraw the petition against Mr. Sifton. This, he said, was not good enough. He was l) epared to undertake to secure the withdrawal of all the petitions filed against the liberal candidates and the withdrawal of all the criminal prosecutions against Liberals charged with bribery and corruption in return for the withdrawal of all the petitions against the Conservative candidates, including Mr. Haggart, of Winnipeg.
' I told Mr. Coldwell that that was a matter which I could not arrange if I wanted to. He replied that I could arrange it if I liked; that I had the whole thing in the palm of my hand and he knew that. I stated that there were too many prominent Conservatives who were involved in the corruption which resulted in Mr. Haggart's election and that I was of the opinion that nothing would dispose of that petition excepting a trial before a judge. At all events as far as I was concerned I would have nothing to do with it. He said, ' Well if you feel that way about it you had better go to trial on your own case, but it is a serious matter and I would not like to see you go over the road for it.' I said I would take my chances on it.
' Some time afterwards a meeting of the provincial directors of the Brandon Trust Company was called in his office and I attended there and after the meeting Mr. Coldwell asked me if I had seen Mr. Sifton wThen I was in Ottawa. I replied that I had. He then said, ' Did you discuss election matters with him?' and I said, 'Yes, in a general way.' He then wanted to know if I had made any arrangement for the withdrawal of the Winnipeg petition. He said, ' Do you mean to say that you are going to trial on your own case.' I said, yes, I could not prevent it, and I did not feel disposed to prevent it any way.
' Mr. Coldwell then asked me if I had considered another phase of the matter. He wanted to know if I had considered the liability of ray arrest being brought to the attention of the Law Society of Manitoba. I said that I had not thought of that. He said that there was a likelihood of it being brought before the Benchers of the Law Society and I would run a chance of being struck off the rolls as a solicitor and attorney. I said that I did not think the Benchers would consider the matter until a conviction had been entered against me and that I believed the Benchers were reasonable men and I did not think any notice would be taken of my case until it reached the stage where conviction had been 'obtained against me. Mr. Coldwell stated that it would not be necessary to wait that long and that that would likely be the
[Stage Direction]
next move unless I was prepared to act. I said I would have to scrap it out with the Benchers.
Mr. Coldwell then said, ' Then you are prepared to go to trial? * I said, ' I am.' He said, ' Well, we will go right after you as hard as we can and you will take the consequences,' and I said I was willing to abide by the decision of the judge. This was the last conversation I had with Mr. Coldwell until about a week ago when he called me over the phone and said he would be in Brandon the following Friday and would see me.
' These facts I am prepared to verify on oath at any time. The prosecution has terminated in a farce but it seems to me that the public are entitled to know the facts of the case and be able to judge whether the * Conservative leaders in the city of Brandon were justified in instituting criminal proceedings against me in this matter. I am entitled, I believe, to the judgment of the public inasmuch as by the present action of the same leaders I am barred from the decision of a judge on the bench.'
If we say, for arguments's sake, that every word of that statement is incorrect, that Mr. Ingram made a false statement, the fact still remains that he was arrested by an officer of the Manitoba government, that his case was adjourned from week to week, and that it was terminated by the Attorney General's Department asking for a stay of proceedings, leaving that charge hanging over Mr. Ingram undecided. They had not the backbone to bring that man to trial, and now try to impute to him motives that are not correct. I say it is a scandal and a crime, whether committed under a Conservative or a Liberal government, not to give a British subject a hearing. If he is guilty, punish him; if he is innocent, let the courts of the land hear and acquit him I make the statement that Mr. Ingram is not afraid of his accusers, but in my opinion the Department of Justice in the province of Manitoba are afraid to take action against him as they have been afraid to take action against every man they have, arrested for political purposes during their term of power in Manitoba.
Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The hon. gentleman said I might make a statement, and I simply want to state that the hon. Mr. Coldwell has absolutely denied these statements made by Mr. Ingram.


David Bradley Neely: Would the hon. gentleman tell us why the charge was not proceeded with?


