Mr.   G.@: BOYER (Vaudreuil)-(Translation)-moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 76) to amend the Savings Bank Act. He said: The object of the Bill is to promote the opening of branches of banks in the rural municipalities, namely, to empower the Postmaster General to cancel the existing savings banks in the localities where "they are already established and where the funds deposited in those savings banks would be sufficient to warrant a bank in opening a branch on a similar basis as the branches established elsewhere.


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

Mr.   G.@: BOYER (Vaudreuil)-Translation)-moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 77) intituled: ' An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.' He said: The object of the Bill is to enlarge the power of the Minister of Marine in granting certificates of competency to masters and mates of ships trading on the inland waters of Canada.
Motion agred to, and Bill read first time.



AMENDMENT OF RULES OF THE HOUSE.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: That a special committee of nine members be appointed, with instructions to carefully examine the rules of the House, to report what changes in their opinion might be adopted with the view to simplify, accelerate and expedite its business; and that the said committee be composed of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Brodeur, Mr. Pugsley, Mr. McKenzie, Mr. Carvell, Mr. Borden (Halifax), Mr. Hag-gart (Lanark), Mr. Barker and Mr. Doherty.
He said: I do not think this motion requires any explanation. There seems to be a general opinion on the part of the members of this House that our rules can be improved in some particulars; and, after a conference with the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), I propose this committee of nine members to consider the rules with a view to amendment.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I see no objection whatever to the appointment of this committee and to some revision of our rules. I dd not know that there is anything in present conditions that especially calls for amendment. I do think that some time might be saved in our proceedings, particularly in the answers to questions. Sometimes we take up an hour or even an hour and a half with answers to questions which are inaudible to abopt nine-tenths of the members of the House and are not really available to any member until next day. I think that our rules might be well amended in this respect. On the other hand, I do not believe that any amendment of the rules will avoid what is sometimes called waste of time. In a deliberative assembly composed of over 200 members, there will be a certain waste of time so long as human nature remains what it is; no revision of the ruNs will prevent it. We must also remember that parliament is a place for debate and discussion, as its very name implies. It is proper that every member of the House should have reasonable opportunity to discuss _ any matter that he thinks is in the public interest. It would be very undesirable to bring about any condition of affairs in which that would not be prac-46
ticable. So far as the working of the present rules is concerned, I would point out that last session, which occupied exactly four months and in which a considerable amount of work was done is proof that under the rules as they are at present, the House of Commons has done and can do its work within a reasonable time. However, for the reasons I have given, and especially in view of certain amendments which I think might properly be made, I concur in the motion of the Prime Minister.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: I hope that this committee will in no way attempt to interfere with the liberties of parliament, and especially with the liberties of individual members of this House. In the United States to-day, we see that the popular chamber has lost its liberties, and has passed under the domination of a speaker who is now known as a czar, and consequently that chamber, which should have been the model chamber throughout the world as a place of debate, has lost its prestige and its power, that power having passed to another body. I do not wish to see a repetition of that history in this country. We have revised our rules to a certain extent with the result that business has been facilitated. I am glad to see business facilitated, but I put in a protest now against any interference with the liberty of this House and the right of free discussion. It is a great right, and if we once part with it -we may not get it back. The liberties of this House have always been upheld-at least, so I have read-by the Liberal party, and I hope that that party will be the last to in any way interfere with those liberties. Let us simplify the rules if we can, let us make shorter speeches if we can, let us have questions answered in some other way. For instance, petitions that are presented might just as well be put into a receiving basket on the table;
I have seen 15 minutes of good time occupied in presenting petitions. The reading of petitions and all those things could be eliminated, and in that way facilitate business. But I do trust that this House will preserve every liberty of free discussion and of raising questions, and that they shall not be parted with in any re-* spect.


Mr. FOSTER.: I would ask the Prime Minister if^ this has any wider range than simply taking up the present rules and revising them. Does it go so far as to inquire into the making of any improvements with reference to the work of the committees of the House, as to their number, and the like of that? An intimation made by the Prime Minister some time ago when another question was being debated here, would lead me to think he had that in view. I wish at this stage to say, that whilst I have no



objection to any elimination of what is useless in the House, any abbreviation of what now may be somewhat too lengthy, I for one have no idea at all of submitting without protest to any of the well defined liberties of this House as a parliamentary body being infringed upon.


Mr. HUGHES.: It is true that on going into Committee of Supply every member may raise any subject in order and discuss it. But going into Committee of Supply is a very irregular procedure. So far as I am concerned, I heartily concur in all that has been said as to the necessity of preserving liberty of debate in this House, and I would impress upon that committee the view I hold, at all events', and I think it is in the interest of parliamentary procedure and of the country at large, that there should be an opportunity on any occasion, even though the House be not going into Committee of Supply, to discuss freely matters relevant and important to the country. I trust that in revising the rules there will be no attempt to curtail the liberty of debate, or to hamper members from expressing in a proper manner the views they may w i sh to utter concerning the welfare of the < ountry.


Mr. SPROULE.: Rumours have been prevalent for some time past in the government press that the government intended to revise the rules of the House at an early date, and to introduce what is known as the closure. I would like to ask the First Minister if that is the intention in this revision of the rules. 1 would like to say that so far as J can judge the temper of parliamentarians generally, they regard the freedom of debate as one of the dearest rights of the representatives of the people, and if any attempt is made under the guise of amending the rules to prevent the freest discussion of all public questions, I can only say that in my judgment the government will invite a good deal of trouble.


Wilfrid Laurier: I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) that the government has no intention of using the majority now supporting it in this House to curtail any of the rights and privileges of members of this parliament. We prize them as highly on this side as hon. gentlemen do on the other side. I propose that the rules of the House be referred to this committee in order to have a discussion upon them, particularly by those minds in the House who I think are the most entitled by their long experience to give a practical opinion. If it had been the intention to introduce at once what my hon. friend calls curtailment of the privileges of parliament. we might have done it as it has been done in England, though I do not think it was a curtailment of the privileges of parliament. There is such a thing as M. FOSTER,
abusing the privilege of debate, as there is of abusing everything else. In asking for a committee of this kind, we want to have a discussion on the subject with a view to arriving at a unanimous conclusion on such matters as we can, though there may be some other matters as to which we may not agree. But when we come to the discussion of the report of the committee, it will be time enough for the House to make up its mind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. BURRELL.: I desire to invite the attention of the Prime Minister to a despatch which appears in the Ottawa 'Free Press' of yesterday:
A despatch to the New York ' Herald ' from Dresden says:
The Canadian colony here wants the British minister resident to make representations in the Scott case. Mr. Scott, who was a Canadian student, was expelled from Saxony after paying a fine for an alleged attack upon a peasant. Mr. Scott said he acted in self defence, but he paid the fine. The order of expulsion was in the nature of an alternative-leaving or going to prison.
Freiberg students, when thS order of expulsion was issued, telegraphed the London Foreign Office, asking what could be done, to which the reply came:
* Consult the British Consul at Leipsic, who is in charge of the Freiberg district.'
Up to the present no single official step in the shape of a protest has been made. Mr. Scott had to leave on Wednesday morning. Mr. Irvine Roberts, of Toronto, a solicitor now here, says British subjects appear to be absolutely without protection in Germany because the consuls are German themselves and are disinclined to prejudice themselves by strong action. An American citizen could not be so arbitrarily expelled without a vigorous ' kick ' from Washington.
Then we have another despatch to the Canadian Associated Press, which appears this morning to the following effect;
Berlin, Dec. 13.-A Canadian student, G. S. Scott, Toronto, having received notice of expulsion from Saxony after being convicted of inflicting serious bodily injury on a peasant, some fellow students appealed to the British Foreign Office to intervene. The British of Cologne and Dresden also entered a protest, but the British Consul General says he has received no information enabling him to intervene.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the press reports I have read are substantially correct, I think the ease is well worthy the attention of this government. Some of us personally have had occasion to take knowledge _ of the bureaucratic methods in operation in Dresden, particularly, and in other German states, where a man can hardly invite

a friend to come and see him without the whole transaction being bared to official eyes.	It	is a singular	fact	inconnection with	this despatch,	that	inlooking up	the	Foreign Office list,	Ifind that something like fifty per cent of the consuls general and vice-consuls are German, and in the particular case referred to,	the	consul general	at Berlin is Paul von Schwabach and at Leipsic Baron von Tauchmitz. Now, we are accustomed in Canada very frequently to assert our pride of birth and our dignity as a Canadian state, and also to assert sometimes very strongly the foremost position we occupy in the councils of the empire. We had a little while ago a very dramatic recital


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman has no privilege at this time to discuss a question.	* .


Martin Burrell: Then I ask the privilege, I was just going to remark that we had a very dramatic recital of an episode that occurred in Rome, given to us the other day by the .Prime Minister, and which bears on this very subject; because if it is a fine thing to be protected by the British flag in Rome, I think Canadian citizens have just as good a right to be protected in any other foreign country. I trust the government will look into this matter.



THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT.

Robert Laird Borden: I would ask the Prime Minister when we may expect the second volume of the Auditor General's Report. It is desirable that it should be placed on the table of the House this week, if possible, in order that it may be available before the Christmas vacation.


Mr. FIELDING.: The matter was brought up in a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee recently when the Auditor General was present, and he told us that he did not think it would be possible to produce it before the recess. At my request it was then arranged that if the volume could be procured before recess, copies of it should be immediately sent to all the members of the Public Accounts Committee. I am afraid that is about the best we can do under the circumstances, though I verv much regret that the volume is not before the House.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: It should be sent to each member of the House as well as to each member of the Public Accounts Committee.


William Stevens Fielding: The request came from the Public Accounts Committee, but I shall see that the Auditor General is requested to see that all the members receive it.
46*	j, mm



PRIVILEGE-REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.

Mr. CAMPBELL.: The right hon. the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) stated to the House that no one yet had asked him to resign either of his seats. I would' like to ask if, since he made that statement, any one has asked him to resign?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, Mr. Speaker, so far nobody has asked me to resign.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

