PETITION OUT OF ORDER.

Mr. SPEAKER.: The petition of Robert Glover and others cannot be entertained as the granting of the prayer would involve the expenditure of public money.



HOURS OF LABOUR ON PUBLIC WORKS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. MACKENZIE KING presented the first report of the special committee to whom was referred Bill (No. 21) an Act respecting hours of labour on public works as follows:
Tour committee beg leave to present the following as their first report:
Your committee recommend that leave be granted to have their proceedings and the eviaence taken by them printed from day to day and that rule 72 be suspended in relaaion thereto.
Mr. KING moved:: That the first report of the Special Committee to whom was referred Bill (No. 21) an Act respecting hours of labour on public works presented this day be concurred in.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Is the report purely formal?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It recommends permission of the House to have the proceedings and evidence printed and that rule 72 be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General as follows:
Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
I have received with great pleasure the address which you have adopted in reply to my speech at the opening of the session of parliament, and thank you for it sincerely.
[Stage Direction]
Government House, Ottawa, 14th Dec., 1909.

James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), yesterday raised a question of order with reference to the answer by the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) to question No. 10 on the Order Paper.
The answer given to the said question, in my opinion, did in some measure contravene the rules and practice of the House in that regard but, as the hon. minister stated, the answers were drawn from

him in that form in consequence of irregularities in the form of the question.
In my opinion the question as put by the hon. member for Sherbrooke was in several particulars irregular inasmuch as it contravened the provisions of rule 36, a portion of which rule reads as follows :
In putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to he offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same. And in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
Comments upon this rule will be found in Bourinot's Parliamentary Practice, pp. 433 to 435. Among the comments made in that work as to the form in which questions may be put, I would quote the following: (a). ' 'A question has been refused a reply because it referred to a. matter of opinion', (b). 'A question should be simply and severely accurate in its allegations. If it is hypothetical it is objectionable and should not be answered . (c). 'It should not be ironical or c?nvey any imputation'. Members are reminded that it is the duty of certain officers of the House to point out to a member when any question is put in improper form and to communicate with the member in order that the notice may be properly amended. Occasionally irregularity in questions is not noted by the officers of the House but in this respect instructions will be_ given to be more particular in the future in this regard.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 82) to incorporate the Merchants and General Insurance Company.-Mr. Monk.
Bill (No. 83) respecting the Vancouver, Westminster and Yukon Railway Company. -Mr. Ralph Smith.

Mr.  J. E.@: ARMSTRONG (East Lambton) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 84) to amend an Act to establish a commission for the conservation of our natural resources.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Explain.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: As the Act at present stands the chairman of the commission can send a man out to investigate mines, and timber lands, and fisheries, and water-powers and practically any of the resources of the country; he can spend the money of the public in doing so and then there would be nbthing to prevent him pur-Mr. SPEAKER.
chasing land or rights in water-powers and fisheries and making them his own. The members of the commission are practically in the same position in that regard. The Bill which I now introduce will provide as follows:
14.	No member of the commission or person
appointed as secretary or as officers or clerks under him, or person employed as an assistant for the purpose of any special work or investigation, shall, while a member of the com mission or appointed or employed as aforesaid :	_
(a)	purchase, lease, acquire or obtain, od royalty or otherwise, any Dominion or provincial franchise, fishery rights, water-powers, water privileges, lands, mines, mineral lands, or timber limits, or in any way contract therfor or acquire any interest therein, either for himself or as agent for any other person or corporation;
(b)	locate military or bounty land warrants or land scrip or act as agent of any other person in such behalf;
(c)	disclose to any person, except to members of the commission, any discovery made by him or by any of them, or any other matters in his possession relating to matters under the control of the commission, or in relation to their investigations, until such discovery or information has been reported to parliament.
15.	Every person guilty of any violation ot any of the provisions contained in section 14 of this Act shall forfeit to His Majesty all property or interest so acquired or obtained and shall also incur a penalty of one thousand dollars for each such violation.
(2.) The acquisition of each item of property or interest therein or contract thei efor as aforesaid shall be deemed a separate violation of the said section.
(3.) Such penalties shall be recoverable on information filed in the name of the Attorney General of Canada, and a moiety thereof shall belong to His Majesty, and the other moiety thereof shall belong to the informer.
I may say that the first clause is similar to clause 14 of the Geological Survey Act and the last clause is similar to the penalty clause 376 of the Railway Act. I believe this amendment should be adopted at as earlv a date as possible and I ask the government to facilitate its passage during this session. In presenting this Bill I in no way reflect upon the chairman or upon the members of the commission. Many members of the commission are personal friends of mine and I am satisfied that they believe this Bill is in their interest as well as in the public interest.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE GORDON (Nipissing) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 85) to amend the Criminal Code.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. GORDON.: This Bill is an exact duplicate of one passed by this House and buried in the Senate last session, owing, I believe, to that honourable body not being aware of the extensive illegal traffic which is being carried on at the silver regions of Nipissing and which the law as it now stands, fails to cope with. Valuable ore, in many cases, nearly pure silver is being carried away in the pockets of persons who dispose of it in one of two ways: (1) It readily passes ' current ' at the ' Blind Pigs ' in exchange for cash for drinks, principally as I believe the latter, or, (2) It can be sold to persons who are making a business of dealing in it. When the receiver has aecummulated a quantity he takes it to Toronto or elsewhere and sells it. The monthly losses to the mines are very large, the trade being a considerable one. It seems to be impossible to stop the business with the law as it at present is because it is practically impossible by examination of a piece of ore to tell from what mine it came,- and on any prosecution for recovering stolen ore the prosecutor is not able to technically prove the theft. What is desired is to put the receivers out of business; if that is done these thefts will cease. What is aimed at is to throw upon any person found in the possession of ore the onus of proving where he got it.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GAUVREAU-(Translation)-asked :
1.	Does the minister of Marine intend to raise the salary of lighthouse keepers considering the increase of $30,000 mentioned in i he estimates of 1910-1911? If so, how does he intend to distribute that sum ?
2.	Does the Department intend to re-establish the retreat fund of those lighthouse keepers?
Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)-(Translation)
1.	The classification of the lighthouse-keepers of the Dominion, approved by order in council on September 24, 1908, says that all the keepers will receive a regular increase until a certain amount mentioned for each class is attained. Every keeper who has not yet received the maximum of his class will receive an increase during the next year, provided that his conduct he good and satisfactory.
2.	Not now.



THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT.

Mr. KNOWLES:: Does the government intend at the present session of parliament introducing legislation to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act with a view to meeting the wishes of the railway brotherhood, to avoid expense and delay in the steps required prior to the declaration of a strike?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the government's intention to introduce legislation to amend the Industrial Disputes Act during the present session.



THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION.

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has the commission of conservation met ? If so, on what date, and how many members were present ?	[DOT]


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that the commission has met and organized, and that it will meet in January according to the terms of the statute.



SOUTH AFRICAN SCRIP.

Mr. BARNARD:: Is it the intention of the government to allow holders of South African scrip to locate in respect thereof on lands in British Columbia within the railway belt?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: The Volunteer Bounty Act does not make provision for the location of military scrip in the railway belt, British Columbia.



NORTHWEST POST OFFICES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCarthy :
1.	What was the postal revenue per month from the 1st day of December, 1908, to the 1st day of November, 1909, at the following post offices, namely: Edmonton, Alberta; Calgary, Alberta; Regina, Saskatchewan; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Prince Albert, Saskatchewan ?
2.	How many people were employed in each of said offices during said months?
3.	What was the amount paid for salaries in each of the said offices during said months?
Wilfrid Laurier: I will lay on the table a detailed statement which contains all the information sought for in that question:


Wilfrid Laurier: 

BAIT FREEZERS.

Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	In what year was assistance first granted by the government in aid of the erection of bait freezers?
2.	How many bait freezers have been erected with government assistance in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec, respectively?
3.	What sum has been expended in each of said provinces for such purpose?
4.	How many government aided bait freezers were reported in operation in each of the said provinces during the year 1908?
5.	From whom were the reports received?
6.	Has any change been made in the regulations respecting the conditions upon which aid is granted towards the construction of bait freezers? If so, what is the nature of the change and why was it made?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR:: 1.	1899.
2.	Nova Scotia, 49; New Brunswick, 5; Prince Edward Island, 5; Quebec, 16.
3.	Nova Scotia, $46,816.28; New Brunswick, $4,277.19; Prince Edward Island, $3,536.21; Quebec, $14,141.10.
4.	Nova Scotia, 20; New Brunswick, 1; Prince Edward Island, 1; Quebec, 12.
5.	Peter Macfarlane, officer in charge of fishermen's bait freezers.
6.	Yes. Instead of further assisting Fishermen's Bait Associations in the building of purely bait freezing establishments, at locations and under conditions approved by the minister, firms or persons building fish freezers, who will guarantee to keep on hand a supply of bait, which will be sold to fishermen at current market prices, will be aided in the building of such freezers to the extent of half the cost up to $2,000, and an annual bonus of $5 per ton on bait frozen for the first five years of operations.



MILITARY QUESTIONS.

["1.\tThe Hon. the Speaker of this House.\n2.\tThis tablet is an exact copy of the tablet left on Parry's Rock, Winter Har-hour, Melville Island, longitude 60 min. west to 141 min. west, by the crew of the [DOT] Arctic,' 1st of July, 1909.\n3.\tThe tablet was made by the government employees on board the * Arctic ' and there was, therefore, no charge made for this work."]
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: Is it intended to supply the different regiments of garrison artillery with 12-pounder B. L. guns? If not, why not?


Frederick William Borden: I will read the answer that has been sent to me from the department: No, but the actual meaning of the question is not quite clear. Perhaps the bon. member will put a further question.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: What part does the minister not understand?


Frederick William Borden: I did not
say I did not understand, but the officer who prepared the answer-which I did not see until this moment-said he did not understand. I presume he wanted to know what service or use these guns were to be iut to. It would not be to arm the garrison artillery generally, because they are armed with a different arm.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: My object in asking was to ascertain if it was the general policy of the Militia Department to arm garrison artillery with twelve-pound guns; for this had been done a few weeks ago at Esquimalt.


Frederick William Borden: That is not the policy of the government.


['That is not the policy of the government.']
Arthur Norreys Worthington: ing, or upon the possession of any instructional qualifications?
3.	Is the chief business of the permanent
force to instruct the officers and men of the active militia?	.
4.	Do officer instructors and sergeant instructors of the permanent force, who are in receipt of regular pay as such, draw extra duty pay when employed instructing the active militia in camps of training? If so, why so?
5.	Do the members of the permanent force receive increased rates of ordinary pay after fixed periods of service without regard to either their instructional abilities or their shooting efficiency?



Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	By what authority was the tablet commemorative of the Arctic expedition placed in the vestibule of the library of parliament.
2.	Was a sketch of the tablet proposed to be erected submitted? If so, what officer of the government was charged with the duty of examining and reporting on said sketch?
3.	What has been the cost of the tablet, and to whom was the money paid?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	The Hon. the Speaker of this House.
2.	This tablet is an exact copy of the tablet left on Parry's Rock, Winter Har-hour, Melville Island, longitude 60 min. west to 141 min. west, by the crew of the [DOT] Arctic,' 1st of July, 1909.
3.	The tablet was made by the government employees on board the * Arctic ' and there was, therefore, no charge made for this work.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Wilfrid Laurier: That, as the time for receiving petitions for Private Bills, and the time for presenting Private Bills without additional charges, will be curtailed through the Christmas adjournment of the House, the said times as fixed by rule 87 and rule 88, subsections 3 (b) and 3
(c)	be extended to Wednesday, the 19th of January, Wednesday, the 2nd of February, and Wednesday, the 2nd of March, respectively.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Arthur Norreys Worthington: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I refer to a statement made yesterday during the asking and answering of questions by the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden). As reported on page 1583 of the unrevised ' Hansard,' the hon. minister made the following statement:
These allegations are possibly improper in a question, but I answered according to the law of Scripture that we are bound to answer a fool according to his folly.
I think that answer was not only undignified on the part of the minister, but absolutely out of order, and I would ask that the same be withdrawn.


Frederick William Borden: Perhaps I might substitute other words-I do not know that they are a quotation-answer a wise man according to his wisdom. However, I am quite willing to withdraw the quotation if it is offensive to my hon. friend (Mr. Worthington).



ADJOURNMENT-LOSS OF LIFE ON LAKE ERIE.

Mr. A. C. MACDONELL (South Toronto).: I desire to discuss for a moment a matter of great public importance which, I take it would be in charge of the Marine and Fisheries Department. I would have put what I have to say in the form of an interrogation addressed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) had that hon. gentleman been in his place. But, as he is not present at the moment, I shall make a motion for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of the discussion. The subject I wish to refer to is the loss of life by the foundering of the car ferry steamer ' Bessemer No. 2' on Lake Erie, off Port Stanley harbour. Despatches received from Toronto state that the Canadian Pacific Railway car ferry has been wrecked opposite Port Bur-well. Forty members of the crew were on the boat, but from last accounts, it is hoped that these have been taken off. But the boat is a complete wreck and these forty lives were at least endangered. The mat-'
ter is of very serious and urgent public importance and I bring it to the attention of the House because I think the government has been remiss in not having proper marine signals either at Port Stanley, Port Burwell or Rondeau Harbour.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. member is going to discuss the matter, he must submit a motion.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I have a motion drawn for the purpose. I move:
That leave be granted to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, viz.:	The recent
loss of the railway ferry ' Bessemer No. 2,' on Lake Erie, off Port Stanley, in which at least thirty-eight lives are known to have been lost.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. MACDONELL moved the adjournment of the House for the purpose stated. He said: I desire to bring to the attention of the government, and especially of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the great loss of life that occurred because of the foundering of the car ferry 'Bessemer No. 2.' At least thirty-eight of a crew were on the boat. As there is no passenger ferry across this part of the lake-or any part of the lake at this season -there is every reason to fear that a number of additional persons were on board that ferry as passengers. I am informed that, although there are these three harbours on the north shore of Lake Erie, harbours on which large sums of public money have recently been spent-I believe quite $250,000 at Port Stanley, $200,000 at Port Burwell, and large works going on at Rondeau-yet in all these cases there is no marine warning for incoming vessels. These are not ordinary harbours that are closed at the close of navigation; they are open all the year round, and these railway car ferries run to these three harbours from the south shore of the lake throughout the year. Therefore, additional precautions should be taken there by the government to protect navigation. I am informed that there are some lights at Port Stanley and Port Burwell, but at neither is there a fog horn or other means of giving a signal or answering a signal of distress .from the water. On the night on which the 'Bessemer No. 2' went down, involving this shocking loss of life, a number of the residents of Port Stanley Harbour state the whistle of the steamer was he^rd blowing signals of distress again and again out in the lake. There were no means of answering that vessel. I am informed that during the progress of the work on the pier in the last year or two on many occasions signals of distress were sounded by this very boat and there being no means of answering these signals the contractors who were
[Stage Direction]
doing the work would send out one of their tugs to the entrance of the harbour to answer these signals of distress, in that way enabling the captain and pilot of the boat to locate the harbour entrance. What happened on this occasion, apparently, was that during a blinding snow storm, when marine men could not see more than a boat's length or two ahead, the ferry had no means of knowing when it was near the harbour. Lights were of no avail, what was needed was a fog horn or proper marine signal which would warn them where the entrance to the harbour was and would answer their signals of distress. There were no means provided at the harbour of Port Stanley and as a direct consequence of that this boat foundered because she could not make the harbour and in turning to make shelter, either up or down the lake, in the opinion of marine men, the cars broke loose and she turned over and sank to the bottom.
In the opinion of marine men that loss of life and property could have been avoided had there been proper signals there to warn the vessel of its approach to the harbour. Practically the same thing happens thirty miles away further down the lake at Port Burwell, where we find the wrecked Canadian Pacific railway ferry steamer with forty men in danger from Sunday last until at least yesterday afternoon. It is incumbent upon the government to protect shipping at these points and I wish to point out to the Minister of Marine that this is not a case where navigation closes and signals are not needed. It is just after the ordinary navigation closes that these signals are required, during the snowstorm season and the storm season when lights cannot be made out that a fog horn or other means of signalling is absolutely indispensable. I wish to point out that there was no such means of warning at any of these harbours. It would have cost very little money to install these warnings, the lighthouse keepers at these different harbours could turn on steam and start the fog horn or steam whistle without the extra expense of one man. Thus the signals could have been given had the government taken the precaution to have installed a proper machine to give the usual warnings to mariners. I hope the government will take this matter seriously into consideration and that not only at the ports mentioned but at all other ports where ferries cross in the winter they will take the proper means to see that warnings for navigation are installed. Otherwise what is the use of spending millions on harbours and places of refuge if their approach is made impossible for want of proper aids to navigation?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: Mr. Speaker, I am ex-Mr. MACDONELL.
tremely sorry that my hon. friend has not thought fit to notify me that he was going to bring this question up to-day because then I would have taken the means of giving to the House whatever information the department may have on the question he has raised. I may say to my hon. friend that instructions have been given to make a formal inquiry into the matter to find out the reason of the accident and whether the complaint which has been made by my hon. friend might be remedied as he has suggested.


Mr. MARSHALL.: Has not a petition already been presented to have these signals installed in different places?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: I could not answer off hand. I am extremely sorry the matter has been brought before the House without notice being given. I think it only fair when a question of this kind is being brought before the House the minister should be notified. I am not supposed to know all the details of aids to navigation, and I think it would be only fair that the minister should be notified in advance in order to be able to discuss such a question intelligently and to the satisfaction of the House.



THE NAVAL BILL.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Robert Laird Borden: When may we expect the Bill embodying the naval proposals of the government? I presume we shall have it at the latest immediately after the reassembling of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: A notice will be placed on the Order Paper to-day to be taken up on the first reading on the 12th of January.



REPRESENTATION OF OTTAWA.

Mr. FOSTER.: Has the Prime Minister made a decision as to which of these two loves he will ultimately adhere to, politically speaking?


Wilfrid Laurier: The moment the question is placed in this way I have no hesitation in answering. I have made up my mind and if my hon. friend will allow me until perhaps to-morrow, I will tell him which it is.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to mention to the Prime Minister motions numbers 28, 29, 31, 32, 34 and 35. Some hon. members on this side suggested that these might be called as they are probably unopposed motions. I did not think it worth while that the debate on the budget should be interrupted for this purpose and I would therefore ask that if there is no

objection to these motions the various departments concerned might get ready to bring the returns down immediately after recess so that upon the motions being made the returns will be ready.