Mr.   R S. LAKE@Qu'Appelle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) has spent almost the whole of the hour and twenty minutes that he has been speaking in an attack upon the government of the province of Manitoba, the members of which are not here to defend themselves. Anyway, I do Mr. MOLLOY.
not think that this House is the proper place to make such an attack, and I do not propose to follow him in that discussion. I desire to make my remarks as brief as possible, for I feel that it is the wish of every member of this House that this somewhat long drawn out debate should soon close. The hon. member who has just spoken began his speech by defending the Minister of Finance against a charge of joking which he said had been preferred against him by a member on this side of the House. I must confess that I myself thought the situation bordered somewhat on the burlesque when I heard the Minister of Finance make some of the statements he made in his budget speech. He began by congratulating this House on the fact that he could show a surplus this year of a million and a quarter dollars, and then went on to tell us that he had to increase the debt of the country by some $46,000,000. Now it is always perfectly easy to show a surplus if you borrow sufficient money; and the absurdity of the statement made by the Minister of Finance was enhanced by the fact that, after telling us that he had a surplus, and that he expected a much larger one next year, he went on to say that the situation was a very serious one and called for one of two courses, either that he should increase the taxation of the country or that he should reduce the expenditure. That is to say, we have the statement by the Minister of Finance that having surpluses is a very serious situation calling for either increased taxation or reduced expenditure.
I would like to suggest to him, whether it is not time to cease splitting hairs and drawing fine distinctions as to what expenditures should be charged to capital and what to ordinary expense account. Let him make his statement next year fairly and squarely as to how the country stands, so that the people of the country will fairly understand what the situation is. He can explain afterwards why he has been called on to add to the debt of the country. The hon. minister makes his surplus by charging some items to capital account which in my opinion certainly should not be so cnarged. He charged to capital account the bounties amounting to upwards of $2,250,000 this year. This was an entirely new departure on his part from the practice under his predecessors. Then he charged to capital account the expenditures on the armaments of the militia. That is a service which will have to go on year after year, as rifles and guns wear out, and new ones will have to be constantly purchased. Then, repairs and betterments of railways and canals are many of them charged to capital account. These are expenditures which under any business corporation would be charged to ordinary current ac-
5061 APRIL 27, 1909 5082	
count. Then, we have a charge to capital account which seems to me to be the most absurd of all, the charge for the survey of our Dominion lands, amounting to nearly $1,000,000, while the money we Teceive on account of these lands is put into the ordinary revenue of the country and is expended in the ordinary expenditure of the country. That amount is nearly $2,000,000, according to the last statement. The net result of the year's finances is that the country is to be saddled, practically forever, with a charge of upwards of $1,000,000 a year as interest on the increase of debt which the government has incurred during the last financial year. Let me point out that the government pledged themselves only a short time ago to take the proceeds of some of the sales of these Dominion lands for the purpose of building the Hudson Bay Railway. But if their present course be continued, we shall find probably in the very near future that the government themselves will make the excuse that they cannot go on building the Hudson Bay Railway because they have not the funds to do so. I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that the government is positively pledged to the building of this railway at once. In speaking at Niagara, the right hon. the Prime Minister just on the eve of the elections, pledged himself in the most earnest manner to the building of the Hudson Bay Railway. Not to-morrow, he said, but to-day. We will immediately proceed, he said, to build the Tailway as soon as we receive the plans of the surveyors. That was a pledge given the people. But how is the government carrying it out? The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) explained the other day, how the government was carrying it out. He said: There is no intention of abandoning the work, hut it is in the same position as other large works and at present we do not feel like proceeding with them. I am taking $65,000- that is the whole sum taken in the estimates this year-part of which will serve to learn the best routes and the best harbours, but of course not to proceed with the actual construction. Well, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada have the right to consider that, when a pledge is made by the Prime Minister, it should be carried out. It is very much to the discredit of the country that such a pledge should be abandoned, and abandoned almost immediately after it had been given. I am wondering what the Liberal members from the Northwest are doing in this connection. The Liberal slogan throughout the elections which took place in Saskatchewan, and I believe in the other Northwest provinces, was the immediate building of thf Hudson Bay Railway, and many Liberal members owe a large proportion of the votes they received to the opinion of the	people that the Prime Minister's word was his bond and that that railway would be built. But to-day we find these same Liberal members sitting silent, raising no protest when told that the work