['Mr. Speaker: With the concluding remarks of the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding), I find myself, as I am sure do all hon. members on this side, in complete accord. It is a fact that sometimes party differences are exaggerated and party spirit leads to a one-sided and even unfair presentation of matters before the House. But when, apart from these things, we come to contemplate the larger questions of country and of empire, I hope that we may always be in a position to reciprocate the sentiment that has fallen from the lips of the Minister of Finance. I notice that the hon. Minister of Finance appeared a little more cheerful when he rose to present his bud-', u"\n\nget speech this year than on a similar occasion last year. Circumstances have somewhat changed, and what was presented to his mind last year, as being to a certain extent allied with doubt and uncertainty has partly cleared away. The hon. gentleman has had a respite, I hope it will be long continued. The country has had a respite from a comparatively short period of stringent finance and disturbed trade. I only hope that the Minister of Finance and the government with him, will improve the lesson taught by that even short period of financial stringency and will incline their hearts more to businesslike and economical administration of the country's affairs in the future.\nNow, I am not going to follow the Minister of Finance through all the somewhat lengthy remarks which he has made, consisting very largely of tables of figures, but I shall endeavour to touch on a few of these' points by way of passing remark. Reduced to colloquial language, the year 1909 may be described somewhat in this way:\tThe\ntrade fell off a little over $67,000,000; the revenue fell off about $11,000,000; the expenditure increased by $91,000,000, $7,500,. 000 on consolidated fund account and $13,-\n500,000\ton capital account; the surplus, which was counted on as being $1,500,000, fell to $1,000,000. At that time, the old method of charging bounties to capital interposed in favour of the Minister of Finance. The amount paid in bounties was $2,500,000, and this being charged to capital, he was enabled to count a surplus of $1,000,000. Had that, the amount paid in bounties, been paid out of revenue, as it was under the preceding government, the minister would not have had a surplus of even $1,000,000, but would have had a deficit of $1,500,000. It is significant that, although there had been previous monitions given in good time and somewhat strongly to the business men of the country and to every chancellor of an exchequer, the Finance Minister amongst other, warning them of what was approaching and would certainly come, we find the astounding fact that the estimates of Canada, pro^ vided by the Minister of Finance himself and his government, were the largest in the history of Canada, and that the expenditure came to the sum of $133,000,000, which is a little more than three times what it was in 1896 and high-water mark of public expenditure in this country. That is a significant comment upon the extraordinary way in which the minister settled himself to meet the storm which was to break-he did it by larger estimates, increased imposts (counting as imposts what is taken out of the pockets of the people) and increased expenditure. That, I think, was not a reasonable way. The minister might have added to the financial strength of this coun-Mr. FOSTER.\ntry very materially if he had done as every business man in the country did, as the chancellor of every exchequer that I know of did, as any prudent business man would do-curtail in the face of the storm that was yet to come and so save in that way what he could of the strength and credit of the country's finances. That he did not do. As a result, of that same year, there was an addition to the public debt of $46,000,000, the largest addition to the public debt which this country has ever seen, and which might have been cut in two-yes, might have been diminished even more than that by reasonable and not at all impossible economies in the administration of the finances by the Minister of Finance himself.\nWhen we come to the year 1910, trade is gaining, the revenue is increasing; the expenditure-we do not quite know whether that will exceed or not. The Finance Minister professes to believe that it will not; I hope his prognostications in this Tespect will prove true. But, at least, there will be very heavy expenditures. Last year, there were large borrowings by the Minister of Finance, amounting to \xa325,000,000 or \xa326,000,000 for which this country went into the market within a very limited time, this year also borrowings will take place; and the result of last year's borrowings, the way in which and the time at which they were carried on, the result of the utter lack of any prudent foresight a year or a year and a half before, was that, whereas Canada's credit had so improved that her borrowing rate had declined to 2 '8 per cent in 1897, the cost now has gone up to very nearly 5 per cent, a point beyond the average cost during the first fifteen years of the administration of the financial affairs of this Dominion.\nWhen we come to 1911, the Minister of Finance has very little to say. The main estimates call for $127,000,000. There are to be additional borrowings; what these may amount to we do not know. Besides the additions to the debt of last year and of this year, there will be another addition in 1911.\nWell, what, after all, has saved the Finance Minister? Has it been the exercise of any very great prudence of his own? Has it been the display of extraordinary skill and capacity in the management of the finances? Has it been any intrinsic merit from a business point of view of the administration of the government itself? Not in any sense, not in the least. What has saved the government and what has saved the country was pointed out by a gentleman who is not a Minister of Finance or the leader of the party, who; is not at all a partyman in the position in which he makes the utterance. The vicepresident and manager of the Bank of Montreal, in a very few sentences, hit the\n\nnail exactly on the head. What has intervened, and what has 'brought about the change, and what has set this government and the Finance Minister on their feet again so far as the business of this country is concerned? Why, it has simply been the work and the product of the farmers of this country. The vice-president of the Bank of Montreal pointed out that in 1900 the product of the Northwest amounted to1 32,000,000 bushels, in 1907 it had risen to 160,000,000 bushels, in 1908 it was 232,000,000 bushels, and in 1909, 313,500,000 bushels, That is the explanation of the whole matter; that explains exactly how the shortcomings and blunders of the administration have been, if not entirely offset, minimized and mitigated to the exceeding great relief of the country itself. There is an increase of 81,000,000 bushels in the Northwest alone in a single year. That is worth at least $50,000,000, and maybe more. The prices that are obtained this year were never better, and the increased prices received for the product, interjected into the veins of business, is what has really regenerated this country, and set us on again to a period of, we hope, continuous prosperity.\nNow what particular praise and what particular honour are due to the administration for that? These increased products have come from the northwest provinces. We are not without memories-who was it that purchased and opened up that country? Who was it that put the first great transcontinental railway through that country, and so made possible transport facilities, and a habitation and a working place for the farmer? And where were these gentlemen in that period? To-day they are reaping the harvest, I do not object to that; thank God that the harvest is as generous as it is. But let no one run away with the idea that because this help has suddenly ccme as a manna from Heaven to these gentlemen in their great straits, therefore some mighty skill, some deep inborn ingenuity, some most powerful and wonderful exercise of business talents is what has lifted the country up and sent it again on its way rejoicing. Fot those farmers, what have these gentlemen done? Do not their clothes cost them more than they did under the old regime? Do they not have to pay more for their lumber for every shack and every house they build? Is not their hardware more costly to them than it ever was before? And when they come to the labour which has to help them to till their fields, when have they had to pay so much for it as they do at the present time? As to grain prices, of course the government can do nothing. In what sense then has this government's administration helped to lift the country out of the slough of despond, and bring it into the blessings of the promised land? So I say 474\nit is the innate quality and virtue of the soil of the northwest, it is the strong arm and the business head of the farmer in the northwest, it is ,the co-operation, with these as a sub-stratum, of the keen business intellect, and the ability of the business men o: our country, it is the application of the skill and brawn of the artisan in our factories and our industries, to which is due the prosperity of this country, in spite of the extravagances and in spite of the laches of the _ government since they assumed the administration of affairs.\nAs to the debt, the hon. gentleman said very little. Perhaps there is not a great deal to say, perhaps it was best that he 'kept on very quiet ground in that respect; tor if he had not, he would have been easily reminded of what these gentlemen promised to do when they were in the shades of opposition, and what they have failed to do since they came into power. Where is the reciprocity with the United States that the hon. gentleman was going to get six months after he attained power? Where is the approach to free trade, the goal to which my right hon. friend had declared he had set his face with great determination, and from which he would not recede until he had attained it? Where is the goal of free trade as it is in England under the administration of this Paul the Apostle, who but a few years ago was a raging Saul of Tarsus, going up and down, finding fault with and denouncing the policy of protection from one end of Canada to another? My right hon. friend, after the homily which was preached to him today, the strongest I have heard in this House in a great many years, I suppose still has his face pointed towards the goal of free trade as it is in England, with no possibility of getting nearer' to it within his natural life.\nWell, Sir, we were to have many other things. We were to have a market open for us everywhere. What markets have they opened to us? Some markets have been closed to us, in others the rates have been raised upon us. No foreign market in the world has yet been opened to us by this aggregation of all the talents in the thirteen years during which they have been in power. If it can be named, let it be named. Some of our own sisters, the sub-nations of the empire, have granted us, as we have granted them, certain preferential privileges; but outside of that, there is not a nation in the wide world, outside of treaties which had been made before, into which any ingress has been given by these gentlemen for the products of our country.\nOh, yes, there is the French treaty, not yet operative, but soon to go into operation. But the burden of the fat cattle which the Prime Minister a year ago", 'shouldered into this House with great pride and pomp, when he appealed to the farmers of this country as to what the French treaty would do for them, the bur den of fat cattle has been dumped, the stockers are the only ones that are left, and they will have a jolly time geting into the French market, over a tariff of anywhere from $15 to $20 per head, and the uncertainty as to what interpretation of the tariff may be made by those who have the sole regulating power as to the entrance of our cattle into French ports. So we have not got very much from that. But we have loaded ourselves with $200,000 a year for a steamship subsidy to be paid to vessels running between this country and France; [DOT] that is in ten years $2,000,000 which my hon. friend the Finance Minister did not take into account, and which has to be provided for.\nWell, there are some other things that have not been done. The state of trade between the United States and Great Britain and Canada, remains unrectified. That condition of things was very severely censured by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and his coadjutors in the olden times. They told us that it was neither patriotic nor loyal that we should be buying more from the United States than we were buying from Great Britain, and selling less to the United States than we bought from the United States. They loudly called for a tariff which would rectify that and put us in a better position. How do we stand to-day? In 1908 we bought from the United States $204,000,000 worth. They bought from us $90,000,000 worth, wherein the balance of trade aggregated the sum total of $114,000,000. In 1909 the unfavourable balance was reduced to $85,000,000, but the trade is now going up, and, as it goes up, the adverse balance with the United States will also increase. On the other hand, Great Britain bought from us a much larger amount than she sold to us, and gave us last year a favourable balance of trade of $55,500,000. Any one sees that the balance of trade which is favourable in the case of Great Britain, has to go to the extent of $55,500,000 to pay the adverse balance of trade against us from the United States, and it will still leave from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000 to be paid for in some other way. The point I wish to make is that these hon. gentlemen have not rectified that grave condition of things which they censured in our time, but that under their. administration it has been enlarged and aggravated to the degree which I have stated. To-day there is an adverse balance of trade with France of $5,000,000, with Germany of $4,500,000, with South America of $1,000,000, and with the West Indies of $3,500,000. The total balance of trade against us in Mr. FOSTER.\n1908 was $104,000,000. It was reduced last year, because there were less imports, to $45,500,000. Now, though I am not going to say that Canada ought to be and that it is imperatively necessary mat she should be always in a position of having a favourable trade balance, I say that when, under any administration and its policy, you have an adverse balance continually increasing, something is wrong in connection with that trade policy and it ought to be the duty and endeavour of the government to so arrange its policy that this adverse balance should be made as small as possible, that it should be reduced instead of constantly advancing.\nMy hon. friend said that they had not raised the rate of duties. His favourite response always is: Oh, you are the party of high duties; we are the party of low duties. With the preachment of the Minister of Finance to-day in advocacy of bounties, the highest form of protection, the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) who still, I think, believes that we have a revenue tariff in this country-at least, he takes occasion to reiterate it each year-will find it very difficult indeed to persuade his constituents that under the leadership of the Finance Minister the day of free trade has not for ever passed away in this country. Well, what about that immense reduction of duties? Here are just some facts taken from the reports of the ministers themselves. From 1879, when the protective tariff was introduced, until 1896, when the Liberal-Conservative government went out of power, the average rate of duty on dutiable goods coming into this country was 28-35 per cent. In 1909 the average rate was 27-46 per cent. So it is a fact that in the last year of grace, under the administration of these hon. gentlemen who have so lowered the duties -to listen to themselves-their duty is 27 -46 per cent, as against an average of 28-35 per cent from 1879 to 1896. But taking into account, as I have a right to do, the bounty which is a special form of protection and which they take out of the treasury of the country, I find that in 1909 they have a rate of 28-72 per cent, and so they have actually reduced the rate of duty exactly 89-100t.hs of one per cent from the average of 1879-1896.\t.\t.\nNow, I agree with my hon. friend in his statement with reference to the nature of the message which was sent to Congress a little while ago by President Taft. It was a reasonable message, it was a statesmanlike message, it was a message which gave, I think, to all countries the right to believe that whilst President Taft and his cabinet remain in power there will be no seeking for trouble with reference to the matter of discriminatory and compensating duties. I do not think a message could\n\nhave been fairer than his was on that point, and I quite agree with the Finance Minister in his characterization of what we may conclude from a perusal of it. At least, we will hope that it shall not be made an instrument of even menace to us in Canada. It remains, however, that the United States tariff, outside of President Taft entirely, has already penalized Canada with reference to her exports of both pulp and paper and has done that because of the conserving policy of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec which are looking to the preservation of their forests. So much then in reference to the United States, although this fact remains, and we might just as well state it, that the tariff of the United States, as compared with the tariff of Canada, does not give to Canada that fair trade to which she is entitled.\nThere is another situation in the trade point of view which is extremely interesting at the present time. That is the situation in Great Britain. I am not going to discuss British party politics for a single moment, but I think it is well for us to keep a few facts in mind. It is not more than five years ago, certainly not more than six years ago, that the right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain first promulgated his view, and a view not entirely and completely formed at that time, of what he thought might be or ought to be the fiscal relations of the mother country with the different parts of the empire and of the different parts of the empire with each other. Not more than five or six years ago did that idea receive the countenance and support of a first rate British statesman. Five or six years ago a first rate British statesman promulgated that idea in the face of a free trade England which had been free trade for forty or fifty years, and there did not then seem to be any great probability that such an idea would prevail. But five or six years have passed and what do we find. So rapid has been the change in public opinion, so rapid the progress of events, so strongly has the question" of empire and the treatment due to the different parts of the empire taken hold of the people of Great Britain and the empire, that to-day the South African colonies give a preference to the mother country, New Zealand gives a preference to the mother country, Australia gives a preference to the mother country, Canada gives a preference to the mother country, and we have at the present time in the mother country itself, one of the great historic political parties entering into an electoral contest in which the first plank in their platform is tariff reform, with the avowed purpose of using it to give to the colonies preferential treatment. That marks a rapidity of movement and change in the fiscal ideas of the mother country and the empire which one would\nscarcely have ventured to prophesy^ a few years ago. And whether the Unionists or the Liberals are successful in the coming election-and I do not suppose any one wishes to hazard an opinion as to^ which it will be-I do not think it is going too far to say that the time is appreciably near when the policy of Great Britain will be cne which will enable her to give to the colonies a measure of preferential treatment in return for the measure of prefer sntial treatment which the colonies have given to her. Now, while I have every sympathy with the Minister of Finance in his endeavour, if he makes an honest endeavour, to advance the trade of Canada with other countries, I think it will be wise to be very careful in these different negotiations that we do not tie our hands .unnecessarily so as to make it more difficult for us to enter into that kind of partnership with the mother country, which, when the change comes in her fiscal policy which will enable her to do so, she will offer to us. Have we not everything to gain locally by an entrance into the markets of Great Britain on a preferred basis. It is not necessary for me to more than ask that question; no one will dissent. Not onlv have we locally much to gain but as believers in and lovers of the empire we know that the empire has much to gain by uniting its scattered Dominions more closely together.\nIn the way of evoking greater sympathy and greater practical interest, in the way of uniting more closely all the members of the empire one to the other and each to all we have very much to gain. Therefore I say that it is well that the Minister of Finance and the government should go slowly in making any entangling alliances for trade with other countries until at least we get more light upon what may take place in the future in Great Britain. Of course it may be said that we make these treaties subject to abrogation on certain notice, but it is equally true that it is more difficult to give notice of abrogation than it is to enter into a commercial treaty in the first place. Now, some people ask the question: Do you mean to sav that any power exists which can make a tariff for Canada outside of the parliament of Canada itself, and are you willing to go into any arrangement of that kind. The question may be fairly answered in this way:\tThere is no\nbody which can make a tariff for Canada outside of the parliament of Canada itself, but that did not bar the parliament of Canada itself from giving preferential treatment to Great Britain, and to Australia, and to the West Indies, and to New Zealand, and neither will it bar the parliament of the United Kingdom, from giving to Canada or Australia or New Zealand or any other of the over-seas Dominions a preferential entrance into her market. There-', u"fore, the question of having to submit to some outside authority before you can have the advantages of preference is altogether visionary. Each component part keeps its absolute autonomy and independent power of deciding what its tariff shall be, each lcoks over the field and as its circumstances allow and its sympathies and its interest\xae direct it gives to the other member of the family a preferred entrance in whatever manner it may deem wise. I do not know that any imperial preference man; I have never heard of one yet who has advocated that under present conditions any other method of fixing the tariffs under a preference shall be resorted to than that which I have just mentioned, and it certainly takes away all objections on the ground of autonomy. So much with reference to matters of trade.\nNow, I was going to criticise the Minister of Finance a little with reference to financial matters, but I am not sure that it will do any good. Any way he may say that the horse has gone and that there is no use of now locking the stable door. That is true, but a man who loses something valuable because of not having locked the door is very apt to see that his doors are afterwards kept secure so that the loss shall not be repeated. It is in that view that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance very briefly some things which he did not do and some things which he failed to do and some things which he actually has badly done in reference to this financial flurry which we have had. What then did he do? He knew as well as any man in Canada-he should have known better than any man in Canada-long before the latter part of 1907 and the first part of 1908 that this financial stress was coming upon the world and he should have taken two methods and employed both of them; first he should have anticipated by making his provision for the tremendous obligations which he had entailed upon himself and, secondly, he should have reduced his current expenditures and should have initiated a period of economy a year before he did at the very least. In those two ways, by making provision in time before the hurry and the strenuous condition of the market put him in the very worst position, and the other by not making extraordinary estimates but rather resorting to economical and less extravagant estimates he should have prepared to meet the stringency. In those two points I think the minister failed. As a result what took place? The minister says he has not damaged the credit of the country. I do not think that intrinsically the country has been struck a fatal blow in that respect, but this much is true that the Finance Minister, by his methods, has not improved the financial condition of the country. That he has not Mr. FOSTER.\nimproved it is easily proved by the two facts to one of which I have alluded with respect to his loans. In the first place, he has paid and has been for the last year and a half paying the highest interest on leans that has ever been paid in the history of Canada. He has reversed the downward trend arising from the better condition of Canadian finances and Canadian business which showed from 1870 down to 1894, and reached the low figure of 2 -88 per cent in 1897. He has reversed that and his rates have climbed until now he is getting very little money at 31 per cent and is paying very close to 5 per cent for most of the money that he has borrowed of late and that he will likely borrow in the future. In the second place, see the extraordinary methods to which he had to have recourse in order to get his money. It is a fact that the loans from 1879 to 1894 on the British market made by Canada amounted to \xa326,943,000, while those made from 1897 to 1909 amounted to _ \xa320,831,398. The brokerage that was paid by Finance Ministers for the former loans amounted to \xa355,718. The commission paid on these loans amounted to \xa3214,916. That was under the old times when Canada's credit was not supposed to be as good as it might be now with the great development of this country. The Finance Minister from 1897 to 1909 has gone into the British market for \xa320,831,398, \xa36,000,000 less than the preceding figure which I have mentioned. On that he has paid a brokerage of \xa360,988, and a commission of \xa3347,330. He has paid more in brokerage, on a less quantity borrowed, by \xa35,270, and he has paid more in commission, on a less quantity borrowed, by \xa3132,414. Added together he has paid $685,000 more for less borrowings than the amounts paid from 1879 up to 1894. And this, too, although he has during the later period had the advantage of a much more favourable brokerage contract made with the Bank of Montreal in 1892. That, I say, is an excessive increase, and the fact that he has had to raise his loans by such extraordinary payments is, I think, a very good argument to show that he did not find Canada's credit just as easy and as well established as he would try to make us believe. The following table wall illustrate tire above, it being borne in mind that 1897-1909 were Liberal government years:\n\tAmount Brokerage\t\tCom- mission\nYears.\tborrowed.\tpaid.\tpaid.1879-1894\t.. ..\xa326,943,000\t\xa355,718\t\xa3214,9161897-1909 Excess\t.. .. 20,831,398 paid by Liberal\t60,988\t347,327government\t\xa3 5,270\t\xa3132,411Total $685,000.\texcess, brokerage\tand commission.\t\nThere is no necessity of making a laboured criticism of the minister. That, I think, shows exactly in a nutshell the difficulties that he encountered, and I think I have given very plainly the reasons for which he encountered those difficulties. Will the minister and his colleagues having beer given this respite through the grace of the farmers and of Providence, take any lessons and learn to guide their conduct by the experience of the past? I am afraid they will not. The Minister of Finance to-day indicated his intention of soon having, if he could, $100,000,000 revenue-and spending it all. He gave out the cheering news to his expectant supporters that he could now afford to be a little more free in the matter of general expenditures, and I noticed that that evoked a corresponding cheer. But I noticed that the Minister of Finance did not say a word to indicate that he intended to carry out what he hinted at last year and what was very strongly impressed on him from this side of the House, that in times of buoyant revenue he might well take pattern by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain, and lay aside a certain amount each year for the extinguishment of the public debt, that when things were prosperous and the treasury was full and the revenues were buoyant it was a good time to strengthen the reserves of the *country by laying aside something as a sinking fund and to diminish our vast debt. To-day we are carrying a debt of $325,000,000. Next year that will be still larger, and the year after that larger than before, and it does seem to me to be a fair point to take that out of abundant revenues something should be done in order to diminish the public debt, give confidence to the lenders in the old country and at least make our acknowledgment of an obligation to pay the principal as well as to pay the interest on our borrowings. The country will also have to borrow during the succeeding year. I find that in 1910, some $38,-\n500,000\tare to be met in maturing loans; $14,000,000 of this will be covered by sinking funds which will leave about $24,000,000 or $25,000,000 to be borrowed. That is for maturing debt alone, and to that must be added the borrowings for the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, whatever they may be, and I shall touch that subject later. In\n1911,\t$8,555,000 has to be met as a maturing loan, and will have to be borrowed. In\n1912,\t$30,500,000, and in 1913,\t$8,000,-\n000 have to be met in the way of maturing loans. All that is in addition to what may be necessary to be borrowed for the completion of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. The Finance Minister in his statement of debt made very little, if any, allusion to the obligations which Canada is under. My friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) by a question brought the minister's attention thereto,\nThe minister, however, set little store by it, for he did not consider it sufficiently important to make it an item in his budget. But it is true that Canada is under obligations, and increasing obligations in this respect. I find that for the Canadian Northern there are bonds of \xa31,923,287 at 3 per cent guaranteed, and for the same railway \xa31,622,586 at 3i per cent, principal and interest, and, \xa35,200,000 is already guaranteed for the Grand Trunk Pacific; but, considering that we have to provide for a guarantee of 75 per cent of the whole cost of the Mountain Division, this obligation, before it is ended, will amount to a very large sum; and, although the Finance Minister, may not think so, into whatever market he goes, not only will the revenues and the expenditures and the public debt be taken into consideration, but every obligation that the government is under is scanned as well, and scanned zealously, and goes to make up the estimation of the credit of the country.\nAt six o'clock House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty. He said; At the last session of parliament, Mr. Speaker, circumstances obliged me to submit a budget which, not to use a stronger word, was not in all respects a very cheerful one. Perhaps it was because Ministers of Finance everywhere about that time found themselves in strenuous circumstances. Perhaps it was because it was my thirteenth budget and good luck could hardly be hoped for at such a time. However that may be, it is agreeable to me to be able to round out the baker's dozen under happier conditions and to come back once more to the old familiar story of general employment and prosperous trade, increasing revenues, liberal surpluses and generous appropriations for the public service.
The last fiscal year-1908-9-as we call it -the fiscal year ended on the 31st March last, was certainly not a very good year for Canada. There had been a financial depression in the autumn of 1907, a depression which was almost world-wide, and which, in the case of the republic to the south of us, became a financial panic. It would have been too much to expect that we could escape entirely the effects of that financial depression. We dicl feel it in Canada to some extent-happily to a much less extent than in the case of our neighbours to the south, but still we did experience it to some extent in Canada. It began to show its effect upon our revenues in the closing period of the fiscal year, but the earlier part of the year was one of such great prosperity that, on the whole, the revenue proved to be a. very excellent one; indeed, it was a record year. But, when we came to the new fiscal year beginning on the first of April, 1908, a year which ended on the 31st March last, we found that our revenues were very seriously affected. The revenue for the previous year, that which we call a record year, represented the great sum of $96,054,505.81. But, when we came to close the year 1908-9 we found that we had received a total rev-



[Stage Direction]
Actual	Estimated Budget Speech, April 20, 1909.	Greater than Estimate.	Less than Estimate.$ ets. 85,093,404 35 84,064,232 38 1,029,171 97	$ cts. 84,500,000 00 S3,000,000 00 1,500,000 00	$ cts. 593,404 35 1,004,232 38	$ cts.
470,828 03
				
A statement of the sources of our revenue will be interesting for the moment, as showing wherein the failure took place. In customs there was a decrease of $10,130,474.80, and in excise there was a decrease of $844,383.66. The post office continued its career of prosperity and had an increase of $293,737.07. When other departments fail somewhat we are always able to turn to the post office and note the happy change that has taken place. In former years there was high postage, limited accommodation and heavy deficits. In recent years there is cheaper postage, more generous accommodation and always a liberal surplus. In the case of the Dominion lands we had an increase of revenue of $269,634.73. Miscellaneous revenues showed an increase of $93,793.97, and railways" showed a falling off of $643,408.77. The chief decline, of course, was in customs. There was a falling off in excise and diminished business led to a diminished traffic on the railways, and in consequence diminished receipts.

[Stage Direction]
Source.	Amount.	Increase, 1907-8.	Decrease, 1907-8.$ cts.	$ cts.	8 cts.47,413,336 45 14,937,768 02	10,130,474 80 844,383 60Excise	7,401,623 93 2,153,254 61	293,737 07 269,634 73	Dominion land s	Railways.. ..	8,891,187 43	643, 408 77Miscellaneous .	4,296,233 91	93,793 97	85,093,404 35	657,165 77	11,618,267 23 657,165 77Ne	t decrease ..	10,961,101 46
Or a decrease of 11'4 p. c. as compared with 1907-8.
Coming now to the expenditure, we find that the total expenditure for the year 1908-9, chargeable to income, was $84,064,232.38. This was an increase of $7,422,780.79
over the expenditure of the previous year. These increases were principally in the following departments;
Public works chargeable to income	* $3,578,857 07
Interest on public debt	
630.987	35Civil government	
1,194,849	45Legislation	
392,718	30Miscellaneous	
626,150	44Ocean and river service	
320,583	57Post office	586,456 66
The item with reference to civil government was partly an increase and partly a rearrangement of charges which were transferred to the civil government item. The increase in the item of legislation included the expenses of a general election. The increase in miscellaneous included a. grant of $300,000 to the Battlefields Commission and a grant of $100,000 for the relief of the sufferers by the earthquake in Italy.
Our revenue being $85,093,404.35 and our expenditure chargeable to income being $84,064,232.38, it left a surplus of $1,029,171.97.
Coming now to the question of capital and special charges for the year 1908-9 we find they were as follows:
CAPITAL AND SPECIAL CHARGES AND INCREASE OF DEBT 1908-9. National Transcontinental railway	
$24,892,351	23Quebec Bridge	
6,424,781	00Railways capital	
4,529,052	72Canals capital	
1,873,868	45Public Works capital	
2,832.295	29Dominion Lands	capital	
797,746	74Militia capital	
1,243,071	54
Total capital expenditure... $42,593,166 97
To these must be added the following special charges-
Railway	subsidies	$1,785,887	39Bounties	
2,467,306	95Charges of management loan account	
1,854,488	41Various	transfers	
221,311	50Total	$48,922,161 22
William Stevens Fielding: Deducting from this the-
Surplus of	$1,029,171	97Sinking fund	
1,922,525	20Refunds	
1,044	72	2,952,741	89Increase of debt	$45,969,419 33
That was the largest increase of debt that has taken place in any year since I have had the honour of dealing with the finances of the country. I had estimated that the net debt would be increased during the year by $46,000,000; the actual increase was $45,969,419. The Transcontinental railway and the Quebec bridge represent of this debt $31,317,132.23. The remainder of the increase of the debt was caused by other expenditures on capital and special account. In former years we had been able to provide for most expenditures of that kind out of our income, but last year, with a falling off of $11,000,000 in our revenue, it was not possible to provide for these without some addition to the public debt.
Coming now to the current fiscal year 1909-10, I am glad to be able to have a more cheerful story to tell. There are still three and a half months of the year to run and the books of account do not close until some considerable time after the end of the fiscal year, so that it is difficult to make more than an approximate estimate at the present stage. It is, however, gratifying to us all to know that the unfavourable conditions of the former year have passed away. There has been a very gratifying recovery; we have been blessed with abundant harvests; in almost every department of labour in which our people are engaged there has been increased activity; we have recovered the lost ground in our revenue and we are now moving forward to even higher records. The revenue for 1909-10- that is the current year-to December 1, was $64,656,509.92, which represents an increase over the revenue for the corresponding period of the previous year of $9,541,282.75. Thus in eight months we have gained nine and a half million dollars of revenue over the figures of the corresponding period of the past year, which represents an increase of about $1,200,000 per month.	The revenue for the last four
months of the previous year amounted to $29,978,177.18. If we assume that we shall receive for the remainder of this year the same amount as we received during the corresponding period of last year this will make our revenue for the entire current year $94,634,687.10. But we may reasonably assume that there will be some further increase during these remaining four months, just what the amount of that increase may be is a point upon which I would speak with some caution. Hitherto in our comparisons between the present year and the next proceding year we have
been comparing the figures of to-day with the lean period of a year ago, but about this time last year the business began to improve. The last months of the preceding fiscal year were months showing some imnrovement, and therefore we can not expect that during the remaining four months (or rather three and a half months) of the year, there will be as rapid increase as we have observed during the eight months. At all events there will undoubtedly be some increase. For the remaining period of the year, up to the 31st March- being four months as in the figures I present and about three and a half months actually from to-day-I propose to allow for an increase of $2,800,000. On that basis our revenue for the current year will approximate $97,500,000, or nearly one and a half million dollars better than the record year of 1907-8. I think my estimate is a safe one. It may be too conservative; it is quite possible that during the remaining four months of the year we shall make a greater increase than that I ventured to anticipate. It is quite possible that we shall come near the one hundred million dollar mark during the present year, but I do not think it is safe to estimate quite that at present.
Coming now to the question of our expenditure during the current year; it will be remembered that in view of the falling off in our revenue and the general check that had occurred in the business of the country, at the last session of parliament we severely pruned our estimates and appropriations, and many meritorious works which we would gladly have dealt with under more favourable conditions had to be laid aside.
Our expenditure on consolidated fund for the year 1908-9 was a little over $84,000,000. I estimate that in the current year the expenditure chargeable to income will not exceed $81,000,000. That is to say, we shall have a reduction of expenditure chargeable to income in the present year of $3,000,000 as compared with the figures of the preceding year. And, so, as respects the finances of this year the dominant note of the budget must be in the first place a large increase in revenue and in the second place a very substantial reduction in expenditure.
With a revenue of $97,500,000, which as I have stated is on a conservative basis, and an expenditure chargeable to income of $81,000,000, I estimate that there will be a balance this year, by way of surplus, amounting to sixteen and a half million dollars. I shall not be surprised if the expenditure proves to be a little less and the revenue somewhat more, which, of course, would give us a somewhat larger surplus.
Now, we come to the question of the 1 capital and special expenditure during the

Current year. There was voted by parliament for capital services during this year $30,484,739.54, and the corresponding appropriation for the preceding year 1908-9 was, $43,372,488.33. This shows a very large reduction in our appropriations. Of the capital appropriation for the current year 190910 the sum of $20,000,000 was assigned to the National Transcontinental railway, and we have reason to believe that that amount will all be spent or substantially so. Of the balance of appropriations of that class namely, $10,484,739.54, it is expected that probably $10,000,000 will be spent. We must then add railway subsidies, bounties, and other special charges which I estimate at $5,500,000.
Thus, the total capital and special charges for the year would amount to $35,500,000. The estimated reduction on consolidated fund expenditure is $3,064,232; the estimated reduction on capital and special expenditure is $13,422,161, so that our total expenditure of this year as compared with the. expenditure of the previous year will show a reduction of $16,486,393.
The capital and special expenditure of the year will probably amount to $35,500,000. If we deduct from this our surplus of $16,-
500,000	and sinking funds, $1,250,000, making. $17,750,000, this will represent an increase of debt at the close of this current year, if my estimate is correct, of $17,750,-"OOO. This will be $2,250,000 less than our expenditure on the Transcontinental railway. May I repeat here a remark I made, in the last budget speech I had the honour to deliver, as indicating the financial policy which we hoped to pursue during the year. I then said:
We think that our aim ought to be-and we shall endeavour to accomplish it as far as possible-to provide out of our revenue during the year now opening for all the ordinary expenditure and for a considerable part of our capital expenditures, if possible even for all of them. There is one work as to the wisdom of borrowing for which there can be no question, and that is the Transcontinental railway. If we can succeed in keeping down our borrowing for new work during the coming year to the sum which we wish to expend on the Transcontinental railway, I am sure we shall have a very good statement to present. I do not know that we can accomplish this, hut it is to be our aim, and I am sure that if for the work of the year we have to borrow any sum in excess of that required for the Transcontinental railway it will not be very large.
I am glad to be able to say that the aim which we then set forth has been reached. We shall provide, as we believe, because we are dealing with a year not yet closed, out of our income for all the ordinary expenditure, for all the capital and special expenditure other than the Transcontinental railway, and we shall also be able to provide out of our revenue two and a quar-Mr. FIELDING.
ter million dollars towards the National Transcontinental railway expenditure. Thus while we shall spend $20,000,000 on the Transcontinental railway we shall only add seventeen and three quarter millions to the net debt of the country. Putting it in another form, if we did not have this large and exceptional work to deal with, we would, within the year, reduce our public debt by two and a quarter million dollars.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the surplus of one year building it?