Wilfrid Laurier: I can see no objection to that but I would suggest to my hon. friend that to-morrow, before adjournment, we can pass them. I may have to consult some of my colleagues in regard to the matter but I see no objection to their being passed to-morrow.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET DEBATE.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding: That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.
['This debate will be continued. If concluded, we will go into Supply.']
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Mr. Speaker, in continuing the debate on the budget deliverance of the hon. the Minister of Finance, I do not purpose making any lengthy remarks or discussing a large number of subjects. I have no doubt that I voice the sentiment of the country in expressing the satisfaction that it gave the people of Canada to hear the financial statement of the hon. the Finance Minister and to know that the country was in such a happy financial condition. I doubt not but it will be accepted with pleasure and satisfaction generally. It proclaimed a buoyant and expanding revenue, which is always desirable where extensive work is to be done; increasing commerce, and that I am sure will please every citizen of Canada; busy industrial life and heavy expenditure, that will please some, and it will displease others; a rapidly growing debt with our credit not improving but rather the reverse. With regard to the last two features, there may be some exception taken, some would desire that we had not have reached the record which we have reached to-day. Last year has been, according to the budget deliverance, a record year in the history of Canada in many respects. It has been a record year with regard to collections from the people. We collected $85,000,000, the largest sum perhaps, with one exception, that was ever collected from the people of Canada. Therefore it was a record year in that regard. We' spent $126,000,000, the largest amount that has ever been spent in one year in the history of Canada. Therefore our expenditure was a record breaker as well. We increased the debt by $45,969,414, in one year. I believe there is only one other year in the history of Canada where the increase of debt was larger than it was last year, and only one. We spent $31,317,132 on the Transcontinental rail-51
way and the Quebec bridge. With regard to that, I made an observation at the time the hon. Minister of Finance said that we had spent for the current year $31,000,000; I asked the question if that was the railway which was to be built by the surplus of one year, and the Finance Minister's reply was 'I am afraid that was a pipe dream of my hon. friend'. Something imaginative rather than the reality. That statement was credited to this side of the House rather than to the source to which it properly belonged. Not desiring to infringe upon the right of others, I simply wish to refer to that statement in the 'Hansard' at the time it was made, so that the people of Canada may know that it was no pipe dream in the mind of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), or of any other member of this side of the House; but if pipe dream it was, it should be credited to the Prime Minister, end not to the member for East Grey. This is what the 'Hansard' says as the words of the Prime Minister when he was explaining the Transcontinental Railway Bill:
The sum total of money .to he spent by the government for the construction of that line of railway from Moncton to the Pacific ocean will be in the neighbourhood of '$12,000,000 or $13,000,000, and not a cent more. . . . Now, Sir, what is $13,000,000 in 1903? It is about the surplus of revenue over expenditure; the surplus for this year will pay for the construction of this road.
Therefore the pipe dream, if pipe dream there was, ought to be credited to the hon. the First Minister instead of to the member for East Grey. I wish the country also to think over the fact that we have spent over $59,000,000 on a road that was going to cost less than the surplus of one year, less than $16,000,000 and the road is not half built yet. I want the country to think over the fact that we have recently voted over $20,000,000 this year, and we spent $31,000,000 last year, and a large amount the year .before. So the people of Canada may understand whether they were misled by the pipe dreams of the government when they undertook this gigantic enterprise.
This is going to be a record session also, we are told. Well, I looked over the speech from the Throne to ascertain what there was in it that would indicate that it was going to be a record session, and I noticed that that speech deals with only one question that might be regarded as new matter, and that is Naval Defence. On that question, as the Bill is not before the House, I do not desire or intend to make any lengthy observations. But I may say in passing that the speech from the Throne rather indicated that the Bill would have been brought before parliament long ago, and I cannot understand why the delay at the present time. The Governor General said:



Two members of my government attended the Imperial Conference, called by His Majesty's government on the question of defence. A plan was adopted after consultation with the admiralty, for the organization of a Canadian naval service, on the lines of the resolution of the House of Commons of the 29th of March last. The papers will be immediately brought down, and a Bill introduced accordingly.
Well, I would take the language to mean forthwith after the papers had been brought down. But we have now passed five weeks of the session, and although the papers were brought down long ago there is no Bill yet. Now I have only to say with regard to that measure that in my judgment what Canada expects is that something should be done immediately and effectively. I am not going to pretend to say what it will be, but it did occur to me at the time that the speech was made that the observations of my hon. friend from North. Toronto pointed directly to what was perhaps the sentiment of the country on the question then. Therefore, in order that it may be a reminder to the House and the country, may I be permitted to refer to those observations, and that is the only remark I intend to make on the subject. The hon. member for North Toronto said:
To-day parliament stands at the gateway. It is not for me to say how grave it is, but I cannot brush it aside. To-day it impresses itself upon the gravest statesmen of the old country; to-day it appeals to Australia until public subscriptions are taken and the government is being importuned to do even more than its settled policy to meet the emergency; to-day little New Zealand gives one Dreadnought and offers a second, and to-day Canada faces that position of peril, that imperial emergency. Bet me say to my right hon. friend that if, after careful consideration, he proposes to this parliament a means for meeting that emergency adequately, by the gift of Dreadnoughts or the gift of money, this side of the House will stand beside him in thus vindicating Canada's honour and strengthening the empire's defence.
I have only to say that I believe the sentiment of the country remains to-day the same as when these observations^ were made, and that what Canada desires is immediate and. effective action, whatever that action may be. I might for a moment ask what accounts foT the good times that we have, the buoyant revenue and the general prosperity of the country as indicated by the budget deliverance? It is quite natural that the Finance Minister and his supporters would desire to have the country believe that in some way or other their conduct was responsible for these good times. What accounts for the favourable condition of affairs to-day? It is to be chiefly accounted for by the bountiful crop that we have had which brought a very large Mr. SPROULE.
return to the labours of the field, to the agriculturists, who represent about 45 per cent of the population, and if you can give a good return to 45 per cent of the people and they are well employed, thus doing good to them, you necessarily do good to the whole population. The large return for their labours obtained by a great number of the people, and the very heavy expenditure carried on by the government in public works and in other lines, involving the distribution of 126 millions amongst the people of Canada, would help to make good times whether that expenditure was wise or unwise, extravagant, profligate or economical. The exceptionally heavy expenditure on railways, canals, telegraph and other lines would naturally help to make good times. Then, there is the expenditure which took place in connection with corporations outside of the government. Railway building is carried on extensively in the country to-day. The three great transcontinental railway companies are extending their branch lines in every direction at a very rapid rate and this as well means a heavy expenditure in the country. It means employment for labour at remunerative wages, and, therefore, it is one of the elements that assist in bringing about these good times. Then, there is the heavy influx of immigrants who bring with them all the money they possess, as well as their settlers' effects, which money must be spent immediately on arrival to support themselves and those dependent on them with the necessaries of life and to provide an outfit for commencing operations in the new country and in the new home. This money must be spent immediately, and it means a very large additional expenditure in the country. This means as well a valuable additional market for the products of the country that we have to sell because it is usually a market in which the highest prices are paid. A heavy expenditure is required to provide implements and other things necessary to the outfitting of the new-comers. This means not only an increased market, but it means a home market which is always the best market to be had. It means an enhanced value for everything that is produced in the country and that has to be sold. Compare that with a few years ago. It is undoubtedly due to the law of supply and demand, to increased consumption in the country, to the increased numbers to help to create the demand. But, what have the government to do with benefits derived by the people from the large harvest? Nothing whatever. To what extent were they responsible for the increased prices that were obtained by the people of the country for what they sold? They were in no way responsible for it. These increased prices were due entirely to the law of supply and

demand, with which the government had no connection. These things help materially to make good times and in consequence we have the good times that we now enjoy. Our trade and commerce affords a number of examples, but I will only mention one item and that is the enhanced value of everything that the country had to sell last year as compared with previous years. To show what this means to the people of Canada I will mention three articles of export and give a comparison of the prices that were obtained for them last year with the prices that were obtained for the same commodities a few years previously. First, take the exports of wheat. In 1896 we exported 9,919,000 bushels and the farmers got in return, $5,771,000 in round figures. What was that per bushel? It was 581 cents per bushel. That was a very low figure. That could not possibly mean good times for the farmers. But, we take 1906 and we find that the farmers of Canada exported 49,137,000 bushels, in return for which they received $48,000,000. In other words, they got 98 cents per bushel for their grain, whereas, in 1896, they only got 581 cents per bushel. What had the government to do with that? Nothing in the world. It means to the agriculturists of Canada a greatly increased return over what they received a few years previously and, therefore, they were benefited to that extent. Take cured meats. In 1897 we exported
1,861,000	pounds, for which we got $84,000. In 1909 we exported 1,610,000 pounds; that is over 250,000 pounds less. But instead of getting only $84,000 the farmers got $123,911 for it, or $34,493 more for 250,000 pounds less than they got in 1897. What had the government to do with that? Nothing at all. It was due to the markets of the world. Then, I take cheese. In 1897 the farmers of Canada exported 164,220,000 pounds of cheese, for which they got $14,676,000. In 1909 they exported exactly the same number of millions, or 164,907,000 pounds of cheese, for which they received $20,384,000. What had the government to do with that? Nothing whatever. But, it helped to make good times. It helped to make the farmer's return more profitable, but it is not attributable to anything that has been done by the government. It is attributable to the law of supply and demand.
I do not propose to travel over very extensive ground or to engage in anything like an analytical criticism of the budget utterances of the Finance Minister, but 1 wish, very briefly, to direct attention to one particular line where I think the government have been very remiss in their duty, and in connection with that I was rather surprised at the observations of the minister in closing his budget speech. The Finance Minister announced that there will 51J
be no changes in the tariff this year, and he used the following language:
We have no tariff changes to propose on this occasion. It is not because we have entered a claim that the tariff is perfect. We have no doubt that wherever you have a custom tariff necessarily as full and intricate as ours has to be there will be room for criticism and certainly always room for demands for changes. But, we are of the opinion that it is not in the best interests of the country that there should be frequent changes. We believe that frequent tariff changes must have a disturbing influence on the interests of the country and we wish to have it generally understood that where there has been a general revision of the tariff as we had two years ago the government would not be disposed to make changes unless the need for them was very urgent indeed.
Language of somewhat the same kind was used by the Minister of Finance last year and the year before. Let me point out to him that one of the changes made in the tariff when it was revised some years ago, was a change which I have always regarded as unwise and injurious to the interests of the agricultural community who represent 45 per cent of our population, and also the woollen textile industries which were being rapidly developed in Canada; which gave employment to thousands of hands, which produced cheaper clothing than we can now obtain, and which gave a better market to the farmers of Canada for their wool. When we gave the British preference we struck a vital blow at the woollen industry. When the reduction was made in the tariff rate on woollen fabrics there were in Canada 207_ woollen mills operating at full time, employing a large number of people and paying them good wages. These mills had 624 sets of cards, 2,645 looms, and 194,086 spindles moving all the time. But, a few years after the British preference was introduced instead of having 270 mills in operation in Canada there were only 197, instead of having 624 sets of cards there were only 521, and instead of having 2,654 looms there were only 1,706. That is the result of the tariff changes which the Minister of Finance told us were so valuable for the people of Canada, and which, as he said, the government gave out of the generosity of their heart. I am told that twenty more woollen mills have gone out of operation within the last year and that in all there are 73 fewer mills now operating in Canada than there were when the British preference came into force. The operatives in these mills have been thrown out of employment and the bread winners have had to find employment elsewhere. We admit into this country free of duty, or at a nominal duty, from 5,000,000 pounds to 12,000,000 pounds of wool and over 2,000,000 pounds of yarn every year which would have been produced in Canada had we kept

our tariff as we should have kept it against wool, and extended adequate protection to this woollen industry which at one period was developing so rapidly. In addition to that we have 7,000,000 pounds of tops, waste, and rags imported. We threw out of employment over 3,000 operatives on whom probably 15,000 people would be dependent, by virtue of that change in the tariff wjhich was said to lie in the interests of Canada. Why was this unwise policy introduced? For what purpose did the government give that British preference? The Minister of Finance told us it was in the first place to show our generosity and our liberality to the mother country. It is very well to be generous and liberal with what belongs to yourself, but it is not always wise to be liberal with what belongs to other people, and that is what the government did. We were told in the next place by the Minister of Finance that the consumer of clothing in Canada, especially those who purchased the cheaper wearing apparel, would be benefited by this change. Well, I do not dispute that we showed our generosity and liberality, but I do dispute that it has cheapened the cost of clothing to the people of this country. I think I shall be able to prove from the prices quoted by two large establishments in Toronto, that notwithstanding that we brought in over $22,000,000 worth of woollen textile fabrics last year, and notwithstanding that we closed down 73 Canadian mills and at the same time wiped out a valuable market for the wool produced by the farmers of the country, we did not reduce the price of clothing to the poorer people.
Why ? Because the advertisements of these firms tell us plainly that this could not be done. I give the prices of clothing from the files of the Toronto daily papers in 1896, 1905 and 1907. In 1896, throughout November and December, the T. Eaton Company continuously offered ready-made four-button, all wool tweeds, with best Italian cloth lining, sizes 34 to 44, at $6 to $7.50 a suit. At the same time the R. Simpson Company advertised ready-made, all-wool, four-button sack suits of English and Canadian suits, at $5.99, $6.40 and $6.99. In 1905, nine years later, when, according to the Minister of Finance, if his policy had worked out as he seemed to desire and intend, they should have been a great deal cheaper, throughout November and December the T. Eaton Company continuously advertised the same classes of ready-made suits at $10.50, $15 and $18. These figures show that the Minister of Finance's judgment -was bad, that instead of cheapening the cost of these articles to the consumer, that change in the tariff made them very much dearer. In 1905, throughout November and December, the R. Simpson Company advertised the same class of suits at Mr. SPROULE.
$9, $11.75, $14 and $16 a suit. In 1907, the Eaton and Simpson companies advertised early in November all wool and worsted winter suits, sizes 36 to 44, at $12 and $14. iThe same class of suits that 'were offered previously at $5 and $6; and towards Christmas the R. Simpson Company advertised manufacturer's stocks at slaughter prices of $7.95 and $8.59. I give these prices to show that if it ever was intended or believed that the reduction of duty on British goods would reduce the cost of these goods to the poor consumer in Canada, the people know better to-day.
I have given evidence of what this policy has done for the poor people of the country by increasing the cost of the clothing they must wear. What has it done for the farmers of the country? It has destroyed the sheep raising and wool growing industry. 1 can give first the quantity of wool that was sent out of the country at the time when we commenced to build up the textile industry, as indicating the number of sheep that we owned in Canada. The trade and commerce returns show that in 1897 we exported 7,740,000 pounds of wool. Shortly after that we had the British preference, and what effect had it on the sheep raising and the wool industry of the country? In 1898 it fell off; in 1900 it amounted to 2,000,000 pounds; in 1901,	1,000,000
pounds; in 1902, 1,000,000 pounds; in 1903,
2.000.	000 pounds; in 1904, 1,000,000 pounds; in 1905, 1,000,000 pounds; in 1906, 1,000,000 pounds; in 1907, 1,000,000 pounds; in 1908,
1.848.000	pounds, and in 1909,	1,224,000
pounds. These figures show conclusively that the farmers of Canada have found sheep raising unprofitable, and therefore have disposed of their sheep and gone out of the business. What was the cause of that? Undoubtedly one of the main causes was the destruction of the home _ market which they previously had for their wool, by the blow that was given to the woollen textile industry by that reduction on English goods. The provincial governments are doing all they can to induce our farmers to go more extensively into sheep raising, but the farmer does not do so, because he finds it unprofitable owing to there being no market for his wool. As our sheep cannot be transported very well by water, they are not being sent to the European market, but to the United States. The result is that the number of sheep in Canada to-day is only 2,510,000 as compared with
20.108.000	in New Zealand, a much smaller country; 30,011,000 in the United Kingdom, although our country is ten times as large;
53.240.000	in the United States of America,
74.000.	000 in the Argentine Republic, and
87.000.	000 in the Australian Commonwealth. There is not one of these countries that is not smaller than Canada, and the requi-
- sites for sheep raising are as good in Can-

ada as they are in any oi these countries Why is it'that we have not more sheep? Because of the very unwise policy of the government, first, in destroying the textile industry of the country, and secondly, in not providing a better market for mutton, of which we might send millions of pounds to other countries.
Let us compare our own country with some of the states of the Union. Take, for instance, Montana. That state produced last year, 45,000,000 pounds of wool. Why was she able to make so large an output? Because the textile industries of that country use up every pound of that wool, and the farmers who raised it could get a good price for every pound of their product. But when we Gross into Alberta, a province which is larger than Montana and is eapa

 ble of producing more sheep and raising more wool, we find that, instead of 45,000,000 pounds they raised only 400,000 pounds. In Alberta last year, they had 154,266 sheep, as against over twelve times that number in Montana. The whole clip of wool in Canada last year was only 4,500,000 pounds. How was it that we raised so little wool? Because the crop is not a profitable one and the farmer will not spend his time in raising it. Our country is as well adapted for raising wool as any of these other countries, our population is as large as that of most of them and our area certainly greater. This might be a very profitable industry if wise attention were given to it by the government. Instead of having only 154,266 sheep in Alberta, there should be two or three million sheep there, yielding a good return to the farmers. Why is it that these countries can raise sheep profitably and we cannot? Except the Australian colonies and Argentine Republic, the wool of which is finer than ours and therefore more valuable, these countries have no advantage over us except that they have a home market for their wool, and, a good market for mutton as well, whereas the Canadian farmer has not a home market for either. The mutton cannot be properly taken to the market because of our transportation arrangements, and, owing to the indifference of the government, we do not secure the better transportation system that we might have and that would enable the producers to send this material to market at prices that would yield much larger returns than at present. The United States produce 330,000,000 pounds of wool against 4,500,000 pounds in Canada. Why? Because their statesmen, years ago, saw the wisdom of fostering the woollen textile industry. It was first established on the wool of Canada. But it was fostered year after year through adequate protection, not at one stage only but at every stage of that production. This policy was continued steadily until now the
woollen industry may be said to be the most important in that country. There are five million of people dependent upon it, and the spindles of the woollen factories turn out a greater product than any other line of industry except possibly that of iron and steel. The woollen industry gives employment to a larger number of people who receive more in return, and more people are supported by these lines than are supported by any other lines in the United States at the present time. 1 I have stated that England has 30,000,000 sheep, and England is a country not one-tenth the size of Canada. She grows 100,000,000 pounds of wool every pound of which is used in the factories in that country, besides which 557,000,000 pounds of raw wool are imported. England affords the farmers a good market for wool and for mutton also. Compare that with Canada. The Canadian wool consumed in Canadian factories in 1871 was 8,000,000 pounds; in 1881, 8,000,000 pounds; in 1908 a little less than 7,000,000 pounds. Last year, only 4,500,000 pounds. The Canadian farmer has gone out of sheep-raising because that industry is unprofitable. Let me give the figures showing the exports of sheep for some years in order that we may have some idea of what this industry has meant to the Canadian farmer. I begin with the year 1899, when the policy of the present government was coming into full effect. The following are the figures:



