RACE TRACK GAMBLING.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MILLER moved that the evidence taken last session in connection with Bill No. 6 to ' An Act to amend the Criminal Code,' be printed as an appendix to the Journal of the House of Commons, and that rule 74 be suspended in reference thereto.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Will the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Miller) please explain the object of his motion?


Mr. MILLER.: One of the officials Of the House tells me that many requests have been made to the Printing Bureau for copies of the evidence taken in regard to Bill (No. 6), known as the 'Anti-Gambling Bill.' Now, the evidence can only be printed by the carrying of this motion. The clerk of the special committee inadvertently omitted to recommend that this evidence be printed and this is the only way in which it can be printed now.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: What is Bill (No. 6)?


Henry Horton Miller: It is the Bill known as the Anti-Gambling Bill or the Race Track Bill.


Mr. SPROULE.: This motion speaks of the evidence taken in connection with a Bill of last session?
Mr. JViiLLEK. Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: The object of the motion is to have the evidence printed. This evidence should have been printed last year, but, as my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Miller) explains, through the inadvertence of the clerk this was not done.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Wilfrid Laurier: In laying upon the table of the House yesterday the report of the Imperial Conference, I stated that the rules or regulations adopted by the Committee of Defense, which were to be put in the volume, had not yet been printed, but had been received by His Excellency to be laid on the table of the House, and are upon the tables of the different parliaments interested. Yesterday we made a strong representation to the Home office that these papers should be brought down at once to the attention of the Canadian parliament and the Canadian people. His Excellency the Governor General received
' Mr. Harcourt to Lord Grey.
' London 27:th July 1911.
' My telegram of to-day-on further consideration, in view of your telegram of 26th July 'Confidential,' and of 27th July 'Most urgent,'-I am prepared to acquiesce in immediate publication of both papers in Canada and I have informed Fisher that in deference to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's wishes I have felt it right to do so. Papers will be published
here on Monday.	HARCOURT.
I therefore beg to lay upon the table of the House the memo, of the conference. The other paper is not copied, but it will be laid on the table during the course of the day.
I move that these papers be printed m connection with the other papers of the conference.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. KING.: I beg to lay on the table of the House a special report of the comparative prices in Canada and the United States from the year 1906 to 1911. This report includes prices- of agriculture, fisheries, lumbering and mining products for the five years mentioned, and shows the actual market quotations.



THE CEMENT MERGER.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before the orders of the day are taken up I would like to inquire what the government have done in regard to the very serious charges made by Sir Sanford Fleming concerning the Bill before the Private Bills Committee' prior to the adjournment, and which was intended to be taken up after we resumed. I would like to know whether it is the intention of the government to appoint a committee of inquiry to ascertain whether the allegations made in connection with the formation of that cement company were or were not correct. The House will remember it was stated that there was over $13,000,000 of stock given in an improper way as bonus. Now, since we have resumed the committee has not been convened, and no evidence has been taken. It would seem to me in view of the very serious charges made that it would be incumbent upon the government to take some action to ascertain the correctness of the allegations. If they are correct, it reveals a very unfortunate condition of affairs. If they are not correct, they do a great injustice to certain individuals who are said to be connected with the matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: We had hoped the House would deal with the matter after having taken up the Bill which is now before us, but the progress made upon the


Mr. DONNELLY.: Reciprocity Bill has been so slow that we have not much hope of this other Bill being taken into consideration until a very late period. Under the circumstances we had not thought of appointing a committee, but the suggestion of my hon. friend may be a valuable one. If we can get the House to vote upon the reciprocity agreement, then we will see what we have to do.



SALARIES AND PROMOTIONS, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.

Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: On the 16th March last this House ordered a .return showing the promotions and increases of salary that had been given in the Post Office Department. Before adjournment I was informed that the matter would be taken up in a few days, but I suppose it has been overlooked. I simply mention it in order to bring it to the attention of the proper authorities.


Mr. EMMERSON.: With respect to the return which was laid on the table of the House a few moments ago by the. Minister of Labour, I would like to ask him if provision has been made or is being made for the printing of the return?


George Gerald King: The report is being issued as one of the reports of the Department of Labour, and will be paid for out of the appropriation for that purpose or by an order of the House.	[DOT]


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Might I ask the Minister of Labour what means he used to gather that information or how long it has been gathering?


George Gerald King: In reply to my hon. friend I might say that this work has been in course of preparation for a considerable length of time. It is really a supplement to the volume which was brought down about a year ago, which dealt with wholesale prices, and which the hon. member for Brandon 'said he thought was the most valuable contribution to the economic literature of Canada.
This volume has been prepared by the same persons who had charge of the other volume and is a continuation of that work.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The Minister of Labour sent out experts similar to the men in Washington to gather information with reference to the prices on both sides of the line?


George Gerald King: Yes, there have been special experts and officers of the department gathering that information.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Do I understand the minister to inform the House that this is a continuation of the work that Mr. Coates produced a year ago?
330i


George Gerald King: Mr. Coates has been continuing that work since, and when the discussion came up in the House on the various articles mentioned in the reciprocity agreement it became evident that members of the House wished to get further information in the way of prices. I instructed Mr. Coates to make his further report more detailed than it otherwise would be and to carry back his investigations five years and get actual market quotations for that period of time.


Arthur Meighen: This is a separate and distinct work prepared since the debate took place?


George Gerald King: It has been completed since the debate commenced, but a good deal of the information has been gathered during the last few years.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Robert Laird Borden: I would ask that a return moved for on March 20, relating to papers touching the claim of Macdonald & McLellan for the construction of a portion of the Intercolonial railway be expedited.



RULES OF THE HOUSE.