William Stevens Fielding: That was a pipe dream of my hon. friend.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. member (Mr. Sproule) does not smoke.


William Stevens Fielding: Then he and I do not contribute much to the revenue in that direction. I hope he makes it up in some other way.
Turning now to the year 1910-11, .as we call it in our accounts, the year beginning on the 1st of April next, hon. gentlemen will observe that it is quite far away and it will be difficult for us to attempt any close estimates. All I would care to say as respects that year is that we are very hopeful that we shall be able to repeat the policy of the present year with respect to keeping down the increase of debt. With the improvement in our revenues we have, of course, properly made more generous provision for the public service, but we hope and believe that the increasing revenues will justify that, and we look forward with strong expectation, as far as we can deal with matters so far in the future, that our year's operations will enable us to provide'out of revenue for our ordinary expenditure and for that portion of our capital and special expenditure outside the Transcontinental railway. I think it is a fair ground for us to take that in the case of a great national work like the National Transcontinental railway and the Quebec bridge, now virtually a part of the Transcontinental railway, it is not unreasonable that we should expect to go on the money market and borrow, but that not only for our ordinary expenditures, but also for smaller expenditures of a capital character, we should endeavour to make provision out of our ever-increasing revenue.


Robert Laird Borden: Reckoning up to the end of the fiscal year on which we have just entered, that is the year ending March 31, 1910, what will be the total expenditure on the National Transcontinental railway?


William Stevens Fielding: The Transcontinental road, including the Quebec bridge, now virtually a part of it, will represent at the close of this fiscal year, $58,391,263.94.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that to March 31, 1909, or March 31, 1910?


William Stevens Fielding: That will be at the end of the last fiscal year and will not include the expenditure of the current fiscal year.


Robert Laird Borden: My question related to the current fiscal year.


William Stevens Fielding: We are spending this year $20,000,000.


Robert Laird Borden: That would amount then to about $78,000,000 up to the end of the current fiscal year, ending March 31, 1910?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Is it intended to complete the building of the Transcontinental railway at the time already stated, that is at the end of 1911, or is it proposed to go slower? Is any provision to be made for the construction of the Hudson's Bay railway?


William Stevens Fielding: The estimates before parliament include a sum for the further survey of the Hudson Bay railway route. They do not at present include any sum for construction. If it be determined that the matter is advanced to a sufficient point to call for a vote for construction, that vote will have to come in the supplementary estimates. As to the completion of the Transcontinental railway, I think we have everything to gain by pushing it to completion. The Minister of Railways will have to deal with that at a later stage, but I think we shall rush that as quickly as possible and for that reason we are taking a very liberal estimate of $27,000,000 for the coming fiscal year.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman made any estimate of what amount will be required after the conclusion of the present fiscal year to complete and discharge all our obligations in respect of the National Transcontinental railway?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not included it in this statement, but the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) will have a statement at a later stage which will deal with that as with Transcontinental affairs generally.
With regard to the revenue for the coming fiscal year, I think we need have no. hesitation in saying that if we do not reach the $100,000,000 mark during the current year, we shall certainly do so in the coming year, and I believe that with the large and increasing revenue we will be able to provide for our ordinary expenditure and for that portion of our capital expenditure which does not refer to the National Transcontinental railway. I would not like to speak with too much confidence on that item, as it is in the future, but at all events that is the policy I would desire to pursue if the finances will enable us to do so.
It will be observed that in the estimates for the coming year we have transferred
from capital account to income account several items which for a number of years have been charged to capital account. One of these items is in regard to arms and ammunition for the militia. It has been customary, under both governments, to charge 'that item to capital account. In like manner, Dominion lands have been charged to capital account. I think the objection to that system may most strongly be taken in the case of Dominion lands, for we charged the expenditure in connection with the lands to capital account, white the entire receipts have always been taken into the general income for the year. In both these cases we have been following the practice of the past. I think in these cases it will be well to make a change, certainly in the case of Dominion lands. No particular reference that I am aware of has been made to that in the past and our method of dealing with these items has been precisely the same as that of preceding governments.
It will also be observed that in the appropriation we are taking for naval expenditure the charge is to be made against income. I do not wish to discuss that branch of the public business to-day, for that comes later in the hands of another minister; but it will be admitted, I think, that if we should charge the construction of ships to capital account, charging to income only the annual interest thereon and a reasonable sum for depreciation, we might justify ourselves in doing so. However, as this expenditure, which will be quite a large one, will be distributed over several years, I think we may properly charge it to income. The expenditure of the year will be charged to the revenue of the year, and we shall not be obliged to add anything to the public debt on that account.


George Eulas Foster: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he proposes to charge to current account the construction of naval vessels?


William Stevens Fielding: That is my proposal in the estimates for the coming year. Of course, if we had to propose the whole cost of these vessels in one year, it would be a sum which our income would not bear; but as the expenditure will necessarily have to be distributed over several years, I think it is proper to charge it to income from year to year.


George Eulas Foster: The principle is the same.


William Stevens Fielding: The principle is exactly the same.


George Eulas Foster: While my hon. friend has been listening to better counsels in this matter, has he come to a conclusion to adjust the bounties as well?


William Stevens Fielding: I am glad my hon. friend has called attention to that. We have discussed from time to time the question of charging these bounties to capital account. My hon. friend is probably aware of the view which I have expressed from time to time, that the bounty is on all fours with the payment of railway subsidies, which in the time of my hon. friend as well as in our time have been charged to capital or special expenditure. When you pay a railway subsidy to the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Northern, or any other railway company, you have nothing to show for your money. The railway belongs to the company. Nevertheless we charge the subsidy to capital. If you pay bounties for the temporary assistance of a great industry, you have nothing immediately to show for your money. The property is the property of the company, and the bounty has gone into the treasury of the company, as in the case of the railway subsidy. But you believe that good has come to the country through the development of its trade and commerce, and that is the justification of the bounty.


George Eulas Foster: How about steamship subsidies?


William Stevens Fielding: I have never been able to regard steamship subsidies as merely temporary, for they go on from year to year. The theory of our bounties is that they are temporary aids. It is true, they have lasted somewhat longer than some of us expected; but they stand in the same relation to the country as railway subsidies. In neither case have you any visible property to represent the money paid, but in both cases you get your return in the general development of trade.
Sometimes these bounties are spoken of as if they had some relation to the question of a surplus or a deficit. Speaking generally, they have no such relation, except as to the volume of the surplus. In all the years that we have charged these bounties to capital or special account, except one, they would not have affected the question of a surplus or a deficit. The one exception was last year, when the surplus was a small one, and when, if we had charged the bounties to income, we would have had a deficit of $1,400,000. But if you take all the years in which we have paid bounties, the surpluses aggregated $131,088,259, whereas the bounties during the same period have amounted to only $18,822,751, Therefore while in one year the payment of the bounties out of income would have affected the question of a surplus, if you take the whole period, it would not have affected the question of a surplus at all. The chief bounties on iron and steel will expire on the 31st of December, 1910, that is, the bounties on pig iron, iron puddled bars and steel ingots. There is a


George Eulas Foster: bounty on wire rods which is not limited in time. There is a bounty on lead, which is limited to a term of years, and there is a bounty on oil which is not limited. The chief bounties, however, are those paid to the iron and steel industry, and these will expire on the 31st of December,
1910.	There is a provision in the Act that bounties for electric smelting may be extended for two years longer. When the bounties were last readjusted, we were assured that parties were about engaging in electric smelting, and as it would take some time to erect their plant, they asked for an extension of a couple of years, and it was granted. As no action has been taken under that provision of the Act, I take it that the chief bounties on iron and steel will expire next year. Thereafter the bounties paid will not be very large, and whether we shall then charge them to income or to capital or special account, may be a matter to be fairly considered at that time.
In this connection, I would like to invite the attention of the House to the question of what these bounties have accomplished. I know that with some excellent citizens of Canada the idea of bounties is not popular. More than once I have met people of the very best class who shake their heads over the idea. I think, however, that it can be clearly shown that the treasury of Canada has not lost one dollar from the payment of bounties. The iron and steel industries which have been established in the country have undoubtedly had a great effect in the development of the trade in Canada. Just how far the influence of a steel industry is felt may be a matter of debate. I have no doubt that hon. gentlemen have found many cases where business has been influenced favourably a long distance from the location of an iron and steel plant; I have found such cases myself; and it must be remembered that in all the principal trade centres of Canada vast quantities of goods have been purchased and sold to these steel ports, as I may describe them. The cities of Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and St. John will all testify that their merchants have sold great quantities of goods to these steel making ports. The duties on these goods have been paid at Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, Halifax ami St. John, as the case may he. It is not possible to measure just what these duties have amounted to, but they would not have been paid if there had not been the consumers of these goods at the steel ports. I do not think it is too much to say that millions of dollars have been paid into the Dominion treasury in that way at ports far removed from the steel ports themselves; and in considering what the government have received in return for the bounties, it would be well to bear that in mind. But

suppose we put that aside, let us look at the condition of the revenue at the steel ports themselves. These I take to be Sault Ste. Marie, in Ontario, Sydney, North Sydney and Sydney Mines in Nova Scotia, Glace Bay Mines, which supply the coal to the Sydney plant, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and Hamilton, Ont. Now, Hamilton was an important city before the steel industry was established. Undoubtedly, Hamilton would have made very considerable progress even had there been no steel plant at that place. Let us frankly admit that. But it must be admitted also that the steel works at Hamilton have hjid much to do with the development of the trade of that port. Qualify as you will the figures I am about to give as respects Hamilton, yet I think that all hon. members will agree that, as respects every other point which I have named, the increase in business is due directly to the development of the iron and steel industry. Every one of these communities was a small community before the steel business began; every one has grown to be a large and important community under the influence and development of the iron and steel business. I have here a statement showing the^ collections of customs revenue for two periods of ten years. The first period is that from 1890 to 1899, a period during which some steel bounties were paid but during which the industry was in its infancy, and not very much progress had been made, except at New Glasgow, and even at that period New Glasgow had contributed very largely to the revenue by reason of her steel operations. We compare that period of ten years with the next ten years ending June 30, 1909: '
Comparative Statement of Customs Revenue received at the following Ports during the ten years 1890 to 1899 both inclusive, and for the ten years from 1900 to 1909, both inclusive.
Ports.	Years 1S90 to 1899, June 30.	Years 1900 to 1909, June 30.Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.	[DOT]S cts. 219,763 06 153,115 50 192,518 97 31,976 66 398,578 24 6,712,584 26	$ cts. 2,012,066 13 1,645,759 22 455,320 32 469,663 49 479,020 76 11,648,381 80North Sydney, N. S. and Sydney Mines, n.s. ...: 	
Glace Bay, N.S	
New Glasgow, N.S...	Increase during years 1900 co 1909	7,708,566 69 9,011,645 03	16,710,211 72
16,710,211 72	
Now, let us compare the amount paid in bounties with this increase in customs duty:
Amount of bounties paid on pig iron, puddled bars, steel, manufactures of steel and wire rods during the ten years 1900 to 1909, both inclusive, $13,377,268.
Amount of increase of customs revenue at the above ports during the same period, $9,011,615.
Thus we see that nearly all that has been paid in bounties came back in revenue through the various ports I have named. Qualify that a little, if you like, respecting Hamilton. On the other hand, consider the supplies purchased in Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, St. John, Halifax, that passed into consumption in these ports in which the iron and steel industry is established, and I believe I am justified in saying that every dollar that the people of Canada have paid out to the iron and steel business by way of bounties has been brought back directly to the public treasury in increased duties due to the stimulation of business.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Has the hon. minister any figures showing that the employees cf these steel industries have come from countries outside of Canada? If not, how does he make it out that there has been an increase in the customs duties?


William Stevens Fielding: If, for instance, it can be shown that the employees of these industries came from the town the hon. member (Mr. Middlekro) represents and others, and that, as a consequence, the business of those towns decayed, there would be something in his argument. But if the business of his town has prospered and there is so much new business at Sydney, Sault Ste. Marie and these other places, I confess I do not see the force of his contention.


William Sora Middlebro: I think it should be the other way; unless the hon. minister (Mr. Fielding) can show that this increase is due to additional population coming from outside countries, he has not established his case. A man will eat and wear as much in one place as in another, and to move him from one place to another does not mean an increase of business.


William Stevens Fielding: As a matter of fact, a great proportion of these employees have come from other countries.


William Sora Middlebro: Has the minister any figures on that point?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not; but I know, as a matter of fact, that a very large percentage of the people employed in the steel industries at Sydney has come from outside countries.


William Sora Middlebro: I would grant that-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no objection; I desire to hear the hon. member.


William Sora Middlebro: I would grant to the hon. minister that if he could show that the increase of employees due to the steel business represents an increase of our population from outside points, his argument is tenable; but, if they come from other portions of the country, we have a right to assume that they would have eaten and worn as much where they were as where they are, and consequently would have contributed as much to the revenue.


William Stevens Fielding: But if a man came from Owen Sound to Sydney to work in the steel industry, he left work at Owen Sound .and somebody came in to do that work. For my hon. friend to prove his case, he would have to show that other parts of Canada were suffering in order that the iron and steel industry might prosper.
Now, I desire to say a word with regard to the increase of our debt. Up to June 30, 1896, the net debt of Canada was $258, 497,432.77. The net debt on March 31, 1909, was $323,930,279.17, an increase in twelve and three quarter years of $65,432,846.40. During the same period, we expended on the Trancontinental and on the Quebec bridge, as previously stated, $58,391,263. So that, apart from that large undertaking -and I think we are justified in treating that as something exceptional-the increase of our debt is only $7,041,000, and that too in the face of the fact that last year we had a falling off in our revenue of $11,000,000.
Now, there is another aspect of our finances which is worthy of a moment's consideration. I refer to the charges for what we call capital and special account and the manner in which these charges have been me(t. Speaking gpneralllyi, :we might say the charges which are deemed to be on capital and special account, are of an exceptional nature which, perhaps, would justify the borrowing of money if necessary. We ought not to borrow money for our current account, we ought to pay our way; but, for anything in the way of permanent improvements or capital expenditure, if necessary, the Minister of Finance may well justify the borrowing of money. Of course it is desirable that we should provide for all we can without borrowing.
Now, I desire to show how far we have been successful in providing for that class of expenditure without borrowing. During the twelve and three-quarter years to which I have referred, the twelve and three-quarter years of this government, we have spent on capital and special expenditures such as I have been describing, $212,602,818.33; and during that time we have added to the debt of the country only $65,432,846. That is to say, of these capital and special expenditures we have borrowed but a very small porportion, and we Mr. FIELDING.
provided of the $212,602,818, no less than $147,169,971 out of our own revenue; that is to say, that out of our revenue we not only provided for all our ordinary expenditure, but during that whole twelve and three-auarter years we provided for more than 69 per cent of our capital and special charges out of revenue, without resorting to borrowing, without going into debt.
Now, let us see what was the record of our predecessors-I do not say this for the purpose of finding fault, but it is a fair comparison. In the period from 1878 to 1896, similar charges, those called capital and special, had to be met to the amount of $167,166,252; and during that period the net debt of the country increased by $118,135,362. Mark the figures:	Capital and
special expenditure, $167,166,252; increase of debt, $118,135,362. So that all our hon. friends who preceded us were able to provide for expenditures of that character out of revenue, was $49,030,889; that is to say, that while we have been able to provide for expenditure of that kind out of revenue to the extent of 69 per cent, they only provided it to the extent of 29 per cent. Our predecessors had to add nearly 70 per cent of that class of expenditures to- the debt of the country, while we have added only 30 per cent of that class of expenditures
to the debt. *	.
Now, one may make another comparison along the same lines. There are certain big public works which the government have sometimes to provide for, and which have to be lifted out of the common calculation. The late government had to provide for the Canadian Pacific railway; we have to provide for the Transcontinental railway and the Quebec bridge. I propose to eliminate from the two accounts these large and exceptional works, to leave out, in the case of my predecessors, the expenditure on account of the Canadian Pacific railway, and to leave out in our case the expenditures on account of the Transcontinental railway and the Quebec bridge, and what do we find? Leaving out the Canadian Pacific railway, from 1878 to 1896, our predecessors provided for 42 per cent of their capital and special expenditure out of their revenue; while we have provided for similar charges, leaving out the Transcontinental and Quebec bridge, not 42 per cent, but more than 95 per cent, out of the revenue of the country.


Mr. J. D. EEID.: Could the hon. the Finance Minister tell us how much taxes were collected from the people during the eighteen years from 1878 to 1896, during the 10 years from 1897 to 1907?


William Stevens Fielding: No, I cannot tell at this moment. But I can tell the hon. gentleman that the rate of customs taxation is

less now than it was in the former period; and that the onlv difference between my hon. friend and myself on that question is that while he wants to raise the taxation of the country, we are desirous of keeping it down. Sow, the debt of a country is only a burden in proportion to the number of shoulders that have to carrv it. Sometimes people speak of the growing debt of Canada, without stopping to consider, as they should, other elements of the growing time. The debt of Canada must be considered in proportion to the population of Canada. I have here a statement-I have submitted it on a previous occasion, but I have now brought it down to date; it is a statement showing the net debt of Canada for every year from 1891 down to the present time, including the current year, and giving the estimated population for the current year. It also shows the population of Canada as shown from year to year by our census officers. While our general census is taken only once in ten years, as respects our western provinces it is taken more frequently, and from year to year an estimate is made of our population bv qualified census officials; so that we receive from year to year a statement of the population of the country which is approximately correct.


NET DEBT PER CAPITA.
[Stage Direction]
Net Debt
Year.	Population.	Net Debt, per Capita.	1891.. ..	4,844,366	$237,809,030 51	$49 091892.. ..	4,889,266	241,131,434 44	49 151893.. ..	4,935,748	241,681,039 61	48 961894.. ..	4,983,903	246,183,029 48	49,401895.. ..	5,003,839	253,074,927 09	50 571896.. ..	5,086,061	258,497,432 77	50 821897.. ..	5,141,508	261,538,596 46	50 871S98.. ..	5,199,267	263,956,398 91	50 771899.. ..	5,259,491	266,273,446 60	50 621900.. ..	5,322,348	265,493,806 89	49 881901.. ..	5,413,370	268,480,003 69	49 591902.. ..	5,537,500	271,829,089 62	49 081903.. ..	5,712,190	261,606,988 87	45 791904.. ..	5,890,066	260,867,718 60	44 291905.. ..	6,091,136	266,224,166 60	43 701906.. ..	6,323,557	267,042,977 75	42 231907.. ..	6,655,904	263,671,859 96	39 611908.. ..	6,863,500	277,960,859 84	40 491909.. ..	7,145,040	323,930,279 17	45 331910.. ..	7,450,990	*341,680,279 17	45 85'Estimated.	So uoon	authority	of the census	officersof Canada,	I am able to state that	on the31st day	of March,	at the close	of the
current year, by the best judgment they can bring to bear, the population of Canada will be 7,450,990. Now, if we apply these figures to the net debt of the country. we have this gratifying result, that while in 1891 the net debt was $49.09 per capita, and while it had increased in 1896 to $50.82, it began to diminish after the first year of Liberal administration, when
it was $50.87; and from that point down, the figures have always been less than they were in 1896. And to-day, although in the last year we did add $46,000,000 to the debt of the country, although in the present year we shall add upwards of $17,000,000 to the net debt, yet if these figures are correct, on the 31st day of March, 1910, the net debt of Canada per head will be, not $50.82 as it was in 1896, but it will be $45.85. So, Mr. Speaker, if due regard be had to the growth and progress of Canada, the increase of debt is exceedingly small; and even with the very material sums which we have to add on account of the National Transcontinental railway, we are still in the happy position of seeing that the growth of the population and resources of Canada is faster than the growth of our public debt.
Mr. LAKE.: Before the minister passes from the debt, may I ask to what extent the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific and other railways have been guaranteed up to the present time?


William Stevens Fielding: The amount is set forth in the Public Accounts. I could not give it to my hon. friend immediately, but if he will turn to the report in the Public Accounts he will find the figures there set forth.


Richard Stuart Lake: For last year?