[Stage Direction]
1899..
1900..
1901..
1902..
1903..
1904..
1905..
1906..
1907..
1908..
1909..
405,322
459,944
394,681
384.442
401.443 304,053 288,319 214,262 354,665
227.000
118.000
This drop from 459,944 to 118,000 in a period of ten years was directly due to the destruction of the value of the market for the farmer's wool, causing the farmer to go out of the sheep-raising industry. And to-day -there are only 2,478,688 sheep in Canada. We had more than that in 1861. We had more sheep in Canada fifteen years ago because sheep-raising was then more proStable than it is to-day. How is it that the farmers of Australia and the Argentine find sheep-raising profitable, although they have no local market whatever for their wool? Their wool is of fine quality, it is wanted abroad, it always commands a high figure and therefore they get a good return for it. At the same time the mutton is sent to the markets of the world in cold storage provided by their government and produces a good return. To give an idea of what
[Stage Direction]
that means to the people of New Zealand I need only say that Great Britain takes annually from New Zealand of frozen mutton about 200,500,000 pounds and from the Argentine Republic 144,230,000 pounds. Canada, with a country as good for raising sheep and with mutton equally as good as the best they raise either in Argentine or in New Zealand, is not sending a pound of frozen mutton to the markets of the world. Why? Because our government haye not thought it worth while to provide cold storage facilities so that the products of the farmers may be taken to the markets of the world where they realize a profitable return. The result is that all of our sheep, which we export have to be sent to the United States, while our home market is very limited. New South Wales exported of frozen-meats last year 540,514,000 pounds, but, Canada, which could raise meat just as well and of just as good quality, is not able to send a pound to the markets of the world where the Australian and Argentine farmer is getting a good price. The industry of the farmers of Canada is destroyed by the carelessness of the Minister of Agriculture, who proclaims himself to be a farmer and is supposed to be looking after the interests of his fellow farmers. He has failed to do that. The Minister of Finance has struck them heavily on one side and the Minister of Agriculture has struck them on the other. What has this policy of the Finance Minister accomplished for the people of Canada? It has deprived 15,000 or 20,000 Canadians of the means of earning a living and left them in a state of starvation until they were obliged to turn to some other line to earn a living. It has swept away the capital invested in those industries that were running full time when the change was made in the tariff of our country. It has destroyed the machinery which is rusting or has been sold for scrap iron, and every year more and more of these industries are going down until in a few years there will not be one of them left, whereas there were 270 only a few years ago. That policy has destroyed the market furnished by these mills for the wool produced by these farmers. Sheep-raising, one of their best lines of industry, is made unprofitable and therefore they are going out of it at a rapid rate which is indicated by the increased cost of clothing to-day. Instead of getting an increased market and a better price for what he wishes to sell, the market the farmer had is being destroyed and no new market provided in its place. The government killed the Canadian farmers' market in Germany and destroyed the market for consumption at home by those who were engaged in the textile industry, in addition to sacrificing the home market for the wool the farmer raised. One of these things was MR. SPROULE.
done by the Minister of Finance and the other by the Minister of Agriculture.
This was all accomplished by the British preference, Then too, instead of cheapening the goods purchased by the poor people of the country it has increased these over 45 per cent in price. Do the government feel happy over it? Are they satisfied with their policy? Are the people of this^ country satisfied that that policy was a wise one for the country? I do not think they are. Are they grateful to the government for introducing that policy? I do not think they are. What do the farmers of Canada think of that policy? In my judgment they think that the government acted very unwisely, and they would be glad to have some one take up the question in their behalf and introduce a change that will be beneficial. This was accomplished by two members of the cabinet who above all others declared that they were most anxious to do good to two important classes, the poor people of the country who are consumers and the agriculturists who represent so many. The Minister of Finance was going to cheapen their clothing, but he has nearly doubled the price. The Minister of Agriculture was going to do so much for the farmers, being a farmer himself, and he jollies along in the same old slipshod way, he does not get new markets, he only destroys the markets they had, the German market and the home market here in Canada, providing nothing in their place. He did not even provide proper means to lay the products of the farm in the markets of the world and therefore the farmers are obliged to do without beneficial markets where their products might profitably have been sent. In considering these two lines only we have no reason to congratulate either the Finance Minister or the Minister of Agriculture for what they have done for the farmers of Canada or the poor people who are always needy and require to get the cheapest clothing the country can possibly afford. The very men who above all others should be most desirous to help the poor people are the men who have done them the greatest injury and injustice. The man above all others charged with the responsible task of dealing with that question has done nothing, he has destroyed the markets they had and provided no others in return.
I merely make these observations in order to draw the attention of the farmers of the country to what has been done, what accounts for the destruction of their valuable market, what accounts for the fact that sheep-raising is not profitable tc-day. I want to draw the attention as well of the poor people of Canada and to let them know why it is they pay so much more for their clothing, about 45 per cent more than in 1897, when this new policy was introduced and put in operation.
Mr. F. L. FOWKE (South Ontario).: Mr. Speaker, in the mother of parliaments as in the parliaments of the five nations, the financial statement or annual budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Finance Minister as the case may be, is always a theme of interesting discussion both in the House of parliament and out of parliament. In this country where history is being made very rapidly, where the events of today will be counted as ancient history tomorrow, it is not at all surprising that in a peculiar sense the budget of the Finance Minister is looked forward to with interest. I am very glad to-day to be able to say that during the last twelve or thirteen years in this Dominion the budget speech has been looked forward to with feelings of joy, not with feelings of apprehension. The budget to which we listened the other day is perhaps the most magnificent of all the splendid presentations which the able Finance Minister has presented to the Dominion House of Commons. I am delighted to find that the gentleman who preceded me in this discussion pays this compliment to the Finance Minister when he says that the budget is in most respects one to be rejoiced over rather than to be complained of; and yet, like the good cow that gives a fine bucket of milk and then proceeds to kick it over, the hon. gentleman spoiled the good effect of his speech by an adverse criticism which practically put him out of court. To the present Finance Minister is due the existing fiscal policy of this country, under which Canada enjoys, and has so long enjoyed, such great prosperity, and which has enabled him to make the magnificent showing he was able to make on Tuesday last. Now, Sir, I am in a way glad that the two gentlemen who have spoken for the opposition have, at least in their speeches, found more or less fault with the hon. the Finance Minister, and I will tell you why. The speech and the presentation by the Finance Minister are approved by almost every body, and I hold in my hand a Conservative newspaper, the ' Citizen ' of Ottawa, which contains a despatch from Great Britain to the effect that the address there is received with marked favour by capitalists, who predict that the great prosperity of the Dominion is reflected by it, and that this prosperity is likely to increase.	I say
I am rather pleased to have heard the two gentlemen of the opposition speak on this question, one of them an ex-minister of Finance and who would like to be again Minister of Finance and the hon. gentleman who has preceded me (Mr. Sproule) whose heart has been made sick in waiting for an opportunity to be a member of a new government. They have found fault with the presentation of the Finance Minister, and
so saved him from coming under the measure under this menace of the scripture: ' Woe unto that man of whom all men speak well.' Now the budget's presentation not only gives a splendid view of the condition of the business of the nation, but it gives a fair presentation of the social life of the people, and brings to our attention the growth and development of our trade and commerce. Yet it is too bad that even the opposition in this House should feel inclined to criticise the budget speech, and to pour out the vials of their wrath upon the administration as we have heard them do. Now let me suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, though not wishing to be disrespectful to the hon. gentlemen who preceded me, and to the hon. profession to which he belongs in life, I am bound to say that I can account for it on no other ground than that he is suffering from something like mental measles, and is unable fittingly to appreciate the real state of affairs in the Dominion of Canada. I do know that his desire for the treasury benches makes him feel to-day as melancholy as a pelican in the wilderness, as his colleague the other day showed himself to be as ferocious as a bear robbed of her cubs, when he came to think of the position which he now occupies and the position which he would like to occupy in the government of this country.
Now, Sir, the presentation made by the Finance Minister is remarkable in several particulars. First, it noted the fact of the splendid position this Dominion occupied during the panic that occurred in 1907 and 1908, and if we had time this afternoon to institute a comparison as to the effects of that panic on various countries, a panic which was world wide in its operation, you would find that this country resisted the effect of that panic as no other country was able to do. Why, Sir, in the great republic to the south of us, that wealthy and populous nation, what was the state of affairs? Not only was industry paralysed, but money could not be had to carry on the legitimate business of the country. Owing to the wise fiscal policy now prevailing in this country our business community was happily preserved from the disastrous effects which visited the republic. There was ample money for all legitimate business enterprises and business went on with slight interruption. Albeit the revenue of the country was somewhat diminished, and it was not at all surprising that such should be the case. Now, the Finance Minister's splendid speech also noted the fact that the trade and commerce of the country are growing by leaps and bounds. He was able to tell us of an overflowing treasury, of a great recovery in the revenue of the country which would enable the necessary expenditures to be met without

difficulty. He showed us that notwithstanding all the great expenditures that will have to be made upon the National Transcontinental railway, the increase of the public debt would be $2,250,000 less than the expenditure on that, enterprise alone, and the naval expenditures ordinarily applied to capital account would this as would other years be paid out of revenue expenditures and be chargable to capital account?
Now, this is a remarkable condition of affairs in Canada, a very prosperous condition indeed. It is one that might well cause the hon. gentleman who preceded me to ask the question as to how this condition of affairs is to be accounted for. Well, Sir, it is to be accounted for in various ways. I cannot now follow him in all the paths in which he journeyed in trying to ascertain the cause of the country's prosperity. The way in which he tried to explain it, however, was a twice told tale. lie laid emphasis upon the fact that much of the prosperity of the nation is due to the enterprise of the people, is due to the fact that agriculture is flourishing, is due to the fact that work and wages were never better, is due to the fact that we have a splendid industrialism in Canada. I would like to draw the attention of that hon. gentleman and of the House to the fact that all these vast interests in Canada are growing today, they are developing day by day, month by month and year by year. And how is it all to be accounted for? Sir, I think it is largely owing to the fact that we have a sane and sensible fiscal policy, one which not only ministers to the growth in trade and commerce abroad, but which has helped to build up an interprovincial trade which is vastly superior to that which we enjoy from imports and exports. I was glad to-day, in taking up the Ottawa ' Free Press,' to note the splendid influence that the fiscal arrangements of this country are now having upon foreign capital. The Ottawa 'Free Press' of December 15, has a statement from the State Department at Washintgon, noting that $226 500,000 of American capital has been invested in industrial enterprises in Canada, employing Canadian labour, on Canadian so'l, and ministering to the comfort and convenience of the Canadian people. This is a point that is wmrthy of note. When these gentlemen come to discuss the ifs and ands of the prosperity of the day-and I shall go into detail in a moment more fully as to some of the things said by the hon. gentleman who preceded me-I listen in vain for a declaration from them as to what they themselves would do to improve the situation. I had hoped that they would have presented an alternative policy upon which they might have appealed to the Dominion of Canada. But, Sir, had we anything of


Frederick Luther Fowke: the kind presented to us? No, Sir, we had not. They proceed upon the assumption that the government of the day are perfect men, that they are infallible, that they ought not to be expected to err in any single particular. Sir, high as my regard is for the hon. the Premier and the members of his cabinet, I do not claim for them absolute perfection. I do not pretend to say that there is no possibility of errors having been made, but if there have been errors made in the administration, these gentlemen have failed to point them out, and they have failed to show, if there have been errors, what they would do to meet the situation.


Mr. STAPLES.: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is this policy which this government has been administering during the last twelve years the policy that the right hon. the Prime Minister enunciated in Winnipeg in 1894, when he promised the people that if he were elected to power he would give them free trade as they have it in England?


Frederick Luther Fowke: I am very pleased to say that when the right hon the premier accepted office and opened that new era for Canada in which we are living now, an era of magnificent growth, development and prosperity, he established for this country the fiscal policy under which we have lived until this hour and which admirably meets the requirements of the situation.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: May I ask the hon. gentleman what that fiscal policy was?


Frederick Luther Fowke: Is it that hon. gentlemen opposite are without a policy? I know that they were struggling to manufacture a policy. If I remember correctly there was such a thing spoken of as the Halifax platform and we were to have adequate protection, but since the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) refused to be godfather to that policy and since a wet nurse could not be had for it among hon. gentlemen opposite it has faded into the distant past and we no longer hear of the Halifax policy I had expected, therefore, that by. this time, on the eve of the convention which is called ostensibly, J suppose, to unite the party and to give them possibly a leader under whom they can serve, they would have outlined a policy of some kind. But we are quite in the dark as to what these hon. gentlemen wish us to do in that respect. There is nothing positive from that side of the House, nothing statesmanlike, only faultfinding and unsubstantial statements, and if the hon. gentleman will receive it from me his address to-day seemed very much like putting empty buckets down and drawing nothing up. I have simply to say a word in answer to a few of his criticisms

and to point out a few of the mistaken statements and wrong conclusions which he has arrived at from what he would call his argument this afternoon. There are some facts that we ought to know in connection with the history of this Dominion. I want to state openly, unreservedly and boldly that with the coming into power of the hon. the premier there was opened a new era in the Dominion of Canada, the era in which we are living now and one which is likely to continue for a very considerable time, we trust. I want these gentlemen opposite to have it impressed upon their minds that we are living in an era, which is one rejoiced in by all classes and sections of the Dominion of Canada, by three or four dates which I will venture to mention. Has not the year 1896 itself a meaning for them? Have not the years 1900, 1904 and 1908 a meaning for them? These are very impressive mile stones along the line of the history of this country which ought to convince hon. gentlemen opposite that in all of the appeals that have been had to the electorate since the advent to power of the present government until this day the masses of the Canadian people have been shown to be absolutely, with an almost united front, behind the premier and the government which he leads so successfully. There is nothing wonderful in relation to that.
The hon. gentleman who preceded me undertook to speak on behalf of agriculture and in doing so he made a slight comparison as to the prices of agricultural products last year and this. It would almost seem to me, although I had not intended to do so, that the hon. gentleman needs to have told him some very necessary truths, but in order to do that I should have to move the hands on the dial back not a year but probably thirteen years to direct his attention to the orices of agricultural produce, say, in 1896, and in 1909. If he wants a comparison of that kind he may have it. Let me tell him that the price of wheat, for instance, when the Tories were in power was 58 cents a bushel; to-day we are glad to know that it is a dollar a bushel. At that time the farmers eggs were 10 cents a dozen; to-day they are 25 cents a dozen. Then butter was 12 cents a pound; to-day it is worth a shilling a pound. And if he wants to tell me that the exports of dairy products have fallen off I will tell him that so greatly has the population grown, so numerous have the consumers become, so much better has the home market demand been made than the export market demand that we are glad to avail ourselves of it and the farming industry is flourishing accordingly. The farmer will have little regard for the argument of the hon. gentleman if he will ask him to turn out the present government and place himself and his asociates in power. Now, Sir, there is another change that I would like to speak of in relation to Dominion affairs. Let me contrast the condition then and now. I will not harrow the feelings of hon. gentlemen by speaking of the state of political corruption that was known to exist in Canada then and of the changed conditions now.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frederick Luther Fowke: The people know it and the people rejoice in it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frederick Luther Fowke: Hon., gentlemen .pay: 'hear, hear'. In those days it was necessary for the leader of the government to expel from the House of Commons of his own party because of their corrupt acts. To-day we stand behind the ministry which is unimpeachable in its character -


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. FOWKE, And because of the wise economy and absolute honesty characterizing every department a majority of the people of Canada stand united behind this government and overwhelmingly declare that there is such a difference ad between then and now that they want no more of the then and they want to cling to the now. At that time there were such things as national distress and stagnation all over Canada. To-day you find that agriculture flourished to a marked degree, that where there was but the prairie there are now villages-villages	that have grown to
towns and towns that have grown to metropolitan cities, and you find in the east of this country as well as in the west, in the two older provinces, that a large industrialism has been developed and is developing that was not known then and which is employing hundreds of thousands of men, giving them all the work they can do and at splendid wages too. Work and wages never were so plentiful and so much rejoiced in in Canada as they are to-day, and I will tell you why. It is very largely because of the sane and successful fiscal policy inaugurated in the early days of the present administration and persisted in to this hour. And, one of the greatest blessings that has come to us in connection with the fiscal policy is the very one which that hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) professed to condemn this afternoon, namely the imperial preference. I want to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) now, if he is prepared to recommend to his party that that preference should be withdrawn from the mother country? He will not make such a declaration. I am glad from the political point of view that lie condemned the imperial preference as he did to-day, because the people of Canada have proclaimed time and again that nothing has ever pleased them better than

the manner in which, through the channels of trade and commerce, the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier has linked Canada more thoroughly with the mother country than ever before. Is it that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) is simply to wave the old flag and shout loyalty on the 12th of Julv, and that when he is asked to render substantial service to. Britain and to exhibit some evidence of true imperialism, he will, as he has done to-day, speak against a closer association with the motherland. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) dwelt in feeling terms on the woollen industry and of the farmers being deprived of a market for their wool.
Now, I happen to have a large woollen industry in my own town, one which was established a few years ago under rather adverse conditions for the firm was not then rich in material wealth. However, they began the industry there and it has grown and grown with the years until at this hour it is one of the finest of its kind in Canada, and has a plant which I suppose is worth not less than $100,000. From employing a few hands it has grown to employing many hands, and, before I came to Ottawa the president of that company said to me: Mr. Fowke, I hope you will do something to get the woollen industry on a better footing than it is at present when you go down to the session. I said to him:	Why Mr. Schofield is not your industry prospering, is it not a growing industry? and he said: Oh, yes, I have nothing to complain of in respect to my particular industry but it is the woollen industry down some where else in some other part of the country. And I said:	I suppose it is one of those industries which has failed to keep pace with the change in events, that has allowed its machinery to become out of date and has not applied proper business methods in order that it might grow and prosper as yours has. I told my electors on the eve of the election that any manufacturer in Canada who could not live and thrive and prosper under the present tariff ought to be allowed to perish and to go out of existence, and the manufacturers present applauded that sentiment. And, Sir, I stand here to applaud it to-day. The British preference has given us an association with the mother country in business such as we did not have before and such as. we have the right to rejoice in now. It is no argument to say that the farmers are not producing sheep and wool to-day. I would like to point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) that the farmers of this country produce that which it is most profitable for them to produce, and that if they can raise cattle and wheat and other cereals, to greater advantage than they can raise sheep, these are the branches of industry they will undertake and the sheep raising will be neglected. I would like to tell the hon. gen-Ma. FOWKE.
tleman further, that there is a large sheep industry in Canada and that it is known to be very profitable. Sheep are raised in this country not so much for wool as for mutton, and the fancy sheep of Canada are exported to the United States and to other parts of the world in large numbers and with great profit to those who raise them. The hon. gentleman attempted to compare Montana with Alberta, and because Alberta happens to be a larger district than Montana he said that sheep should be raised in Alberta even as they are in Montana. Well, I thank Heaven that Alberta is capable of producing something more than sheep, for Montana is not capable of producing anything but sheep. Montana is a country of hills and of valleys and of running water. In this country we do not have to confine our industry to any particular line, for the farmer as well as for the business man industry is diversified, and under the splendid guidance of the Minister of Agriculture we are getting something like intensified farming so that the Canadian farmer is able to make the most out of the calling in which he is engaged. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) quoted from the catalogue of the T. Eaton Company in an attempt to prove that clothing is dearer to-day than it was before the British preference. Of course the idea he was aiming at would refute his own argument because if we had not a tariff against woollen goods, woollen goods ought to be cheaper in Canada than they were before. But he contended they were dearer and he quoted this catalogue to prove it. Now, I want to tell the hon. gentleman the true state of the case in relation to that matter. Cheap clothing can be purchased to-day in Canada as cheaply as ever it could, but I thank this parliament, and I thank this government, and I thank Providence too, for the fact that the people of Canada do not have to wear cheap clothing any more. If they pay higher prices than formerly for their clothing it is because they have the money to buy better clothing. Our people to-day are better fed and better clothed and better housed and have larger bank deposits than was ever possible before Sir Wilfrid Laurier attained power. Sir, I had the pleasure of the acquaintance of the late Mr. Timothy Eaton, the merchant prince of Canada, and in the last conversation but one which I had with him I said: Mr. Eaton, what is the secret of your success in business life? And he said: Why, I have just one motto in my business life and it is this: A fair field and no favour. That was the expression of a true Britisher and a true Canadian, and the Eaton firm to-day is perhaps the largest employer of labour in the province of Ontario, and they minster to the wants and conveniences of the people to a very large extent, and they have succeeded by putting into effect the

principle enunciated by the founder of the firm. I venture to say that if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) will review the catalogue of the T. Eaton Company again he will find that if there is a man who wants cheap garments to-day he can have them just as cheaply as he could ten years ago. But, owing to the prosperity of the country the Eaton firm bring to the attention of the people not the cheaper but the better wares and the people are able and willing to buy them. Speaking from a party point of view I am glad that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) has assailed the British preference because in my judgment there is nothing in connection with the fiscal policy of this government that more commends itself to the people of Canada than the preference given to the mother country in our markets.


Mr. THOBURN.: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Frederick Luther Fowke: Yes.


William Thoburn: As one who is largely interested in this preferential tariff that he speaks so loudly about and tells of the great advantage it has been to Canada-I have asked this question before but it has never been answered to my satisfaction although perhaps the hon. gentleman will answer it now-I want to know one solitary product of the Dominion of Canada that gets a preference in the old country. In what way does Canada benefit by that preferential tariff? Is there any preference given to any Canadian product to-day in the market of England that was not given to that Canadian product before the preferential tariff came into force?


Frederick Luther Fowke: The hon. member has asked a question. He belongs to a party that talks very loudly about its loyalty to Great Britain. I would like to illustrate its attitude by a story I once heard. At a school gathering in a country district the British flag was placed on the wall in full view of every one present, and one of the speakers commended the teacher for having it there, and drew from it many important lessons in loyalty for the scholars. When he finished, the teacher said: ' I must tell you, Sir, how the flag came to be there; there is a very bad hole in the wall, and it is very dirty anyway, and I put the flag there to hide it.' That is an illustration of the lip-loyalty of the hon. gentlemen who sit opposite, who loudly proclaim their loyalty from the house tops, but who, when it comes to giving concrete example of the fact that Canada stands heart to heart with the motherland, are ready to say:	'Our
interests are here, and even though we would not be greatly hurt by it, we must not take the chance of doing anything for our mother at home.' The present government acted very differently. They said:
'Great Britain is the best market we have for the products of Canada, we wish it ever to be so, we wish to have our trade with you, both for export and import, we want to know you better, to have closer fellowship with you, and to that end the first statesman of Canada gave the preference to the mother country, the result of which is that there is to-day in the British market a sympathetic regard for the products of this country, even though that market is equally open to the products of the whole world. I am glad to know that transportation under this government is keeping pace with the marvellous development of the country, and I am sure the country will approve of what the First Minister has promised to do in a larger way when the finances of the country will warrant it, in the way of deepening the Welland canal, possibly building the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal, and extending a railway line to Hudson bay. There is nothing too great to expect in that direction, as transportation facilities must be provided if we are to continue to have immigration in the volume in which we have it to-day. In that respect emphasis may be laid upon the fact that we are in a new era. You do not find that the population of Canada is simply stable, that the youth of Canada have to leave for foreign soil to make a living, as was the case formerly. We are not only retaining our own natural increase, but the best people of the United States and the best people of Europe are coming to us, after a searching investigation showing that they axe worthy of admittance to this country. To-day we have an immigration of 150,000 per annum and a revenue of $100,000,000. This is something to rejoice in; but I ask hon. members to contemplate the time, not very far distant, when the immigration will be, not 150,000 a year, but 500,000, and when the revenues of the country will have gone up to 400 or 500 millions. There are gentlemen listening to my voice who will witness these things, which will come because the foundations for such a splendid superstructure are being laid by the present government. The marked difference between former years and the present time is emphasized by the trade and navigation returns. The trade of Canada under the Conservative administration was $239,000,000; last year it amounted to more than $571,000,000, showing an increase of over $332,000,000. I would like next to show very briefly how this government has materially assisted in the production of wealth in this country. The hon. gentleman who preceded me said, what is largely true, that it is by bringing brain and brawn into contact with the forces of mother nature, and compelling her to yield up her treasures that we get the advantages that we possess as a growing country

to-day. But not only by the fiscal policy of the government, but by the management of the various departments have the Canadian population been taught the way in which they can hope to make the most of their energies in the production of wealth for their own comfort and convenience, and also for the national growth and development. In no one department is this emphasized more fully than in the Department of Agriculture. The manner in which that department has assisted agriculture is of incalculable value to the agricultural interests of the country, by the experimental farms, by the dissemination of information, by the interchange of animal products with the various provinces. Time would fail me to tell of all the ways, so well known to this House and to the agriculturists of Canada, in which that department has assisted in the growth and development of agriculture. So that this government, through its various departments, is to be credited with the fact that the people of Canada, in their various callings, are so prosperous as they are known to be to-day. I have a great many statistics showing that the products of the farm have increased enormously in value; but I will not tire the House by reading them. They are in the blue-books, and may be seen by everybody. The Minister of the Interior, in his immigration policy, has pursued the policy of preserving this as a white man's country and of holding the public lands for the settlers.
The manner in which the Finance Minister presents the finances and deals with them is a subject of congratulation by all of us. And I am sure, accepting each of these departments as a great business department, I can with confidence ask you to come to a conclusion the exact opposite of that propounded by the ex-Finance Minister (Mr. Foster) the other evening when he said that this is not a business administration. I am glad to believe that on the record they have shown themselves to be a business administration, and I am glad to know that by the business community, the wage-e'arn-ing community, the farming community, the banking community, the government is looked to with confidence in presenting its policies, because it is known to be a business government. Now, I would like, for a moment, to refer to one other department of government, that of Trade and Commerce. The hon. member (Mr. Sproule) who preceded me, asked how Canada's prosperity was to be accounted for? It is to be accounted for in part by the opening up of new markets for the products of Canada. That sort of thing has gone on and has grown with the growth of the government from 1896 to this hour.