Henry Robert Emmerson: In view of the many references recently made to the expediting of the business of the House and the necessity of some change in the rules, I wish to ask the right hon. the leader of the House whether any steps are being taken or are proposed to be taken with regard to an amendment of the rules tending towards the expedition of public business. I wish to read an extract from a newspaper which may be of some service in consideration of the whole question:
How to Suppress Bores.
A Paris paper describes the method by which a South African tribe deals with bores.
This tribe considers long speeches injurious both to the speaker and his hearers; so, in order to protect both, there is a tribal law that every public orator must stand on one leg only while he is making a speech.


Mr. FIELDING.: What if the speaker has not a leg to stand on?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If the^ other leg is brought to the ground the oration must immediately end.
It is suggested that this institution would be of con'o^'wabh value in other countries.-New York ' Times'.
This is an extract from the New York ' Times.' It might not meet the case now before the House as suggested by the Minister of Finance where the speakers have not a leg to stand on, but I am referring generally to the obstruction that has taken place in times past if it is not now in evidence in this House.



FARMERS' BANK.

Robert Laird Borden: I would point out to the Minister of Finance in connection with the affairs of the Farmers' Bank of Canada that we are still without any information upon the table of the House, such as he suggested we might have. The hon. gentleman will no doubt remember that on March 15 a motion was made in this House by the hon. member for Balton (Mr. Henderson) that a royal commission should be appointed for the purpose of investigating and reporting on certain matters in connection with the affairs of that bank. The Minister of Finance, answering for the government upon that motion, referred in the first place to an answer which he had given some time previously and in which he had said that:
The proceedings now engaging the attention of the courts of justice in Toronto, will lead to a full investigation into and disclosure of all the affairs of the bank, and that, therefore, there is no need of the appointment of a royal commission.
The minister also added that if anything should arise later to indicate that the investigation was insufficient the question would be further considered. He also said that the machinery of the courts had been involved, and the case had been occupying a great deal of attention in the courts of Ontario, and that he saw no reason to doubt that the investigation would be thorough. He, therefore, concluded that there was no need of a royal commission to investigate matters which were already being fully investigated in the courts.
The difficulty of the situation is this: If we had a royal commission, if evidence had been taken and a report laid on the table of the House, the House would be seized of the evidence and of the report itself and would be enabled to form conclusions thereon. We have not that, and further, we have not anything of the kind at all because the government has not, up to the present, laid on the table of the House the result of any investigation by the curator or by the liquidator or copies of any evidence taken in the courts. I would therefore, suggest that inasmuch as a royal commission has been denied, upon the ground that there would be an investigation toy the liquidator and in the courts, it would be a proper and reasonable thing for the government to procure certified copies of all evidence taken by the curator or liquidator, if any such evidence has been taken, and of all reports made by the curator and liquidator and copies of all proceedings in the courts, which, in the judgment of the Minister of Finance, would serve the purpose that would otherwise have been served so far as the information of this House is concerned, by the appointment of a royal com-Mr. EMMERSON.
mission and by the investigation and report of that commission.
I would, therefore, ask whether any steps have been taken to lay that information on the table of the House. If no such steps have been taken I would ask whether the government propose to assist the House in respect to this matter by procuring official copies of all such proceedings and evidence and having them laid on the table of the House. This seems to me a reasonable request.


William Stevens Fielding: If there are any public documents whatever in relation to the Farmers' Bank which have come to the government since the last discussion-I cannot for the moment say whether there are or not-I have no objection to their being brought down in response to a request of the House. Of the general investigation I can only take the ground I did before that these matters are being investigated toy the courts. We have no reason to doubt that the investigation will be in every respect thorough, and I can see no reason why there should be any departure from the usual practice in this respect. If there are any public documents in the matter which have come to the government I have no objection to bringing them down.


Mr. OSLER.: My attention was called, since I returned, to a debate in parliament on the 15th of March. Before I left this country on January, I was present when we were discussing the question of the Farmers' Bank.
I then made the statement that I had spoken to the Minister of Finance in reference to the issue of a certificate to this bank. The Minister of Finance said that if I was in the House he was sure I would not make that statement. After^ the deposit had been made with the Receiver General and before the certificate had been issued, I met the Minister of Finance and had a talk with him about the Farmers' Bank. I told him that it was a fraud, that the people connected with it were not worthy, and that the method taken for obtaining the necessary deposit was absolutely illegal. I knew that of my own personal knowledge, because I knew where application had been made to borrow the money on these endorsed notes; I did not know at the time from whom. I saw that the Finance Minister was under a good deal of anxiety about the condition of affairs. The matter ended there so far as I was concerned until some time afterwards, when I learned that a certificate had been issued, and I again spoke to the minister, and said I was exceedingly sorry that the government had issued the certificate. The Finance Minister said that so far as he saw, the law had been complied with, and that if the government had not issued the cer-
10474

tificate they would have been open to the charge of protecting the larger banks. Of course there is a good deal of reason in that, but I think it was a case where the closest scrutiny ought to have been observed. It was notorious that the men at the head of the bank were not worthy. The information I think was given fairly, and without any prejudice against the establishment of new banks. Further than that, I may say that I had .a conversation with my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), and he told me he had made the same representation to the Finance Minister. I only make this statement because I do not want to put in the mouth of the leader of the opposition statements which I cannot confirm.