is to be abandoned for the present. And strange to say we find them also quite prepared to endorse the most lavish and extravagant expenditure on other works, on which the money spent is simply wasted. Take for instance the _ Ayles-worth canal, the expenditure on which was supported by every Liberal member from the Northwest, with the one exception of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark). I would like to suggest to my hon. friend, if he were here, that he only did part of his duty when he refrained from voting in favour of that expenditure. His duty, as an honest and fearless representative of the people, was to have stood up and voted against that expenditure when it was before the House, if he believed it to be an improper expenditure. But the main reason why I am addressing the House this evening is because I wish to register the most vigorous protest of which I am capable against the attitude which this government has assumed towards the defence of this country. This is a question which is exercising the people, from one end of Canada to the other. Everybody is thinking and talking about it. The people are beginning to realize some of their responsibility as self-respecting citizens of a self-respecting country and are prepared to take definite steps towards undertaking that supreme duty of citizens, the defence of their country should it ever be subject to attack or to foreign aggression. And yet in the face of all this feeling which is being aroused throughout the country and the excellent sentiment prevailing everywhere, we find the government actually cutting down the expenditure of its land defences. It has reduced the expenditure on the militia by nearly a million dollars-a measure which will result in preventing many of our citizens. who are anxious to render themselves fit to perform their duty to the state, from undergoing their annual training this year. And in spite of the fact that this House has unanimously passed a resolution declaring that it is the duty of the Canadian people to provide some measure of selfdefence from a naval point of view, they have neglected to put anything in the estimates for this purpose; and I gather from the statement of the Finance Minister himself that he does not propose to take any adequate sum to fulfil this duty, but is postponing it for yet another year. I would like to protest against that in the most earnest way. I believe that it is the undoubted duty of a country to do something for its own protection, and I believe the Canadian people are prepared to perform that duty. I ' know at any rate that I can speak for the


Mr. ALEXANDER W. CHISHOLM (Inverness).: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address this House for the first time, I can give you one assurance and that is that I will not detain you very long. I had not intended, during the present session, to take any part in the debates of this House, for the simple reason that I never had any experience in Parliamentary procedure However, there are certain matters relating to my own constituencv that have been mentioned, and if I did not refer to them I should consider myself recreant to my duty as a representative of that constituency. Yesterday the hon. member for South Ca^e Breton (Mr. Maddin) took occasion to stray from a discussion of the budget, and to refer to the conditions of the coal industry in the county of Inverness, and also to the condition of railway facilities. I think if my hon. friend had consulted the interest of his party he would have let that county alone, because if there is one county in all Canada that has benefited permanently from the policy adopted by this government, it is the county of Inverness. When I compare the conditions that prevailed in that county previous to 1896 with the state of things to-dav. I am proud to he a supporter of this government. As regards the
condition of the working man in the county of Inverness previous to 1896, I think my hon. friend was also ill advised in making the references he did. I well remember the conditions in 1896, and the difficulties the labouring men had to contend with in order to get employment. Indeed in order to earn a dollar they had to go to the neighbouring republic, and their chief difficulty was to get the means of transportation to that country. As a result of the hard times then prevailing, there was an exodus from that county which we will never forget. In fact labouring men left that county in such large numbers-and I make this statement knowing that it will go back to the county-that at certain seasons of the year you might travel for six hours and you would not probably meet a dozen young men in that time. Take the condition of the farmers previous to 1896, they could not get sale for the products of their labour, they became discouraged to such an extent that numbers of them left the county. Take the coal miners in the county of Inverness, and these are the people that my hon. friend from South Cape Breton paid particular attention to. Previous to 1886 there were no miners in_ the county, notwithstanding the fact that it is one of the richest mineral counties in the province of Nova Scotia. But what are the present conditions? Our labouring men need not leave the county, or the province, if they want employment. They can get the best wages paid in any county of the province. The farmers get the best price for their products probably of any place east of Montreal. The mining industries of the county of Inverness previous to 1896 were an unknown quantity; notwithstanding the fact that we had large coal areas, they remained undeveloped. My hon. friend referred to the fact that Mr. George H. Murray and other gentlemen associated with him got a charter to build a railway from "the southern end of the county to Cheticamp. Although these gentlemen, good business men, had that charter for a long time, and notwithstanding the fact that every effort was made to interest capital in the undertaking they were unable to do so until 1898. At that time McKenzie & Mann took over this charter and built a railway from the Strait of Canso to the town of Inverness. They also have a charter extending from	the town of