Frederick Luther Fowke: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. member (Mr. Fowke) tell us what new markets have been opened up?


Frederick Luther Fowke: I will. In 1896, this country had only one trade commissioner to represent its interests abroad, and that commissioner was ten thousand miles away in the antipodes where there was comparatively little opportunity for trade and commerce with Canada to develop. Since then, eighteen trade commissioners have been appointed and are now engaged in their several fields, in Australia, British West Indies, China, Cuba, France, Holland, Japan, Mexico, Newfoundland, South Africa, Norway and the United Kingdom. It affords me pleasure to say that I have read correspondence with the department from interested manufacturers in this country, which any member of this_ House has equal opportunity to see, pointing to the fact that the information given to them through the department by the .trade commissioners in the various countries has been beneficial in a very large degree indeed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did not we have these markets before?


Frederick Luther Fowke: We had not learned to cultivate these markets before. We are cultivating them now, and I have no doubt that because of the having our trade commissioner in Mexico, the fact that they had last year a small crop of barley has led to our exporting large quantities of that cereal at paying prices from the province of Ontario to that country. Such facts being brought to the attention of the department, and the department in turn directing the attention of the business community of Canada to these facts, is helping to extend and enlarge the trade and commerce of the country in a way alike creditable to the government and profitable to the people engaged in it.
There is another department of which I have not spoken, and yet I wish to speak of it because it is a department, I believe, whose operation will be of special advantage to a very large section of the Canadian community. I wish to commend the government for the creating of the new portfolio, that of Labour, and for the appointment of Mr. King to that portfolio. There has been a great deal of talk in the past about sympathy with the wage-earners, but until the present government came into power very little had been done in a practical way to manifest sincere regard for the benefit and advantage of that class. The wage-earners are beginning to appreciate the fact that the government has manifested its interest in them in a very fitting and practical way, and that it will see to it in the future that the interests of labour

ere fairly and honestly guarded, that the wage-earner shall be entitled to feel that his interests are as sacred as those of any other person of the community and that no opportunity will be given to any one to trespass upon his rights and privileges. And I am very glad to know, in this connection, that the annuities established under the Trade and Commerce Department, and with which the members of this House are more or less familiar, have been planned so that the poor man can make an investment of his savings which will be absolutely secure and profitable to him as well. I am glad to know that so fully are the wage-earners and others of the country taking advantage of the Annuities Branch of the government that no less than $340,000 has been received in premiums in that connection.
If I were to attempt further to answer the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) I should point out that the government are helping forward agriculture and other interests of the county by means of shipping subsidies and in other ways too numerous now to mention. I shall not trespass upon the attention of the House, nor attempt to present the case more fully than I have already done. But there is one other particular in which, with your consent, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say we are constantly reminded that we are living in a new era in this country since 1896. I am glad to be able to point out the fact that the government of the day are builders up of the Dominion of Canada and of all its varied interests so far as a government is able to further those interests. But, in my judgment, there is no more striking evidence of this result than the appreciation of it in the old land as never before, as it is being appreciated by the Canadian people as never before. Is it not the fact that the Canadian people have just begun to know their standing in a national sense? I am glad to realize that under the First Minister of the day a national sentiment has been formed in the Dominion of Canada, and that its evidences are to be seen from sea to sea, and from the region of the North Pole to the international boundary in the south. And I think it is important that we note the fact of the creation and prevalence of the national spirit. I hold in my hand a brief excerpt from a speech made by that great cosmopolite, Andrew Carnegie. I want to show how a gentleman, of his standing can speak of-the Canadian people and to leave it with you, with you whether we may not at all suitable times emphasize the fact that Canada is a nation. Mr. Carnegie, in an address on a remarkable occasion in New York, said:
Who made the American nation? A little more than a century ago who was the American? A puny, miserable colonist, a dependent
of another nation. He was nothing higher, nothing better than a Canadian, a man without a country and therefore little of a man.
I as a native born Canadian rejoice in the fact that no man is longer entitled to speak of this country as a mere colony of Great Britain. I rejoice that we can to-day proclaim that we are one of the five nations which, with the British Isles, go to make up the most magnificent empire the world has ever seen. Sir, that spirit regarding us did not exist prior to 1896 in Great Britain, nor did we possess it to any such extent in this country as we possess it today. Not many .years ago British statesmen were willing to say : We will let the colonies go and one distinguished English statesman is even credited with saying that the colonies are as a weight about the neck of the mother country, dragging her down to sorrow and to woe. To-day what do you find? You find the British statesmen outvying each other in speaking of Canada as she deserves to be spoken of, and, as I have already said, you find the Canadian people of every name and of every nationality to-day rejoicing in the fact that we are a united people and that we are a nation. No longer do we speak of the French Canadian, the Irish Canadian, the Dutch Canadian-we no longer write Canadian with a hyphen. But no matter who we are or where we come from, standing on the free soil of Canada, facing the future as we do and rejoicing in the present as we have a right to do, we proclaim the fact that we are a nation in the true sense of the term and that we intend to live the life of a nation, of a nation of free institutions, of large hopes and of noble aspirations.
I hope I have answered, in a way at any rate, the statement of the hon. gentleman who preceded me and that I have shown that one may with considerable pride and satisfaction stand in his place in this House and voice these sentiments as a supporter of the right, hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and of the government who have so successfully guided the destinies of this Dominion for the last 13 or 14 years and in whom to-day we rejoice as a government which present to this country not only a budget such as that which came to us on Tuesday last, but a policy which continues to make for the greatness and grandeur of the Dominion of Canada and for a closer association with the mother country for a larger place on behalf of this country in the affairs of the great continent of which we form a part, and of the empire to which we are so proud to belong.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. gentleman will pardon me if in what I have to say I do not follow his line of argument; I have

another subject which I prefer to discuss. But should I care to be reminiscent I think I could safely recall an instance in my boyhood when I knew a man who on his own account and of his own notion undertook to preach the doctrine of protection in this country and who when he did that was not only derided but even despised, and that I, his son, have come to an age when, as a member of this House, I have seen, as I see this afternoon, both of the great parties of this country striving one with the other as to which is doing the most toward building up the industries of this country.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Findlay Maclean: I have waited now for a long time to express my views in regard to the naval defence programme of the government. I waited last session for a good many days for some kind of tangible expression of that policy, and for a number of days this session I have waited for some tangible expression of that policy, and apparently we have got it in this budget speech. It may be that it is the policy, not only of the government, but of the whole House, because I am told that it is to be on the lines of the resolution that was unanimously carried in this House last March; so I suppose we have now got a tangible expression of their policy in the budget speech. Now, when the question of war is concerned, even when the question of defence is concerned, while sentiment has a great deal to do with it, the financial programme is everything. But in this matter of naval defence, whatever may have been the expression from a sentimental point of view, the Canadian people, the world at large, will view our naval defence policy as it is expressed in the budget statement, and a budget statement that deals with war, or even if it only deals with defence, if it has not something preponderating in it, something out of the usual, is not very much of a programme, and that is the opifiion I have been forced to form in regard to the naval defence programme of the government as outlined by the Minister of Finance. All he said in the budget speech which he made the other day was that this government intended, out of the curernt revenue of the country, this year and succeeding years, to carry out their policy with regard to naval- defence. There was to be no extraordinary financial arrangement, there were to be no loans incurred for the purpose of carrying out the naval defence of the country jointly with the empire, but the government intended, out of the ordinary revenues of the country, to provide a sum sufficient for the Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
establishment of a Canadian navy. Now, that to my mind is altogether insufficient, it is not what this country ought to do, it is not what the Canadian people expect this government to do for naval defence. Let me read just what is that programme which is to be realized, as the Minister of Finance says, by an ordinary appropriation out of the ordinary revenues of the country:
This House will accordingly approve of any expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service, in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference, and in sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire, and the peace of the world.
Now, I say that if that programme is to be realized by an ordinary grant towards the establishment of a Canadian navy, it is not what this country is bound by its duty to do, and it is not what the people of this country expect parliament and expect the government to do in that matter. If the House will pardon me for a moment, I would like to refer to a statement I made in this House not so long ago, following the right hon. gentleman who leads this House, a statement wherein I tried to show that Canada was an essential, an integral part of the British empire. The right hon. gentleman put it in his way by saying that we were not only Canadians, but we were British; I put it in somewhat another way by reading from the constitutional Act of this country, namely, the British North America Act, wherein it was declared that the parliament of Great Britain created this Dominion of Canada, that the Queen was the head of it, that the Governor-General represented the Queen, and that the oath we all took, whether in connection with legislation or defence, was one of loyalty to the empire, and that we were in every sense of the term an integral part of the empire. From that I drew the conclusion that if we were of the empire and under the British Crown as intimately as we are, and that if we were British as well as Canadians, then it was our duty to do something substantial in connection with the defence of that empire and its Crown. Now, what is it we were asked to do? We were asked to do something, and I propose to read one or two sentences from the proceedings of the last imperial conference in relation to that matter. The British government was represented by Lord Tweed-mouth, who was first lord of the Admiralty, and in addressing the conference he said:
We welcome you, and we ask you to take some leading part in making more complete than it is at present the naval defence of the empire. . . . The only reservation that the

admiralty desire to make is, that they claim to have the charge of the strategical questions which are necessarily involved in naval defence, to hold command of the naval forces of the country, and to arrange the distribution of ships in the best possible manner to resist attack and to defend the empire at large, whether it be our own islands or the Dominions beyond the seas. We thoroughly recognize that we are responsible for that defence. We want you to help us in that defence. We want you to give us all the assistance you can, but we do not come to you as beggars; we gladly take all that you can give us, but at the same time, if you are not inclined to give us the help that we hope to have from you, we acknowledge our absolute obligation to defend the King's dominions across the seas to the best of our ability.
Now, there was a distinct invitation to the Canadian government, to all the associated states of the empire, to join in the defence of the empire. We were implored by the mother, it was the call of a* mother to her children, to her sons and daughters, to these new states which have sprung from her loins, it was an invitation to join her in the defence of the empire. It was not merely a statement that you can do so and so if you like, or you need not do anything. There was a direct invitation on the responsibility of the British government to Canada, to Australia, to New Zealand, to South Africa, to all the conferees in that conference to join the mother country in the defence of the empire. That being the case, I say we are bound to give a better answer to that invitation than the proposal that is contained in the resolution which was passed here last session, notwithstanding the fact that it was said to be the unanimous opinion of this House, and is to be the policy of this government and of this House in answer to that invitation. Not only in this official invitation have we been invited to join in the defence of the empire, but there have come friends and kinsmen of ours from across the sea to visit us. One after the other they have come here, some in an official and some in an unofficial capacity. English papers have come here, English opinion has been expressed and in hundreds of ways outside of the official invitation that was given at the conference we have been asked to join in the defence of the empire. People have been looking to Canada all the world over to see what our action is to be not only in regard to the invitation that came from the British government but in regard to the invitation which has been given to us by so many who have visited us and by the English press and speakers on English platforms. So important is this question of naval defence that the budget which has caused so much trouble in England, is, to my mind, a naval defence budget. It is an effort on the part of the government there to provide for naval defence. It is
an effort to raise money for naval defence. The government of the day in England have embarked on an enlarged programme of naval defence and expensive shipbuilding and in order to carry that out they have a budget which is a revenue producing budget based on the idea that the land of the country should pay a greater amount in taxe.s than it nas paid in the past. And they believe that this additional tax should be, in a measure, used for carrying out the naval defence scheme of the home government. Not only that, but the budget programme of the Conservative party there- and this is the question before the English people to-day-is also a naval defence programme. They propose to reform the tariff so as to produce more revenue and in that way to increase the ability of the country to provide for naval defence. England today is busy with her naval defence. The go'vernment of the day have staked all on a programme of social reform and also on a programme that involves .an increased revenue for the country. They have staked everything on that programme which means an increased revenue for naval defence; and the Conservatives in England are risking everything in the struggle for a programme which they declare means tariff reform, therefore, increased revenue and, therefore, increased ability to carry on the defence of the country and to provide, for a greater navy. That is the condition in England and that condition is brought about by the fact that the whole country sees the. peril . ahead. It is no nightmare that the people have when they believe that England's naval supremacy is in danger of being lost. So the whole people of England, whether of the dominant party or the party that seeks ascendancy, are engaged in a great struggle, one with one programme, one with the other, the object of both programmes being, each in its own way, to increase the revenue of the country so that they can provide for naval defence and so that they can maintain what we ought to be glad to join in maintaining-the idea of British supremacy at sea, that Britannia still rules the waves and that she intends to do so. If this is the programme of the mother country and if the mother country has invited us to join in naval defence, I ask is the programme, as outlined by the Minister of Finance in his statement this week, in line with the duty of Canada, or is it in line with the expectation of the people? All that is proposed, as far as I can read it, and I do not think I misstate the minister's position, is that, out of the ordinary revenues of the country, at a time of great emergency, at a time when the empire is in peril, there shall be taken a sum of money each year for the foundation of a Canadian navy.
My contention is that that does not meet

the case, that it is not consonant _ with our duty to the empire, and that it_ is not consonant with what this country is able to do. We are a rich _ country. Why, when I heard the Minister of Finance state the figures the other day I was surprised at his hopefulness in regard to the buoyancy of our revenue. We are a rich country. We are a growing country. We know the great peril at our doors, and when we look at the peril to the empire I say that we are, not doing our duty and that the statement of the Minister of Finance, which I suppose he made as representing the government, does not go as far as it ought to go towards realizing the views of the people in connection with naval defence.
What is it that we can do in this hour of peril? What is it that Canada ought to do at this time when the naval supremacy of the empire is at stake? We should, first of all, declare by a unanimous resolution in the most direct and pointed language, that we are of the empire, that we are glad to be of the empire, that we are behind the mother country in her hour of peril, that the resources of this country are ready to be spent generously in the maintenance of the naval integrity and supremacy of the empire and we should not only say it in words but say it in deeds and say it bv a vote of money-say here, at least, is $10,000,000, or $20,000,000 of the people's money for the immediate construction of one, at least, or two superDreadnoughts. We will not be able to do that by the establishment of a navy of the modest pretensions that have been proposed by the Minister of Finance. If we wish to stand by the empire we must do it now. The peril may be now and to wait for years to establish a navy will do nothing to relieve the situation, will do nothing to show that we really are not only Canadian but that we are prepared now to accept our empire responsibilities. If this is our duty, and I believe it is our duty, not only to declare we are of the empire hut that cur money is freely at the disposal of our mother country towards increasing her supremacy and her line of Dreadnoughts, we ought to do it generously and we ought to do it now. The programme of the Finance Minister certainly does not do that. How would England be thrilled, how would the associated states of the empire be thrilled to-day if the statement came from this House that we had adopted such a measure as a recognition' of our duty? It would thrill the mother country, it would give a warning to those other nations that are, to my mind, seeking to destroy British supremacy at sea.
Is there anything else we can do? Yes, there is something else we can do and we ought to do it now. What is that? Canada not only ought to declare and declare Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
now that she is of the empire and prepared to give generously of her money for the increase of the fleet of Dreadnoughts, but she ought to say she is prepared to join the associated states in the establishment of a tariff against the produce of foreign nations, a certain percentage of the receipts of such tariff to be applied to a joint system of naval defence. It is in the air. This country, wherever you go, is ringing with this idea of preferential trade and it is in favour of giving some kind of preference. Hon. gentlemen opposite are on record, and it is to their credit and honour, let it be said, they were the first to do it. But it can go much farther. The thing can be made reciprocal and if we could set the example I say it would be the right thing to do. We should do it now and try to begin the realization of this idea not only of reciprocal trade arrangement but the idea that we are prepared to join with the other states of the empire in imnosing a tariff on the products of foreign countries, a percentage of the revenue from such tariff to be set apart and devoted to a scheme of joint naval defence-The programme that I have -outlined will rot interfere in any way with our idea of having a Canadian navy. I am a Canadian; I want to see Canada complete in every -one of the forms of nationhood; I want t-o -see a Canadian navy; I want to see a great ship-building industry in this country; I want to see great docks in this country ; I want to see this country building warships, if necessary. If we are to have them, we ought to build them here, and a policy of that kind is in the air and seems to be in the minds of the government. We do not interfere with that policy if we contribute our just share to the building of Dreadnoughts. That will come. But we in this country have been devoted mainly to the development of our country. We have not been seamen in the sense of a fighting navy. It takes a long time to develop a fighting navy, men who are masters of the art of war at sea. The mother country is competent in that respect. She has the shipyards and the men; all she wants is more ships and more men, and she can get them, but she will get them all the sooner if we show our devotion by giving the money rather than by saying that we think well of the old country and are willing t-o join, if necessary, in her defence. We must show our devotion in deeds, not words; in dollars, not sentiments; and we must do it now and not in the future, when the opportunity t-o save the situation has gone by for ever. The people of Canada are British; they are patriotic; they are prepared to do their just share in anything. They are not parsimonious. They know that British institutions are worth preserving, and Brit-

ish institutions to-day are jeopardized and British supremacy at sea is jeopardized,. If that be the case, and if we are proud of our institutions, and I believe we are; if we are proud of our parliamentary institutions and our liberties, which we have derived from Great Britain, we have them by reason of British connection and because the strong arm pf Britain is behind them. If that peril is on, it is our duty to join in the maintenance of these institutions. Our greatest asset to-day as Canadians is, first of all, our liberty; second, our parliamentary institutions, our free government. The greatest asset of the world at large to-day is British supremacy at sea; and these two things-Canadian liberty and Canadian institutions and British connection, are altogether dependent at the present moment on British supremacy at sea. Canadians recognize this, and if the appeal is made to them, that they should join in maintaining the naval defence of the country, they will respond as one man, and no government need he afraid to give freely and generously, to pledge the credit of the country, for the maintenance of British supremacy at sea at a time when that supremacy is threatened; and we know that if that threat is realized, these British institutions and this liberty of ours will suffer, this British connection of which we are so proud will disappear, and the mother country and the daughter states will pass into a secondary position in the world. The proposal I have made gives plenty of time to carry out the idea of a Canadian navy. Nothing is lost, but the situation is saved probably, and we get the credit, as the other nations will get the credit, of joining with the motherland in defending those institutions, and in maintaining those forms of goverment which we esteem so much. We not only ought to be prompt in doing this, but above all we ought to avoid imposing conditions in what we do. That is the danger of the situation. Some of us say that we not only ought to have a Canadian navy, but that its control ought to be absolutely in Canada.
Now, I cannot agree with that. If there is a policy of naval defence, it must be one of joint naval defence, and it must be by concessions on the part of every one joining in it. British supremacy hereafter is not to be maintained by the various British states working together with each one imposing conditions, but it is to be maintained by concessions all round, by a generous acceptance of the idea that naval strategy and leadership at present is in the motherland and that we are willing and glad to have it there. I altogether disagree with the idea of imposing conditions and making any Canadian naval movement separate and apart from the British movement or that of any of the other .states. It 52
must be a movement of unity, a movement of concessions, and not a discord of conditions imposed by one or another. It must be a unity on the line of concessions, and the leadership must be in the motherland. I say again that I will give way to no man in asserting my Canadianism. I am willing, and the people of this country, I take it, are not only willing to give generously for building Dreadnoughts or super-Dreadnoughts, but are willing to impose some kind of taxation for joint naval defence, and are willing for the present that leadership should be in the mother country, which, by long usage, by the traditions of her people and by her record at sea, is best fitted to maintain it. I read in the newspapers that the western farmer objects to being taxed for Canada assisting in the maintenance of British naval supremacy. I do not think that is so. I think that when the western farmer comes to see that British naval supremacy means for him the English market, that it may mean in a very short time a preference for the products of the western plains in the British market, he will be prepared-I believe today he is prepared

when he understands the question, to vote liberally for this purpose. But he has to be educated in the matter, and we who are in public life and sit in this House have a duty of leadership imposed upon us. It is for us, if what we say in this House and if the resolutions we have passed mean anything, to go to the people and tell them what we think they ought to do and try to persuade them to do it. I know there will be no trouble in the province of Ontario. There is no trouble in my own constituency. I do not believe there is any trouble in the west or in the province of Quebec or in the maritime provinces. Premier Gouin, in Toronto, yesterday, came out as boldly as an man in this country as.an imperialist, a Canadian, a Britisher, saying on behalf of the people of Quebec that they are prepared to assume their part in the maintenance of British supremacy.
From one sea to the other, from the north to the south, that is the feeling of the people of Canada. All that is wanted is intelligent leadership, all that is wanted is a clear-cut declaration which the people can give their assent to, and once that declaration is made the parliament of Canada will be doing its duty and doing what the country expects from it, if it acts promptly. The only democracy in the world to-day is the democracy of England and her daughter states; the only democracy in the world to-day is to be found under the British flag; democracy is a true British institution and it is an institution worth defending. To-day Great Britain is in one of the greatest political crises in her history, but through the flexibility of her political in-