William Stevens Fielding: If I had been aware that the hon. gentleman intended to bring this matter up to-day I should have read over the debate to see how far there wras any conflict between the hon. gentleman's statement and my own. I am quite sure any statement the hon. gentleman makes, either at this time or at any other time, has been made in good faith. Busy men hesitate to speak with confidence concerning conversations that took place several years ago, and I feel that I should hestitate to speak definitely about a conversation on that matter of several years ago. But this I do know, that the attitude of my mind with relation to the Farmers' Bank was such that if my hon. friend or anybody else had given me any substantial reason against the issue of that certificate, I would have welcomed it, because it is notorious that I did not wish to issue the certificate to the Farmers' Bank. My hon. friend is right, I viewed it from the beginning with anxiety. 1 do remember I had a conversation with him about the matter, but I do not remember that he gave me any information bearing on the subject which would justify me in refusing to issue the certificate. I am sure, in a matter of such importance, my hon. friend if he had felt that he had material evidence to submit, would not have been content to trust the matter to memory, but he would have sent me a communication giving me definite information. It is, however, beyond question that anything that came to me on the subject from any quarter represented the anxiety which business men had concerning the flotation of this bank, an anxiety which I felt. But against that, I had the sworn testimony of the man who came into my office and swore that he had complied with all the provisions of the law. That sworn testimony should have outweighed probably any casual conversation I may have had from any quarter at all. I do not for a moment imagine that the
hon. member for West Toronto (Mr Osier) did anything in this matter except with the best intentions, and I am quite sure that neither he nor I have any desire to misrepresent one another.
WAYS AND MEANS-THE NEWMARKET a	CANAL.
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means.


Mr. T. G. WALLACE (Centre York).: Before you leave the Chair I wish to bring up a matter that has been discussed in this House several times already, a matter coming within the purview of the Department of Railways and Canals. I may say that my object in bringing this matter up is to place on ' Hansard ' a report handed to me . only on Tuesday last, which was asked for six months ago. I suppose this is the only opportunity I shall have of discussing this matter. I have always, both in this House and outside, condemned the expenditure upon the Newmarket canal as not being in the best interests of the people of this country. I believe it was an extravagant expenditure, and one that could not be justified by the Minister of Railways, or anybody else who knows the facts. The first estimate of the cost of this canal was $291,000, for a canal that was to run from Lake Simcoe to Holland Landing, and from Holland Landing to Newmarket. The next estimate was $967,000. The report shows why this expenditure had gone up from $297,000 to $967,000. This canal connects the town of Newmarket with Lake Simcoe, or is supposed to. Nevertheless, there has been no estimate made that this canal would be of any commercial value whatever, and what is more, no plan has been devised for furnishing water to this canal, and we all know that nothing is more necessary for a canal than water. There has been.no report made showing where water can be got to float vessels in that canal. Therefore, I condemn this expenditure as extravagant and a wanton waste of public money. My attitude on this question may appear singular to some people, seeing that part of the expenditure is to be made in the county I represent, and no doubt many people would consider my course as bad politics. However, as I honestly believe that this expenditure is absolutely unjustified, I must, as an honest man, oppose it. Whatever benefit, temporary benefit, may come to the people of the county of York through this expenditure, will ultimately be lost to them through the failure to operate the canal. Now, I wish to place on * Hansard ' this report made by Mr. E. J. Walsh, who was the first engineer in charge of the canal. I would have preferred if the Minister of Railways and Canals was present on this occasion, but I

am not responsible for his absence. I will read the report:
Ottawa, Canada, January 20, 1911.
Sir,-I desire to place before you, and on record in the department, (so that the same may be available for parliamentary inquiry), some observations and explanations concerning the Holland River improvements, more generally spoken of as the " Newmarket Canal," as follows:-
The policy of carrying out this work has been subjected to much adverse criticism, both in parliament and throughout the country, chiefly on account of the excessive cost.
In the debates, in the House of Commons, the Government through silence, and the Minister of Railways and Canals, by subtle suggestion and implication, has allowed, and caused the whole blame, for this unpopular expenditure, to fall upon myself.
In the reports of debates, House of Commons " Hansard," March 23rd, 1909. Supply- "The Newmarket Canal"-Mr. J. A. Currie, (North Simcoe) stated: " I do not think the Minister of Railways and Canals will rise in his place and say to this House that any single figure that has been given by Mr. Walsh to him as the responsible minister in charge of that department in connection with this work, has been within 200 per cent of what the work actually cost, or of the estimate that was made by the responsible man, Mr. Grant	
.... Mr. Walsh also said the original work would cost something like $300,000. His first report was made to Mr. Collingwood Schreiber, in which he placed the amount as something over $300,000. He made a subsequent report on the 17th of March, 1905, which the Minister did not quote, and the amount was $291,249.86	
	Mr. Walsh made several attempts
or bluffs at an estimate on the second section but Mr. Grant, who is without doubt a very experienced engineer, made an estimate of that work which was far short of the lowest tenderer. Mr. Grant's estimate on section No. 2 was $596,826, and the lowest tender received in answer to the call founded on that estimate was $652,009.50. . . .
' Then there are the land damages and the work at Wilcox lake. No one has made an estimate on that work except our good Christian friend Walsh, who says $41,000. Mr. Walsh estimated at $290,000 work which has now reached $900,000, so if he says this work will cost $4-1,000, we are safe in saying that it will cost not less than $150,000.'
In another portion of his speech Mr. Currie is reported thus:-
' The first mention of this canal was immediately before the election of 1904. Some time in October 1904, Mr. Walsh, an engineer of the department, was hurriedly called from Orillia to that section of country to make a survey of this particular branch.
' Mr. Walsh goes down to that country, and in a few days every loose fish in Newmarket is driving stakes and eating his dinner at the country's expense.
' By the way, it was just two or three weeks before the election, and every voter that could possibly be put to work was put to work on the job, and within a very short time they blew in $25,000 of this country's money in Mr. WALLACE.
making these surveys. Bear in mind immediately before the election.'
I desire, before proceeding further, to cfiar-acterize the latter statement as being, absolutely, foundataomless. There are only four (4) ncal men, and three (3) in staff from Ottawa (7 -all told) employed at the time, and up to the date of the general election, which took place on November 3rd, 1904, the total amount expended, in connection with the Holland River survey, was $484.86, of which $68.79 was the actual sum paid, in wages, to the local men.
Details of this expenditure, annexed hereto, can be verified by reference to the Auditor General's report for that fiscal year. Mr. Currie's other statements, with reference to myself and my report, are quite as uncalled for, unfair and extravagant.
Doubtless, after Mr. Currie's parliamentary experience becomes more mature he may realize the propriety of asking for all papers on the particular subject, and satisfying himself that he is right in the premises, before making an attack in parliament on an official who is precluded from, being present and defending himself.
In the House of Commons debates, Hansard, March 23rd, 1909:
' Supply-The Newmarket Canal.