Inverness to Cheticamp. My hon. friend from Cape Breton tried to leave the impression that it would be impossible for any other company to build a road in that county because Mackenzie & Mann have built a road as far as the town of Inverness, and hold a charter to Cheticamp. Let me tell my hon. friend that another company are now preparing to build a road from a point on the Strait of Canso known as Cariboo to the collieries of Ste. Rose. I

have strong faith that this concern will build that road in the very near future; indeed, I am in possession of facts which lead me to believe that they are going forthwith to build that road. What is more, let he tell my hon. friend that Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann-I have this form one of the leading officials of that company not later than yesterday-are going to extend the road from Inverness to Ste. Rose also, with the purpose of developing the coal mines at Ste. Rose. These conditions are very satisfactory to the people of Inverness, but they were unknown previous to 1896. The coal industry is the most important in our province. It will be surprising to you, Mr. Speaker, to learn that previous to 1896 not one ton of coal was exported from my county, scarcely one ton of coal was sold or mined in the county ol Inverness previous to 1896. But in 1908 there were 335,943 tons of coal exported. Surely this is a great development, and it ought to be satisfactory even to my hon. friend from Cape Breton who has ' taken such a great interest in the county I have the honour to represent. Surely this is a convincing proof of the progress that had taken place in that county during the last 12 years.	,
My hon. friend has also taken occasion to refer to the conduct of the municipal council of Inverness. Although I am a young member of this House, I have had sufficient experience in public life to know that it ill becomes a young member, and still more an older member, to bring municipal politics into the House of Commons. I am sorry that my hon. friend from South Cape Breton is not present, because I would like him to hear these remarks. I think he ought to hesitate to refer to the affairs of the municipal council of Inverness in this House of Commons. I think that council knows how to discharge its duties just as well as my hon. friend knows how to discharge nis duties, and when he chose to cast reflections upon the municipal council in my constituency, I must characterize his conduct as puerile and childish. The municipal council, in the discharge of their duty, saw fit to extend the time for the completion of that road from end to end, and in doing so I am sure they were consulting "the wishes of the taxpayers of that county. It is, I know, very irksome to the ears of the hon. members to hear me make reference in this House to matters appertaining to the municipality of Inverness, but I must do so in reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin). I have great faith in the industries of that county of Inverness. I look upon that county as destined to be one of the finest counties in Canada in the near future. We have great mineral resources and they are now being I Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM.
developed quite Tapidly. We have the finest farming county in Nova Scotia, we have great fishing resources there also, and I am sure that we will only have to wait a little while to satisfy our friend from South Cape Breton that Inverness will be capable of looking out for itself. I would ask your indulgence for a moment or two while I refer to another matter in reterence to railways, because this is a subject that I wish particularly to bring to the attention of the House. A commission has been appointed by this government to look over branch lines of railways and to Teport upon such lines as might, in the opinion of the commission, be profitably taken over by the government as branch lines of the Intercolonial Railway. I do not know the terms of the instructions received by the commission when they went on their mission but I do think it possible that they were asked to visit and inspect the most important lines of railways in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I am sorry to think that they have failed to inspect and report on the railway to Inverness county. It may be said that the railway is not for sale. This commission has no evidence but that it could be purchased. I must say that had that commission gone over the line they would have found that it is to-day one of the best paying roads in Nova Scotia. That commission have failed to visit this road and also the Dominion Atlantic. The hon. member for Hants county (Mr. Black) has given the reason why they did not visit the Dominion Atlantic. I cannot give the reason why they did not visit the Inverness county road. The people of Inverness are anxious to see the Intercolonial take over the line for various reasons which I do not propose to submit to the House to-night, because I think it would be imposing too much upon its patience. But, I am sorry that the commission did not visit the road so as to be able to submit to the government the various conditions which,
I claim, would make this a very paying road as a branch of the Intercolonial Railway. I am satisfied that the day is not far distant when the Intercolonial Railway will put forth an effort to purchase this road. The road extends from a point on the strait of Canso to Inverness and it passes through one of the best farming sections in Nova Scotia. It passes through three important villages and it carries the product of three coal mines. All these conditions being considered, I am sure it would be a splendid thing for the government to take over this line and I believe that it would be a good thing for the county of Inverness that the government should do so.