William Stevens Fielding: The last blue-book contains the latest statement. If my hon. friend, on looking it up, finds it to be insufficient, I will be happy, if he will mention^ it to me, to see that he is put in possession of the information. I do not wish to burden the House with many statistical tables. There was a time when the budget speech was a somewhat ponderous affair, but I have endeavoured to have regard to the time and patience of the House. But, I thought a few statistics might be given to show the rapid recovery that has taken place after the check that came upon the business of the country a year or two ago. The total trade in 1908-9, as compared with 1907-8, declined to the extent of $79,524,364 Of that imports declined $61,029,917 and exports $18,494,447. An early recovery, I am glad to say, is going on and quite rapidly. For the seven months to the 31st October, 1909, being the last date for which we have the customs statistics, the total trade of all kinds exceeded that of last year by $48400,000. Of this $34,553,278 represents imports and $13,847,219 exports. At the same rate of progress for 1910 the total trade of the current year will probably exceed that of the record year of 1907-8, when the total trade was $650,000,000.
A brief reference might also be made to the deposits in the chartered banks, merely to indicate the restoration of our financial

equilibrium. Ten years ago the deposits in the chartered banks of Canada amounted to $250,000,000. They increased rapidly and on the first September, 1907, these deposits amounted to $590,000,000. Then, under the influence of the depression which had come, they began to drop and they did drop for several months. Then they began to increase and as a result on the 31st October, 1909, the bank deposits amounted to $731,806,000, or three times nearly what they were only ten years ago.
The immigration figures are also very gratifying. I am going over these very briefly because I do not wish to weary the House with many statistics. It is hardly necessary to say that a steady influx of population is one of the important things for our country, especially our western country, which offers the greatest attractions to immigration. In the year 1908-9 there was a considerable falling off in immigration. In 1907-8 the number of immigrants was 262,469, while in the next year- 1908-9-it was only 146,908, showing a decrease of 115,561. A very noticeable feature of the immigration that year was that the falling off was almost entirely in British and continental immigration. There was no falling off in the United States immigration. The movement of the tide once was setting southwards; the tide is now moving northward and even in the year of depression the immigration from the United States did not fall off. In 1907-8 the immigrants from . the United States numbered 58,312 while in 1908-9 they numbered 59,832. There was a very slight increase in the number. But the returns for the present year are very encouraging indeed. Comparing the tables for the ten months of the present calendar year with those for the ten months of the previous year we find that there has been an increase of 26,824. The number of British immigrants is slightly less than in the previous year, the number from the continent is about the same and the number from the United States appears to be steadily increasing.
We have naturally desired to extend our trade relations with other countries. In that connection I might call the attention of the House to the steps that are being taken with a view to the encouragement of better trade relations between Canada and the West . Indies. We have long had a considerable trade with the West Indies and at one stage it was deemed advisable that we should grant the British West Indies the benefits of our preferential tariff. So far we have not received any return of any kind. The British government have not failed to notice the desirability of establishing closer trade relations between the various branches of the empire, and it was arranged some months ago that a royal commission should be appointed by His Majesty for the purpose of inquiring into Mr." FIELDING.
the best methods of improving the trade relations between the British West Indies and Canada. The chairman of that commission is Lord Balfour of Burleigh, a very eminent British statesman, with whom are associated Sir John Dickson Poynder and Sir Daniel Morris, and upon that commission were placed two members of the Canadian government-the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Finance. We have held a series of rather interesting meetings in various parts of Canada, the effect of which, I am sure, will be to enable the British commissioners to understand the question from the Canadian point of view. At the next stage the inquiry moves to the West Indies. It was the desire of the commissioners that we should join them there at a very early date, but we felt that our first duty was to the parliament of Canada and we had to ask that the meeting of the commission might be postponed. The British members of the commission will meet in Jamaica at an early date in January and will then proceed south. If the business of this parliament should be sufficiently advanced to enable my hon. friend the Minister of Customs and myself to absent ourselves we hope to be able to join the commission in the Island of Barbados about the middle of February, but that, of course, will depend entirely upon the condition of the business of the Canadian parliament.


Samuel Hughes: Is the scope of this commission limited to British colonies, or is it to take in the South American republics?


William Stevens Fielding: It is limited to the British West Indies, because what we hope will be the result of it will be a preferential tariff in the British West Indies in favour of the products of Canada and, of course, that could not be arranged with foreign countries. It is, of course, too early for us to say much as to that, but we may hope that as a result of the inquiry Canada will receive a preference in the markets of the West Indies.


Mr. K. L. BOBDEN.: Are the Canadian commissioners going to the West Indies?


William Stevens Fielding: This is our difficulty: The British commissioners proposed when they were here that we should go with them, but we had to say, that, having regard to our parliamentary duties, we could not go at once. At the first meeting which, I think, will be held at Jamaica about the middle of January, we shall not be able to be present. They will hold some further meetings and they have placed us under some sort of bonds to join them in the Island of Barbados on the 15th of February, or thereabouts. Whether or not we shall be able to go_ depends on the progress of business in this House.

Our treaty with France has now passed through its various parliamentary stages; it has received the approval of the French Chambers; it has received the approval of the parliament of Canada, and nothing remains now but the formal exchange of ratifications which may take place at Paris. We do not know at what date that may take place. Still, it is our desire that the ratifications may be exchanged as soon as possible, so that we will be able to receive the degree of increased tradb that we expect to receive from that convention. We are aware that other nations are anxious to deal with us along somewhat similar lines. It has not escaped our notice that the German empire is also anxious now to approach Canada in a good spirit. It is an occasion when we need not dwell too much on what has happened in the past. We are aware that Germany is disposed now to enter upon negotiations with us, and we are also aware that there are two other European nations which are anxious to enter into trade relations with Canada. I refer to Italy and Belgium. In due course negotiations will have to be entered upon with these countries with the view of arriving, if possible, at some friendly understanding with them. Reference has sometimes been made in the House, and more particularly outside of it, to the disadvantage which Canada is said to suffer from the fact that the benefits of the French treaty have to go to certain other countries which give us nothing in return. At all events that is the way it is expressed. It is said that certain countries, by virtue of most favoured-nation treaties, made many years ago, are entitled to the benefits of this French treaty though they give us nothing in return.
There is a tendency to treat these favoured-nation treaties as something disadvantageous to Canada. I hesitate to accept that view. We do receive some substantial thing in return for the benefits we extend to these countries;' we receive the guarantee that no other country will ever receive better terms than Canada receives, and that is of the utmost importance tc us. No country is going to give Canada a monoply of its trade. We may by a convention with any country receive some advantage for the time being, but every country will naturally claim its right to make a treaty with any other country. All that any country can reasonably ask from another country is that it shall be guaranteed the best terms that are given to others. Now, suppose we had no favoured-nation treaties; suppose we had none of these old treaties which we sometimes now complain of, what might happen? Let us take the case of one of the great nations which enjoys the benefit of one of these treaties. Austria-Hungary has an old treaty with
Great Britain containing the most-favoured nation principle and by virtue of - that treaty we are obliged to give to Austria-Hungary all the benefits of the French treaty, and it is often too hastily assumed that we get nothing in return. But, if there was no such treaty, Austria-Hungary would be free to make an arrangement with our neighbours to the south and to admit the products of the United States into her markets on more favourable terms than she would admit the products of Canada. Then, Canada would be obliged to make a special treaty with Austria-Hungary if she could, and she might or might not be able to come to terms. But while the most-favoured nation treaty remains in operation we have the assurance that neither the United States nor any other competitor of ours can receive any advantage in the markets of Austria-Hungary that will not at the same time come to us. Surely, that guarantee of the best terms that will be given to any foreign nation is something worth while as a return for the concessions we give.


Robert Laird Borden: Do I understand the Minister of Finance to suggest that our market in that respect is increased by the provisions of the French treaty?


William Stevens Fielding: No, but if there was no such treaty and if we were to impose on the products of Austria-Hungary higher rates than we impose on the products of France, Austria-Hungary would naturally proceed at once to penalize us. The conditions that we have are such that at all times whenever any concession is granted by Austria-Hungary to any other nation we get the full benefit of it, and I really cannot see that we can expect more. I seriously think that it is a valuable concession that we thus obtain because it removes any necessity for our worrying over our relations with Austria-Hungary. The same would be true of the other countries, many of them not very important, which have the benefit of these favoured-nation arrangements.
There is one other country with which we have very close commercial relations. Of course our closest relations are with the mother country, which is our great market, but that comes to us so naturally that we hardly speak of it at all; we know we have our most valuable market in the mother country and our people appreciate it. There is, as I say, another great country with which we have close commercial relations and that is the United States. There has been some anxiety, perhaps some unnecessary alarm, in the mind of some of our Canadian people as to possible friction arising in consequence of the recent tariff legislation in the United States. But, after reading the most admirable message of

146S
President Taft to Congress, a few days ago,
I think that we can all feel that the United States government have a very correct appreciation of what is due to other countries, and to Canada particularly. I think the terms in which President Taft addressed Congress oh that subject give us abundant assurance that he and his cabinet are desirous of continuing the close and friendly relations which prevail between the republic and Canada, and we for the present are not going to assume that there is any cause for anxiety as to any friction arising between the two countries.
We are approaching the time when we shall want to issue a gold coinage in Canada. That will necessitate some change in our Currency Act, and a measure dealing with that branch of our affairs will be brought forward at an early date. In the meantime I avail myself of the opportunity to present some information and to answer inquiry with respect to the operations of the Ottawa branch of the Royal Mint. It is well known that the objects we had in view in establishing the mint, were, first, we desired to make our coins in Canada, and secondly, we were influenced to some extent by the desire to have the gold of the Yukon and the Canadian provinces brought through Canada rather than sent away to the United States. It is said that trade follows the flag, and there are others who say that trade follows the gold, and if this be true, then, if you keep your gold in your own commercial channels you will influence your trade. Perhaps parliament had that in mind when both sides agreed it was desirable to establish a mint. Now, the mint will show a very handsome profit, but let me also say frankly that we could make a greater profit by having no mint; we could make a greater profit by having our coins made in the old country. But, the same reason which leads us to desire to make other things in Canada leads us to desire to make the coins of Canada within our own boundaries. We could save money by having our Dominion notes printed in England, but it was thought well some years ago to stipulate that they should be printed in Canada at an establishment erected within sight of the parliament buildings. Having provided that our note currency shall be made in Canada it was but a step in advance to say that our metallic currency should be made here as well. We have established what is called the Ottawa branch of the Royal Mint. There is the advantage in having it a branch of the Royal Mint that we shall be able to coin sovereigns which we could not do if it were purely a Canadian mint. Another thing is that it has enabled us, in the construction and equipment of the building, to have the great advantage of the skill and experience of the Royal Mint officials, which Mr. FIELDING.
has given us a better building and equipment than we possibly could have obtained without the assistance of these gentlemen.
In connection with our mint there comes up the question of the deportation of foreign coins. A large proportion of the silver currency in Canada is foreign, chiefly American, and as there is a substantial profit on the coinage of silver, the presence of this large volume of American silver currency in Canada means that the profit on that finds its way into the treasury of the United States. We have, therefore, thought it desirable to take steps towards the exportation of American silver coins from Canada. Unfortunately, there is no reciprocity with regard to this silver coinage circulation. An American silver coin will be taken almost anywhere in Canada, but a Canadian silver coin will not generally be accepted in the United States, except perhaps along the frontier where there is considerable freedom of interchange. Now, if our American brethren were circulating a lot of Canadian coins and we were circulating a lot of American silver the deal would be square.


George Eulas Foster: If we got into their $80,000,000 silver it would be more than square.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, if we will assume that an equal amount was being circulated in both countries. The fact is that while in any part of Canada you may be handed an American silver coin over the counter, once you get away from the boundary in the United States you will never come across such a thing as a Canadian silver coin in the transaction of business. We have thought it wise that we, the people of Canada, the treasury of Canada, should have the profit on the silver currency used in Canada, So we have taken steps to export the American coins. It has sometimes been suggested that we should prohibit the use of this coin. That would be a great mistake. There are points along the boundary where it is a great convenience to take the coins of one side or the other, and any attempt to interfere with their right to do so, would probably be embarrassing. So we do not interfere with that practice. Of course these foreign coins are not legal tender, but they pass freely. We have made an arrangement with the banks whereby they export all the American coin that comes to them to the United States. As that coin is removed from the country, naturally a market is created for our own coin and that gives increased employment to the mint and increased profit to the treasury.


George Eulas Foster: How do you keep it out?


William Stevens Fielding: YTou cannot keep it out, it wiil come back again, and where it comes back in the way of legitimate-trade, while

perhaps it is not wise to encourage it, it is better to export it than to prohibit it.


George Eulas Foster: Does it come in any other way than in legitimate trade?


William Stevens Fielding: No, I think not; I think it is the passing to and fro along the boundary to some extent and then the large number of American visitors who come in every year, who are gladly welcomed-we hope more will come-all bring some coins with them, and to prevent in any way the free use of these coins would cause embarrassment. We do not propose to do so, but we say as soon as this coin comes in we will send it out, and we can afford to do it. We pay a small commission of three-eights of one per cent to the banks for exporting it, this being only enough to pay them for the handling of the coin. I do not look upon the commission as a great inducement to the banks, but I look to them as good, patriotic Canadian citizens, to feel it to be their duty under this arrangement, not for the commission, but for the higher purpose, to see that whatever American coins come into a branch bank, shall not be paid out over the counter, but shall be retained and sent out under the arrangements that we have made.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister say to what points the banks sent them?


William Stevens Fielding: They may send it to and port in the United States, and on evidence that they have exported it and delivered it to a bank outside of Canada we accept the certificate and pay the small commission upon it.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister know the yearly cost of deportation and the quantity deported?


William Stevens Fielding: We had an arrangement several years ago which expired by lapse of time. We renewed it by order in council of the 2nd of June, 1909, and since that date there has been exported $432,865 on which we have paid a commission of three-eighths of one per cent.
We also make use of the mint for recoining worn silver currency. For some years we have been endeavouring to make the paper currency of Canada cleaner than in former years and I think we have succeeded, although perhaps the banks are still open to some criticism in that respect. It will be observed as a rule that the paper currency of Canada is now fairly clean. Having presented to our people a cleaner paper currency, we thought we should give them silver currency in better condition. There has been a large amount of worn silver currency in Canada, some of it quite thin and smooth. It is not a proper currency for circulation, but it has passed freely. A gets it and gives it to B and so on and the banks have paid it out over
their counters. We think we may properly call in that currency and recoin it. This involves a small loss, because the friction caused by passing of the coinage diminishes its weight. However, the loss is quite small and we are able to give our people a fresher, cleaner and better currency, and I think they will approve of that.
I said that the mint is authorized to coin British sovereigns. It has done so to a small extent. It has a very small refining plant which enables it to do a little work along this line, and a number of people have presented gold which they desired to be converted into British sovereigns. That has been done, the mint receiving a fair payment for its services.
The actual expenditure in the construction of the mint, including site and buildings, up to November 30, 1909, has been $547,796.33.
It is estimated that for the refinery now under construction and its equipment a further expenditure of $67,000 will be required.
The estimated complete cost of the mint is $605,047.
The mint has been in operation for nearly two years, since January 2, 1908. In the first calendar year it coined 4,877,027 pieces. These included 636 British sovereigns coined for the owners of gold in the manner I have already mentioned.
In the eleven months of the present calendar year the mint coined 6,862,982 pieces. This included 13,161 British sovereigns coined under the conditions I have mentioned.
Parliament makes a grant of $75,000 per annum for maintenance. In 1908 this was more than sufficient, the outlay being only $71,997.32. The present year will absorb-the whole annuity, and in view of the increasing amount of work the mint is required to do, it is likely the annuity will have to be enlarged.
The cost of operation has been:
1908	 $71,997 32
1909 (11 months)	 61,729 52
The total cost of operation for one year and eleven months has thus been $133,726.84.
The revenue of the mint during the same period, including payment for all services rendered, amounts to $405,565.68.
The profits have thus been $271,838. This handsome balance will, of course, pay interest on the cost of construction and still leave a large sum to the credit of the mint. But, of course, as I pointed out, while we have this large profit on the operation of the mint, we could have had our coins made in the old country and have made a larger profit out of them. The judgment cf the House, irrespective of party, was that we should have a Canadian mint. It is

one of the advancing steps of our Canadian nationality, and_I believe it has met with the approval of the community at large.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister tell us how much it would have cost Canada to have had that same coinage made under the old system?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not made the calculation, but we certainly could have had our coins made much more cheaply in that wrny. We could also have had our notes made much more cheaply in England than in Ottawa, but just as the former government adopted the policy of having notes made in Ottawa, we have carried that policy a step further and have provided a mint for the making of coins here.


George Eulas Foster: I wish the minister wouid give a calculation of just what the difference would be?


William Stevens Fielding: I would be glad to give it, but in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of the House and of the country, it will not affect the argument. We all knew when we established the mint that we could have our coins made much more cheaply in England, but we elected to have them made in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: Because the minister does not think it affects the argument, does he consider that the information should not be given?


Mr. FIELDING  .@: Certainly not. Of course this is a matter of opinion.


Samuel Hughes: The minister to that extent believes in the national policy of the Conservative party?


William Stevens Fielding: Probably it is time that somebody believed in it, because I believe that the Conservative organs are repudiating it.	'
We have no tariff changes to propose on this occasion. It is not because we have entered a claim that the tariff is perfect. I have no doubt that wherever you have a customs tariff necessarily as full and intricate as ours has to be, there will be room for criticism, and certainly always room tor demands for changes. But we are of the opinion that it is not in the best interests of the business of the country that there should be frequent changes. We believed that frequent tariff changes must have a disturbing influence on the business of the country and we wished to have it generally understood that wdrere there has been a general revision of the tariff, as we had only two years ago, the government would not" be disposed to make changes unless the need for them was very urgent indeed.
There is in our Tariff Act a provision which is alluded to in His Excellency's speech from the Throne;


William Stevens Fielding: 
William Findlay Maclean: Are the treasury bills issued in London or here?


William Stevens Fielding: In London. I have endeavoured, Mr. Speaker, to present concisely what I regard as the chief facts and figures necessary to the consideration of our financial position. I cannot hope that all I have said will be received with universal approval in this House, because I know that we look at some of these matters from different points of view; but as we 47
have all the same good purpose in view, that of promoting the welfare of Canada, I am sure that we shall unite in expressing our satisfaction with the happy and prosperous condition of affairs in Canada today. It must be a gratification to every good citizen to see so many favourable signs in the outlook of our country. The check which came upon us a year or two ago may have served a good purpose. Happily it has proved but temporary; happily it has not remained with us; and already there is a rapid recovery. We have, as we all know, a country of magnificent resources. We have known it long; but we have needed two things-population and capital. Both of these things are now coming to Canada. Population is coming from all quarters of the earth. It is coming in a very large degree from the neighbouring republic, and we rejoice in the character of the immigrants that country is sending back to Canada. Population is coming also from the old world. We can well rejoice that this long desired growth of population is coming to us. We have also desired capital, and that is coming to us too. There never was a time when there was more interest in Canadian affairs throughout the, world than there is to-day, or a greater willingness on the part of capitalists to invest in Canada. This is Canada's growing time. We have had growth in population, growth in wealth, growth in Canadian unity, growth in national status in the eyes of the world, growth in our sense of responsibility as citizens of a great empire. In all this growth we have reason to rejoice. But, what is better than all, we feel that this is but the beginning of greater things to come. To us as trustees of the Canadian people has been given the duty of moulding the _ destinies of the Canadian Dominion at a time when it has a formative character. Let us see to it, in the midst of our party strife, that at all times there rises above all the dominant note of a patriotic desire to do whatever is possible to promote the progress, prosperity and happiness of the Canadian people.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker: With the concluding remarks of the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding), I find myself, as I am sure do all hon. members on this side, in complete accord. It is a fact that sometimes party differences are exaggerated and party spirit leads to a one-sided and even unfair presentation of matters before the House. But when, apart from these things, we come to contemplate the larger questions of country and of empire, I hope that we may always be in a position to reciprocate the sentiment that has fallen from the lips of the Minister of Finance. I notice that the hon. Minister of Finance appeared a little more cheerful when he rose to present his bud-

shouldered into this House with great pride and pomp, when he appealed to the farmers of this country as to what the French treaty would do for them, the bur den of fat cattle has been dumped, the stockers are the only ones that are left, and they will have a jolly time geting into the French market, over a tariff of anywhere from $15 to $20 per head, and the uncertainty as to what interpretation of the tariff may be made by those who have the sole regulating power as to the entrance of our cattle into French ports. So we have not got very much from that. But we have loaded ourselves with $200,000 a year for a steamship subsidy to be paid to vessels running between this country and France; [DOT] that is in ten years $2,000,000 which my hon. friend the Finance Minister did not take into account, and which has to be provided for.
Well, there are some other things that have not been done. The state of trade between the United States and Great Britain and Canada, remains unrectified. That condition of things was very severely censured by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and his coadjutors in the olden times. They told us that it was neither patriotic nor loyal that we should be buying more from the United States than we were buying from Great Britain, and selling less to the United States than we bought from the United States. They loudly called for a tariff which would rectify that and put us in a better position. How do we stand to-day? In 1908 we bought from the United States $204,000,000 worth. They bought from us $90,000,000 worth, wherein the balance of trade aggregated the sum total of $114,000,000. In 1909 the unfavourable balance was reduced to $85,000,000, but the trade is now going up, and, as it goes up, the adverse balance with the United States will also increase. On the other hand, Great Britain bought from us a much larger amount than she sold to us, and gave us last year a favourable balance of trade of $55,500,000. Any one sees that the balance of trade which is favourable in the case of Great Britain, has to go to the extent of $55,500,000 to pay the adverse balance of trade against us from the United States, and it will still leave from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000 to be paid for in some other way. The point I wish to make is that these hon. gentlemen have not rectified that grave condition of things which they censured in our time, but that under their. administration it has been enlarged and aggravated to the degree which I have stated. To-day there is an adverse balance of trade with France of $5,000,000, with Germany of $4,500,000, with South America of $1,000,000, and with the West Indies of $3,500,000. The total balance of trade against us in Mr. FOSTER.
1908 was $104,000,000. It was reduced last year, because there were less imports, to $45,500,000. Now, though I am not going to say that Canada ought to be and that it is imperatively necessary mat she should be always in a position of having a favourable trade balance, I say that when, under any administration and its policy, you have an adverse balance continually increasing, something is wrong in connection with that trade policy and it ought to be the duty and endeavour of the government to so arrange its policy that this adverse balance should be made as small as possible, that it should be reduced instead of constantly advancing.
My hon. friend said that they had not raised the rate of duties. His favourite response always is: Oh, you are the party of high duties; we are the party of low duties. With the preachment of the Minister of Finance to-day in advocacy of bounties, the highest form of protection, the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) who still, I think, believes that we have a revenue tariff in this country-at least, he takes occasion to reiterate it each year-will find it very difficult indeed to persuade his constituents that under the leadership of the Finance Minister the day of free trade has not for ever passed away in this country. Well, what about that immense reduction of duties? Here are just some facts taken from the reports of the ministers themselves. From 1879, when the protective tariff was introduced, until 1896, when the Liberal-Conservative government went out of power, the average rate of duty on dutiable goods coming into this country was 28-35 per cent. In 1909 the average rate was 27-46 per cent. So it is a fact that in the last year of grace, under the administration of these hon. gentlemen who have so lowered the duties -to listen to themselves-their duty is 27 -46 per cent, as against an average of 28-35 per cent from 1879 to 1896. But taking into account, as I have a right to do, the bounty which is a special form of protection and which they take out of the treasury of the country, I find that in 1909 they have a rate of 28-72 per cent, and so they have actually reduced the rate of duty exactly 89-100t.hs of one per cent from the average of 1879-1896.	.	.
Now, I agree with my hon. friend in his statement with reference to the nature of the message which was sent to Congress a little while ago by President Taft. It was a reasonable message, it was a statesmanlike message, it was a message which gave, I think, to all countries the right to believe that whilst President Taft and his cabinet remain in power there will be no seeking for trouble with reference to the matter of discriminatory and compensating duties. I do not think a message could