Hon.  G. P.@: Graham (Minister of Railways
and Canals). Mr. Speaker,	'He
gives his estimate, which, as my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) has pointed out, is too low, amounting to $354,536.
* Now let me go a little more into the history of the work as it has proceeded, giving also a digest of Mr. Grant's findings. Let us take section 2, Holland river division. On February 12, 1908, Mr. Grant, who is one of the most efficient engineers in the whole department, after giving the results of the analysis points out that the rainfall for 1907, which was a very dry year, was somewhat less than 30 inches. Mr Grant himself has gone over the figures very carefully, and, in his report of 1907, although he finds that the rainfall was less than 30 inches, and less, than Mr. Walsh found it. Mr. Walsh found by the records of the Meteorological Observatory, Toronto, that the average annual precipitation at Newmarket, for the ten years from 1896 to 1905, was 30-67 inches, and the minimum during that period was in 1896, when it amounted to only 27.67 inches, the latter is what he based liis calculations (re water supply) on. Vide report, dated 29th September, 1906, E.J.W., 20, 1, 11. . . The country is committed to building the Newmarket canal. It has cost a great deal more money than was estimated. .	.	. I
may state that the cost as estimated by Mr. Grant is, as my hon. friend has pointed out, nearly a million dollars. Mr. Butler has estimated that the reservoir will cost $80 000.	.
.	.	.	. The canal itself will cost in
the vicinity of a million dollars.'
Mr. Samuel Sharpe (North Ontario).-As this Newmarket canal .... The Minister of Railways and Canals also stated that the original estimate was largely ex-ceded, that the original estimate was something around $300,000, but that subsequent estimates which largely increased this amount were due to the increased cost of materials.
I ithink he placed the increased cost of

materials at from 40 to 50 per cent. But he failed to inform us that the original estimate had been increased some 300 per cent.'
Sir Wilfrid Laurier-Mr. Speaker, .	.
.	. We did send an engineer and he reported that the work could he done for $300,-
000.	Well, we thought that if we could have that useful work done for the town of Newmarket and the riding of North York for an expenditure of $300,000 we ought to do it. It turns out, however, that the work is costing more than we expected. This is not unusual in works of this character. My hon. friend says it is going to cost a million dollars. But even if it should, even if there be a mistake, that is very different from a corrupt act.'
Mr. Walsh Interviews Minister.
Having been, more or less under the impression that the minister's, most extraordinary presentation and defence of the Newmarket canal policy, during the 1909 parliamentary session, might have been due to personal misconception, or misrepresentation on the part of some of his departmental officials concerning the true facts about that work, the writer called upon the Minister of Bail-ways and Canals (a few days after prorogation) on the 28th May, 1909, and pointed out to him that the adverse criticism in parliament, directed against the former, in connection with the Newmarket canal work, was founded on false premises; that my plans and proposals in re. section No. 2, of the east branch-Holland Landing to Newmarket-had been unwarrantedly changed and the cost, unnecessarily, enormously increased; that I had recommended a standard of construction commensurate with the amount of traffic likely to be available, and that, instead of adopting this, Messrs. Butler and Grant had copied the elaborate plans of the costly Soulanges canal; overlooking the fact that the St. Lawrence canals form the links of navigable communication between the Atlantic ocean and the Great Lakes, having tributary thereto the possible carrying trade of half a continent, the magnitude of which no living person could foresee; whereas the 'Newmarket canal' is much less ambitious in its pretensions as regards prospective traffic; and further, that when an attack was made upon myself in parliament, by certain members of the opposition, the minister, instead of coming to my defense and explaining the true situation of affairs, chose to leave parliament in ignorance and contented himself with fulsome laudations of Mr. Grant's (so called) engineering skill, thus endorsing said attack by implication.	_
After questioning the minister, he admitted that he knew nothing about civil engineering work, and that his explanations and utterances in parliament (re Newmarket canal, and the engineers connected therewith) had been inspired and instigated by his deputy, M'r. Butler.
The writer will deal with Mr. Butler's case presently. Having impressed upon the minister the facts relative to the Newmarket *Canal, and the inaccuracy and injustice of his statements and insinuations, in parliament, it was but reasonable to expect that he would seize the earliest opportunity of making suitable explanations.
That he did not do so, the following excerpt from ' Hansard,' February 4th, 1910, (this
was the succeeding session), will show; 'Trent Canal construction.


Thomas George Wallace: What is the hon. gentleman appropriating for the Newmarket canal?


Mr. GRAHAM.: Last year we did not spend much on it. I sent for Mr. Grant, the engineer of the department, who is a first-class man, and we discussed the Newmarket canal very thoroughly. He assured me that I can state to the House on his reputation that there will be plenty of water in that canal. That is qc the word of one of the best engineers we have in the service in regard to hydraulics, and a most reliable man.
Mr. GRAHAM, I have seen the work, but I did not visit it for the purpose of investigation, because any information I could give would be based absolutely on the advice of experts whom we pay for that purpose.
Trent Canal-improvements, $62,500.