Mr. J. R. STRATTON (Peterborough).: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to join with others who have spoken on this side of the House in congratulating the Minister of Finance upon the splendid budget he has presented to the people of Canada. I believe that in the statement presented, if I may be allowed to use a general expression, honours are even; I believe that Canada is proud of her Finance Minister and I believe that the Finance Minister should be proud of his national constituency. The condition of the country being as my hon. friend the Finance Minister has presented it, we are in the most flourishing and happy condition, a condition which has continued practically from the time this administration took office in 1896. I think my friends opposite are rather retroactive in the speeches they have been delivering during the present session; I believe that there has been a tendency on their part to discuss reminiscences, matters that were settled in the

general election of 1908. And the worst sinner of them all was my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) the former Finance Minister of Canada. We have been told, for instance-and what individual is there of any consequence or importance in Canada who does not know?- that the Quebec bridge dropped info the river. Who does not know that that was a matter of distressing loss of life and of serious financial loss to Canada as well? But do hon. members opposite think for a moment that the people of this country believe that the government were responsible? Do the people believe that the government neglected any part of their duty in accepting the opinions of the engineers who were appointed by them to take charge of the work after most careful precautions to be assured of their reliability and responsibility? But, that the engineers made a mistake, that the bridge would not carry its own Weight, this country is aware, and we here are aware. But I do think that has passed away and that there is no necessity of taking up the time of this House in discussing a matter that has been settled in the general election of not long ago.
There is a true test of this government, and that is its administration of the country's affairs. If we can judge by the results we have seen during the past thirteen years, there is no reason to complain of the advance that has been made in that time by 'this Canada of ours.' I desire for a moment or two, to present to the House a few facts to show the progress which has been made. The first essential to the development of the country is population. If we consider the facts, we shall find a decided advance in that direction. In 1896, Canada had a population of 5,086,061. Taking the figures of the ex-Finance Minister (Mr. Foster) given the other day, the population of Canada at the present time is 7,184,000, an increase in thirteen years of 2,097,945, as against an increase during the twenty-nine years when hon. gentlemen opposite had control of the destinies of Canada, of 1,714,067. And, if we accept the economic computation that each additional citizen is worth $1,000, we find that the wealth, the'producing capital, of the country has been increased to the extent of over $2,000,000,000. Another criterion of the prosperity of the country is to be found in the business of our chartered banks. The stock in our banks in 1896 amounted to $62,498,183, and in 1909 to $97,436,424, an increase in thirteen years of $35,938,241, not taking into calculation the great increase in market value of the stock or the reserves created by each of the banks. During the last thirteen years of the model regime of hon. gentlemen opposite, from 1883 to 1896, there was only the paltry increase of $1,093,629. But as soon as the people of Canada had their eyes opened to the true condi-52*
tion of affairs and accepted the administration we now have in power things improved, and they have been going right along ever since until we have the conditions represented by the budget presented by the Minister of Finance the other day. Still keeping my fingers for a moment on the financial pulse, I find that the savings bank deposits have increased from $61,244,761 in 1896 to $89,384,146 in 1909, a difference of practically $30,000,000. So you will see that there is money in the banks for all purposes yet. If we consider the total bank deposits, we find that in 1896 these amounted to $245,020,143, and in 1909 to $771,043,090, a-difference of over $500,000,000 in the total bank deposits of this contry, brought about by the efficient administration of affairs during this period.


Mr. LALOR.: I would remind the hon. member (Mr. Stratton) that he has forgotten to tell us that the trees have grown also.


James Robert Stratton: We will come to that later on. Another way wre have of showing the progress of our country is in the post office receipts. In 1896, the post office receipts of this country amounted to $2,964,014; in 1909, these had increased to $7,401,624. In 1896, hon. gentlemen opposite had a deficit on account of post office of $700 -000. From 1896 to 1906, a period of thirteen years, there have been surpluses totalling $4,500,000, besides a vastly better service and postal rates cut by fifty per cent. So it will be seen that there has been activity, prosperity and increase in the business world of Canada.
The postal activity is another index of the advance in the business of the country. The number of money orders issued m 1896 and in 1909 and their value were as follows:
Year.	Number.	Value.1896	
1,131,152	$13,081,8611909	
3,596,290	52,627,770
While the number of orders increased bv three times their value increased four times.
Another index of national progress is the increase of the railway mileage. The figures of railway mileage in Canada are:
1909
16,270 miles.
25,000	"
In the Liberal 13 years, 10,000 miles of railway were constructed and in the 13 years of Conservative administration, 6,000 miles.
Another method of gauging our national progress is to examine the figures of our mineral development. The mineral production of Canada has been:
1896	 $22,474,256
1908	 86,462,723


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


James Robert Stratton: Yes.


An hon. MEMBER.: What about Kent county, New Brunswick?


James Robert Stratton: I don't know anything about Kent county, New Brunswick, but if an appropriation has been made for Kent county, it was made in the public interest, or it would not have been made. I have no doubt whatever that my hon. friend will have some difficulty in proving the insinuation he has made at the present time. If we receive a reasonable return for the money spent, if we are getting all the people expect from the expenditure, and if necessity requires that the government should

appropriate a sum here and a sum there, if requirements have been more indicated in one constituency of this country than another, if it is necessary to get an appropriation for a public work or a public building, our hon. friends opposite say that it is done for the purpose of bribing the constituency. Yet my hon. friends will apply to the government of the day for grants for their constituencies and they will not find fault when the government makes the appropriation. But it is a scandal when money is appropriated for a constituency represented by a Liberal, and we are charged with attempting to buy up a constituency according' to the statement of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. They are speaking, and they continuously speak with reproach to the members of the government because of these expenditures. Well, where have they been able to show that any public expenditure has been undertaken that is not required in the best interests of the country? They have been unable to show that any public building has been constructed that has not been required for public purposes. They may say that the government are extravagant for the time being, but I can remind hon. gentlemen opposite that in the city which I have the honour to represent they erected a post office twenty years ago which is absolutely inadequate to the requirements of the business to-day. They not only built a post office, but they had some trouble over the site which they purchased, and they afterwards, to satisfy the urgent demands of rival members of the Conservative party with corner lots to sell, erected a custom house on another property which the government of the day where forced to purchase for the sake of peace in the family. No doubt hon. gentlemen will say, although this is ancient history, that the government did right at that time in building beyond absolutely necessary present requirements. We have the advantage of the difficulties they created in their own party by not only having a custom house but a post office as well. I mention that to show that while it may look to-day as if the government are spending a larger sum than is necessary on the erection of public buildings. I hope that in twenty years from now there is no part of this fair Dominion that will not outlive any building that the government may erect for public purposes. I hope that the Minister of Public Works will go on in the way in the which he is going and erect buildings that will be in keeping with the advance of the country and that he will not be ashamed to look back twenty years from now upon what he has accomplished and that his judgment will not have been found at fault in having led him to erect buildings that had outlived their usefulness.


James Robert Stratton: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), if I took his words correctly, said that this government had taken from the pockets of the people $922,000,000, and, after endeavouring to create a misleading impression by an insinuating statement before the people of the country, with one sweep of the hand, he asked: What have they to show for it? Let us take one instance alone. The revenue of the Intercolonial railway, thirteen years ago, amounted to $4,000,000. To-day it amounts to about $10,000,000. That would account for $50,000,000 of expenditure alone. Yet, he asks: What have they done with the money? The money has been spent in the improvement of the rolling stock, in the extension and the renewal of the railway, in increased wages to the employees and in betterments. I would ask if this country has not received full value for the $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 which has been expended upon immigration? Have we not received full value for the work which we have undertaken? I see it stated in a newspaper to-day*that 'the farmer, not Fielding' has produced the good times. The man who produced the good times in this country was the man who, thirteen years ago, assumed the full responsibility of the inauguration of a thorough immigration policy. That policy has been of such advantage to Canada that the farmers who have gone to the west have been able to produce the wealth that was spoken of the other day, and it is the man who instituted that immigration policy, who gave to the people of other lands the information which it was absolutely essential to let them have, who distributed broadcast, I suppose upon the doorstep of every farm house in the western United States, pamphlets setting forth the advantages of Canada, to whom must be given the credit in _ large measure for the prosperity we are enjoying to-day. Farmers came from the United States, two or three at a time, saw the great advantages of the west, and to-day we have them coming in hundreds, yes, in thousands, taking up the lands in the western portion of Canada that have proved so valuable, and it is this immigration that has done so much for our country. We have, I repeat, spent $7,000,000 and $8,000,000 in thirteen years. But hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were in power, only spent sufficient to show us that the money was wasted and that no good return came from it. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to have money expended in a more effective way. The hon. member for North Toronto endeavoured to point out that the $922,000,000 had been expended improperly, or rather wasted. I have shown that $50,000,000 have been expended in connection with the Intercolonial railway. I have shown that $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 have been expended for immigration and

that Canada is having the full benefit and advantages therefrom, and I have shown that hon. gentlemen opposite only spent about enough to be wasted in the time that they were in power. I would like to ask if he thinks the improvements that have been made in our waterways, in our lighthouses, and in our coast line, not including large expenditures f-or services of similar usefulness, that have cost large sums of money have not resulted in advantage to the country? Does he think that the expenditure upon the St. Lawrence channel, which has been made almost as safe for navigation as a small mill pond, is not of general advantage to Canada? Was he justified in making the insinuation that he did make? When we see the Montreal harbour, which has been made an ocean port, when we see Montreal rivalling New York as a grain port, when we see the greatest vessels afloat landing their cargoes in the harbour of Montreal, can my hon. friend or any one else say that the expenditure which has been made upon this harbour has not been for the general advantage of Canada and for the improvement of our shipping facilities? Does he say that the money expended on Toronto harbour-from $500,000 to $750,000-is wasted money? He referred' the other evening to the St. Andrew's rapids. He would hardly make that speech in Winnipeg; at least I am told that he forgot to deliver it when he was in Winnipeg very recently, because we all know that the money that has been expended is of the greatest advantage to the people of Winnipeg and of the tributary district. He pointed to the premier of this country and told him that he was the custodian and president of the board and that the other members of his cabinet were his directors and jointly the custodians of the funds of the people. We know that he is the president of the council and that his colleagues are his directors, and we also know that they are prepared to take the full responsibility of the expenditure they have made. The advantages which the people of this country have derived are greater than the expenditures the government have made. Does my hon. friend say that the $500,000 spent on the western gap of Toronto harbour was money thrown away? If he does, the hon. member foT West Toronto will not agree with him. Will my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) say that the money spent on the Trent Valley canal has been wasted?


Mr. HUGHES.: Does the hon. member want an answer?


James Robert Stratton: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I will say that this government has been sorely negligent in not expending the full amount in proper time
on that canal. That canal should have been completed long ago. And if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Stratton) would only join me in seeing that the money is expended on the Trent canal instead of on ditches like the Newmarket canal we would accomplish something.


James Robert Stratton: I can tell the hon. gentleman that in the last thirteen years in which the Liberal government has had control of the affairs of this country, they have expended more on the construction of the Trent Valley canal than the party which the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) supports expended during the previous forty years. And as to the Newmarket canal I may tell the hon. member that we have not forgotten there was at one time such a thing as a Haggart ditch otherwise called the Tay canal, and I do not know that to-day I would swap the Newmarket canal for the Haggart ditch. Will the hon. member from St. John say that the money proposed to be expended on improving the harbour of St. John is an improper expenditure? Will the Conservative members who come from the west say that the money that is being expended at Fort William and Port Arthur in making these harbours fit for the accommodation of the growing trade of the west is an expenditure in the wrong direction? Will these hon. gentlemen opposite say that the new piers in connection with the Quebec bridge should not be built? Will they say now that the Grand Trunk Pacific which has cost a great deal and is costing a great deal should not be constructed? We knew when it was undertaken that it would cost a great deal of money, but we believed it was the right thing to do for we knew it would be necessary to provide transportation facilities for the vastly increasing products of the western country. Will hon. gentlemen opposite say that the subsidies to the different provinces of this Dominion which have increased per year five million dollars, is money wasted? I do not think they will. I see by the papers that the premier of Quebec is consulting with the premier of Ontario to-day, and I would surmise that possibly one subject of their conference is that the provinces should ask more from the Dominion treasury. Will hon. gentlemen opposite say that the increased expenditure on the public service, the increased remuneration of employees, is not in the public interest? Will they say that the one and one-half million dollars expended on the militia in the days of the Conservative Tule would be a sufficient expenditure on the militia of Canada to-day? My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) knows the condition our military forces were in during the Conservative regime, and he knows that although our militia service is probably not perfect at present, that it is vastly superior to what

it was then. And yet in view of all this the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) rises and sets all these things aside with one sweep of the hand and he asks: What has become of the $922,000,000 expended by this government in twelve and three-quarter years? If time permitted, it could be easily shown that it was well expended and easily justified, the insinuation involved was most unfair. Will any man on the other side of the House say that the Minister of Agriculture has made any bad expenditure in giving to the farmers of Canada the advantages which they now enjoy? Will they say that the Minister of Agriculture did wrong in spending money to provide transportation facilities for the products of the farmers, and for enlarging and improving their markets?
Now, I have not asked the Minister of Agriculture for anything, and I may tell him in advance that I do not want anything, and therefore hon. gentlemen will recognize that I am disinterested in any compliment I may pay him. I will take the liberty of telling the right hon. the Prime Minister that if all the ministers in his cabinet have presided over their departments as acceptably to the people as the Minister of Agriculture has presided over his; if they have displayed, as I am sure they have done, the same anxiety for the public welfare as the Minister of Agriculture has displayed for the welfare of the farmers of Canada, if they have conducted the affairs of the country in as progressive a spirit as the Minister of Agriculture has, then the right hon. gentleman has been happy indeed in the choice of his confreres. And, if the government should see its way to increase the expenditure for the benefit of the farmers of Canada, I think I can safely say that we on this side of the House will give any proposal of that kind our warmest support. Now, let me point out that the fisheries of Canada last year gave a return of $25,451,985, and let me ask these gentlemen opposite if they can honestly complain of the money expended to stimulate that great industry? Will these gentlemen opposite say that the money that has been expended on immigration both by the former Minister of the Interior and the present min ister is money that has not been well spent? Our friends from the west will tell us that fifteen years ago there were large areas of land as barren as the rocks of Muskoka, and which to-day are as productive as any soil in the world, and that as a result of the policy of this government. Will these gentlemen opposite say that the flower of the American farmers who are leaving their homes to the south of the line and flocking into this country are not welcome citizens of Canada? From 1903 to 1909, 299,603 im-Mr. STRATTON.
migrants came to Canada from the United States, and 700,391 came from all countries. In ten years, from 1898 to 1909, im migrants, cash and effects equivalent to over 200 millions of dollars have come to this country from foreign lands. Is that not a condition of affairs indicating the prosperity which the hon. member for North Toronto could not see about him? Does it not show that the $120,000 spent in 1896 on immigration by the government of that day was only sufficient to be ineffective, whereas in 1907-8, when an immigration policy that was a policy was adopted by the government, $1,074,697 was spent on immigration, and the results have justified the government in adopting an aggressive policy.
We on this side of the House are reproached, and perhaps properly so, for not contributing our fair share towards the defence of the empire, and to remove that reproach the Minister of Finance has placed in the estimates of this year a sum of $3,000,000. Will that be improper use of the public funds? I may again point out to my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) how the militia was starved in 1896. In that year there was spent on the militia a little over $1,136,000. They [DOT]were not in a satisfactory condition. The annual drill was inefficient; the brigades throughout the country were in anything but a satisfied condition, but when this government came into power, they adopted a different mode of conducting the militia affairs of the country. They increased the expenditure year after year, until last year it amounted to six and half millions of dollars, and we have to-day a force perhaps os efficient as that of any colony or any country. Some time ago both sides of this House decided upon the beginning of a naval expenditure and upon assuming a share of the imperial burden. Last session a naval resolution was adopted unanimously by the House, but some on the opposite side have deserted our ranks. Some of our ships have sprung a leak; some of them have been foundered on the rock of Dreadnoughts, others on the rock of a cash contribution; and one noble barque has completely foundered in the deep water of no navy at all. There must be a divided opinion among the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House with regard to how far they are prepared to go in a naval de-. fence policy.


Mr. NANTEL.: On the other side, what is it?


James Robert Stratton: Yes, on the other side. They seem to be very much exercised about what the government policy will be on this matter. The Minister of Finance stated the other day that an appropriation would be made, and we are about to make a consider-

able expenditure in that direction. But we want our friends on the opposite side of the House, if possible, to have their minds made up to some course that will be loyal and patriotic to the empire, and if they do, we are satisfied that they will support the policy of the government when it is brought down.


Mr. BOYCE.: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? He has asked this side of the House to support a policy on the naval question, of which he himself is in favour. Will he be kind enough to state to the House what that policy is, if he knows what it is?


James Robert Stratton: My hon. friend has before him the resolution of the House which was adopted unanimously last session, and for which he voted; and before he will be asked to vote on any question of policy, a Bill or resolution will be laid before the House by the government, and hon. members will then be asked to support or oppose that.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: May I ask my hon. friend to implement what he has just said by stating whether the policy he has been speaking of is contained in that resolution, or whether he refers to something further?


James Robert Stratton: The policy of the government will be presented at the proper time.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: And yet my hon. friend was in favour of it, although he does not know what it is.


James Robert Stratton: I said that the policy of the government when introduced would be such that I hoped hon. gentlemen opposite would have their minds settled and would be able to support it. I have never yet found the government of the day asking their supporters to vote blindly for anything.


An hon. MEMBER.: They could not do it.