have been fairer than his was on that point, and I quite agree with the Finance Minister in his characterization of what we may conclude from a perusal of it. At least, we will hope that it shall not be made an instrument of even menace to us in Canada. It remains, however, that the United States tariff, outside of President Taft entirely, has already penalized Canada with reference to her exports of both pulp and paper and has done that because of the conserving policy of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec which are looking to the preservation of their forests. So much then in reference to the United States, although this fact remains, and we might just as well state it, that the tariff of the United States, as compared with the tariff of Canada, does not give to Canada that fair trade to which she is entitled.
There is another situation in the trade point of view which is extremely interesting at the present time. That is the situation in Great Britain. I am not going to discuss British party politics for a single moment, but I think it is well for us to keep a few facts in mind. It is not more than five years ago, certainly not more than six years ago, that the right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain first promulgated his view, and a view not entirely and completely formed at that time, of what he thought might be or ought to be the fiscal relations of the mother country with the different parts of the empire and of the different parts of the empire with each other. Not more than five or six years ago did that idea receive the countenance and support of a first rate British statesman. Five or six years ago a first rate British statesman promulgated that idea in the face of a free trade England which had been free trade for forty or fifty years, and there did not then seem to be any great probability that such an idea would prevail. But five or six years have passed and what do we find. So rapid has been the change in public opinion, so rapid the progress of events, so strongly has the question" of empire and the treatment due to the different parts of the empire taken hold of the people of Great Britain and the empire, that to-day the South African colonies give a preference to the mother country, New Zealand gives a preference to the mother country, Australia gives a preference to the mother country, Canada gives a preference to the mother country, and we have at the present time in the mother country itself, one of the great historic political parties entering into an electoral contest in which the first plank in their platform is tariff reform, with the avowed purpose of using it to give to the colonies preferential treatment. That marks a rapidity of movement and change in the fiscal ideas of the mother country and the empire which one would
scarcely have ventured to prophesy^ a few years ago. And whether the Unionists or the Liberals are successful in the coming election-and I do not suppose any one wishes to hazard an opinion as to^ which it will be-I do not think it is going too far to say that the time is appreciably near when the policy of Great Britain will be cne which will enable her to give to the colonies a measure of preferential treatment in return for the measure of prefer sntial treatment which the colonies have given to her. Now, while I have every sympathy with the Minister of Finance in his endeavour, if he makes an honest endeavour, to advance the trade of Canada with other countries, I think it will be wise to be very careful in these different negotiations that we do not tie our hands .unnecessarily so as to make it more difficult for us to enter into that kind of partnership with the mother country, which, when the change comes in her fiscal policy which will enable her to do so, she will offer to us. Have we not everything to gain locally by an entrance into the markets of Great Britain on a preferred basis. It is not necessary for me to more than ask that question; no one will dissent. Not onlv have we locally much to gain but as believers in and lovers of the empire we know that the empire has much to gain by uniting its scattered Dominions more closely together.
In the way of evoking greater sympathy and greater practical interest, in the way of uniting more closely all the members of the empire one to the other and each to all we have very much to gain. Therefore I say that it is well that the Minister of Finance and the government should go slowly in making any entangling alliances for trade with other countries until at least we get more light upon what may take place in the future in Great Britain. Of course it may be said that we make these treaties subject to abrogation on certain notice, but it is equally true that it is more difficult to give notice of abrogation than it is to enter into a commercial treaty in the first place. Now, some people ask the question: Do you mean to sav that any power exists which can make a tariff for Canada outside of the parliament of Canada itself, and are you willing to go into any arrangement of that kind. The question may be fairly answered in this way:	There is no
body which can make a tariff for Canada outside of the parliament of Canada itself, but that did not bar the parliament of Canada itself from giving preferential treatment to Great Britain, and to Australia, and to the West Indies, and to New Zealand, and neither will it bar the parliament of the United Kingdom, from giving to Canada or Australia or New Zealand or any other of the over-seas Dominions a preferential entrance into her market. There-


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill -(No. 61) respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Cash.
Bill (No. 62) respecting the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.-Mr. R. Smith.
Bill (No. 63) respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern^ Railway Company of Canada. -Mr. Cash. '
Bill (No. 64) respecting the Ottawa Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Ethier.

["In its issue of December 2, 1909, the same paper says:\nThe American emigration to the Canadian Northwest, after having some time ago aroused attention, has begun to excite alarm; and an association has been formed in Chicago to check it, with the motto, ' Why go to Canada ' The immediate occasion for concern is the announcement that the northward current has continued to flow this year all through the fall, instead of letting up as usual. In August, September and October 13,781 American settlers arrived in Winnipeg, 48 per cent more than were received in those three months of 1908. It is said that 500,000 Americans have crossed the border in the last ten years.\nReferring to the motto of that Chicago congress, ' Why go to Canada?' I ask myself the question: Why do these American citizens, the very cream of the American farming population, and why do men in such large numbers from Britain and from the best parts of Europe, come to Canada? They come to Canada, in the first place, because of the natural advantages, the cheap lands we have to offer. They come, in the second place, because of the confidence they have in Canadian laws and the way in which we enforce our laws. They come in the third place, because this government, the Minister of the Interior, his deputy, the superintendent of immigration, and the Interior Department generally, have advertised in the most businesslike way the advantages which our country has to offer. So I say again that this government is entitled to the credit of bringing into the country the farmers who, the lion, member for North Toronto says, have saved the government and the country. Again I congratulate the Finance Minister upon the splendid budget which he has been able to present to-day and the splendid conditions which have enabled him so to do.\nMr. SPROULE moved the adjournment of the debate."]
George Eulas Foster: I wish now to make a few remarks, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of expenditures, a matter in which, probably more than in any other, this government has made dangerous progress and has shown a disposition to completely go back upon all the professions its party made in their days of opposition with lfcgard to principles, methods and conditions of expenditure. In making these remarks on the expenditures of the government, one cannot go so much into particulars as he would like; therefore 1 will confine myself to some general points. What first strikes us is the startling increase in expenditures from 1897 up. The Minister of Finance, this afternoon, in comparing the two administrations in relation to expenditure went on to show that _ the percentage of general expenditures provided for out of current revenue by the present government was greater than that provided for by the preceding government during their terms of office. It ought not to have

'been difficult for the Finance Minister to give a very good reason therefor. His own accounts were before him and a mere glance at the columns would have shown him that the present government has taken from the people by means of taxation about twice as much as did the preceding government. This government, therefore, had nearly twice as much revenue at its disposal, and if they made just about the same proportionate charges to current revenue, the percentages which were mentioned by the Finance Minister would just about establish equality. In the twelve and three-quarter years during which this administration has been in power, it has taken $618,000,000 in taxation from the country. In the last twelve and three-quarter years of the preceding administration they took only $340,000,000. That is, the present administration has taken nearly double the amount in taxation that their predecessors did, and on the same principle and .rule, they would disburse a much larger amount for what the minister calls capital and special expenditure. But the Minister of Finance spoke also of the conditions of the debt, and I would like to recall his attention and that of the House to a point which I made in a preceding debate. During the incumbency of the 1 .iberai-Conservative government, ' $118,000, COO was added to the public debt. Of that. $10,000,000 was incurred in adding a very valuable asset to this Dominion in the form of 7,500,000 acres of land in the west at about $1.50 an acre. If you count the $118,000,000 of addition to the debt on the one *ide, you must look on the other side also and consider the assets. Now, the assets lhat represent debt in the Dominion of Canada are not, as a rule, productive. Many cf them, instead of being productive, are the very opposite; they are wasting assets; they are continually depreciating and requiring not only the payment of interest on the first investment, hut the cost of upkeep and maintenance. In this case, an asset of real value was added to the country in the form of 7,500,000 acres of land which, if it had been reserved to this day would, counted at the moderate price! of $8 per acre, represent a value of $60,000,000. That, when pointed out, any fair-minded man would take into consideration. And, in connection with that, let me ask what live asset of any similar Value has the present government added to the resources of this country by the addition of any similar, or even greater, amount to the public debt? They have been often in haste to get rid of the lands of this country by selling them at remarkably small prices to favountes of the government. Here was a case in which the land was bought for the_ Dominion, and has remained and remains to this day as an asset, an asset Mr. FOSTER.
vdiich has greatly increased in value, and it represents certainly at a moderate calculation the amount which I have named.
The expenditure of this country in 1896, for all purposes, was $41,000,000; in 1897 the expenditure was $43,000,000 a very slight addition; but in 1909 the expenditure has gone up to the enormous sum of $133,000,000, a little more than three times the expenditure of 1896. It is altogether-easy, and just as futile as easy,'to say that the expenditure increased because the country has grown. The country is growing, and the country's expenditure must grow. But here is a growth in expenditure which exceeds all corresponding growth in population, or in any other way that you may mention. It is an inordinate increase in expenditure. When you come to the column which represents the expenditures of the Liberal-Conservative party, you will find that in 1873, to commence with that date which was about the time the Liberal government came into power, the expenditure was $39,000,000. In 1880 when the Liberal Conservatives were again in power, the total expenditure was $34,000,000. Now from 1880 to 1896 were periods of growth, of expansion, of building large public works, and it takes in the beginning and the completion of the first transcontinental railway, namely, the Canadian Pacific railway. And yet if you run through the columns of figures, you will find that the total expenditure keeps along in the thirty and forty millions. In 1880, as I have said, it was" $34,000,000; in) 1887, $41,000,000, and from 1887 to 1896, the average total expenditure was only $42,000,000. The great works which had to be undertaken and carried out, in the way of the enlargement of the canals, in building the Canadian Pacific railway, in construction of the Soo canal, and in subsidizing and building other branch lines of railway, all that was undertaken and carried out, and yet the absolute total expenditure for all purposes only increased from $34,000,000 in 1880 to an average of $42,000,000 from 1887 to 1896.
Now there is no parallel between that and the expenditure by this government. The Finance Minister says, we are also building a transcontinental railway. So you are, and you have paid out to end of the financial year some $51,000,000 for it. But do not forget the fact that the Liberal-Conservative government built the Canadian Pacific railway, in so far as public aids were given, and that this increased the total expenditures by $62,500,000. but this government has increased the total disbursements from $43,000,000 to $133,000,000 in twelve and three-quarter years. Therefore, there is no possible parallel between the two.
Let me put it in another way. From confederation up to the present date the Do-

minion of Canada has expended 1,985 million dollars. All the previous governments un to 1897 expended 1,063 millions of that; this present government, in its twelve and three-quarter years, has expended 922 millions. That is to say, in twelve and three-quarter years this government has spent to within 70 millions an amount equal to what the whole Dominion of Canada spent in the preceding 29 years. Is not that going it some? It is a startling thing when you come toi look at the figures; 922 millions in twelve and three-quarter years, 1,063 millions in the 29 preceding years. But great expenditures necessitate great taxation, great income, or that combined with great borrowings. So what is the record to-day with regard to taxation? This, that as regards receipts, 1,672 millions have been gathered from the Canadian people since confederation, 828 millions of this have been gathered in twelve and three-quarter years by this government, 844 millions was gathered in 29 years by all the governments preceding this. So this present government has gathered from the country, taking out of the pockets and earnings of the people, within 8 million dollars as much as was taken out of the pockets of the people for the 29 preceding years.
Now if you take the twelve and three-quarter years, what has been the average of population? Five and a half million people in twelve and three-quarter years has handed over to this government 828 million dollars, or an average of 65 millions per year. Now the Minister of Finance may make his divisions and calculations with regard to the net debt, and set forth how much it is per head. That proves nothing. The point is: What are you taking out of the individual taxpayer of this country? What are you taking out to-day? $11 to $12 per head, whereas in 1896 we took out a little less than $5.50 per head. This money you took out is money that comes from the man's earnings, it is so much abstracted from his capital. There ought to be no reason in the world for taking it except that it is absolutely necessary that the aggregate of the people of this country should be governed and, that they should pay for it. Yet you have taken this immense amount of money, $65,000,000 per year during the last twelve and three-quarter years, or a total of 922 millions, and in addition to that are the borrowings you have provided for.
Now when any man looks around, goes through the books, looks around this country and asks what we have got for the 922 millions of expenditure in twelve and three-quarter years, he finds it difficult to answer that question. What have we got that stands and is useful to this country, and is
either productive or stimulating? What have you? It is a debated question as to whether the Grand Trunk Pacific, as regards the portion from Lake Superior junction to Moncton, is a stimulant to this country, or will be productive within very many years. But even that represents to the end of the present financial year only $51,000,000. What have you to show for the $922,000,000 less the $51,000,000, that has been spent in the twelve and three-quarter years? We cannot escape from the conviction that millions of it have been worse spent than wasted. We are in no condition to absolutely prove this, thanks to the repressive system of the government. By a mistake the government- appointed a commission which -went a little beyond its contemplated duty and lifted the lid in one of the departments. It showed a department without business methods, with the grossest extravagance and with a lack of conscience. Arguing from that this side of the House pressed for an investigation in other departments. Why not? The other departments are the stewards of the people, managing the money of the people.- Was there any reason at all why the people should not know how that money had been used, how these stewards had managed? If they had managed wisely, if they had expended that money properly, the people would have seen that they had done so and would have praised them. What did the government fear? And yet with absolutely similar conditions, this side of the House and the people of the country were debarred entirely from auditing, in any kind of a fair way of examination by independent parties, the $922,000,000 which has been expended by this government in twelve and three-quarter years. Now, Sir, I wish to say a little more as to special expenditures. I take public works. The public works of this country, during the Liberal-Conservative administration, had expended upon them an average of $2,000,000 per year. When this government came into power, for a few years it made an expenditure of about $4,000,000 per year. Then a change took place and I am going to ask the House, in the first place, to listen to a table, which will be printed in ' Hansard,' as to the progress of expenditures on consolidated fund account in all of the departments and then make a few more extended remarks in reference to one or two of these departments. The table is as follows :



[Stage Direction]
-	1896.	1909.	Increase.Miscellaneous.	$	$	p. c.Administration of Jus-	tice	
Agricultural and Sta-	758,270	1,240,364	63tistics	210,877	1,403,569	665Civil Government	1,396,628	3,283,265	135Fisheries	427,250	951,728	123Geological Survey	52,668	247,659	370Immigration	120,199	972,326	700Quarantine	95,247	121,665	30Indians	
..	880,408	1,307,245	50Legislature	904,687	1,543,327	70Light Houses, &c	
Mail and Steamship	466,057	2,721,801	500Subsidies	534,916	1,684,683	200Militia	1,136,713	5,221,644	360Ocean & River {Service.	181,451	1,201,804	560Pensions	86,080	191,532	120Public Works	1,299,768	12,300,184	850Scientific Institutions..	81,669	453,921	570Collection of Revenue.	Customs	896,332	1,994,951	122Dominion Lands	119,908	548,607	357Inspection Staples	2,576	160,184	6.000Post Office	3,665,011	6,592,386	175Public Works	159,460	625,034	280Railways and Canals ..	3,725,609	10,780,125	190

[Stage Direction]
Mis- cellaneous.	Collective Revenue.	Total.§	i	$1896 .. .. 1909 ....	1,299,768 12,300,184	159,460 625,054	1,459,228 12,925,218Increase..	11,000,416	465,574	11,465,9901, p. c..	850	280	785Average Expend iture 1873-1883	$m	n	1883-1900	"	it	1900-1904	H	ii	1905	ii	i,	1906	ii	..	1908	ii	ii	1909	
1.300.000 2,000,000 4,000,000
6.765.000 7,484,715 8,721,326
12,300,000
la eight and three-quarter years, $57,000,000 have been expended on miscellaneous public works alone. I say that this expenditure is inordinate. It is indefensible and you cannot point with your finger to the compensatory advantages, to the compensatory product of stimulus or of use to warrant the expenditure of this amount of money. Not only are we startled by the Mr. FOSTER.
great increase in these expenditures, but, Sir, there are other things that might be said about this expenditure on public works. It applies to a great many expenditures but particularly to the expenditure on public works. In the first place there is no plan upon which these expenditures are made. There is no setting down by a competent authority, or competent board, and taking into account the amount of money it would be wise to spend, taking into account the needs of the services for which alone the money should be spent, taking into account the localities which are to be served and in the line of precedent. There is no such thing as that at all. No country in the world proceeds to its expenditure upon public works on the haphazard and secret plan on which this Dominion of Canada proceeds. There is absolutely no publicity in the matter. It is a matter between the candidate, or the person pressing for the expenditure and the minister who has charge of the expenditure. The expenditure is warranted by the government before the House or any body else outside of it has any knowledge of the thing at all.
Once the government comes down with these estimates it is impossible in 99 cases out of 100 to change an estimate in the least. In the United States, where we think they have been pretty extravagant, no congressman can get an appropriation for public works by simply going to a minister and buttonholing him. He has to submit his resolution that it is wise to have a public building built in a certain place; he has to substantiate that before a responsible committee and that committee has the oversight of the whole amount that is to be expended during any one year. Congressman A or Congressman B does not get $20,000 for a post office by going to the minister and persuading him to put it in the estimates; he has to go before the committee, which has the examination into all the appropriations for all public buildings, and which considers the reasons for the expenditure and then decides what amount of money will be expended at any particular place. Then and not till then does it go into the estimates. But worse than all that, we had a singular instance in this House the other day; worse than I have ever known it before; we had a proposal which was well understood and heard by the Minister of Finance who to-day prided himself upon being a trustee for the people and of sitting here in that capacity. What was this proposal? It was to spend $20,000 or $25,000 of the people's money. What for? For a post office. What was the postal revenue of the place? $700 in the year all told. The question was asked of the Minister of Public Works: Has the Postmaster General asked for it? The answer was:

No. The Minister of Public Works buttonholed by somebody puts in an appropriation of $20,000 or $25,000 for what he calls a post office in a place where to-day there is a postal revenue of $700 annually, and where the present postal accommodation is rented for exactly $38 a year. And when the Minister of Public Works is questioned he admits that no post office authority has told him that they need a post office in that place to carry on their business. Is not that a perfectly outrageous way of proceeding? Is there any other sane legislative body in the world that would do that kind of thing? Who should be the judge of the necessity for a post office? The post office authorities themselves and nobody else. The post office authority is absent in Europe, his officers are present here, but neither he there nor one of his officers here has ever signed a scrap of paper asking for the erection of a post office in that town. There was another proposition .brought into the House by the Minister of Public Works to build a new examining warehouse in the -city of Quebec. It was to cost about $500,-
000.	He wanted a vote of $50,000, he thought it would be best to change off the old and get a new site and if so this $50,000 was to go towards the building. The Minister of Public Works proposed to get a vote of $50,000, which would authorize him to proceed to spend if he thought it was best, $500,000 for a customs building. The Minister of Customs came into the House and it was brought out in the course of the questioning that the Minister of Customs had never asked for this building, that he absolutely knew nothing about it, except that the old building had had a fire in it and that it must be repaired in order that his men could do their work. These are not isolated cases, they are pattern cases. Over and over again this session and last we have cornered the Minister of Public Works in his appropriations for buildings, and we have had him admit time and again that the Minister of Customs never asked for this and the Postmaster General never asked for that, and the departmental administrator knew nothing about it. And when he was brought to book the Minister of Public Works justified the action by saying that every country seat ought to have a building costing from $20,000 to $25,000. Well, the meaning of that plainly is that the government is not erecting public buildings for the use of the service but for patronage purposes, sticking up one in every county town whether it is necessary or not. That is the system upon which this immense expenditure in the Public Works has grown up chiefly, until it is to-day $12,000,000 under the administration of the present minister. Does not this House think that before a
public building is erected the departmental head of the department which requires the use of it ought to express an opinion upon its necessity? Does not the House think there ought to be some board which would take all these matters into consideration and appropriate these moneys for publfc buildings? Look at the iniquity of putting up a $25,000 building somewhere in the country where there is a yearly revenue of not more than $700, and not asked for by the Postmaster General, and not required for the needs of the postal service. What does it mean? It means that the trustee Minister of Finance sitting yonder allows to be taken out from under his key where he has it in charge $25,000 of the people's money for a mere matter of paltry petty patronage; that is what it means, nothing more and nothing less. On the other hand you have a city like Lethbridge, which has a postal revenue of $20,000 and more, which has absolutely no decent place where people can get their mail matter, and yet there is no post office building there, good or bad, and there is no proposition to put one there. But, because the member representing Lethbridge happens to be on this side of the House he must go chasing around for ever looking for the just rights of his city. Well, neither the member for Lethbridge should have to chase around looking'"for suitable accommodation for the postal service in his city nor should the other man get a post office in his village for patronage purposes, but, when such buildings are necessary in the public interest the Minister of Public Works and the Postmaster General should consult together and decide first that the building was necessary, and in the second place, the kind of building suitable for the conditions of the public service in that particular place. Where are we to come out at if we keep going along in this way? One can learn much by keeping his eyes and his ears open in this House. I heard a minister state in the House the other day that $27,700 was expended for a piece of dredging and he believed there	was more dredging to
be done there which meant more cost. What are you getting? A channel from five to eight feet deep. Who is using it? One gasoline launch and one steam vessel- but there was a great paucity of information as to what particular amount of business that gasoline launch and that steam vessel were carrying on. There will be probably $40,000 or $50,000 of the people's money for which those gentlemen are trustees expended for what reason? Any broad purpose of commerce? No, I venture to say expended where no men of a corporation would dare to expend the money which was given to them by their shareholders
[Stage Direction]
and justify it to their shareholders "when they met them. I could go on and give examples of that kind of thing for hours upon hours. Examples of this are in our estimates through and through, they are in our public accounts and have been for years. I think this thing ought to he mended, that the 'government itself, for very shame's sake, ought to provide some business-like method of constructing its public works and ought to at least have a consultation of the heads of the departments that are nominally and in practice to be served by the construction of these works. As an example we may take a little item for dredging for which some $42,000 or $45,000 have been paid. This is for a little place down in New Brunswick, a portion of a small lake. I believe they got five feet of navigation, perhaps more. I know ' the place well, and no business man will go there and tell you that you should have spent one red cent upon dredging in that locality, it is absolutely thrown away, given to a friend of the government-and to a friend of the government who puts his money in large quantities into the support of the government and the support of organs which support the government. I am willing to make this challenge to the Prime Minister, to pick out any three business men, add to them an expert, send them down there and let them report to him; and I am willing to stake my reputation that their report will be that no trustees or the people's money who have a proper regard for their duties would have allowed a single dollar of that kind of expenditure. Will the government take the challenge? But I turn off from that very fertile subject, I hope we shall hear more about it before this session is over, and I come to anotner point.
If there is one thing that these hon. gentlemen pride themselves on more than another it is their business management of the affairs of this country. I have heard them boast that their management is a business management, and I have heard their supporters boast, sometimes, thinking it to be true, that their course of administration in a business point of view was a marvel of business ability and of business methods. I want to adduce just a few examples of what these gentlemen have undertaken and of what they have done and what they have failed to do-just one out of maybe a hundred pertinent examples that might very well be called to mind.
First let me take their management of the Yukon Territory and ask whether it has been a very brilliant phase of their administration? These gentlemen came into the possession of an awakened and partly explored Yukon. They entered upon its administration and declared in this House Mr. FOSTER.
over and over again, that they were going to make the Yukon pay for the Yukon, dollar for dollar, and would make it even a source of revenue. Let us go to the record and see what happened. In 1901 this government had a revenue of $1,993,982 from the Yukon and made an expenditure of $1,254,156, leaving a surplus for that year of $739,826. From 1894 to 1900 there had accumulated a surplus in the Yukon management of $940,769. That is, at the end of 1901 this government had a surplus of $1,680,595 in their hands as a result of the previous management and previous conduct of the Yukon. What happened afterwards? Come down to this present year, take the whole of the operations from 1894 to 1909 and you find that the total net deficit amounts to $2,236,367. Taking all that came in and all that went out they have expended in the Yukon $2,236,367 more than they received since 1902. But in 1901, they had a surplus of $1,680,000. From 1901 to 1909 they got rid of that surplus and they landed in a deficit such as I have named so that they get away with $4,916,962 in their management of the Yukon in eight years. Is that brilliant management? You had about 30,000 or 38,000 people there in 1901. How many have you to-day? Eight thousand-I think I would be nearer if I said 5,000. You had an income in gold of $22,700,000. What have you now? Two and a half millions or two and three-quarter millions, something like that. Yet the very last year of your administration there, whilst you got a revenue of $572,650, you took care to spend $837,015 and made a deficit that last year of $264,365. Is that brilliant business management? It costs to-day, according to the figures I have read, nearly $170 per head of the people of the Yukon to administer it for a single year.
Let us take another instance. There was the Stickeen-Teslin railway arrangement. This government entered into a straight and fast contract just on tne eve of the assembling of parliament. Parliament looked intp that contract, parliament did not approve of it and held it up. Force was strong enough to put it through this House, but force was not strong enough to put it through the Senate. As a result it did not go through parliament, and after the government got their majority in the Senate they did not attempt to put it through. What happened? They had to pay $282,323 to Mackenzie & Mann for breach of contract or for damages. That money went out from the hands of these trustees and what good ever came to the country from it? Wouldn't it have been better if they had brought the proposition down and threshed it out in the House before they made the hard and fast contract which bound them in the end to pay these dam-