Mr.  J. A.@: CURRIE	 _


George Perry Graham: The engineer is having his report completed on the Severn route and the Nottawasaga route. My hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Currie) can come to the department and see what he is proposing.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Was it the same engineer who made the estimate on these who made the original estimate on the Newmarket canal ?


George Perry Graham: Yes, Mr. Walsh.


John Allister Currie: I do not wish to challenge the standing of the engineer who made the report, but, as the minister was so misled with reference to the Newmarket canal, I think it would be advisable for him to have these figures checked up by some ot her member of the 6taff.


George Perry Graham: Any estimate of these routes, before anything is done, will be reviewed by Mr. Grant, the engineer of the Trent, whom I will make responsible for nil the figures.	.
The remarks of the Minister of Railways and Canals, as quoted above, are most discourteous to myself, the inference conveyed being a reflection on my standing as an engineer. I have no objection whatever, to the minister's somewhat frenzied, commendation of Mr. Grant as an engineer, but when my name has been in the ' limelight,' and detrimental reflections by innuendo and implication are, at the same time, directed against myself, I protest most vehemently. I have known Mr. Grant for some years, he was, formerly, a flagman on my staff, subsequently he had been on the staff of the late Mr. Thos. Munro, M.I.C.E., who was the engineer in charge of the Soulanges canal construction.



NEWMARKET CANAL-HISTORIC RETROSPECT.

[Stage Direction]
On September 27, 1904.-Received official letter of instructions from Department Railways and Canals, to make surveys for the improvement of the east and west branches of the Holland river, &c.
October 17, 1904.-The instrumental survey of the east branch Holland river was not commenced until this date; there being a delay, on the part of the department, in appointing an assistant engineer for the work.
January 9, 1905.-Mr. L. K. Jones (Secretary) informed me, by telephone, that Sir W. Mu-lock, Postmaster General, desired to see me about the Holland river surveys, and requested me to go and see the latter.
[Stage Direction]
I told Mr. Jones I would see Mr. Schreiber. first.	.
January 10,1905.-Mr. Schreiber told me that an estimate for the Holland river (east branch) improvements was required forthwith, and directed me to see Sir W. Mulock on the subject.
Informed Mr. Schreiber that the surveys were not far enough advanced and there was not sufficient data for a reliable estimate; he said nevertheless it had to be made. I afterwards saw Sir W. Mulock, and he asked me to prepare an estimate (which he required on the following day) for a canal from the mouth of Holland river to the town-line at Newmarket; that he desired it to be designed on the most economical principals of construction to keep down the cost; that, high level, wooden bridges, with graded approaches should be adopted for highway crossings, etc.; that land required would be inexpensive, as good land, in the vicinity of Newmarket and Holland Landing, could be obtained for $50 per acre, &c., and proffered other information about the route which he said he was familiar with.
I explained to him that the estimate would not be reliable, &c.
At conclusion of interview with the Postmaster General, returned to Department Railways and Canals to again protest to the chief engineer re forced estimate. Mr. Jones took my message to Mr. Schreiber, who was with the Minister, and returned in a few minutes and stated that, both Mr. Emmerson and Mr. Schreiber desired me to prepare the best estimate possible from the data at my disposal.
January 11, 1905.-Finished the hurried preliminary estimate for proposed river improvement, and canal, from Cook's bay to Newmarket, and handed it to Mr. Schreiber at 11.20 a.m. lie looked it over, and instructed me to take it to the Privy Council chamber to Mr Emmerson, which was done, and the latter called out Sir W. M'ulock, gave him the estimate and. presently, left us alone together.
, I reiterated to Sir William the very meagre information upon which the estimate was founded and, furthermore, that it did not provide for storage reservoirs, &c„ for a water supply for the canal, &c., &c.
The amount of this estimate was $328,825.26. March 10, 1905.-Got letter from Mr. Schreiner asking for report and estimate of proposed Holland- river improvements to Newmarket.
March 14, 1905.-Hon. H. It. Emmerson phoned at 7.45 p.m. and asked me to see Sir Wm. Mulock next day re estimate for canal on east branch of Holland river.
March 15, 1905.-Interview with Sir W. Mulock, who stated that he wanted an amended estimate of cost of improving the east branch of Holland river to Newmarket, &c. I told him the surveys were not complete and that the preparation of the estimate should be postponed.
He replied: it was imperative he should have a report before the end of the week to submit to council; that I could prepare an estimate based on such information as the surveys, 60 far as carried, afforded to date, and that full allowance would be made by the government for any discrepancy that might arise, &c. March 17, 1905.-Finished this estimate. March 18, 1905.-(Saturday)-Sent the report and estimate to Mr. Schreiber.
Thomas George Wallace: 