James Robert Stratton: ' No, it could not be done. We desire to have some of the money of this country expended in other directions. In the province of Ontario, if I may be allowed to refer to a personal matter, while I was a private member of the local legislature, I made an address on tire budget in which I endeavoured to point out to the people of the province that we had a large territory yet undeveloped and unexplored of which the ordinary member of that House and the ordinary citizen of the country knew practically nothing, and I pressed upon the government the desirability of having a development and exploration policy. The government adopted my view, and. in the following year, when I was a member of the government, I had the pleasure and privilege of helping to put into
force what I had advocated as a private member of the House. We sent about ten exploration parties into what was then known as New Ontario. They returned in the course of a year and reported to the minister that they had discovered a clay belt of about 1,500,000 acres, that they had found pine timber of considerable extent, and great areas of spruce and poplar of immense value as pulp wood to the people of the province.
Then the question arose, how were we going to get into that country? It was decided by the government to build a railway. No one came forward with offers to construct it, and the government of the province undertook the work. This was the first railway constructed by a provincial government in this Dominion, if my memory serves me correctly.	In the construction of
that railway, the object of which was to reach the clay belt and to bring into consumption the pulp wood of the north country, silver was found;-what is now known as Cobalt was one of the results of the building of that road. Since then, the people have had the advantage of about $29,000,000 taken from the mines of the Cobalt district. And my opinion is, Mr. Speaker, that if we spend a little more money in the development of our country, in the exploration of portions that have not yet been explored, we shall make other finds valuable as these in the province of Ontario. We have pulp-wood in this province that is not now available, we have minerals still undiscovered. We know that the route of the Transcontinental is through the rear portion of Quebec and Ontario, and the reports of the Transcontinental commissioners show that there is a vast quantity of agricultural lands in that region. They tell us that the line from Moncton to Winnipeg is divided, into three sections. Section C contains 5,800 square miles, or 3,712,000 acres; section D contains 10,100 square miles, or 6,464,000 acres; section E contains 3,000 square miles, or
1,920,000	acres, a total of 18,900 square miles, or about 12,096,000 acres. And of this sixty per cent is of value as agricultural land. Passing down Sparks street in this city the other day, mv attention was attracted by a photograph in a shop window. It was a photograph of a silver nugget of 2,100 pounds weight. It suggested the great wealth which has yet to be uncovered in this new territory of ours. I am hoping to see-and expecting every day to see-that, in the construction of the Transcontinental railway through Quebec there will be discovered mineral wealth equal to or greater than that we enjoy in the province of Ontario. I am hoping that the forest wealth, agricultural wealth and mineral wealth to be made available will be such as to more than ever attract attention to

our great resources. _ The area in the three sections mentioned from Moncton to Quebec is seven or eight times as large as Prince Edward Island. That is a territory of some importance to the people. And when we consider the great territory now being opened up west of Winnipeg by the Transcontinental, we find that over 200,000,000 acres will be made available for grain-growing. The hon. member for North Toronto stated the other day that in 1900 we had from the west 32,000,000 bushels of grain, in 1907 160,000,000, in 1908, 230,000,000, and in 1909 the crop amounted to 313,000,000 bushels. The hon. gentleman endeavoured to point out that the farmer, not Fielding, had brought these good times. But I would like to ask the hon. member, were he in his seat, who put the farmer in a position to give to Fielding the revenue that gave to the government the opportunity to present the budget we are now discussing? The hon. gentleman says that the increase produced by the farmer is worth $50,000,000 and may be more, and he asks what particular praise and honour are due to the government for that? And I say, the honour is due to the government for their foresight in the administration of our affairs, for adopting a policy when they came into power that has brought about the conditions we see to-day. Praise and honour are due the government for the wise immigration policy they adopted. In 1895-6, we received from Dominion lands $219,326.14. But what did this government receive last year? In 1908-9, our receipts from Dominion lands were $2,175,214.31. In 1900, the product of the west under the government of that day was 32,000,000 bushels. I do not know what it was in 1896; we have no returns to show. But, as I have already said, the crop in 1909 was 313,000,000 bushels. Deduct from this the 32,000,000 bushels produced in 1900, and we find an increase in nine years of 281,000,000 bushels of grain. And if we are able to induce the same influx of population into the west as has been going on-and I hope and believe they will come in far more speedily-we shall be able to demonstrate that which we have said so often, that Canada is the granary of the empire. Hon. members opposite deprecate expenditures; they criticise every appropriation made by the government to carry on the affairs of the country. Well, my experience is that there are no angels in the management of worldly affairs, but I believe the government are doing all they possibly can. They are liable to make mistakes, and the mistakes liable to our common humanity. But, on the other hand, if there are any angels on the other side of the House, they have taken good care to disguise themselves, for I have not	found them


James Robert Stratton: since I had the honour of knowing them or knowing the way in which the country was being conducted under their regime. There is a provision in the estimates of $3,000,000 to assist in the maintenance of the navy, but that is being proposed by the government. I am not in favour personally of contributing any sum of money by way of cash contribution to the imperial defences. I believe that is against Liberal policy and against Liberal principles. I am opposed to that for two reasons. I believe that no British people should provide money to be expended except under their own supervision, that there should be no taxation to be expended by other people. It violates a broad principle that actuates this government and the people of Canada, and I do not believe that the country would be at all satisfied if a contribution were made by this government to the imperial government for the purpose of building Dreadnoughts.
I attempted to show that we still have in this province great mineral wealth, and that in the development of these now unexplored regions, we will be able to show the people of the world that Canada is as rich in minerals and other valuable natural resources, as we are sometimes fond of stating. We do know that the Cobalt district is the richest district of its character, in the world, and I hope that m the country yet undeveloped there will be opportunities for the uncovering of mineral rocks that have been moss covered and weather beaten for ages and that we will have more than one Cobalt district in this country.
Coming to the administration of our natural resources generally, I believe that we should adopt a policy that will give to our own country, all the development it is possible for it to have, that we should manufacture into the completed state all the iron and steel and pulp wood and nickel that it is possible for us to do in this country. By quoting a figure or two, I will be able to show the House-and I am speaking only for myself and not at all discussing the question of any export duty -what amount of money we are permitting to leave our country by allowing our timber to be exported in the condition it now is. At the same time, I believe that that perhaps can be better regulated in another parliament than this. A cord of pulp wood, whether in the tree or on the wharf, is worth from $2 to $7 a cord. In low grade paper, it is worth from $38 to $45 a ton, and when it is made into high grade paper it is worth $50 to $100 per ton. The quantity of pulp wood exported last year was 794,986 cords of a value of $4,356,391, or about $5.75 a cord. If that were made into paper at $50 per ton it would amount

to $37,749,300, a difference of $33,000,000 in favour of having it manufactured into paper in this country. That would be a ninefold increase. If in the next 10 years we exported 1,000,000 cords at $5.75 that would be $57,500,000. Taking the same quantity manufactured into paper at $50 per ton it would realize $513,750,000, a difference in favour of Canada of $462,250,000. That difference represents the gain between exporting raw products and manufacturing them to their completed condition - the employment of labour and industrial gain in the building and operation of machines.
If we take 1,000 feet board measure of pine lumber and have it cut, it would have a value of about $18 to $20 per thousand feet. The labour in that would represent about $7 or $8. Converted into paper, a similar quantity of pulp wood its value would be about $31.50, the labour being about $12. The proportion of investment would be about $5 in a sawmill to $41 in a pulp mill, so that from the point of view of investment of capital, there is an advantage in favour of the pulp mill of about $36. This will demonstrate to the people of this country that if we adopted a policy of having our pulp wood manufactured into paper,-I do not say for the government to do it, that is not my inten-ntion or desire-we would benefit our national industries to an extent almost beyond computation, that in allowing raw pulp wood to be exported to other countries we are sacrificing the great advantage it would be to Canada to have it manufactured here. If we allowed to be exported in the next ten years the proportionate quantity equal to the present export, we should only realize fifty-seven and a half million dollars. If we manufactured at home the same quantity of pulp wood into paper at the small value of $7.50 per ton, it would amount in round numbers to five hundred and fourteen millions of dollars. Deducting fifty-seven millions, the value of the raw material, from the gross value of the manufactured article, we have four hundred and sixty-three million to represent the positive gain to Canada by this manufacture of her pulp wood. I desire further to impresse on the House that our chief natural products, such as silver, nickel, iron and steel, steel being in my judgment a raw material, should, where iit is at all possible, be converted. into the manufactured article within the borders of Canada. I desire to see the equipment of the defensive sea force or, if it is necessary, the offensive sea force, manufactured in this country if it is at all possible. We have in one portion of the province of Ontario to-day, the Collingwood Shipbuilding Company. That company has done and is doing a great deal, and with proper encouragement, might become a
stil more important industry. It can build ships for our inland waters and for our seas as well. The hon. member for South York, this afternoon, endeavoured to make, as he usually does in his newspaper, a scoop. He presented to the IJouse a policy which I wish to discuss. It has been said that in the coal fields of the eastern provinces, we have the steel and the coal lying alongside of each other and I think it was Mr. Schwab, President of the United States steel corporation, who said there was coal and iron lying alongside each other in Nova Scotia, sufficient to last for 100 years. We have the same conditions on the Pacific as on the Atlantic, and we have similar conditions in the intermediate portions of Canada. I would like to see the government of the Dominion endeavour to have created in Canada a ship building industry that will give the people of Canada an opportunity of commencing to build their own fleet, their own navy on the soil' of Canada.
As we have marked our great Transcontinental railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific with steel rails made m Canada, so I hope we shall have a navy with the same brand upon it, ' Made in Canada.' If this can be done, it would be a very satisfactory state of affairs. We see to-day a great Canadian combination of iron and steel capitalists, perhaps the greatest combination that Canada has ever seen, and yet I believe that combination is for the benefit of the people of this country as well as of those more immediately concerned. I hope that the government will call the attention of those great capitalists to the fact that it is possible to establish the nucleus of a ship building industry in this country that will give to our manufacturing establishments an impetus they never had before. The ship building industry of England was not created in a day; it was like Topsy, it ' jest growed,' it was like the British constitution, it was not created, but it grew. I suppose that Great Britain, if it were necessary, could turn out all the Dreadnoughts that she requires. I am not one of those who fear the downfall of England. I am just as loyal a British subject as any other member of this House, and I have no fears of England's bulwarks falling to pieces, and I have no fears that this Dominion and the other colonies will not do the best they can, and will not go as far as the people of this country desire them to go, in assisting in naval and imperial defence. I am satisfied that when the policy of the government is made known, the country will find that the government has done all that it is their duty to do.
There is one other question I desire to touch upon, and that is the expenditure in connection with Crow's Nest Pass railway. When the hon. member for North Toronto 1 was telling what the government had done,

he forgot to say that this government had expended $3,500,000 in endeavouring to give the railway accommodation that is required in the country traversed by the Crow's Nest Pass railway. If he will turn to the customs receipts, he will find that from the territory served by. the Crow's Nest Pass railway the customs receipts have amounted to three times over the cost of that railway, as far as government aid was concerned. I believe this government has done the best they could for the country. Of course they are human, and like every one else they will make mistakes, but I believe they have done the best that could be done. This country is increasing its expenditure, but at the same time it is growing rapidly in wealth, and I think in the main all the expenditure has been justified. I do not know that, having in mind the relations and record of the government in the matter of expenditure of public money for public purposes, I could say anything more suitable in closing than to repeat the remarks made by Sir Charles Tupper at a political meeting in the city from which I come, when he said:
Although this country is increasing its debt, it is being incurred in the erection of those triumphs of peace-in public works that will stand for ages as the monuments of an energetic people who laid the foundation of Canadian nationality amid the wilds of North America.
I am sure that this utterance of Sir Charles Tupper, made thirteen or fourteen years ago, was justified, and would apply with greatly intensified force to the conditions of to-day under the present administration. I think it is the very general belief throughout Canada that we have never had in the history of this country a government that endeavoured more faithfully to act fairly and squarely by all the provinces, by all the varied interests of this country, than the government which we on this side have the pleasure of supporting.


Mr. ALEXANDER McCALL (Norfolk).: It is not my intention to criticise at any length the speech of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Stratton). The hon. gentleman strove to make it appear that in the great prosperity and development this country has enjoyed in recent years, the Conservative party had done nothing and that it was all due to the Liberal government. He intimated that the increase in population of this country has been due to the Liberal party, assisted by immigration. Does he really think that the Conservatives of this country have done nothing towards building up this country and towards peopling it? For my part I do not wish to be denied the credit of having done something to promote the prosperity of this country, and I am sure that Mr. STRATTON.
my Conservative constituents also claim credit for having done something to bring about the prosperity which Canada now enjoys. That style of argument in which the hon. gentleman indulged is one well known throughout this country, and has been heard in every schoolhouse during the last eight years. It is just such an argument as one may hear in a corner grocery among politicians who sit around the stove. Sir, I think we have got beyond that, at least in this House and at this day. Now I must make some reference to the claim he and his friends make of having discovered New Ontario. If they discovered New Ontario they were a long time doing it. They were in power since 1873, and only during their last eight years did they make an effort to find out what New Ontario really was. When the Conservative government came into power they found the pulp wood areas parcelled out among a few friends of the government, _ a country equal to several of the smaller kingdoms of the old world, with an area larger than that of Belgium or Denmark, kingdoms containing a population of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000. These pulp wood areas were divided up and held until the change of affairs came. Then the concession was very promptly cancelled and the pulp wood was put on the market and sold to the highest bidder. The same thing is true with respect to the timber areas. Sales of timber were made in the closing days of the Ross administration in large blocks, townships and areas of 36 square miles at prices which did not exceed one third of the prices obtained by the present government by the method of putting timber up in small parcels and allowing the small jobber or mill man to come in, make his bid and get his limit. I venture to say that there was not a limit sold under the Ross regime that brought over $5 a thousand feet. Sales have since been made under the present regime at $13 per thousand feet, with $2 dues added; so that the reference to the methods that prevail in Ontario is not happy.


James Robert Stratton: No timber was sold in Ontario under the Mowat government, the Hardy government or the Ross government except by public tender or public auction.


Alexander McCall: I would ask the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Gordon) to say if he knows any thing about the burnt lands along Sturgeon river and if they were not parcelled out among the friends of the party and cut under permits. If I chose to take the time I could cite a number of other instances but I do not know that this really belongs to the discussion.
Reference was made again to the Trent Valley canal. This is an old scarred veteran of many an election campaign and

many an election speech. The hon. gentleman was mistaken in saying that more had been done upon that work since the Liberal party obtained power than had been done in forty years by the other party. But, he will bear me out in saying that the Trent Valley improvement was a provincial work and was carried on as a provincial work until quite recently; so that whatever failures or successes were achieved belong not to the old Conservative party alone. Objections have been taken in this House to the Trent Valley canal, but I shall not take up the time of the House in discussing it further than to say that in the estimates this year we find a very considerable sum provided for expenditure upon the Trent Valley canal, but we find nothing for the branch feeder known as the Newmarket canal. It is not unlikely that this has been hiding behind its big brother and so escaped observation. But, if the Newmarket canal is justifiable, and hon. gentleman say that no part of the expenditure can be pointed out as unwarranted, what is to prevent other towns in that vicinity from seeking the same facilities? Remember that these canals are called feeders. The hon Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) will appreciate this phrase-feeders. It represents a branch of the farm stock that is allowed access to the trough day and night; so that those communities that get access to the canals or railways of the country may be well termed feeders because they are upon the public treasury and will be as long as time lasts. I dare say that Aurora, Schomberg and other towns near Newmarket will be glad to have the canal extended to their limits. Doubtless appli cations will be made on the eve of the next election for an expenditure. These people will not be deterred from applying for public money because the distance is too great. They will realize that the longer the canal the greater the expenditure. It is about time we heard some thing about the Georgian bay outlet of the Trent canal. That question has been before the people of North Simcoe and North Ontario for many years, but it will be in order, in about a year, or a year and a half, for engineers to go through there again and set the old farmers guessing whether it is the canal again or whether it is the election.
In discussing the budget, perhaps, like other hon. members, I have found it is a somewhat difficult matter to attempt to master all the details of our fiscal system and I will venture to say that an ordinary member like myself, coming from the com mon walks of life into this House, feels, to a great extent, that in our tariff and our transportation system there are a great many things that are of such a technical character that he cannot very well master all the questions that he would like to discuss intelligently. I acknowledge my in- -
ability to master all these details and I have heard from a great many others that they are in the same position. As this country developes, by the grace of the Liberal party here, not by the efforts of the Conservatives, our tariff will become still more complex. Our transportation problems will become more complex, the social and industrial questions which we have to face will be more pressing and the question has occurred to me if there was not some method by which all these questions that are out of the ordinary character could be discussed by people who had special abilities in that direction. I might venture to suggest to the House a remedy that has occurred to me. If the Liberal party desire to adopt some general scheme of reform would they not apply to the Senate such a reform as would bring into that body talent specially qualified to deal with these more difficult and complex questions? I know that I am trespassing upon dangerous ground. My hands are trembling as I speak upon the subject. I dare not touch it except in this casual way, but would it not be possible to limit the appointment to five, six or seven years and, by a convention between the two parties, make it a condition that the class of men who had made a special study of the problems we have to deal with should be appointed-some of the men who bulk big in the eyes of the people of this country, the big financiers, the big transportation men, and the men who have made a special study of industrial, social and tariff questions that perplex us. These questions could be discussed and threshed out in the upper Chamber and then passed along to this House. In that way we would save a great deal. With reference to our transportation affairs we would save duplication of railways from one end of this country to the other. If we had had the benefit of the advice of such men as Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, Mr. Hays, and Mr. McGuigan it would have prevented the duplication of the Intercolonial Railway and the New Brunswick section of the Grand Trunk Pacific, it would possibly have prevented the duplication and paralleling of tracks all through the west. It certainly would prevent two rival canal schemes traversing the country. I do not know that it is worth while for a member on this side of the House to offer a suggestion to the government, but nevertheless I throw this hint out as to one way in which this parliament and future parliaments can deal with these questions as they come up. Now, the tariff is complicated; we have a minimum tariff, and a maximum tariff, and a free list, and a list of articles upon which taxes may be put on or taken off, and we have the British Preference surtax, and we have treaties with several countries, and when * the ordinary business man tries to under-

stand all this and to apply it to some fluctuation which may have taken place in the trade of the country he finds it incomprehensible. I think our present tariff could be easily simplified and it would be better for every one concerned if it were. Now, the keynote of this discussion has been the $100000,000 budget, and I notice that while the Finance Minister did not take credit for securing all of this vast revenue, his friends and supporters seem inclined to make the people believe that it was the policy of the government which brought about this very prosperous fiscal condition. Well, $100,000,000 is a very large sum of money and it is well worth looking after. The complaint is made by the government and by gentlemen who support them that we on this side find fault, and criticise, and rake up old scandals. Well, we represent a large section of the people of this country, and is it to be thought that the Conservatives in this House are to take no part in the discussion of how this money has been raised and how it should be expended. With the evidence before our eyes that a great deal of this money of the people is wasted, are we to sit here dumb and not criticise the government for its extravagance? No; it is our duty to protest, and I would think very little of the members of an opposition who did not protest in view of such tacts as we have before our eyes. Surely there is ground for our objecting to the manner in which the Minister of Public Works doles out his favours in public buildings. We have spent a great deal of time this session in trying to find out upon what principle grants of this kind are made by the minister, and I think we must conclude that there is- no principle at all unless it be the principle of helping political favourites. We have in the estimates appropriations for buildings in towns with a population of 1,400 and thereabouts, and we know that these tcwns present no very strong claims for such consideration. It is true that they may be very common place towns before the item appears in the estimates, but the moment the Minister of Public Works decides that he is going to bestow his benevolence upon them he finds abundant reasons. Did he not tell us that Parrsboro, Nova Scotia, is quite a nice town, that Wolfville, Nova Scotia, was a very rising town, and that Fairville, New Brunswick, is a very important town which has mills and factories, as if it were something new to us to hear of a town having a mill and a factory. Did he not tell us that Grand Falls had a fine water-power, and that other towns were beautifully located and had fine residences, and that in consequence of these characteristics they were entitled to a public building. But, there are other towns which have all these qualities and more and which do not get public Mr. McCALL.
buildings from the Minister of Public Works. It would seem that the moment the hon. gentleman has decided to grant a sum of money for a building in a certain town he immediately applies his very great abilities to discovering some reason why that town should have a public building, and when the Minister of Public Works gets going in that line he is irresistible. Now, what is the result of all this? A few of my hon. friends around me are expecting public buildings for their towns and these gentlemen are just as meek as possible in the hands of the Minister of Public Works. They are not going to criticise the hon. gentleman while that promise is hanging over them; to use an agricultural expression, they _ are so tame that they will feed out of his hands. We had an exchange of compliments the other night between the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Marshall) and the Minister of Public Works. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Marshall) pointed out that the town of Aylmer in his constituency had a population of 2,500 and a postal revenue of $6,000, and he pressed his claim modestly but firmly, and the Minister of Public Works complimented him that he was not like some of his colleagues who were disposed to criticise unfairly and he thought he ought to do something for the member for East Elgin. Now, do you think the member for East Elgin will criticise the Minister of Public Works while he is waiting for a public building in Aylmer? Not a bit of it. You will find he will stay quiet the rest of this session until he gets the post office, and the same applies to other gentlemen who are sitting near me. Of course, I can speak boldly so far as I am concerned, for, my town has got a post office without any effort on my part. I can hardly believe that it was given solely as a compliment to me, and I rather suspect it was intended to help the other fellow, but be that as it may, we have a public building. Well, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness this is not a proper condition of things. Would it not be far more honest if a rule were established that when a town had a certain population and gave a certain revenue to the Dominion it would be entitled to a public building without any other consideration than that it was in the public interest to erect a building there? This holding out of a public building as a gift from the minister is altogether improper. I can imagine that possibly next summer the Minister of Public Works will go to Ontario, and he will be invited to the good town of Aylmer, and they will call a holiday, and the band will turn out, and the school children will march, and the band will play ' See the Conquering Hero Comes,' and the children will sing ' the Maple Leaf for Ever,' and speeches will be

made by the mayor and by the minister, and figures will be given as to the prosperity of the town and its factories and industries, and its beautiful location will be described and all that, and then the Minister of Public Works will say: You have made your case good and you shall have a pest office from me, unless indeed you would prefer a wharf or a bridge, or one of these reversible wharfs that will be a bridge if you want it and a wharf if you prefer to have it so, and if there is no water near the town we will give you a wharf in the open field. I repeat that it would be in the interest of the country, and it would add to our dignity as a people, if the public works were bestowed where they are deserved and not as a bait held out by the minister for political support. I have no doubt' that if a rule were established by which when a town arrived at a certain status it would have a public building, my hon. friend from Halton (Mr, Henderson) would claim it as a right to have two or three buildings erected in his county, but at present I question if he dare even criticise the policy of the government, for if he did he knows what his fate would be.
I say again, it is not dignified for this government to spend the people's money for public services in this manner. I earnestly hope that this will receive the attention of the government, and that next session we shall not have to question and cross-examine the whole night to get a definite answer as to what policy prevails in the distribution of public works, and then not get it. With regard to the expenditure of this $100,000,000, I wish to urge respectfully on those who have the expending of this money that no opportunity for scandal be given, but that the money be expended properly. Matters such as we have had discussed in this House this session and last session should not occur under any system of government. I wish to call attention to the sources from which this money comes; it comes through the custom house and the excise office. It comes from men whose hands are knotted and twisted with their daily toil, from men who are stooped with their labours until they will never see the bright sunlight again in the stature of a man; it comes from men working in mines, the forest and the fields, from men working on a railway section for $1.18 a day; it comes from the factory girls who rise in the morning at six o'clock, go two or three miles to their labour, work all day, and return; it comes also from the wrecked homes and the broken men who have paid their part of the tax through the internal revenue. Is it not, then, fair to say that money gathered from the people, and so much of it gathered through stress and toil, should be regarded as a trust of the most sacred character, and be expended in
a way to benefit the people. Bear in mind that about 85 per cent of the people of this country get no other dollars than handmade dollars-dollars which they only obtain by exchanging them for their labour. This fact ought to be of value to those who have the expending of this money. Now, I am not one who is disposed to take a narrow view of this country. I can join with the gentlemen who have spoken in appreciation of the people who came here when this country -was in the days of small things, and I claim the right, with all those who are not of the Liberal faith, to be accorded our fair share in its development, and this I believe the people of this country are willing to accord. There are hopeful signs all along the line. The discussion we had a few days ago regarding those who are attacked by the dread disease of consumption, participated in by men on both sides of the House, revealed the brotherhood of the family-the knowledge that was strong in the hearts of the members of this House, and the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak. The same thing was shown by the efforts of the Department of Labour to adjust the differences between capital and labour, giving, I trust, at all times to the man who toils an opportunity to secure his competency and the things that make his life desirable. We are drawing near to the holiday time, when we are going home to express good-will to our friends and all that it means in our lives. Would it not be well for us to part from here determined when we return in the early days of January, to try to conduct the affairs of the country in a worthy and dignified manner. The spirit expressed by the Minister of Finance at the close of his budget speech will rest with me, as I think it will with all the members of this House, when he said that we all must do our part3 and acquit ourselves bravely as Canadians should.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina).: Mr. Speaker, like other gentlemen who have spoken on this side of the House, I must extend my congratulations to the Minister of Finance on the splendid financial statement which he ha? been able to present to this House on this, the fourteenth occasion tlfat he has had the pleasure and privilege of presenting such a statement. 1 must say that I have been rather surprised at the kind of criticism, if it can be called criticism, which has been directed by hon. members on the other side of the House to the budget speech. I have watched, but watched in vain, for any real criticism of the financial statement for this year. It is true, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) did deal to a certain extent with the finances of the country; but if you examine his speech closely, you will find that by far the greater part

of it is taken up in going over the history of the government for the last ten or twelve years, and selecting what he calls scandals. Some of the instances he gave were particularly unfortunate from his own point of view. He said that while in the city of. Winnipeg, he had seen St. Andrew's locks, where the government is spending so much money. But when he was in Manitoba, the hon. gentleman did not venture to say anything against the expenditure on the St. Andrew's locks.	.