There is another matter which I also desire to refer to. I am glad that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) is in his seat to-night. I re-

fer to the fact that, notwithstanding that the Inverness and Richmond road has been built and operated for the last eight years and forms a junction with the Intercolonial Railway, there has never been a station at that junction, I am sure the older members of this House must have a vivid recollection of this matter being brought to their attention by my predecessor the late Dr. Mac-lennan. I do not know that I can add very much to the remarks of my late lamented predecessor, but I do say that, in my opinion, the conditions obtaining There' could not be duplicated in any place in Canada. Here is the Inverness and Richmond road carrying passengers to this junction. These passengers are left there and have to remain until the arrival of the eastern or western bound train. They have to suffer the inclemency of the weather. They have to stand out there in the drenching rains of spring and fall and in the snow storms of winter. These are conditions that I do not think any people of this country would put up with, and I think that the people of Inverness should be the last who should be called upon to suffer these inconveniences in view of the fact that they put their hands into their own pockets and spent $2,000 a mile to get that road built. I do not know that it will help the case one particle to discuss it any further, but if it is my privilege to come back here next session, as I hope it will be, unless I am called away, I trust I will not be called upon to bring this matter before the government again. We are not looking for a mansion, we are satisfied with a humble building, something that will shelter the travelling public. I am sure that if the people of Inverness believed that this station was not going to be built thev would build it themselves. That is all I am going to say on that point and in fact that is all I purpose saying to-night further than that there are a very many things that I would like to bring to the attention of the House in reference to the county of Inverness, but at this, very late hour, and as this is my first attempt, and the House has-been so indulgent and kind to me, I shall not impose myself further upon its patience.


Mr. J. F. STEWART (West Hamilton).: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up much of the time of this House, at this late hour, in the debate on the budget, when it has been so thoroughly discussed by honourable members on both sides of this House, so much so that not much is left to be said, and, being a manufacturer myself, and representing a manufacturing constiutency, as I do, one of the largest in the Dominion, I desire to point out that the stove and the granite manufacturers of this country are not properly protected. The government, in framing the tariff, always keep one thing before them, that is, to keep
the tariff just high enough to admit foreign goods into this country,-the more goods come in the more money the government gets,-and allow the manufacturers of this country to take care of themselves. That is not the policy that will develop this country. The stove manufacturers in this country have invested about $6,000,000 and one and a quarter millions of this amount is invested in Hamilton, and during the last two years, the factories have only run seven months out of the twelve. The other five months the men walk the streets looking for work, while our retail stores and shops were selling American stoves at such prices as our manufacturers could not afford to sell for, and, since the panic in the United States, their manufacturers have been rushing stoves into this country at such prices as would leave no margin for our manufacturers. During the early part of last year, no less than four hundred car loads were shipped into this country and the Northwest, valued at half a million dollars. Now, all these stoves could and should be manufactured here, if properly protected, and when you take into account that the manufacturers of this country have to import from the United States several articles that go to make us stoves, and pay duty, it reduces the duty from 25 per cent to 14J per cent.
Another reason for more protection, is, large stove manufacturers in the United States are centered at or near Chicago and one firm employs about. seven thousand hands, nearly as many as all Canada, and, from Chicago to Winnipeg the freight is 50c. per hundred pounds, while from Hamilton, the rate is one dollar per hundred. The _ American ' manufacturers have eighty million people to sell to, while we have only seven million. American manufac-turers^ make fifty stoves to our manufacturers' one. American firms have another advantage. They can give a man one pattern to work on day in and day out, and he becomes an expert at that work. Our manufacturers, on account of the small number of stoves made here, are forced to give one man several parts to work on, and he must be a good mechanic and all round man commanding good wages. American manufacturers give their best men surface parts, and unskilled labour the inside parts. Our manufacturers cannot do this, on account of the small number manufactured, and all stove manufacturers in this country suffer in some way.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact, that stove manufacturers in Hamilton, for the last two years, have paid no dividends, or earned any profits. The American firms have nothing to lose by sending into this country stoves at cost, but may gain in


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.
William Stevens Fielding: As hon. gentlemen have expressed a desire that we should not proceed with the resolutions to-night, I beg to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: WTill the hon. gentleman say what the programme is for to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: The motion will be made to resume the Comhiittee of Ways and Means for*the purpose of proceeding with the resolutions, and if there be sufficient time at a later stage, I think the intention is to take up the Grand Trunk Loan Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.40 a.m. Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 28, 1909.