W. MULOCK.

[Stage Direction]
E. J. Walsh, Esq.,
Civil Engineer,
Department of Railways and Canals, Ottawa, Ont.
The following reply was sent:
' 164 Sparks St.,
' Ottawa, June 3, 1905.
' Dear Sir William,-Your letter of the 31st ultimo having reference to the estimate for the Holland river improvements to Newmarket, was received upon my return to the city to-day, and I had just read it when you called me \>j telephone.
' I regret it does not seem possible to safely reduce the estimate, as all items are cut pretty close, and I ascertained, during my last visit to Newmarket, that one public road crossing had been overlooked in the preparation of the estimate-this will be met by the amount for contingencies.
' I am, yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) E. J. WALSH.
"The Honourable ' Sir William Mulock, K.C.M.G.,
' Postmaster General,
' Ottawa	,
With regard to the merriment caused by the alleged hysteria-producing, comments of Mr. Grant anent the dredge used by the ' Lake Simcoe Dredging Company ' on section No. 1: it may be interesting to relate that, about the time this work was let, one of the contractors, who was in Ottawa, informed me that Mr. Butler had advised him to use a hydraulic or suction dredge, and asked my opinion.
I pointed out that such a dredge could be used effectively, only, in deepening the shoals, &c., on the main river, from Cook's Bay to the ' cut off ' (which was only a small portion of the work); that it would be useless for dredging the peat-bog, as the fibrous material would clog the suction and discharge pipes, &c., that they would require supplementary dredging plant, such as a bucket, and clamshell dredge; and expressed the opinion that it would be better and less expensive to provide a combination dredge of the dipper and clam type.
[Stage Direction]
Evidently they acted on the advice of Mr. Butler, with, apparently, disastrous financial results.
Not an isolated instance.
The preliminary estimate, for improving the east branch of the Holland river, made before the surveys had been carried far enough to furnish reliable data, is not an isolated instance of this kind.	.
The estimated cost of the great ' National Transcontinental Railway' was prepared before the survey parties had, even been placed in the field, and on such estimates the huge undertaking was launched and carried through parliament, and in reply to criticism the Prime Minister said they had:
' Mountains of information Regardless of this superfluity, the discrepancy, between the estimates for this work, and the cost thereof to date, is staggering.
No scapegoat in this case.
In ' Hansard ', vol. XLII., April 6, 1909, re Grand Trunk Pacific Loan; there was general criticism, by opposition members, of Mr. Schreiber's original estimates of $18,000 per mile for the prairie section being increased to $35,000 per mile; and for the mountain section from $30,000 per mile to $80,000 per mile.
Did the government attempt to saddle the blame upon Mr. Schreiber and make a scapegoat of him? Not at all, on the contrary, hon. Mr. Fielding strongly defended -him. Compared with the Newmarket canal, the latter sinks into insignificance.
Mr. Butler's extravagant changes.
On December 7, 1906, Mr. Butler handed me a letter, written by Mr. A. J. Grant (in reply to a letter of the former, dated November 20, 1906), proposing certain changes in the designs and mode of construction of section No. 2 of the Holland river, and remarked that the latter had taken his ideas from the Soulanges canal work, upon which he had been employer in a subordinate capacity. The writer looked carefully into the changes suggested by Mr. Grant and endorsed by Mr. Butler, and handed in his report thereon, to the latter, on Janu-, ary 11, 1907.
A copy of this report is enclosed herewith.
Mr. Walsh's responsibility ceases. Subsequent to December 7, 1906, the date on which Mr. chief engineer Butler intimated that he approved of the changes suggested by Mr. Grant (though really inspired by himself), but particularly after my report of January 11, 1907, I disclaim all and every responsibility for the huge cost of the Holland river improvements, or of any criticism attached thereto, whether as regards preliminary estimates or otherwise.
The concluding paragraph of my report (January 11, 1907) read as follows:-
' I desire to observe, in conclusion, that the suggested alterations, in the design and mode of construction, will, if indulged by the department, require a recasting of the proposals, and largely increase the cost, both, of construction and maintenance, without yielding any adequate advantage.'
Greatly increased cost.
The greatly increased cost is due, chiefly, to the following changes, viz.:-
(1)	The widening of the channel.
Thomas George Wallace: (2)	Changing a flight of two locks of 10 feet lift, each, to one lock of 20 feet lift, thereby necessitating a very large additional expenditure in providing an artificial foundation of piles, &c.
(3)	The changing of the profile and general design of the work; and excavating a large section of new channel, instead of utilizing as much of the existing stream channel as possible.
(4)	The substituting of culverts, in the 6ide walls of locks, for valves near the bottom of lock gates, for filling and emptying the lock chambers.
(5)	By using metal casting for the hollow quoins in locks, instead of shaping the quoin directly in the concrete.
(6) A very large increase in the expenditure on account of building all the entrance piers to locks entirely of concrete.
(7)	A very large increase in the cost of the work, by the proposed use of pile and artificial foundations for structures.
(8)	A large increase in excavation by proposed deepening of raceways, or channels below dams.
(9)	An increase in the cost of the work, by putting stop-log openings in each dam.
(10)	A substantial increase in the expenditure by changes in the down stream, face of spillways of dams.
(11)	An enormous increase in the cost of the work, by substituting concrete cores, for puddle cores, in the earthen dams and embankments.
(12)	Increased expense for (unnecessary) temporary bridge across the river at Bradford road and Yonge street crossings.
(13)	The cost largely increased by substituting concrete for stone-filled timber cribwork, in the construction of the rest piers of swing bridges.
(14)	The cast largely increased by substituting concrete for cribwork, in the foundation of the dock at Newmarket.
(15)	A large increase in cost for a proposed dock at Holland Landing, not originally contemplated.
(16)	Cost of proposed water-supply ditch, from Lake Wilcocks, largely increased by changing two cedar culverts to concrete culverts, &c.
(17)	A very largely increased cost owing to the change of profile, &c., necessitating a great amount of stone protection of Slopes of canal prism.
(18)	Cost largely increased by substituting sodding for seeding of slopes of bank.