William D. Staples: May I inform the hon. gentleman that Mr. Foster did discuss the St. Andrew's locks in a banquet that was given to him in the Royal Alexandra Hotel.
Mr. W* M. MARTIN. It is quite possible that the hon. member for North Toronto did discuss the St. Andrew's locks, but I venture to say that he did not say anything in Manitoba against the construction of that work.


William D. Staples: Exactly what he said on the floor of parliament a few days ago.


William Melville Martin: The hon. member for North Toronto went farther west, the province of Saskatchewan, and selected for criticism the sale of land to the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company. If the hon. member had carefully examined everything that has taken place in this country during the past twelve or thirteen years, he could not have selected a more unfortunate instance, from his own point of view, for criticism. Let the best dozen or half dozen Tory orators in the country stump the province of Saskatchewan on the question of the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company's land grant, and I venture to say that, if they criticise it, they will not gain a single vote.
What was the contract with the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company? I may state for the benefit of hon. members opposite that, though they do not know it, the fact is that when this government came into power in 1896 every odd-numbered section of surveyed land in the Northwest Territories was tied up to some railway company and out of these lands the company had the right to make their selections. Between Regina and Saskatoon there was an area of 3,500,000 acres out of wlfich the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Valley Railway Company had the right to select 839,000 acres. Railway engineers and valuators were sent over the land, but the company refused to take it on the ground that it did not fulfil the agreement as it was not land fairly fit for settlement. And in 1902 the railway company had threatened to bring suit to compel the government to set apart another 3,500,000 acres out Of which they would have the right to select 839,000 acres. The Saskatchewan Valley Land Company was formed and agreed to buy 839,000 acres out of the odd-numbered Mr. W. M. MARTIN.
sections from the railway company, and they said they wanted also 250,000 acres out of the even-numbered sections. The price that the railway got was $1.65 an acre with no conditions attached. The government agreed to sell to the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company 250,000 acres of even numbered sections at $1 an acre, but on condition that the company should settle 32 homesteaders on every township before the grant should be earned. The first year that company brought in more than enough settlers to satisfy the terms of the grant. Further, the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company is the only instance that can be pointed to in which the present government sold any lands to or had any dealings with a colonization company. More than that, I contend that it was the Sasaktchewan Valley Land Company whose work led to the beginning of the tide of American immigration that has continued to come to this Dominion during the past six or eight years. When we look at the history of the late government, we find that it had dealings with 26 colonization companies. I have the names before me, but I will not trouble the House with them. The land set apart for the benefit of these companies made 'a total of 2,842,742 acres The companies chose from this
1.421.371	acres. And how many immigrants did they take into the territories? Only 1,243. It is estimated that, in addition to these immigrants having cost the country
1.421.371	acres of land oi the Northwest Territories, each immigrant cost the country $475. That is the history of the Conservative party in relation to colonization companies.
The hon. member for North Toronto spoke of the reduction of the tariff under the present government, and he spoke with all the sophistry of which he is capable. He said that from 1896 to 1909 the present government had reduced the tariff by 89-100 of 1 per cent. But he did not take into consideration the goods that had been placed on the free list. I submit that it is only fair, in estimating the average duty on goods coming into the country that we should take into consideration non-dutiable as well as dutiable goods. If hon. gentlemen opposite will take the trouble to turn to volume one of the Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for 1909, page 15, they will find that the average rate of duty on dutiable and non-dutiable goods in i896 was 19.12 per cent and the average rate of duty at present is 16.58 per cent, a reduction of almost 3 per cent on the average of goods coming into this country.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I am sure the hon. member does not wish erroneous figures to go in ' Hansard.' He has made a mistake. What he is talking about is only one class of goods, the dutiable goods, instead of

both classes as referred to by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster).


William Melville Martin: I have before me the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I say that the figures I have given are absolutely correct. The figures given by the hon. member for North Toronto do not take into consideration goods that have been placed on the free list, and I say that to make a fair statement of the reduction in the tariff you must take into consideration non-dutiable as well as dutiable goods. On this basis, as I have said, the reduction is almost 3 per cent. This may seem a small reduction, but the amount saved to the people of the country up to and including 1907-I have not the figures for the last two years-was in excess of $50,000,000.
The hon. member for North Toronto also travelled through the west and went over some of the railways in that country. He calls a part of the western country the 'double-track' country'. He says that you can sit at your car window and drop a pea on the track of some competing railway. There are only one or two places that I known of in the western country where there are what may be called parallel railways. Of course, railways may be parallel if one hundred miles apart. But the impression that these hon membes try to convey is that the two railways are not serving different parts of the country. If we consider the country between Winnipeg and Edmonton and take the main lines of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific, there is not a place where you can say the railways are parallel. It is true that the two lines converge at Portage la Prairie, but it is necessary that they should converge at competing points. They converge again at Saskatoon. And it is true that for some distance west of Saskatoon they run close together. But there is this fact to be remembered that the Grand Trunk Pacific had completed their survey and commenced construction before the Canadian Pacific Railway got there. West of Edmonton again, the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific run close together. But that is made necessary not only by the conformation of the country but by the fact that they both use the Aellowhead Pass to get through the mountains.


Samuel Hughes: Who was there first?


William Melville Martin: I do not know that that matters. The Canadian Northern was probably constructed first, but the main point is that they are both going to use the Yellowhead Pass. This brings up the question of transportation in the west. I was bold enough to make an assertion here last session and I was sarcastically commented upon by some of the 53
newspapers for saying that the transportation question was the most important question in the west to-day. Well, I risk another sarcastic reference by repeating the statement that the transportation question is the most important question to be dealt with in the west at the present time. It is true we have got practically three transcontinental railroads today, but we now need branch lines to feed these railways. Last year when I spoke in this House in connection with the loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway I said the farmers could not get their grain out of the country. The railways did not appear to be prepared to handle the grain, they had not sufficient cars or they were not capable of handling the large production of wheat and other grains. Owing to the railways having provided better facilities this year and also partially to the fact that the farmers have not marketed so much of their crop there has not been any scarcity of cars in Saskatchewan up to the present.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems by the returns they have marketed more of the crop.


William Melville Martin: That is a later report than I have seen. That goes to show only that. the transportation facilities are better than they were last year. I am glad to hear that from my hon. friend because I believe he was one who opposed the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific in the west.
If there is one thing more than another that characterizes the present financial statement and the condition of Canada it is the word ' prosperity.' A great deal has been said about the natural resources of Canada but I believe, and no doubt other members in this House believe that the mineral resources of Canada will gradually become depleted. Our great timber resources are being gradually pushed farther, north by the axe of the lumberman and the ravages of forest fires. Our fisheries, if they have not reached their zenith have almost reached their zenith of production. There will come a time when all our great natural resources will be more or less depleted. When that time comes I believe Canada must resort to agriculture, as some one has said 'the prosperity of a country depends altogether on its basic industries, and in Canada the chief basic industry is agriculture. Has the government, the Department of Agriculture been doing anything towards the assistance and development of that industry in Canada? One thing that has been done has been the establishment of experimental farms.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They were all established before this government came into power.


William Melville Martin: I was just going to say something about that if the hon. genii EVISED EDITION.


Samuel Hughes: Is the government competing with and rivalling the farmer in producing the dairy products?


William Melville Martin: The only object is to teach the farmers what can be done with a proper handling of stock which I would say is a very laudable object for the Department of Agriculture to pursue.
With reference particularly to western Canada, I would point out some things that have been done by the Department of Agriculture in recent years to assist the farmers in raising their crops. It is quite true that in western Canada we have a great Mr. W. M. MARTIN.
many new people coming in. A large number of these people had farmed in the east, and they possibly do not need^ the same teaching and the same example in the line of farming as some of the people who came from foreign countries. The American immigrants are on a par with the immigrants who come to western Canada from Ontario, but we have a large number of immigrants coming to Canada from Europe to whom a great deal of good can be done by having proper experimental farms or stations throughout the west. Some ten years ago the Department of Agriculture established v.'hat is known as the Canadian Seed Growlers' Association, and for five years managed that association. Some five years ago it was decided by the department that it would be better to place the association on a similar basis to the various other associations in Canada, so that the management of its affairs might be under the direct control of the seed growers themselves who had identified themselves with it. The department has continued to supply the association, from year to year, with grants and such funds as this association can use. Over 600 farmers, most of them in western Canada, are at present growing seed _ for the Canadian Seed Growers' Association. These farmers are visited yearly by an officer of tire department, and I understand that a great deal of good has been done in improving the variety of seed grown by the farmers in all parts of the country on account of the efforts made by the Seed Growers' Association. I might also refer to the competitions in fields of standing grain which take place every year throughout the west, and also to the provincial seed exhibitions and seed fairs held at different points in western Canada, at almost a hundred points last year, to exhibit seed and give the farmers a chance to get the best seed on the market. I believe, however, that a great deal more could be done by the Department of Agriculture in the west along the line of establishing small experimental stations. These experimental stations could be maintained at a very small cost. .A very small quantity of land would be required, some eighty acres probably, would do for each experimental station, the idea being to make the farms smaller and have more of them so as to give every farmer in the neighbourhood a chance to go and see the most improved methods of agriculture and to learn the proper rotations of crops, the proper method of handling stock and other matters that interest the farmers, and go to build up a prosperous community. Now, in this connection I would like to refer to a statement which I saw in one of the papers the other day, and no doubt other members of this House saw it also. It was a statement made by Mr. James J. Hill, the great rail-

road magnate of the United States. Speaking, of course, of the United States, he said:
Within 20 years 125,000,000 people, and before the middle of the century more than 200,000,000 people must find room and food and employment within the United States. Where are they to live? What are they to do ? By that time our mineral resources will have been so nearly exhausted that the industries related to them must fall into a minor place. By that time it is apparent that our dream of conquest of world markets will be a burst bubble.
He goes on to say:
The government should establish a small model farm on its own land in every rural congressional district, later, perhaps, in every county in the agricultural states. Let the Department of Agriculture show exactly what can be done on a small tract of land by proper cultivation, moderate fertilizing and due location of crops.
I would recommend these sentiments to the Minister of Agriculture and to the other members of this House. I would also like to call attention to an article which appears in the current number of McClure's Magazine entitled ' No deserted farms in Germany.' It shows what Germany has done by a system of intensive cultivation. I do not need to^ say that the west at the present time is scarcely prepared for intensive cultivation; but there are other portions of Canada, particularly of Ontario, that are ready and prepared for a system of intensive cultivation. But the west which is now filling up with new immigrants on new land, is not possibly in a position to adopt puch methods of cultivation. But that time will come, and it may come within the lives of members of this House This article entitled ' No deserted farms in Germany ' says this:
The policy of conservation that made German forestry such a success is applied also to agriculture. As we have stated before. Germany is not at all a land flowing with milk and honey. In enormous parts of northern Germany the soil is decidedly poor. With that of the United States it cannot compare at all. But proper care did wonders. While the methods of farming used by many Americans resulted in the utter decline of good land in a comparatively short time, the farm land of Germany, even though they have been under cultivation for centuries, bring forth rich crops year in and year out.
Then it goes on to make a comparison between the average crop product in the United States and that in Germany, and it cites what Mr. James J. Hill said.
He made the remarkable statement that the soil of America, once the envy of every other country, gave during the ten years beginning with 1896 an average yield of 13-5 bushels of wheat per acre, while Germany 53}
produced 27-6. For the same decade the yield of oats was in America less than 30 bushels, in Germany 46. For barley the figures were 25 against 33, and for rye 15:4 against 24.
The article goes on to argue that the increased production of these lands in Germany, which are said not to compare with the average lands in the United States, is due entirely to the fact that the Germans have embarked upon a system of intensive cultivation. Now that the government will meet with approval in further establishing experimental farms, I think is shown by a statement which I see in an address delivered by one of the ex-presidents of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, who says:
It is indeed a pleasure to note the steps our federal and provincial governments are taking to foster the growth of this important industry, and to establish it upon a sound and economic basis. No one will rejoice more heartily than the manufacturer in the success which has followed the work of the experimental farms. In so far as they have contributed to a better understanding of the scientific side of agriculture, and made it possible to grow two blades of grass where one grew before, they have benefited not alone the farmer, but the entire country. The same is equally true of the encouragement given by the government to agriculture in other ways.
He goes on to mention other efforts made by the various governments and I commend that statement also to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and of the House generally. There is one other point I would like to refer to in connection with agriculture, and that is the working of the Fruit Marks Act. I do not know whether my experience has been the same as the experience of other western members in regard to the quality of the fruit imported into the western provinces. But I do know that the quality of fruit that has come into the province of Saskatchewan this year, has been beyond anything we ever had before. I believe that a part of that credit is justly due to the rigid method of inspection put in force by the Department of Agriculture, in conformity with the provisions of the Fruit Marks Act. Previous to 1909, there were only three inspectors in the west, one at Winnipeg, one at Calgary and one at Vancouver. The work was then extended last season by the establishment of a new inspector at Regina, whose territory included Moose-jaw, Saskatoon, Prince Albert, Indian Head and other local points. A new inspector was located at Lethbridge and an assistant was appointed at Winnipeg, the Winnipeg district including Kenora, Portage la Prairie, Brandon and other Manitoba towns. There is also this fact, which no doubt will cause satisfaction to hon. members on both sides of this House, namely, that the

shipment of Ontario apples to the prairie provinces was largely increased during the past season. The fruit I refer to when I say that the quality has improved, was not fruit from the state of Washington, hut from British Columbia and Ontario, and in both cases it was better than we ever got in the western provinces before.
Before I resume my seat, I want to say a few words on the question of the immigration policy of the government. The Department of Immigration has recognized the principle that Canada's growth and Canada's prosperity must, to a great extent depend upon the agriculturists, and to that end the department has always favoured the bringing in of men who will take up vacant land in the west and cultivate it. Now I have looked up the records in the Department of the Interior to find the instructions' that were sent by the Commissioner of Immigration to the various agents in the different countries of the world, and I find that the following instructions have been sent out:
1.	Money is expended and administration is exercised with the object of securing immigrants whose purpose in life is to occupy farm lands, either as owners, tenants, or labourers.
2.	Money is voted and administration is exercised with the object of excluding those whose presence in Canada would tend to add to the congestion of our towns and cities.
Immigration effort is made in those countries which are considered most likely to furnish the people coming within the first of the two classes above specified.
Now the countries in which immigration effort is made are Great Britain and Ireland, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States, all of which countries can supply to Canada the very best farmers, men who have been brought up to agriculture. Possibly the most important and useful immigrants we have got during the past two years have been coming from the states. We have got a certain amount of immigration from Sweden, and so far as I can judge from the habits of the Swedes, they make the very best settlers in the Canadian Northwest. They cultivate the soil well, they are industrious, they save their money, they make good citizens, and quickly adopt Canadian institutions. The same of course can be said of the immigrants who come from the south of the international boundary. Now one can scarcely estimate the wealth that is brought into Canada year by year by the American immigrants alone. I have here some figures which I would like to commend to the attention of this House in regard to the nationality of the various kinds of immigrants we have been getting during the past two years. I may say, Mr. W. M. MARTIN.
before giving these figures, Mr. Speaker, that I must congratulate many of the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House on their change of front with respect to our immigration policy. It is not many years since the hon. member from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) stated on the floor of this House, that we were getting into the country, the scum of the London slums. It is not many years since the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) said in this House, that he would rather have a Hindu as an immigrant than a galvanized Yankee. We all know from what took place in the House yesterday, that there has been a great change of front on the part of the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to repeat that again?


William Melville Martin: If the hon. gentleman is not paying enough attention to hear what I say he will have to search ' Hansard ' to find out. I must congratulate hon. gentlemen on their change of front with respect to the question of immigration. Hon. gentlemen who represent western constituencies on the other side of the House are beginning to vie with one another, to actually fall over one another, in their endeavours to pay compliments to the Galicians and Doukhobors whom, a very few years ago, they criticised so severely in this House. We are getting in this country now an average of nearly 200,000 immigrants or more each year. It is impossible that among this large number there would not be some that we would be better without. We might say that even in our own country there are some people whom we would be better without.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Melville Martin: I did not refer to anybody on the other side of the House.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: It was on that side.


William Melville Martin: In a growing country like Canada it is necessary that we shall have men who will perform all kinds of labour. The average Canadian who goes to western Canada does not go there to work for some one else. He goes there to make a home for himself, to become independent, to own his own farm and in a great majority of instances Canadians who go from eastern Canada succeed in doing that. We need other men to perform construction work on the railways. You all know the situation that exists in British Columbia, where the Transcontinental railway was practically held up in its construction on account of the fact that they could not get labourers to perform their work. We must have in that western country a large number of men who will perform construction work. We need farmers and

we need the labouring man, and if the Department of Immigration devotes its attention, as it has in the past, to bringing in agriculturists and labouring men, it is performing a duty it owes to Canada and Canada will prosper under such a policy of .immigration. I desire now to give the House some figures with respect to immigration taken from the records of the department. In the year 1894 we actually got 20,829 immigrants; in 1895, 18,790; in 1896, 16,835, and 'so on during the years following until the number has grown to such an extent that in 1907-8 we received 262,469. Why was it that under Conservative rule immigrants did not come to this country? It was not because the Conservative party did not try to get them- in. I really believe that hon. gentlemen opposite worked hard to get immigrants into this country. I am informed, and I believe it is correct, that in 1896 they actually had an officer in Galicia trying to bring to this country the very people whom hon. gentlemen opposite have criticised this government so severely for bringing in. In nine months of the fiscal year 1907 we got 55,791 immigrants from Great Britain, 34,217 from continental Europe, and 34,659 from the United States. In 1907-8 we got 120,182 from Great Britain, 83,957 from continental Europe, and 58,312 from the United States. In the seven months that have passed of the present fiscal year we got 42,295 from Great Britain, 30,184 from continental Europe, and 65,755 from the United States. Let the increase of immigration from the United States continue, because every one of the American settlers brings settlers' effects and money. The value of the effects per capita of the immigrants coming from the United States in the fiscal year 1908-9 is estimated at $998. Taking the total immigration up to the present time at 59,835, it will be seen that these Americans have brought into Canada wealth estimated at $59,712,336.
I think that covers the points for which I rose to address the House and I have only to say in conclusion that I congratulate all the members of this House and the people of this country on the prosperity that characterizes Canada at the present time and I express the hope that the prosperity of future years will be equal to that of the years through which we are just passing.