ages? Was that brilliant management on the part of a board of trustees? Then there was the Drummond Counties railway. Their own minister came to this House with the sanction of his colleagues, and told this House: 'I can buy the Drummond Counties railway for $2,100,000 or a little more.' This House questioned the justice of the payment; the other House not only questioned it, but examined into it, and held it up for a year. The next year their own minister, with their sanction, bought the same property under better conditions for $800,000 less than he wished us to pay for it the year before. Was that brilliant trusteeship? If the shareholders had not got in on that transaction we would have been out from $800,000 to $1,000,000 more than we are.
Then there comes the Quebec bridge. This is fresh in the minds of all. The Quebec bridge, from the very moment of its inception, was known to be on a great line of traffic, a most important link between the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence, between the great west and the farther east. What happened? To the company which never put in more than $200,000 of stock, which only paid up a fraction of that, until and aLer it was forced to years later by the government, they made advances and loans of nearly $7,000,000. They omitted the slightest precautions of having proper supervising en-gineership. The bridge fell down one fine day, and some 75 people were drowned. The government woke up. They woke up in two ways. In the first place," they paid to this company, which gambled on the prospect of making a lot of money out of the transaction, by controlling a line that was necessary, and terminals which were to be added to it. They paid them back in full all the stock they had subscribed for. They paid them five per cent for the time they subscribed for the stock until they got their money.. They then added ten per cent of a bonus, so that they would not have any wounded feelings, pocketing the $7,000,000 of loss. They then brushed up and looked into the matter in a businesslike way, and since then they have spent $100,000 on examination and engineering, owing to the loss occasioned bv their failure to supervise and provide proper engineering ability at an earlier stage. They now have found out that what their company had passed as sufficient foundations for the Quebec bridge are not sufficient, and a $2,000,000 contract is invoked for better piers, new abutments and better foundations. There is $9,000,000 gone before you commence your superstructure. What that will cost I do not know; but putting it at $5,000,000, that makes up an expenditure of $14,000,000, of which over $7,000,000 is an absolute
loss-why? Because the work was begun and carried out in a fashion that no trustees for any estate or corporation would have descended to for a single moment.
Then there was the Newmarket canal, which is a euphemism for the Aylesworth ditch. There are the trustees-they face me now. The trustees are taking a million and a quarter of the moneys of the estate for which they are trustees and are putting it into the Aylesworth ditch. No water, little population, no traffic-an absolute waste, and the worst kind of a waste, because it lies in plain, open sight. If they wanted to make a spectacle like that, why didn't they do it away from the settled portions of the country, where it would not have been seen every day by people who travel? In the bottom of his heart the Minister of Railways is ashamed of it. The Prime Minister, who is the head trustee, has never deigned to show what is to be carried on that canal when a million and a quarter of money is to be put into it. They have been challenged over and over again, and yet none of them has the backbone to stand up now, before more than $300,000 has been spent, and say: ' we made a mistake, we have sunk $300,000, but, by George, we will not sink the other $900,000.' Whilst in the west, I took an automobile trip down the Red river to see a very notable, noted, or notorious work, called the St. Andrew's lock. There you have a very fine work. The total cost of it, I believe, is to be over $600,000.
Mr. BRADBURY.: A million and a half.


Mr.   POSTER@: Six hundred thousand dollars has been spent now.


George Henry Bradbury: Over a million.


George Eulas Foster: It is worse than I thought it was. Supposing we put it at a million or a million and a quarter. Has the Prime Minister ever seen it?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have not had that privilege.	.


George Eulas Foster: Has the Prime Minister ever inquired into it?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: That is a very weak reply. The Prime Minister is head trustee for the people of Canada. Will he now justify his conduct as head trustee for the people of Canada in sinking a million and a quarter of money in the St. Andrew's locks? Of that amount, $200,000 is for a highway bridge, for which no vote was ever taken, and that bridge lies there in its naked steel splendor, thirty-five or forty feet up in air from the road on either side. I want to ask the Prime Minister, as head trustee for the people of Canada, to tell me to-night if he can get any three business men in the city of Winnipeg to put within his hand any justification, on the traffic

150Q
that exists at present or on the business which may be expected in the near future, for the expenditure of a million and a quarter of money on that work? It is one of the finest pieces of concrete masonry and steel that I ever saw; but where is the business to come from? It is an absolute waste of public money at the present time. Was that brilliant work, when the head trustee himself does not know a thing about it? Who does know? Somebody; and somebody ought to have told it.
Take another example on a rather different line. Was it a particularly brilliant piece of business when. these trustees of Canada's state took it into their heads one fine .day to sell 250,000 acres of Saskatchewan valley land-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) laughs. That shows how serious a question he considers this to be-for $1 an acre, one-half in scrip? What was the plea offered to the House to justify selling for that small amount? That it was arid land, nearly desert, and not fitted for settlement. I passed through that region this summer. Of all the regions in the west, you will not pick out many that, over a greater length and breadth, comprise such good lands as these, lands of greater production, greater fertility.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: I am glad to hear the applause; repeat it please-or actually yielding larger crops. Along that line I conversed with one man who had raised
30,000	bushels, and he told me that his neighbour probably had 5,000 more than he had. Now, these hon. gentlemen opposite say: 'Hear, hear, hear, hear'. But is it within the range of possibility that lands that five years ago, were desert and unusable for cultivation, have changed their quality and capabilities and have suddenly blossomed into fertility? If so how does it come about? There have been dry and partly desert lands that were made to blossom like the rose by the application of the principle of irrigation. But no irrigation was applied to these lands, the soil was just as good when the sale was made as it is to-day. And on the records are the opinions of the government's own trusted employee, there to be read for all time, that that land was good land and that if experimented upon it would prove its*lf to be good land. When the land was sold, these records were before the minister who made the sale. And the land was not even put up at auction, but was sold at private sale for $1 per acre, partly scrip. And to-day the value would average, along the length and breadth of this tract, probably $10, $15. even $20 an acre. There was at least $2,000,000 which should have been an increment to the public Mr. FOSTER.
treasury, absolutely squandered by these trustees.
Well, is it necessary to mention the 'Arctic', with its expenditure up to the present time of $400,000 with its large feeding operations, its great stowage capacity, the quantity of words that have been used about it contrasted with the minimum of benefit that has come from it?- and the reminder of it ever before us in the form of an extraordinary tablet put up somewhere between here and the library, commemorating the adventures of one Captain Bernier.
And what shall we say of the Port Col-borne arrangement?-and now I would like the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) for fear I would go wrong. As I read the record the Department of Public Works spent on that work $904,459, and the Railways and Canals Department spent $1,700,000 besides. If these figures be correct, we find that the country has there an investment of over $2,600,000. Will any one tell me what is going on at Port Colborne by virtue of that expenditure of $2,600,000 of the people's money? I am wrong if I did not hear an intimation not long ago from the Minister of Railways himself-it may have been in this House- that the time had come when the Welland canal should be deepened, that it was a necessary work and must be done. And when asked whether Port Colborne would be of much use there after, I think his answer was what it self-evidently would be. But what purpose, in the production or transport of this country, is now being fulfilled by Port Colborne which would justify $2,600,000 of the people's money being put into it? At ten per cent, which is a small allowance in the case of such works for interest and depreciation, this represents a burden of $260,000 a year upon the people. But it is manifest now that the thing was built before all the circumstances and conditions were taken into account. And, as it stands, is it a particularly bril-lant achievement for this government? I hope it may pay for its cost and its maintenance, but that it has paid up to the present time, or ever will pay, is, I think, exceedingly doubtful.
Let us then, come to the Intercolonial. Now, the Intercolonial is above ground, not to be washed away by the sea or its roadbed taken from it except at the will of the government itself. There it is and there it has been for years. From 1893 to 1896, under Liberal-Conservative rule, the net deficit on that road was $25,354, an average of $6,438 per year. The capital expenditure in that period of four years was $981,485, an average of $245,371. This government comes in and takes hold of the Intercolonial. They have men of business capacity among them and know how to manage railways, they are a business govern-

ment. And what is their record? From 1897 to 1903, the net deficit of the Intercolonial was $350,303, an average of $50,040. In 1904, the deficit was $900,751. From 1905 to 1909, the net deficit was $2,330,000, an average of $446,000 a year. In that time, $33,100,000 has been expended on capital account, an average of $2,550,000 a year. The last year of its operation has shown a deficit of over $800,000. This is shown more clearly in tabular form:
I. C. Railway.
Deficits and Capital Expenditure.
Years.	Net Deficit..	Average per Year.	Capital Expendi- ture.	Average Capital Expenditure per Year.9	$	$	91893-96.	25,345	6,438	981,485	245,3711897-03.	350,303	50,0401	1904....	900,751	900,751 l	33,100,000	2,550,0001905-09.	2,230,000	446,000)	
This period of 1897 to 1909 we have described to us in panegyrics of praise by the Minister of Finance no later than this afternoon. It marks the highest level of Canadian development, trade and prosperity. Yet, during that high-water-mark, this Intercolonial railway has been so mismanaged that it had eclipsed all its previous records for deficits and all previous records for capital expenditure. The deficit is of the enormous amount I have mentioned. What is the trouble? It certainly is not brilliant management. But there is another point to be taken into account as illustrated by the following table:
I. C. Railway.
Statement of Capital Cost, Carrying Interest, Deficit and Total Burden.
(12J Years Liberal Administration.)
Year.	Capital Cost.	Interest on Capital Cost at 4 p.c.	Deficit, for Year.	Total Burden for Year.$	$	$	$1897....	50,000,000	2,000,000	59,940	2,059,9401909....	81,540,000	3,261,600	800,952	4'062,552Increase in 12f years.	31,540,000	1,261,600	741,012	2,002,612
In 1897 when these gentlemen took hold of the railway, it had cost up to that _ time $50,000,000. The burden of carrying it at four per cent interest was therefore $2,000,000; the deficit that year was $59,940. The burden upon the people therefore was $2,059,940 that year. Now this government has been in up to 1909, and what happens in 1909? The cost of the railway is $81,540,000 on capital account; four per cent interest bn that is $3,261,600; the deficit, $800,952; the total burden, $4,062,552. Does it not startle you when you think about it?
Now what happens in Australia? A paragraph in the press of to-day says that in Australia, where the government owns the roads, a sparser population by far, many more difficulties, yet the earnings this last year were over $20,000,000; the net revenue was $8,600,000. They paid all interest, all pensions, all running expenses, and put $1,143,837 to the credit of the railway in the consolidated fund.


Mr. GRAHAM.: If the hon. gentleman will give the Intercolonial the Australian rates and conditions, we will give him a surplus of more than $1,000,000 a year.


George Eulas Foster: The matter has been in the absolute management of this government from 1897 onward. What kind of a plea is it for the minister to rise now and say: If we had done so and so, we might have had so and so. They were free as the trustees of the people's property they were managing that road, and this is the way they have managed it. But it is not all because the rates are not as high as the rates are in Australia. I bring the Prime Minister, 'ttie head trustee, as witness. What does he say in the city of Toronto? He says we have had good Ministers of Railways on both sides of the House, and there has always been a deficit. Why? Because the system under which it is managed is viciops. It is not the fault of the minister, it is the fault of this system. Yet with plenary power these gentlemen have managed that road from 1897 to 1909, and they have not changed the system. I will tell the minister where his deficit comes in, or I will give him an authority to which he will pay attention. He cannot discuss the authority in the way of disparagement, it would not be proper, neither do I think it would be just. Here is a gentleman who knows and who says:
The Intercolonial is administered by the members for the different counties through which the road runs, or rather by the election workers of those counties. Patronage is the real cause of the deficit under all regimes. In the first place, the member is besieged and he in turn lays siege to the minister. If such and such a one does not get a situation he is sure to lose 25 votes or more in such and such

a parish. Those who know anything, and have taken part in electoral contests, realize qnite well that a great number, most, in fact, of those who seek to obtain these situations have never been able to make their way in business, or to make their way in the world. There are perhaps exceptions, but it is the general rule. Then there are the contracts, the purchases-
For instance, the Lodge purchases, the Pearson purchases, the Merwin purchases, and all that kind of purchases.
-the tariffs, all of which are regulated from a political point of view. Last year, for instance, (1901), we had the general elections, and they must have cost the Intercolonial at least $500,000.
Who is the author? J. Israel Tarte.
Does the Prime Minister scout that author?


Wilfrid Laurier: When did Mr. Tarte say that?


George Eulas Foster: In 1905, when I believe he was a trusted colleague of my right hon. friend.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, he was not at that time.


George Eulas Foster: Had he just been turrfed out? Was my right hon. friend just then in a mode of disciplining ministers who had an unfortunate penchant for stating the honest truth? Men like the Minister of Customs were going around saying we had a revenue tariff; men like the Prime Minister were declaring that we were on the road to free trade as they have it in England; men like the Finance Minister were half and half, always apologizing, always in the line of defence. But Mr. Tarte was honest. He said to his colleagues, you know you are practising protection, is it a sin for me to tell the people that we are? Do you so discount and disparage honesty as to make me a deceiver before the people? I will not do it, I will tell the truth. He told the truth, and he ceased to be a member of the cabinet; he was disciplined. Yet to-day Mr. Tarte has his revenge. If his spirit seeks these halls, and if that spirit understood the fervid and suppliant speech of the Minister of Finance this afternoon, his argument for the righteousness of bounties and the efficiency of payments of that kind, then at least Mr. Tarte has his revenge.
Now suppose we go a little further. From 1897 to 1909 the net deficit has been $3,481,000 under this government and besides they have added $33,000,000 capital expenditure. But this does not take in the Prince Edward Island Railway. The Prince Edward Island railway has a record much the same, although not to so large an extent.


George Eulas Foster: The following tables are illuminating:
P. E. I. Railway.
Statement of Capital Cost, Carrying Interest, Deficits and Total Burden.
Year.	Capital Cost.	Interest at 4 p.c.	Deficit.	Burden.$	%	$	%1897....	3,740,000	149,600	87,046	236,0061909....	8,259,033	331,360	89,010	420,370Increase in 12f rears.	5,559,033	181,760	1,964	183,764
P. E. I. Railway.
Statement of Deficits and Capital Expenditure.
Y ears.	Net Deficit.	Average Deficit.	Capital Expendi- ture.	Average Capital Expendi- ture.9	$	9	91S93-96.	294,500	73,600	Nil.	Nil.1897-09.	989,720	76,100	4,508,461	347,000
In brief, the deficit from 1897 to 1909 on the Prince Edward Island railway has averaged $76,100 per year. The capital expenditure has been $4,508,461, an average of $347,000 each year. The capital cost of the road was $3,740,000 in 1897; the interest on it at 4 per cent would be $149,600, the deficit was $236,606. In 1909 the capital cost was $8,259,033, the interest $a31,360, the deficit was $89,001, the burden $420,370, showing the same sinister gain in the burden of that railway under the management of the Minister of Railways.
Now if we ask ourselves why it is that the Intercolonial cannot be made to pay, is there anything in its circumstances that prevents it? Look at the Intercolonial. It passes through a well populated country. It has on its line, commencing with Sydney and Halifax, the towns in Nova Scotia, with St. John and the towns along the north shore, coming up into Quebec, and making its terminus in the city of Montreal, favoured with population, favoured with business which, taken in connection with its tourist capabilities, certainly make it a road which ought to pay at least its working expenses, and the improvement put upon it. No interest paid, no dividend paid, $33,000,000 of capital expenditure and a deficit of $3,481,000-even under these conditions of no interest and no dividend. It is*

simply a plain matter of business management. It can be made to pay, only this government does not seem to be working in that line. Then, what has happened? Not content with running the Intercolonial railway in that way, these gentlemen have come down and they have pledged $26,900,000 of the people's money to build a parallel and competing line of railway from the city of Quebec down to Moncton. What is your $26,900,000 railway going to do there? Going to take through traffic? What does the Minister of Railways say?-we cannot make the Intercolonial railway pay because we cannot hitch it on to the through traffic. But the way to make it pay is to establish a competing line and put $26,-
900,000	of the people's money into that competing line ! That is one way to make it pay. Would the trustee of an estate manage the estate in that way? I do not believe it and I do not believe that the people in this country- have yet got down into their minds the extravagant, aimless, unbusinesslike way in which this government that pretends to business management, has been carrying on the affairs of this country.
If the House will bear with me a minute more I would just like to touch the Grand Trunk Pacific, which is the last child of my right hon. friend and a boy whom he expects to grow up, live for ever, and bestow constant praises upon his parent. I think I do not hazard any statement that is extreme when I say that the manner in which the government went into the construction of this railway did not argue foresight, business management or common prudence. What engineering or other knowledge had they of a large portion of the route which they determined by drawing a line on the map was to be followed by that railway. In reference to the Quebec-Moncton section, what necessity in the world was there for putting $26,900,000 of money there instjead of 'faking $8,000,000 or $10,000,000 and putting "the present Intercolonial railway in a first-class position, quite sufficient to carry all the traffic that would follow in the wake of this development? But, if there is one thing more than another in which these trustees have failed in their duty to their stockholders it is in this that their information was so faulty that it deceived their stockholders. The chief trustee and his lieutenant the Finance Minister, came before this House and the fpeople of the country and declared that you could build that section of the road from Moncton to Winnipeg for $51,000,000, or a little more. Is there any doubt about that? When the Prime Minister was questioned as to how he knew that, what information he had, he said they had mountains of information and he pledged his word to the people that that was a fair calculation of the cost. I hove put some questions on the Order 48
Paper. I have, the result of those questions here from the Minister of Railways and Canals and they show that from Winnipeg t) Lake Superior Junction the total expenditure will be $20,984,690, that from Lake Superior Junction to Quebec, $66,473,171 is the estimated expenditure, of which twenty-seven and a third millions have been already spent. That makes $87,457,361 from Winnipeg to Quebec. Then from Quebec to Moncton the total cost, as given by the Minister of Railways and Canals, most of it spent, some estimated, is $26,935,902, which makes in all, $114,393,763, which is the latest estimate after half of the expenditure has been made, or may be a little more as the total cost of that portion of the line. Contrast that with your $51,000,000, which was estimated by the right hon. gentleman and by the Minister of Finance and put forward in circular form to the shareholders and stockholders and upon which circular information shareholders and stockholders voted them the power to carry out .the expenditure. Is that brilliant management? is it honest management ? I am talking about honesty in this way, that before a trustee or director will commit his stockholders to a large exnenditure he should regard it as his bounden duty to know the ground upon which he stands. Did these gentlemen know the ground upon which they stood, did they take any pains to find out the ground upon which they stood? Because they did not they mislead their shareholders and stockholders and I say it was not honest treatment in the true sense of the word which demands that before you draw your shareholders into an investment you must exhaust all proper measures for getting information upon which y-our plan is presented to them. Well, Sir, that is not all the cost. I am not going into the calculation of interest, but it strikes any one that the interest calculated by the Minister of Finance and adhered to by the Prime Minister on their small computation of the cost will be doubled and more than doubled on this actual fulfilment of the cost; so that you have to add probably three times as much for interest as you would have had to on the lesser computation of cost. Then you have the Quebec bridge, which has to be considered now as part of the line, and at least $14,000,000 will be necessary for that, which makes the cost of that connection from Winnipeg to Moncton $128,800,000. To this add several millions for terminals at Quebec and Winnipeg. I ask the business men of this country whether they consider that this is brilliant, businesslike administration? It would be sufficient in a company to have these directors succeeded quickly by others and I am not sure that it would not go even much farther than that. One thing I noticed when I was in the AVest, and it is this: There is a whole area of country up there



that they call the two-track country. What does it mean? The Prime Minister, when he advised his directors and shareholders to go into that project told them that this was to open up new territory, to use his own words at Winnipeg, it was to plunge into new territory: wdiat it really means is that from Winnipeg to Edmonton and, maybe some distance beyond, lines of railway cross and intercross for hundreds of mites and you never are practically out of sight of the Canadian Northern or the Canadian Pacific railway and in many cases you can drop a pea from your car window on to the track of the Canadian Pacific railway. There is an extensive country into which the farmers are rushing to use their brawn and their muscle to till the soil, and there are two railroads with elevators here and elevators across the street, a double set of railroads and a double set of elevators, and r:o competition notwithstanding that. What an outrageous thing it is that when that section of the country was absolutely provided for by lines of railway already running, or existing under charter and being built, that Canada should have spent millions upon millions of dollars in paralleling lines of transport which were already quite sufficient for the country through which they passed, to the neglect of other equally fertile country which is without a mile of railway. And to the latest day of Canadian history, as in a less degree no man will pass by the Newmarket canal without curling the lip of scorn, so Sir, there is one monument which is certain for all time to my right hon. friend-it is the fact, that when he had large power, and large confidence, and the people's money in his hand, in that great northwest which longs for new avenues of transportation in territory not served by railways, he had seen fit to parallel for 800 miles or more existing lines of railway. Is that business management? And, in view of all these things which I have mentioned and which are but one hundredth part of what one might mention, I put it to the House, and I put it to the people of the country, whether it is not time for a change?