Hon.   S@: Aylesworth's contribution.
While Sir William Mulock was the parent of the Newmarket canal (which he desired to have constructed on the more economical principles known to engineering science), the Hon. Sir A. B. Aylesworth, M.P., contributed his ' mite ' of expense to the lusty offspring.
This took the form of a bridge across the east branch of the Holland river on the line between lots 115 and 116, in the first concession, township of East Gwillimbury.
Neither a bridge nor public highway had ever previously existed at this place, and when Mr. Butler first discussed the subject with the writer he was informed of this, and the latter also, expressed the opinion that the sagacious township ceuthorities had, apparently,

suddenly conceived the idea that it was an opportune time to have this bridge built-through the aid of their powerful representative in parliament-at the government's expense.
On the 19th March, 1906, Mr. Butler wrote me as follows:-
The township of East Gwillimbury are desirous of building a bridge, immediately between lots 115 and 116, of the first concession, west of Yonge street, Mr. A. J. Hughes being the township clerk. As this comes across your work, I would like to go over it with you, so that we can arrange with the township authorities to have the bridge built suitable for the canal at that point. . .
A copy of this letter is attached hereto.
In the negotiations which ensued between myself (on the part of the government), and. the township authorities, the latter agreed to hand over what remained of the appropriation of $3,000, part of which they were expending in grading road approaches -across a marsh, and in building -a wooden bridge, of 5 bents, 60 feet long, over a portion of ' Soldier's Bay,' and in driving piles on shores of the main stream. -The bridge over the river, constructed by the department, is a steel swing span, 120 feet long in the clear, resting on concrete over artificial foundations, Ac., its cost must have been from twenty to thirty thousand dollars. This, also, is included in the Butler-Grant revised estimate of cost of the mina-ture Soulanges canal-yclept the Newmarket canal-but very carefully concealed from parliament. The revelations hereinbefore disclosed afford food for reflection.
Dividing the Dual Position.
Towards -the end of 1904, the then Minister of Railways and Canals contemplated the abolition of the dual position of deputy minister and chief engineer, and (unsolicited) I was promised one of -these positions.
The minister's plans miscarried, and a few m-onths later Mr. M. J. Butler was appointed to both offices.
Mr. Butler's Sudden Evolution.
On -the 10th July, 1905, public announcement was made in some of the newspapers of the appointment of M-r. M. J. Butler as deputy minister and chief engineer of the Department- of Railways and Canals.
His appointment was heralded in the press as a national boom, he being described as a 'brilliant engineer' of eminence, 'greater -than had been,' and he was duly installed in office amid the blare of trumpets and ministerial eclat.
That appointment-understood to have been arranged by certain contractors-was the subject of much comment in engineering circles, as the appointee was, generally, unknown, he having previous to his appointment on the staff of the National Transcontinental railway, in August, 1904, been employed as contractor's foreman on some railway and bridge works in Prince Edward Island, also on some locomotive works in Montreal; before that, in charge of a gang putting up water tanks, Ac., for supplying water to locomotive engines on an American railway j and at a more remote -period having been engaged in connection with some 'one-horse' railways over near Lake Ontario, Ac.
As Chief Engineer.
His accomplishments as chief engineer of the department would scarcely gain him a niche in -the 'temple of fame.' Those may be enumerated as follows:
1.	His success in securing an award whereby his former employer, the contractor for the Hillsborough bridge, Prince Edward Island, was paid a large amount of money by the government for so-called 'extras,' Ac., this work having already cost about three times -the amount of the estimate.
2.	His certificate re the substantialness, Ac., of the bridge which was being constructed over -the St. Lawrence river near Quebec city, upon which the government guaranteed the bonds of -the Quebec Bridge Company to the extent of several millions of dollars.
The subsequent collapse of -this bridge was a national disgrace, and -the chief engineer of -that day cannot evade his share of responsibility by putting the blame upon an invalid in New York, Mr. Cooper, whom he knew had been physically unable to visit the site of the ill-fated bridge.
3.	The stupid, unbusiness-lak-e methods pursued in connection with Intercolonial railway contracts at Moncton, New Brunswick, resulting in -a verdict in the Exchequer Court for a large sum of money-over and above what the engineer considered the work was worth-for the contractor, -and which the government has appealed to a higher court.
4.	After the plans for the substructure of -the -swing bridge over the Holland river, between lots 115 and 116, east Gwillimbury township had been prepared, Mr. Butler, exercising his perogative as chief engineer, insisted on certain changes being made in those plans, -regardless of -the fact that -it was pointed out to him that if built under his modifications the r-oad embankments back of the abutments would, from sheer weight, shove the latter into -the river. The contract was let for this bridge under the modified plans; the -abutments were -erected and the road approaches filled up behind those before the superstructure was put up, and if was found necessary to spend a large -sum of -money in driving -piles through the newly made banks to prevent those from forcing out and throwing -the abutments into the river.
'By their fruits (works) ye shall know them.' So much for this engineering phenomenon. -Mr. Walsh refused offer of superintending.
Engineersh-ip of Trent Canal.
In March, 1906, Mr. Butler pressed the writer on several occasions to -accept the superintending-engineer-ship of -the Trent canal, bu-t the latter declined to take -the position for the salary of $3,600 a year, &c.
The refusal to accept the proffered position was followed by a species of -active discourtesy which had previously -been more or less -thinly veiled.	.


Subsequently Mr.  A. J.@: Grant was appointed, and on May 9, 1-906, I w-as -informed by official letter that Mr. G-rant would -take charge of the Holland river improvement work.
Had that w-ork been left m my charge -the government would have avoided much unpleasant criticism, and the country spared an absurd extra outlay of several hundred thousand dollars.

Copying Soulanges Canal Plans,
It has been already stated that Mr. Grant, with Mr. Butler's approval, copied from the Soulanges canal plans in the proposed canalizing of section No. 2 of the Holland river; and in doing so they demonstrated the fact that they were unable to differentiate between a great national water-highway route and a small local ditch.
Any engineer undertaking to carry out, almost, any class of work may find old plans or other works to copy from, but unless lie discriminates between relative governing conditions he is liable to seriously blunder, just as in the case of the Newmarket canal; and in this respect it would be no more incongruous to take the statue of ' Venus of Milo ' as a model for a Greek sphinx.