Mr. G. H.: BARNARD (Victoria, B. C.) Mr. Speaker, when I heard the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in delivering the budget address the other day, I felt for a moment a cheery opulence stealing over me, but -when I commenced to consider how this exceptional budget was going to affect the province which I have the honour to represent and when I began to search the estimates and to find out how much of the many millions which came
tripping off his tongue he intended to expend in British Columbia I came to the conclusion that as far as I could see it did not matter very much to that province whether he had a large or small amount of money at his disposal. In going over his estimates and in going over the public expenditure as contemplated for the coming year I have made some little research into the blue-books and I wish to draw a few contrasts between the expenditure in that province and other provinces of Canada as they appear to me. In doing that I may say that I do not wish particularly to quarrel with what has been spent in the other provinces of which I am going to speak. I have not been in these provinces, I do not pretend to say whether that expenditure was all justified or not, but I do say that if it was justified in those provinces it is more than justified in British Columbia and that that province should have received equal treatment with those other provinces. The two provinces to which I now particularly refer are Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and I wish to refer to them in connection with a subject which is very dear to the hearts of the people of British Columbia at the present time in the question of expenditure upon harbours and rivers in that province and the question generally of navigation.
Last session I gave to the House some figures as to the general expenditure by the government on harbours east of Port Arthur as compared with the expenditure on harbours on the Pacific coast. In those figures I find that in the period from 1898 to 1908 there have been expended on eastern harbours $7,396,446, while during the same period there have been expended on the harbours on the west coast of the Dominion only $256,178. I find from these same figures that the city of Halifax up Jo the year 1908 had expended on its harbour the sum of $1,695,732 and that the city of St. Tohn had expended on its harbour $988,442. In the year 1909, St John harbour received a further appropriation of $475,000 and in the estimates for 1909-10 there is a sum, made up of three items, amounting to $538,500 for that harbour, so that at the end of the year 1910 there will have been expended on the St. John harbour the sum of $1,999,142. In the estimates for the present year I find further that the province of New Brunswick is to receive, in addition to the $538,500 for the harbour of St. John, a sum of $375,850 for harbour and river improvements generally. I find also that there is provided for the two provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick a sum of $750,000 for dredging and assuming that one half of that will be spent in each province, the total amount appropriated for the province of New Brunswick in the present year for this service amounts to $1,241,850.

Now, in these same estimates I find a general appropriation for the province of Nova Scotia of $649,000 and adding to that half of the dredging vote ($327,500) there will be a total of $1,076,900 for the province of Nova Scotia. But, when we come to the province of British Columbia we find a very different condition of things, we find that the harbour of Victoria is receiving $65,000, that the harbour of Vancouver is receiving $90,000, that the province of British Columbia generally is receiving for dredging $225,000, that there is a general appropri-tion _ for harbours and rivers of $138,850 making $418,650 in all for the province of British Columbia. That is to say, that the province of British Columbia is to receive on account of these expenditures a sum amounting to a little less than twenty per cent of the total appropriations for the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In trying to find out a reason for this, which appears to me unjust discrimination, I have examined the tonnage tables and I find that the tonnage of sea-going vessels entered and cleared in 1909 is as follows:
Tonnage of Sea-going Vessels entered and cleared, 1909.
Tons.
Nova Scotia	 4,367,946
New Brunswick	 2,099,189
Brifisli Columbia	 6,386,315
This shows that the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia combined have only 80,000 more tons than the province of British Columbia, and that the British Columbia tonnage is more than three times that of New Brunswick. But notwithstanding that fact the province of British Columbia receives for its harbours only forty percent of the amount that is to be expended by the government in the province of New Brunswick. I have also taken the figures relating to the vessels engaged in the coasting trade, and I find the following result:
Tonnage of Vessels in the Coasting Trade.
Tons.
Nova Scotia	 4,136,956
New Brunswick	 1,727,930
British Columbia	 8,820,616
That is to say, that the province of British Columbia has a larger coasting tonnage than the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick combined by 2,955,730 tons, or the coasting tonnage of British Columbia is more than double the coasting tonnage of the province of Nova Scotia and more than five times that of the province of New Brunswick. These 'figures relate to the steamships only. The sailing vessels are a very small proportion, and the foreign vessels, which I am not taking into consideration, only amount to 10 per cent. The figures in connection with sailing vessels and foreign vessels make no change in the result.


George Henry Barnard: Now, it occurred to me that possibly this was a new condition of affairs, and, therefore, I thought it would be advisable to take the tonnage of ten years ago and to compare it with the tonnage of to-day, and see which province was increasing the most and the proportion of increase. This gave me the following results:
Tonnage, Sea-going Vessels.
Tons.
New Brunswick, 1899	 1,490,243
"	1908	 2,099,189
Increase	 608,946
or 40 per cent.
Tons.
Nova Scotia, 1899	 2,773,200
"	1908	 4,367,946
Increase	 1,594,746
or an increase of 57 per cent.
Tons.
British Columbia, 1899..	.. 3,595,438
"	1908..	.. 6,386,315
Increase	 2,780,877
or an increase of 75 per cent.
I find that the increase of tonnage for the province of British Uolumbia in that period is 2,780,877 tons, and it is not only greater than the increase of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick combined by some 500,000 tons, but the increase of tonnage for the province of British Columbia is greater than the whole of the present tonnage of the province of New Brunswick. Now, in case it should be said that the figures with regard to tonnage are not a fair criterion of the amount of business that is being done at the ports of these provinces, I have taken the figures relating to the revenue received by the Dominion from imports and exports from the different provinces and the following is the result:
Year 1908-9.
New Brunswick exports... $27,214,741 imports. .	9,508,306
Total	$36,723,047
Nova Scotia exports	 $17,363,405
"	imports		13,257,960
Total	$30,621,365
British Columbia exports..	$22,240,699
"	imports. .	20,898,381
Total	$43,149,070
That is to say, the imports and exports of the province of British Columbia are six and a half million dollars more than those of the province of New Brunswick, and twelve, and a half million dollars more than those of the province of Nova Scotia.
Then, with regard to the duties paid by these different provinces, I find the following result:
Duties paid, 1908-9.
New Brunswick	 $2,164,694
Nova Scotia	 1,533,046
British Columbia	 4,469,970

That is to say, British Columbia paid three quarters of a million dollars more than both the other provinces combined, more than twice the amount that was paid by the province of New Brunswick, and nearly three times the amount that was paid by Nova Scotia.
In regard to the excise revenue, I find that the following amounts were paid in 1908-9:	.
New Brunswick	 $232,551
Nova Scotia	 156,725
British Columbia	 633,506
That is to say, in excise duties the province of British Columbia pays $244,230 more than both the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia combined, nearly three times as much as New Brunswick, and more than four times as much as Nova Scotia. The postal transactions of the three provinces are as follows :
Net	Money	Moneypostal	orders	ordersrevenue,	issued.	paid.New Brunswick.. $366,531 $2,306,280 $1,792,153 Nova Scotia.. .. 516,630	3,863,258	2,963,677British Columbia 596,800	6,136,009	2,756,447
In other words, the total of money orders bought and paid in the province of British Columbia is more than it is in the province of Nova Scotia by $3,165,521 and more than it is in the province of New Brunswick by $5,794,023. I also took the trouble to obtain the clearing house figures for the cities of Halifax, St. John, Victoria and Vancouver, and found that the figures for Victoria and Vancouver exceeded those for St. John and Halifax, the largest commercial cities of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, by $80,000,000 in one year. I wish to ask the government, and particularly the Minister of Public Works, for justice for the province of British Columbia in view of these facts. Never at any time were the prospects of that province as bright as they are to-day. We have now building, the Grand Trunk Pacific, which is going to open up a new port in the north; we have the Canadian Northern coming to Vancouver; the Panama canal will be finished very shortly; I have noticed in the daily press that the Tehuantepec railway is double-tracking its line because of the great amount of traffic crossing the Pacific ocean; and we have the movement in the province of Alberta to ship wheat through our ports on the Pacific coast. Only the other day I saw the statement in the press that one of the ministers representing the government of Alberta had a consultation with the government of British Columbia with a view of establishing in Vancouver elevators, to be owned iointly bv the two governments, for the shipment of wheat. In the near
future the trade of the Pacific is going to more than equal that of the Atlantic ocean. We see annually in the estimates a very large sum, I think this year it is $675,000, for the purpose of ice breaking in the St. Lawrence river. Any money that is spent in British Columbia is not going to be spent without producing a return, such as that for ice-breaking, because our ports are open the year round, and for any money spent this government will have a good asset. I can only attribute the attitude with regard to these expenditures to the fact that I suppose no one minister has time to read the blue-books issued by the department of another minister, otherwise they could not justify for one moment the contrasts to which I have drawn their attention. In conclusion, I trust that the government will take this matter into consideration and see fit to make some further appropriations for public works in that province.


Mr. ERNEST ROY (Dorchester).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I would much prefer answering in English to the remarks uttered by the hon member for Victoria (Mr. Barnard, who has just spoken. However, as I am more familiar with the French language, I hope the House will bear with me while I address it in my native tongue. The discussion of the budget, if I understand aright the rules of parliament, affords an opportunity to review freely the policy of the country under its various aspects, and for that reason its importance is very great. Of course, Canada's policy is that followed by its government, which is for the time being a liberal government. Under a system of representative government such as ours, the task imposed on the leaders is a comprehensive, responsible and difficult one. They are bound to respect the rights of citizens, and if they have a clear understanding of their duties, they feel it incumbent on them to forward the welfare of the community in all spheres of action. In brief, they are called upon to exert all their powers towards insuring the happiness of the inhabitants of Canada as a whole.
What does that happiness consist in? Thinkers, writers, poets, philosophers of all nations, of all times, of all epochs, have agreed in acknowledging that worldly happiness is essentially relative. It embraces an almost infinite variety of forms. Neither should we wonder at this, since happiness is the state of the soul when satisfied, and since the soul, being infinite by nature, is also infinite in its manifestations. Since the opening of this discussion on the budget, human happiness has been considered, more especially . in its relation to money matters. Those who have approved of the policy of the Liberal government have made the welkin ring with the sweet sounds of

the silver and gold pieces gleefully jingling and singing the material prosperity of the country. On the other hand, those who, in the best of worlds play the part of the pessimist, have filled the air with their desperate wailings, not noticing that such wailings find no echo here, no more than in any other part of Canada.
I said that the happiness of a people was a very variable entity. If the happiness of a people consists in wealth, it must consist in wealth under its various forms. What is wealth to the aged man who fears to look ahead, thinking that death lurks near by and calls "to him? What is a million dollars even to the young man replete with health, physical vigour and self-confidence? The young man relies on his strength, has confidence in himself, and looks with confidence to the future. He knows that by dint of energy and ambition he will succeed in conquering all difficulties on the way to happiness, and it is in that happy disposition that his wealth consists, while the old man's wealth consists in the wisdom which he has gained through life from day to day.
What is Canada's particular wealth at the present time? The Dominion has not as yet reached maturity; it is still in its youth, a vigorous youthfulness which betokens a bright future. Such is the Teal wealth of the Dominion. Canada is full of self-reliance, a self-reliance which is not the result of giddiness, of inexperience, but rests on solid ground, for that young Dominion has just tested its strength in a venture which might have proved fatal, but from which we have come out victorious. Two years ago, in 1908, a financial crisis swept as an immense wave over all the nations of the world.
Canada, like every other nation, was to feel the force of it. Would it stand the shock? One well knew that Canada had increased considerably in strength of late years, but so far had met with hardly any but favourable circumstances. How would Canada make use of its strength when confronted with a serious obstacle, with this severe test? That was the question which the government answered in the affirmative, and which the opposition, in their usual 'pessimistic mood, answered negatively. That depression is now over, and of all the countries whose economical life came under our observation and judment, none better than Canada withstood the test. And if I were not afraid my modesty would overshadow my truthfulness, I would even assert that no country under the sun underwent the ordeal better. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) gave us a convincing proof of it on Tuesday night. To-day, I say it again, Canada is self-reliant because it knows its strength.
Why is it that Canada in so few years M. ROT.
acquired so much importance? Why is it that Canada .is everywhere known, respected and courted, if I may use the expression? Why is it that those nations having interests at stake with Canada make so much of its opinions and of its understanding of justice? Why is it that young Canada is treated with due respect and fairness in England, in (France and at Washington? The reason is this, and was given by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) himself when he stated that the trustees of the people since 1896 knew their responsibilities and discharged them properly. That is the reason, Sir and the reason is moreover that these trustees understood that their trust consisted not only.of the material wealth of the country, but of the moral and intellectual wealth of its people as well. In fact, no country could take its place among the nations, despite all the riches of the world, unless the heart and mind of its people were developed, as well as its natural resources.
The government had a hard task to fulfil. The programme which it laid down was vast, immense, difficult, but not above its strength, and it has pursued it unceasingly and with undoubted success ever since. In our days, when money cuts such a large figure, the first thing to be done after finding out what unbounded undeveloped wealth Canada had was to find the means to advertise these resources to the world. How did the government (proceed to do that? In the first place, we must recognize that the premier's personality had, as early as 1896, drawn the attention of Europe upon Canada. His masterly eloquence had turned all eyes towards this country But the Prime Minister had also surrounded himself with active, intellgent and clever men in his cabinet, and these soon showed that Canada, from 1896 to 1898, had not been a sleeping country, but a hustling country. Canadian products were to be seen everywhere, in every exhibition, and cn the markets of Britain, France and America. Our commercial agents were met all over Europe, and not only that, but we have seen Canada grant a preference to the British market and upon such conditions as fairly stunned (powerful Germany. Some hon. gentlemen opposite found fault with the British preference. If you narrow down to a mere question of economic proposition, possibly it might, to all appearances, be folly on our part to have given something for nothing. But can it be forgotten that this preference has ensured Canada's economical independence by getting new markets for us, which taught us to straighten up our backs and show our mighty neighbours that we are not dependent upon them, although thev thought they had us at their feet. This would more than indemnify us for what we gave Britain. We must not overlook the fact

that the British market is the most important of all, and that England stands at the head of all nations in that respect. Our introduction to that market, thanks to the preference we' gave Great Britain, has advertised us more extensively even among our rivals. Is it not a magnificent advertisement from a business point of view? What is trade's foremost object, if not to secure customers. And in order to secure such customers, you have to advertise yourself. Thus, Canada in seeking competition on the British market made itself known to the markets of the world. To that 'point of view, the preference would rank among the cleverest political deals of this government.
Having spread Canada's reputation broadcast, having advertised its mining and lumbering resources, something still remained to be done by the government. Wealth does not lie in undeveloped resources. There remained to open up the great Northwest, and the older provinces understood that the best way to recoup themselves of the money lavished upon the Canadian Pacific railway in the Territories was to create there a market for the manufactures of the east. It was then necessary to direct immigrants to these provinces, and it will be this government's everlasting glory that they have initated this stream of immigration in the Northwest. Numberless populations were almost unable to live on the impoverished soil of old Europe. Did it not belong to us to invite them here on our uncultivated fields, rather than allowing them to starve in their native land, while we had absolutely idle farms in our Northwest, on which they could live and acquire some wealth?
The government realized that they were consulting their own interest and at the same time achieving a humanitarian work, when initiating a great movement of immigration to that region.
What happened, Sir? It happened that in every immigrant induced to come over to Canada from Germany, Norway, Austria, France and Great Britain, we had forthwith an agent who, satisfied with his position, wrote to his own friends in the old country and told them what an immense and magnificent country this Canada of ours was and what a happiness it offered to many of their countrymen who starved in their native country.
That active immigration policy has produced great results. We are told that we are too lavish in the expenditure of public money in the Northwest, that the Grand Trunk Pacific is going to cost many millions of dollars.. Quite true. But since we started building this railway, is it not a fact that over one million people have settled upon the vacant lands of the Northwest, and so they already help us to bear
our financial burdens? Is it not true that the millions of bushels of grain produced by these new settlers and which supply our railway companies with freight have already begun meeting the expenditure incurred by Canada in developing that portion of our territory?
I do not intend to speak at any length on these matters, by indulging in too many statistics, though i am free to say that statistics sometimes serve a good purpose in adorning an otherwise arid and uninteresting subject, a fact which has been well illustrated the other day by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. It would be useless to dilate any further upon the already well known causes of our material prosperity. If the government have joined in the friendly conspiracy of events to make us prosperous from a material standpoint, they have also realized their duty and their mission, by contributing to our intellectual development. And how did they do so, Sir? By readjusting the subsidies granted to the provinces. The. provincial governments, having under the constitution, the control of educational matters are now able to devote larger snms in favour of education. So, the province of Quebec, -to mention a province with which I am more familiar-was enabled by that increased subsidy, to make an additional appropriation of half a million dollars for educational purposes. Schools are being built everywhere. Technical schools are being established-a matter which was mooted, the other day before the House, in the cities of Montreal and Quebec, having at their head devoted teachers and scientists.
I may further mention tne founding in the city of Montreal of a high commercial school. Montreal, it is true, is a city of tire province of Quebec, but it is the commercial metropolis of Canada. This high school will serve a useful purpose in allowing those of our countrymen who wish to take special courses in certain branches of commerce and industry, to receive in that school the scientific training which they need.
As to moral progress, it is a trite saying that a contented man is a virtuous man and that poverty is the mother of all vices. Now, never before did the morality a(f Canada rank higher than nowadays.
When you inspire a man with hope, when you point out the future to him and when, by focussing his eyes on that future, he foresees happiness in store for himself, for his children and his posterity, he shrinks back from crime. Now, in Canada an era of moral progress, so to say, has been ushered in. Therefore I say that the government have fulfilled their mission

and they have acquitted themselves with honor.
True, there is always room for criticism. But this is what must be expected in the work carried out by a political party and this is what is understood by the Canadian people, by our enlightened electorate. Instead of criticising minor details, mistakes which may have been made and which only small minds are prone to criticise you have to take a general view of the achievements of those men, as a whole. A man should be judged in the light of his achievements, as a whole. It is hut fair that a government should be judged in the same way. Should the blunder or mistakes of that government outweigh their good deeds, then it is the duty of the electorate to turn them out, as happened in 1896. When, on the contrary, the sum of their achievements is found to be considerable and their faults are a negligible quantity, the Canadian electors do just what they did in 1900, in 1904 and in 1908: Vote confidence in 'those men who have so well administered the public affairs.
I couid reply in a few words to the statement made a little while ago by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Barnard) about the maritime provinces. He said: You are spending a great deal of money and making large appropriations for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and yet these provinces yield less revenue than British Columbia which is receiving less than the maritime provinces. I could give to that statement a reply which any intelligent man would understand and it is this: If to-day British Columbia is able to make so much money, it is indebted for it to the Eastern provinces which placed that province in the position which enabled it to realize those gains, and it is but fair that the Eastern provinces should now get compensation for that, expenditure.
But additional argument could be brought forward in connection with the naval question. The government is criticised for having spent $1,000,000 upon the harbour of St. John and $400,000 on the harbour at Halifax, and yet, there is only such and such a tonnage of sea-going vessels passing through those ports. Let us be fair and say that if we made such large expenditures for those ports in order to allow the port of Montreal to develop and assume the importance it is enjoying to-day, why is it that up to 1896, out of the seventeen or eighteen lines of steamships which had been using the St. Lawrence route, only three, namely the Allan line, the Thompson line and the Donaldson line, did really survive?
It is because their trafie was regular during summer only, and a tramp business during winter.


M. EOT.
[Stage Direction]
Now, in order to give to the harbour of Montreal the possibility to compete with the ports of New York and Boston, we had only one way to choose, it was to afford a trafie during summer and winter for our lines. After having supplied with modern implements St. John and Halifax we could keep for us a part of the trade going by New York, Portland and Boston. There fore the province of Quebec is concerned in that expenditure, because these three harbours, Montreal, St. John and Halifax are bound up together for summer trafie and the others for winter trafie.
After all what kind of objection has the opposition against this government? Up to the present time I have heard some arguments made during last election. Imagination is the only creating power which remains with our friends opposite. Before the last campaign they had found some scandals relating to the intercolonial or to the North Atlantic Trading Company and others fantasticals. There were dreams from their imagination but those poor dreams were brutally disappointed by the general elections of the 26th of October, 1908. To-day the members of the opposition contemnlate those dreams with tears in their eyes. Let us respect those tears ; they belong perhaps to people stung with remorse. Let the opposition with its sadness and sorrow. Let the dead bury the dead and let the government well alive continue the work of the living.
Mr. SINCLAIR moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose this debate will continue to-morrow?


Mr. FIELDING.: This debate will be continued. If concluded, we will go into Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.10 a.m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 17, 1909.