Mr. H. H. MILLER (South Grey).: We have had to-day the statement of the Finance Minister, from which we learn that the surplus that now may well be estimated for the present year is $16,500,000, that the expenditure has been reduced to the extent of as nearly as may be the same amount, that the addition to the public debt has been $17,500,000 and only that, notwithstanding that $20,000,000 have been expended this year on the Transcontinental railway. We have the statement of the Finance Minister to-day that the net public debt of Canada is now, not $50-82 as in 1896, but $45-85, a decrease per capita of Mr. FOSTER.
$4-97. That, Sir, is a most satisfactory statement, it is a statement upon which we may well congratulate the Minister of Finance and his colleagues in the cabinet, who are indeed a trust company, who realize that they are, as the member for North Toronto has said, a trust company; not a Union Trust Company, but a real honest, well managed trust company having at heart the good of the people they represent. 1 say, Sir, that the people of this country will offer their congratulations to the Minister of Finance to-day, and it is not the first time he has deserved congratulation. He has gotten into the habit of offering to us, year by year, such welcome financial statements as we have just heard from him. When I say that he has acquired the habit of giving us such financial statements, it reminds me of one of Harry Lauder's popular songs in which the singer represents himself as going home to his good wife under the influence of too much Mountain Dew, and the wife began to upraid and scold him, and she said: ' Mon, its gettin to be a habit wi ye;' and the reply was: ' Na, its no a habit, its a gif.' And so I say that with the Finance Minister these prosperous budget speeches are not so much a habit as a gift. Not only has the Minister of Finance the gift of presenting such statements, but he has the much higher gift of so regulating and conducting the financial affairs of Canada as to bring about and maintain the conditions which make it possible for him to deliver such a statement, year after year. The member for North Toronto has endeavoured to assail that statement, to detract from its value and to lessen its influence upon the people of Canada.' The member for North Toronto is clever. With all the cunning 'of an Indian juggler, with all the keen imagination of a poet, with all the inventiveness of the author of Gulliver's Travels, with the ability to paint words as none other but he can, he has endeavoured to detract from that financial statement and trom its true value. But facts are stubborn things, and the facts which the Minister of Finance has given us to-day cannot be controverted and their influence cannot be lessened in the mind of the people even by the remarks of such as the member for North Toronto. The words of that hon. gentleman have fallen harmless as the smallest sized bird shot as we hear it pattering down from the rocky walls of an impregnable fortress or from the impregnable sides of an ironclad; his words have made as little impression as the clapping of the desks by the ever too ready auditors who sit behind him. I was much interested in the speech which was delivered by the hon. member (Mr. Foster) to-night. I heard it last year I heard it again this year; it is indeed becoming familiar. In his remarks last year the hon. member (Mr. Foster) was exceedingly

sarcastic and he accused the Minister of Fnance of lacking in boldness and courage. I quote from ' Hansard ' of the 20th of April last:
He (Mr. Fielding) is hopeful. He gives a wonderfully precise forecast for that year. Here we are already in the year 1909-10 and yet the only forecast the Minister of Finance can give us is that he hopes there will he a reasonable percentage of increase in the revenue over that of last year, while with reference to the expenditure he did not even hazard a guess as to what it would be. Former Ministers of Finance have been a little more daring than that; they have at least, when they -were near the end of a year, made what they considered a forecast of both revenue and expenditure and they put their forecast to the test.
The .hon. member (Mr. Foster) in these words accuses the Minister of Finance of a lack of daring. Well, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is an exceedingly irodest man considering the long series of successes he has had; he is not given to boasting even of what he has done, let alone what he expects to do; he is not given to hazarding wide guesses. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has well said that former Finance Ministers have been a little more daring. We know, Sir, you and I know, >the people of this country know, at least one former Finance Minister who. w'as much more daring in the way of prophesy and hazarding guesses. He loomed up large as a lion when making
prophesy at the beginning of the year, but at the end of the year when he was explaining why the prophesies had not been fulfilled he became rather of the size and the gentle disposition of the household kitten. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) speaking again last year said:
It would have seemed befitting in a Finance Minister who was careful and prudent to have made his provision when the danger was coming, to have drawn his sail when the storm was about to burst.
I do not blame the hon. member for having been rather mistaken in his guess last year. I do not blame him under the circumstances for seeing signs of a storm, but what does seem strange is that this year he should have repeated the word and have alluded to a storm. Wild fancies as to what may happen are one thing, and halucinations that possess a man as to what has happened are quite another thing. The storm about to burst? Where, Sir, has been the storm? Where on the ocean of Canadian finance has there been any great troubling of the waters, and has it not all been a tempest, in the little brain of the hon. member for North Toronto? Storm, Sir! Where has there been the snapping or the breaking of a mast? Where has there been the rending of a 48i
single sail, the loss of a single anchor? Not a man overboard, not an ounce of cargo lost, the sea to-day as smooth as glass, the sun shining brightly and hot a cloud in the financial or commercial sky of Canada.
Talking about finances, I find that the public debt of the United States at the end of 1907 was $878,596,755 and at the end of 1908 it had increased to $938,132,409, an increase in one year of over fifty-nine and a half million dollars. That was at the end of 1908. What progress is being made in the United States to-day? I read this article from the 'Weekly Times' of London, of November 5, an extract from a letter written by their Washington correspondent :
Two and a half months ago the Payne tariff came into effect, hut already it is clear that the new rates will fall far short of extinguishing the deficit for the current fiscal year. From the beginning of the year-July 1-to October 27 the deficit on ordinary expenditures and disbursements amounts to .$26,000,000, a reduction of only $13,000,000 on the unusual deficit for the same period last year, although it must he remembered that the Payne law came into effect only on August 5, and that the minimum rates under the special treaties continues in -force. The customs receipts have been increasing, but ordinary disbursements are also increasing. For the current year up to October 27 the disbursements were $241,425,000 against $227,702,000 for the same period last year. Moreover, the customs receipts are expected to show a decline next month. As the working balance of the treasury is only $27,000,000, a prolongation of the deficit is expected soon to compel a recourse to a loan to meet current expenses.
So that in that great republic to the south of us, having an area not larger than ours, having a population ten times as great as ours, having had large capital and a population of the same blood as ours to develop their resources, even at this-day they have to make a loan to meet current expenses.
I think it is a matter of congratulation that we have received the statement we have heard to-day. The hon. member for North Toronto says that last year in place of having a surplus of a little over $1,000,000, if the bounties had been charged to revenue there would not have been a surplus but a small deficit. This the Finance Minister frankly pointed out and stated in his address. The hon. member for North Toronto contends that these bounties ought to be charged to revenue, although the Finance Minister has well and logically argued that if subsidies to railways aie properly chargeable to capital account, as they have always been under this government and the preceding government, upon the same principle these bounties ought to be charged to the same account. I do

think myself, and I say frankly, that it would be better if both railway subsidies and .bounties were charged to revenue account. But I want to know whether if the system of bookkeeping were changed in that respect our friends on the other side of the House and their supporters would be frank enough, would be honest enough to explain the difference in the method of bookkeeping to their electors as they went among them during a campaign. I doubt if they would.
Almost tragically the hon. member for North Toronto savs: What has saved the Finance Minister? The Finance Minister has not been in any very particular danger. What has saved the country? Neither has the country been in any great danger since 1896. But listen to the reply of the hon. member for North Toronto to his own question. He says that the farmers have saved the Finance Minister and have saved the country. To a large extent he is perfectly right, to a large extent the farmers have saved the country. But they do not deserve all the credit; the sailors, the fishermen, the miners, the lumbermen, the factory hands, all deserve some share of the credit, and were it not for the farmers and these other men who toil we would not have, admittedly, the country we have to-day. The hon. member, and this is a renetition of the old story, has asked over and over again who purchased and opened up the great Northwest? We admit that the northwestern country was purchased by a Conservative government. We admit that during the regime of the Conservative party the Canadian Pacific railway was run through that northwest country to open it up. We give them all the credit to which they are entitled for the purchase they made of that northwestern country, and we give them such credit as they are entitled to for the building of the Canadian Pacific railway. We are told, they were told, at the time they were undertaking the building of that road, that it could be built more cheaply, that other people were willing to build it at that very time at a lower price, at a less cost, and [DOT]without the villainous arrangement as to taxation that was coupled with the bargain they made. They took the dearer rather than the cheaper bargain, and we hove been paying for it ever since, and as far as taxation is concerned will pay for it, I suppose, while the world lasts. Yet they are entitled to a degree of credit. Sir, who put the farmers in that country? Our friends opposite purchased the country and then left it lying almost a waste. To whom is due the credit of developing that country? I claim that this government deserves the credit for putting into that great western country the very farmers of whom the hon. member spoke to-Mr. MILLER.
night, I think I can prove it by his own words. Talking of the Yukon he says: When you went to the Yukon you found
38,000	people there; to-day you have a population of 5,000-and he blamed the government. Sir, if the government are to blame because the population of the Yukon is less to-day than it was, then on the same reasoning they are entitled to credit because the population of the Northwest has increased so greatly. But he says the farmer who grew the grain, who saved the country, has to pay a great deal more for the clothes he wears, for the lumber he buys, for the labour he employs.
Now, let us take the hon. gentleman for once at his word. The farmers have to pay more for the clothes they wear; what does the manufacturer of the clothes say to that-does he object? The farmer has to pay more for the lumber he buys; does the sawmiller object? The farmer has to pay more for the labour he employs; does the labourer object? Accepting the argument of the hon. gentleman, that this government is to blame for increasing the prices the farmer has to pay, by this very act this government has enabled the manufacturer of clothing and the manufacturer of lumber to get better prices for the goods they sell, and has enabled the farm labourer to get better wages. What kind of a man does the hon. member for North Toronto think the Canadian farmer is? How hig does he think is the heart of the average Canadian farmer? The Canadian farmer-the hon. member for North Toronto will not, I am sure, deny it-is receiving to-day larger prices for his horses, his cattle, his hogs, his wheat, and his dairy products, than the farmers of this country ever received before, since Columbus discovered America. The farmer is able to pay higher prices for the goods he buys, and is able to pay a reasonable wage, as in the old Tory days he never was able to do. And the Canadian farmer is not only able to pay higher wages, but is large hearted enough to be willing to pay them to the man who helps him in his work. What is the government doing for the farmers who have been taken into that country? It has provided transportation; it has surveyed the lands of the northwest; it has provided post offices and mail routes; it is helping to develop the mines and minerals of the country; it is attempting to preserve the forests and to practice reforestation; it has established experimental farms. This government has not only taken the farmers into that country but is providing for them while they are there.
The next question the hon. gentleman raised was the balance of trade between this country and the United States. In his conclusion he forgot and omitted one important item, that is, the $60,000,000 of cold

cash that American farmers alone have taken into that western country during the last seven months, and he has forgotten the probably $60,000,000 more in farm stock and household goods which they have taken with them.
The hon. gentleman next advised the government not to tie their hands, in order that they might be able, when the time comes, if it does come, to accept a preference at the hands of the mother country. If this was given as a word of caution and advice, we take it in the spirit in which it was given. If it was rebuke, it was one that we were not entitled to, because one of the conditions of the French treaty is that it may be cancelled at any time upon twelve months' notice.
The hon. gentleman endeavoured to make a point against the Finance Ministei because the government of Canada is paying to-day a higher rate of interest than it paid some years ago. That is no evidence of carelessness or bad financing for the price of money and the rate of interest rises and falls as does the price of wheat. If the hon. member could prove, as he did not attempt to prove, that Canada is paying to-day a higher rate of interest than other countries similarlv situated, he would have, made out his case.
The hon. gentleman next accused the govenment of wasting money because of the payment of underwriters for underwriting government loans. As to that. I quote from the Colonial Office journal, published in England, for July of the present year. The editors of that journal, who are well acquainted with the various systems of finance, say:
It is the practice now-a-days on the issue of colonial loans and others of a like kind to get them underwritten. The underwriters, in consideration of a commission, which is usually 1 per cent, undertake to take so much of the loan as is not subscribed for by the public. Governments would, of course, not sacrifice 1 per cent, if they could get money without employing underwriters, but experience has shown that on the whole they gain by doing so. Only a very small part of a loan is applied for by the real public at the time of issue. The ordinary investor buys stocks and shares at a moment when he has money available, which is not often; it is the professional who examines the morning newspaper and makes use of the few hours, which are often all that is allowed, to come to a decision and send in his application. If the issue is readily taken up so that the price is likely to go to a premium, the list must be closed early, as otherwise on the news getting about a vast number of applications would be sent in with the object of getting advantage of the premium, and this would be unfair to the genuine applicants. The result is that the success depends practically on the view which the market takes of the deal, and this is largely a matter of the influence of the financial houses interested.
So that upon this high authority we find that the system now in vogue by all governments requiring to borrow is that of the employment of underwriters, as has been done by the hon. Minister of Finance.
The hon. member for North Toronto complained that we are not in this country creating a sinking fund to meet our maturing loans, as is done in England. If it were possible to have such a sinking fund, I would be very glad, but it is not fair to argue that Canada, a new and undeveloped country of large extent, has the saVne opportunity to create a sinking fund that is possible in an old, well developed, wealthy country of small area like Great Britain
The hon. member next sang the old song about this government taking more in taxation from the people of Canada than the preceding government did, saying that this government took $11 a head while the old government had taken only $5.50. The hon. member has already stated that this government has raised the wages of workingmen and the prices received by manufacturers. And in that he is quite correct; a workman to-day is just as easily able to obtain $1.50 per day of wages as under the old Conservative rule, he was able to obtain $1 a day. Therefore, he receives-the hon. member said because of the action of this government-about $150 more in wages in a year than he did under the old regime. And he has to pay $5.50 more according to the hon. member in yearly taxation. Well, he has made a fairly good bargain; he has made about $144.50 through having this government in power instead of continuing the old government. It is an old argument, one that has often been made and will often he made again, that this government takes more in taxation out of the people than the other government did. But the hon. member (Mr. Foster) admits-he did not admit it cheerfully but merely because he had to, nor did he admit it to the extent that the facts justify-that this government, leaving out the question of bounties, is exacting a lower rate of duty than the former government did. If a man to-day goes to any store to make a purchase, he finds that the goods have been subject to a lower duty than the same goods under a former government. And, Sir, does this government compel any man to buy two coats where formerly he bought only one or to buy two pair of shoes where formerly he bought only one? But, because as the hon. member has stated, that man receives higher wages and so is able to buy his wife a dress that, in the old days, he could not think of buying, or is able to buy a suit of clothes for himself more than he formerly bought, he, by that transaction, voluntarily contributes more largely to the revenue of the country.

I have said that the hon. member (Mr. Foster) delivered much the same speech to-night as he did a year ago. He used one argument exactly the same as that he gave-last year. In calculating the increase of the debt under the Conservative party from 1878 to 1896, he said we ought to deduct from the total the price of 7,500,000 acres of land that they got back from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Now, I am perfectly willing to allow the hon. gentleman that credit. He has given us to-night the same argument exactly that he did a year ago, with the exception, that a year ago he began that part of his speech by saying that the Conservative party from 1886 to 1896 increased the public debt by $35,000,000: to-night he says that from 1879 to 1896 they increased the public debt by $118,000,000, otherwise, the speeches were the same. His argument being the same, let me read to the House the argument I then made in reply: I quote from last year's ' Hansard ':
The hon. member for North Toronto admitted that the Conservative party in ten years from 1886 to 1896 had increased the public debt by $35,000,000. But then he argued that while they had increased the public debt by $35,000,000, for $10,000,000 of that they had received 7,500,000 acres of land, and he said if that 7,500,000 acres be worth $3 an acre, it makes a total of $22,000,000 to be deducted from the $35,000,000 by which they had increased the debt.
I say I am perfectly willing to admit that, But let me go further:
But he maintained that the land was worth more than $3 an acre, he said: ' If you calculate its value at $6 an acre, it makes $45,000,000 which will exceed the whole addition to the public debt.'
I am willing to admit that also.
I am perfectly willing that the hon. member should make that argument, I am perfectly willing to accept his figures and his statement, hut I would ask him, were he here, where the lands came from that they purchased for $10,000,000. He would state that the 7,500,000 acres was part of 25,000,000 acres that the Conservative government had given to the Canadian Pacific railway for nothing at all. I would say to him: I am perfectly willing that you should give your party credit at $6 an acre for the 7,500,000 acres you thus obtained, but if I do you must be willing to he charged at the same rate with the 46,000,000 acres that your government gave away while in power to persons other than actual settlers, and so while I credit you with $42,000,000, I charge you with $276,000,000, and I do not think the hon. member would make the account look any better for his party.
I said then, Sir, that, on his own reasoning, I would charge his party with 46,000,000 acres of land making a total of $276,000,000; but, Sir, the price of land has gone up. To-night, the hon. gentleman fixes the price at $8 per acre. On that basis, Mr. MILLER.
I should have to charge him for the 46,000,000 acres $368,000,000. Now, I suppose, if the hon. member lives for another twenty years-and I hope he will, for he is, I think, the greatest asset that we on this side of the House have-he will come to charge us for that 7,500,000 acres of land, I suppose $50 an acre. If he does, on his own reasoning, I shall have a very large account indeed to charge to the Conservative party.
The hon. member next-I think I am not unparliamentary when I say-had the nerve to talk about the land that this government had given away to parties other than actual settlers. I might have expected that Irom some body else who did not know any better, who did not know the history of the Conservative party and what they had been guilty of, but I hardly expected it to come now from the hon. member from North Toronto. Why? Because, in the eighteen years that they were in office, his government gave away land to persons other than actual settlers representing a total of 46,000,000 acres, and at the same time they gave to the actual settler only 7,900,000 acres, or a little more than we have given to the actual settler in the first seven months of the present year. The hon. member next spoke of the investigation that took place in the Marine and Fisheries Department. That too is an old story, often repeated and often to be repeated no doubt. He told of the iniquity and corruption that had been discovered by the investigating commission. It is true the commission said there was corruption in connection with the Marine Department. They said there had been corruption in connection with the Marine Department ever since confederation and for every one of the three hundred and sixty-five days of every one of the eighteen long years during which the Conservative party had been in power.


An hon. MEMBER.: So they are growing worse.


Henry Horton Miller: My hon. friend has not read the report or he would not say that. But the commissioners did give the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries credit for making an honest effort to improve the condition of affairs in his department, a credit which these gentlemen did not give to any minister who had preceded him. The hon. gentleman said they wanted to go into all the departments and they were not permitted. Sir, we have a Public Accounts Committee before which any charge can be taken and investigated. What has been the custom of our friends on the other side? To make a charge, and they always took care that it was a serious charge, they always took care to make it loudly, they always took care to advertise it all over Canada as soon as they had made it, and

before it had been investigated; but when the Public Accounts Committee met and they had an opportunity to investigate their charges they had so wrongly made and so wrongly circulated before they were investigated, when I say they were given an opportunity to investigate, they had other business, oftentimes they did not even attend the sittings of the committee, they threw up their hands, and said in effect that they had accomplished all their purpose when they made their charges and got them in the newspapers.
The hon. member then speaks of a certain' place where some $40,000 has been spent in dredging for the accommodation of one launch and one little steamer, and that, he said, was a piece of political rascality, of political iniquity. Sir, I do not know that we can come hastily to that conclusion. If there is a place where any considerable number of people live, they may be humble people, they may not have much political influence, they may be poor fisher folk, they may be poor tillers of the soil, but if that one steamer and that one launch is the only means they have of getting to market, or of communicating with the outside world, then I say that that expenditure is justified. This is a government that has spent a great deal of money in endeavouring to benefit every class of people, those who till the soil, those who go to sea in their fishing boats, and those who dig minerals in the mines.
I suppose we will not for a long time hear the last of the Quebec bridge. Now what are the facts? The Quebec bridge was built, and the Quebec bridge fell down. The Quebec bridge was built according to plans and specifications that were drawn up by men who were recognized and generally admitted to be the best bridge building engineers on the American continent, or in the world. The engineers who drew the plans and who drew the specifications for the Quebec bridge, were recommended to this government by whom? By Mr. Schrei-ber, the government engineer, a gentleman who was the faithful employee of the Conservative government by whom he was appointed, and who has continued, I believe, to be the faithful employee of this government. When that bridge collapsed, what did the world say, what did the engineering world say? They said: This is a matter of great concern to us, this is a matter of great concern to every man in the engineering profession. That bridge, they said, was planned by men that we believed to be experts, by men whom we believed to be the very best bridge engineers in the world, and if that bridge, built according to their plans and specifications, has collapsed, it simply means this, that that gigantic bridge, a very long bridge, much longer than most of the bridges that had hitherto
been built, was wrongly designed, why, it means that our whole theory of bridge building is at fault, our engineers are wrong, we will have to revise our plans and adopt new methods. No blame, Sir, can be attached, and no blame will be attached by men who are acquainted with the facts, to this government for the misfortune which befell the Quebec bridge. Such charges as that are only made in the absence of any real and true grounds of complaint.
The Newmarket canal is characterized as the Aylesworth ditch. I am sorry the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is not in his seat. We used to know that as the Newmarket canal. Upon a certain occasion the member for York, the present hoA. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) gave the hon. member for North Toronto perhaps the greatest castigation ever received by any man in this House, and ever since then this canal has been known as the Aylesworth ditch. It is not a public work of any less value because you call it by any such name as that, it does not lessen the importance of the work. Now, Sir, there was vigorous cheering, there was vigorous desk pounding to-day, when the hon. member mentioned the Newmarket canal. Sir, I venture to say that not one man in twenty of those who sit behind the hon. member and who cheered him, ever saw that canal or know a single thing about it. I talked to a man to-day who was telling me, and I am sure honestly, what he thought. He said that that Newmarket canal would be of very great advantage to the section through which it runs. For my part I >do not know anything about it. I say frankly, Sir, that I am just as ignorant of the Newmarket canal, of its method of construction, of the country through which it runs, or the way in which it will answer the purpose for which it is intended, as the majority of the members who applauded my hon. friend.
Then the building of the St. Andrew's lock was criticised. I do not know anything about the St. Andrew's lock except what I have been told. And I wonder how many members on the other side of the House know anything about the St. Andrew's lock. But I am told by a man who knows much more about it than the hon. member for North Toronto, that the building of the St. Andrew's lock opens up to the city of Winnipeg 350 miles of waterway.
Sir, when in the most harrowing terms, the member for North Toronto was picturing some of the sins and iniquities of this government, I almost felt like believing him for a moment. I do not often feel that way when he goes on a tirade of that kind. But when he mentioned the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company, and found the fault he did, I said: Well, any intelligent man who would tell that story over again and

endeavour to get this House or the people to take any stock in it, is scarcely entitled to any credence. There was one member, the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) who, I noticed, although a close political friend of the member for Toronto, did not applaud very vigorously when the Sas-katchewtn Valley Land Company was mentioned. What are the facts, recounting them briefly? Nobody regarded that part of the country given to the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company as being of any value. My hon. friend from West Toronto considered it to be of no value, and would not [DOT] accept it as 'part of a land grant to which his company was entitled. The government sold the land to the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company, and on what conditions. They said: We will sell you this land at a very low price per acre, hut only on condition that you will place settlers upon it, a certain definite numoer per township, on the lands that we so sell to you. Now, Sir, we are giving away lands in the west for nothing to people who will come and settle upon them. The hon. member for West Toronto was one of the chief stockholders in the railway that ran through that tract of land, and I understand that for a stretch of sixty miles there was no railway station on that line. Why? Because the owners of the railway said: Nobody can cultivate that soil with any profit, nobody will settle upon it, it will never yield a crop, and it would not pay us to put a railway station there. When they were pressed to do so by the Saskatchewan Land Company they said: We will, cn condition that you pay the salary of our station agent; and only by that means was a railway station established. With what success did the government endeavour to settle that country? With this degree of success that they brought into that country, at very great expense and with the exercise of a giept deal of energy, people who understood how to till and cultivate such soil. With what result? The hon. member for North Toronto admits that to-day that country blossoms like the rose, that to-day that country, once a barren district in which i.obody had any confidence, is now one of the most fertile parts of the northwest; and, Sir, that it is admitted generally by the people of the west that one of the very best and most enterprising acts of this government, one of the acts of this government attended with the very best results, was the sale of that land upon the terms upon which it was sold to the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company. We have it upon the evidence of the hon. member for North Toronto that it is,now good land, that it is now fertile and productive, and I say, Sir, that the hon. member for North Toronto is no mean judge of northwest land, because in his day he has bought and sold north-Mr. MILLER.
west land to a large extent. The people in that neighbourhood, knowing the history of that transaction, knowing the land and knowing what has been made of the land, have sent to this House members to support, not the party of the hon. member for North Toronto, but the party that is sitting behind the Premier and the Minister of Finance to-day.
The hon. member for North Toronto made some tart remarks about the Intercolonial railway. I will not say anything in defence of the Intercolonial railway tonight, because, in the first place, I do not think it is necessary and because, in the second place, I believe that before very long the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) will present a report to this House that will be as displeasing and as discouraging to the hon. member of North Toronto as it will be satisfactory and pleasing to the people of this country. I recommend the hon. member for North Toronto to go to the library, take down 'Hansard' and read from a debate that took place in this House some years ago respecting the Intercolonial railway in which he will find the words of his former leader, Sir Charles Tupper, to the effect that the Intercolonial was never intended to be a paying road and was never expected to be.
Now, I want very shortly to speak of some of the things that have been and are being done by the several departments of this government, or, at least, by one or two of them for the benefit of the people of Canada. I want to speak for a moment of the forestry work that is being prosecuted by the Department of the Interior. The Forestry branch was established in 1899. The first appropriation that this government made for the work was in the years 1900-1 and the appropriation in that year was $10,000. That appropriation has grown from year to year until last year and the year before the appropriation was $100,000. In this forestry work the department employs a staff of about forty people. In the United States, for carrying on the same kind of work, they employ permanently a staff of about 2,000 people and their annual appropriation has risen until at this date it is $4,640,000. The forestry branch is endeavouring to ascertain the extent of the forest wealth of our country, and it is preserving the forest from fire through the efforts of the fire rangers and by enlisting, through the missionaries of the country, the sympathies of the Indians. They are also assisting in the reforestation of the western country, and in the reforestry of the western country there are difficulties to be met with that are not known to us in the east; in the first place, the comparatively light rainfall, in the second place, the exposure of young trees to great winds and storms, and in the third place, the

compactness and hardness of the soil. Notwithstanding these difficulties the department last year gave away to 2,010 applicants, 2,570,000 trees for planting. The applications for this year are largely in excess of those of last year, and from the time of the founding of this forestry branch 14,500,000 trees have been given away free to settlers of the west for planting upon western plains. I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the changes in the regulations for the sale of timber as made in the month of December, 1907. By these new regulations it is enacted, first, that every sale of government timber shall be by auction, second, that there shall be a cruising and survey of every limit before it is put up for sale and, in the third place, that there shall be the fixing of an upset price. The form of the timber license provides that the licensee, first, shall not cut trees less than ten inches in diameter at the stump; second, shall leave seed trees as directed by the forestry officers; and third, shall dispose of the debris as instructed.
Now, let me sav a word as to the iron and steel bounties. It was, last summer, my privilege and pleasure to visit Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I confess that I had not been particularly in love with the payment of bounties. The iron and steel bounties have averaged, I believe, a little over $1,000,000 a year for the time this government has been in power, making about 15 or 16 cents for each person in Canada per annum. When in Nova Scotia I availed myself of the opportunity of seeing large iron and steel works in different parts of the province. I had the opportunity of going through one of the large works, conducted by a director of the company, and when I saw the works in operation, and when I saw the effect of the works, I will readily admit that I was glad that this government had encouraged the iron and steel industries by the payment of bounties. I realized that the men who, at great risk, had put a wealth of capital and a wealth of intelligence and enterprise into those great industries were indeed helping to a considerable degree in the building up of the nation. I realized that the lusty workmen in these factories, who were pouring the molten metal, who were shaping large masses of iron under steam hammers, who were rolling it into greater lengths and turning it in their great lathes were assisting to utilize and develop the natural resources that a generous Creator had placed upon, under and convenient to Canadian soil intending them to be used for and by the Canadian people. As I saw large thriving towns and growing cities that had before the establishment of these industries been sleepy villages, fishing hamlets and market centres for
the small surrounding district of farming country I realized that a great deal had been done by the building up of these industries. As I saw these workmen engaged in large numbers in these works it occurred to me, as it would to any one, that these men must be fed and clothed, that these men were buying the boots and shoes, the cottons and woollens that were being made at the benches and upon the looms of other Canadian factories. I realized that these workmen must be fed from the product of Canadian farms and Canadian pastures, and I realized too that these workmen buying that which they had to buy and these manufacturers importing that which they had to import must be adding largely to the customs revenue of the country. Pei'haps I was influenced a little bit in looking favourably upon the iron and steel bounties by words that had been uttered by the hon. member for North Toronto and which I read in the 'Hansard' of 1894. The hon. gentleman said:
On the one hand the duties on iron have been and are relatively high, on the other hand there is the patent fact that unless there be a sufficient inducement in the way of protection or bounty given for the manufacture of iron it will be impossible in this country as it has been found impossible in all other countries ever to rise from the production of raw ores which abound in this country, to an independent and self contained manufacture of the larger portion of the iron needed for the consumption of the country.
I possibly have been influenced to some extent by these words of the hon. member (Mr. Poster) and Sir, while I was glad that the iron and steel bounties had been paid, when I saw recently in the newspapers that one of these companies whose works I had seen had declared a stockj bonus of 20 per cent, and when I read the words of the general manager of one of these companies which I shall quote, I came to the conclusion that the time had now come when the iron and steel bounties ought no longer to be paid. Sir, I do not want the people of this country to be prejudiced, I do not want the people of this country to too hastily draw conclusions because of the payment of a 20 per cent stock bonus, I want it to be understood that this 20 per cent stock bonus was in the place of annual dividends which had been withheld and not paid. But notwithstanding that the stock bonus was only the equivalent for honestly earned reasonable dividends yet when I read the words of Mr. Cantley, the general manager of the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, I came to the conclusion which I have already referred to. Referring to his company Mr. Cantley said:
It is already in an unusually advantageous

position having its own iron ore and the coal and being in no way dependent upon any other concern. The company's output of coal was larger than ever this year and the deposit both of coal and iron ore at Wabana are practicallv inexhaustible. Everything in connection with our property is encouraging and with the improvements in finances the company can go ahead and work out its own destiny to greater advantage than if it were in a merger.
I take these words from the ' Monetary Times ' of December 4, 1909, which publishes the annual address of the general manager at the last meeting of this company. Now, Sir, the Nova Scotia Iron and Steel Company are not, I fancy, in any different position than the other iron and steel companies of the Dominion. I think the language used by Mr. Cantley is language that no man need be ashamed of; it is the language of a man who has self reliance and self dependence. I believe that a man who at the annual meeting of this company can say: 'We are now in a position to work our own destiny independent of any merger ' will be willing to say: ' We are now in a position to work out our own destiny without any iron or steel bounties from any government.' And Sir, I trust when the term expires, as it will expire next year, for the payment of iron and steel bounties that it will not be renewed. Unless I change my mind more than I think I will, I shall be utterly opposed to their renewal.
We have made a treaty recently with France. As to the commercial advantages to be derived from that treaty I will say but little because it is a matter that has been already fully discussed. There is one thing I do wish to say to the farmers of this country, and when I say it I am simply repeating what has been stated by the ' Farm Journal ' published at Winnipeg. That journal has referred to the considerable benefit which will accrue to the farmers of Canada from the negotiations of the French treaty, and it does not speak of it in terms of praise because of the advantages for the shipment of stockers or fat cattle, but it says that the manufacturers of agricultural implements in Canada will be so largely helped by that French treaty, and their trade will be so increased and extended that they will put up much larger factories with greater capacity, giving a greater output, and that having that increased capacity and output, as a consequence the price of agricultural implements all over Canada will be largely decreased.
But, Sir, it is not so important because of the trade advantages that are likely to accrue, although there will be trade advantages, but it is because we always receive an indirect benefit when we make a trade treaty with any other nation in as much that we get their friendship. And if Mr. MILLER.
we suffer no material loss I think it _ is worth while to make such a treaty with jur neighbours whomsoever they may be even if the only good result to us is the good will of the persons with whom we treat. Sir, we have made a treaty with France; I trust that when that treaty has been gotten well out of the way that this government will be willing to embrace the first opportunity of making a treaty with Germany. I believe we will derive advantages from the French treaty, but I also believe that our advantages would be still greater from a German treaty; greater because Germany is not such a great agricultural nation as France, that it is more of a manufacturing nation, that it will consume more of our products. In that respect a reasonable trade treaty with Germany would help us even to greater advantage than a treaty with France. Sir, I am not in any way blaming the government, there certainly can be no blame attached to it, for the imposition of the Ger-' man surtax. There was nothing else for them to do under the circumstances. But if Germany is now willing, as we are told she is, to approach this government in a friendly way and ask for closer trade relations, I trust the Canadian government will not be reluctant to meet them. When we were discussing the French treaty one gentleman on the other side of the House objected because of a knitted goods factory at some place, and another lion, gentleman opposite objected because of a glove factory at some other place. Sir, if we are to regard ourselves as nation builders, if we are to regard ourselves as trustees having the development of a great country in our charge, we must look at these matters from a broader point of view. Such views may be all right to be held by members of a municipal council if the area of the municipality is not too great, but these are not the views that ought to be entertained by nation builders.
In considering a proposed German treaty and the conditions existing as between Germany and Canada I desire to make some reference to an article in the ' Empire Review ' for November, 1909, edited by Sir Clement Kinloch-Cooke. After explaining and describing the conditions as they are to-day between Germany and Canada, the editor says:
There can be no doubt that the trade between the two countries has materially suffered by the altered conditions, and in the best interests of Canada it is unfortunate that the tariff committee of the association of Canadian manufacturers have reported against the remission of the surtax on German manufactures. Obviously the line for Germany to take is to withdraw the reprisals and then for Canada to withdraw the surtax. If this were done the position would revert automatically to the status quo. It appears Germany is willing to do her part but the tariff

committee do not see their way to accept the olive branch, giving as their reasons,-
Now follows, in quotation marks, the resolution of the Tariff Committee of the Manufacturers' association:
that the feeling amongst Canadian manufacturers against the negotiation of a tariff treaty with Germany has of late been strengthened by reason of the strong anti-German sentiment manifested in England and that from an imperial point of view it would certainly he unfortunate if at this juncture Canada were to strengthen the hands of Britain's most dreaded commercial rival by granting concessions which would be the means of transferring to that rival trade which is now being enjoyed by the mother country.
The comment of the editor is as follows:
But unsound as the commercial side of their policy is, the reference to ' the strong anti-German sentiment manifested in England ' is still more unsound. There is no strong anti-German feeling here in the sense that is implied in the tariff committee's report. A section of the press and of the public are, it is true, still opposed to all things German, hut the opposition politically is fast dying out. Commercial antagonism there must always be, but if Canada is to wait until all commercial jealously disappears before coming to terms with Germany she will postpone her arrangement till the Greek Kalends. If I might offer a suggestion to the Canadian government, it is this: ' Agree with your adversary quickly,' and leave all question of anti-German sentiment in this country out of your calculations.
We are now an important and a somewhat influential part of the British empire and I suggest that this government, not in any undignified way, but in a thoroughly business way, let it be known to Germany that we prefer trade rather than battles. If we do that I think it may have some influence in continuing peace rather than in bringing war. When we speak of a trade treaty with Germany, our friends on the other side of the House will say, as they said of the French treaty: What will the United States say. Sir, I was surprised to find our friends on the other side of the House ask such a question as that. I remember reading of men who were sent many long centuries ago to investigate a situation and to report, and on their return they said:
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
If our friends on the other side are bound that before they make any bargain with any nation, they must obtain the censent of the people and government of the United States, then I say to them that so long as a people regard themselves as grasshoppers in their own sight they will be sure to be regarded as grasshoppers in the sight of the other fellow.
One thing more and I have done, and that is to refer shortly to the question of immigration. I shall not quote long figures, not even the figures I have prepared. I shall not s'peak so much as to the number of immigrants coming into the country just now, but rather as to the character of the immigrants we have received. I observe, Sir, that last year and for the first seven months of this year-and I think there is no change in that respect from the years preceding-more that seventy-five per cent of the immigrants we have received in Canada have been from Great Britain, Ireland and the United States. A large number of the remainder of the immigrants who have come here have been from the northern portion of Europe, from Germany, Sweden, Norway, Holland, and other portions of northern Europe, whose people are as good a class of immigrants as can be got to come to any country. I have said that the immigrants who have gone into the United States have been of an altogether different and inferior class. I say this because we have repeatedly heard it argued in this House that the United States have been getting a better class of immigrants than we in Canada because of the greater care that has been exercised by the people of the United States in the selection of their immigrants.
I wish to read shortly from an article in the * Popular Science ' Monthly ' by Dr. Albert Alleman, of Washington, District of Columbia. He says:
The people of the 13 colonies, the builders of the American union were almost exclusively of the Anglo-Saxon race. The immigration which set in after the war of independence and continued during the greater part of the nineteenth century, was composed of people not dissimilar from those early colonists. They came from the British Isles, Scandinavia, Germany and the smaller Teutonic countries. But during the last twenty-five years the number of immigrants from those regions has steadily decreased and has now sunk to very small numbers, while the immigration from Italy, Hungary, Greece and Russia has increased from year to year during the same period of time, and, of late years, lias assumed truly enormous proportions.
Again in the same article, he says:
Broadly speaking we have two great classes of immigrants, those that came before about the year 1885 and those that came after that year. The native home of the former was northwestern Europe and the bulk of them belongs to the so-called Teutonic, or Scandinavian, or the northern blonde race; the latter came from the Mediterranean basin and eastern Europe, and present a number of racial types.
Later in the same article, he says:
About the middle of the ninth decade of the last century,-
That would be about 1885.
-an entirely new immigration began to set in. The new arrivals came from southern and

eastern Europe, from Italy, Greece, Hungary, Bohemia, Eussia. Hailing from an entirely different region of Europe, they (lifter completely in their racial characteristics from the earlier immigration.
Here is sufficient evidence that Canada in the last twenty-five years has been receiving a class of immigrants vastly superior in every way to the immigrants who have, in the same time, been going into the United States.
A word as to the immigration from Japan. We all remember the great turmoil that was raised in this House and out of it a couple of years ago because of the great influx of Japanese immigrants. At the last election, in a certain section of this country, people were stampeded against the government of the day because of the fear of a yellow peril, which fear has since been shown to be purely without reason. The number of immigrants coming from Japan into Canada in 1907-8 was 7,601; in 1908-9, it was 495; and for the first seven months of 1909-10, only 186. It will therefore be seen that the fears of the people who were influenced to vote against this government in the last election because of the Japanese immigration and the failure of this government to stop it, were entirely groundless and these people will surely have learned the lesson that they had better in future trust the statements of the government rather than-I was going to say-the fabrications of our friends on the other side of the House. The immigration from the United States in 1908-9 was 59,832. In the first seven months of this year it was 65,755, or 6,000 more in seven months of this year than in the whole twelve months of last year. While this American immigration is a matter on congratulation for us, it is a matter over which the American people are very much alarmed. I was reading a few days ago an article in the Breeders ' Gazette ' of November 24, 1909, a leading agricultural paper published in Chicago, in which it is said:
An extraordinary gathering was the Land Congress in Chicago last week. The farm was the keynote, the farmer the man of the hour. Governors, senators, congressmen, land commissioners, scientific agriculturists, dry farmers, railroad immigration agents and others responded to the call in surprising numbers.
Again further on:
It was a notable _ gathering and not the least valuable of its influences is that directed against the loss of our farming population to Canada.
The ' Country Gentleman,' a leading agricultural paper published in Albany, New York, in its issue of November 25, last, says:
60,000	Americans went to Canada last year and took with them $60,000,000 to buy wheat lands in Canada.


Henry Horton Miller: In its issue of December 2, 1909, the same paper says:
The American emigration to the Canadian Northwest, after having some time ago aroused attention, has begun to excite alarm; and an association has been formed in Chicago to check it, with the motto, ' Why go to Canada ' The immediate occasion for concern is the announcement that the northward current has continued to flow this year all through the fall, instead of letting up as usual. In August, September and October 13,781 American settlers arrived in Winnipeg, 48 per cent more than were received in those three months of 1908. It is said that 500,000 Americans have crossed the border in the last ten years.
Referring to the motto of that Chicago congress, ' Why go to Canada?' I ask myself the question: Why do these American citizens, the very cream of the American farming population, and why do men in such large numbers from Britain and from the best parts of Europe, come to Canada? They come to Canada, in the first place, because of the natural advantages, the cheap lands we have to offer. They come, in the second place, because of the confidence they have in Canadian laws and the way in which we enforce our laws. They come in the third place, because this government, the Minister of the Interior, his deputy, the superintendent of immigration, and the Interior Department generally, have advertised in the most businesslike way the advantages which our country has to offer. So I say again that this government is entitled to the credit of bringing into the country the farmers who, the hon. member for North Toronto says, have saved the government and the country. Again I congratulate the Finance Minister upon the splendid budget which he has been able to present to-day and the splendid conditions which have enabled him so to do.
Mr. SPROULE moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 11 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 15, 1909.