Hon.  H. R.@: Emmerson Resigns Portfolio. The Hon. H. R. Emmerson resigned the portfolio of Minister of Railways and Canals on April 2nd, 1907.
Up to this time Mr. Butler was somewhat restrained in his peculiar methods, but from thenceforth his erratic official actions indicated unbridled sway.
Exit Mr. Butler.
In the month of January, 1910, Mr. Butler severed his official connection with the Department of Railways and Canals. Judging from the newspaper reports of statements attributed to the minister, concerning the resignation of that plenipotent individual, of . the irreparable loss sustained, &c., &c., the public might reasonably have inferred that he had 'shed tears of blood,' but certain, parties 'in the know' only smiled. Among other remarks the minister was credited with saying that he was a: 'man of exceptionable ability and it would he very difficult to secure a successor capable of filling all these positions. I consequently have under advisement the division of the office as was the case some years ago.' Further: ' It is a case where the office should seek the man,' &c., &c.
This letter might be described as rodomontade.
It has been a favourite phrase in governmental circles of late years, and these are several, extraordinary, negative examples of .its application with respect to some very important special appointments [DOT] in the public service.
Seeing Red.
Like an individual, from whom the white dove of innocence had flown, protesting virtue, so the hon. minister just as frantically proclaimed and rehearsed the (mythical) stupendous and transcendental quality of the engineering exploits of Messrs. Butler and Grant, as those appeared to him. Was this an additional expedient to- cover the blunder -ings of the department and by suggestive contrasts to attempt to discredit the writer?
A Clew.
Some important official appointments, in connection with the Department of Railways and Canals, were under consideration early in 1910, for one of which I was an applicant. Some influential (mutual) friends who had spoken to the minister on my behalf, afterwards, informed me that Mr. Graham was f seeing red,' and had told them he believed I was a ' Conservative,' &c.


Thomas George Wallace: 
Sir ALLEN AYLESWOKTH (Minister of Justice).: Mr. Speaker, so far as the motion which the hon. gentleman has made is supported by reference to the circumstances of the canal at Newmarket, I ought to be very grateful to him for having again
brought the matter to the attention of this House and indirectly to the attention of the country, at all events to the attention of the constituency of North York, at this particular juncture. I am sure the hon. gentleman, if he should happen to have the time would find it very interesting indeed if he would make a little excursion across the boundary between his own constituency and the constituency of North York and make, in that riding, some of the remarks that usually are made when this question of the canal at Newmarket is under discussion in this House. It has been a pleasure to some hon. gentlemen opposite and to the newspapers which support them through the country to connect this work at Newmarket with my name. I have enjoyed the ingenuity and the art of the cartoonists who have amused themselves and their customers by cartoons that have appeared on the subject and I have not in the least failed to appreciate the newspaper remarks that, from time to time, have been made in reference to myself with regard to this canal. But while that is the fact and while, as I have on previous occasions said in this House, I should be very glad if I had any right to take to myself any credit in connection with the construction of the public work in question, the fact remains that I have no such right, and that the hon. gentleman, if any effort was necessary in finding a convenient subject wherewith to waste public time, might quite as well have taken up any other subject which antedated some two or three general elections. This particular question certainly arose before not merely the general elections of 1908 but before the general elections of 1904. At that time I had no idea of entering public life, I had no thought of representing or being a candidate in North York. This public work was undertaken, so far as North York is concerned, in circumstances which have already been detailed, and with which I need not occupy time that is supposed to foe of some value to somebody or other, by going over again. There was absolutely nothing political about it and there was, in every sense of the word, as much agitation for the construction of this work and for the government to undertake it, by the leading men among the Conservatives of North York as there was among the Liberals of that riding, and there has from first to last in this matter been no success in the attempt which has been made at different times to give some political aspect to this undertaking. I shall not discuss at all the question of whether or not it was a judicious and advisable thing in 1904 or whenever it was that the resolution of the government to undertake this work was reached. That was long before I came into the government or into this House or had any idea of doing so and that question, I

think has 'been satisfactorily settled after ample debate by not merely the result of the general elections of 1904 hut also by the result of those of 1908. If it pleases the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Wallace) to seek to thresh out again this venerable and ancient dust heap or to search for the traditional grain of wheat in this pile of chaff-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Sir ALLEN AYLES WORTH-which gentlemen who cheer so enthusiastically have tried to construct about this matter, so far as I am concerned, he is entirely welcome to do so. He will be more than welcome within the boundaries of North York, he or any of his colleagues who think there is any political capital in this matter for them; I shall be only too glad to see him or any of my neighbours, if they wish to discuss that subject in North York, and I am only too grateful to the hon. gentleman for having joined that noble brigade of blockers who have impeded the business of this House. I am very glad to be able to tell these gentlemen that it will not be many days before we will bring them to the bar of public opinion for judgment.


John Allister Currie: This question is not an amusing one, it is a very serious one, and I think it ill becomes the Minister of Justice to call this canal, which is being built in his riding, a dust heap. There is no water, but the grass is growing over the work which has been done, and it would be very absurd to call it a dust heap. I have no doubt, however, that by judicial sprinkling this scheme will germinate and result perhaps in the return of the Minister of Justice again to this House. On three occasions this public work has been used to corrupt the voters of North York, and I say it is too great an expense for this country to bear to secure the return to this House of such men as the Minister of Justice. Just to-day he has stated that hon. members on this side of the House are afraid to go to North York and use the expressions we use in this House in regard to this work. I want to tell the Minister of Justice that on an occasion not very long ago, I happened to be in North York and spoke to an audience of 4,000 people, and I took occasion to characterize this canal in its proper terms, and I can assure you, sir, that the people of North York recognized this work as a great was'te of public money 'and a scandalous shame. Now, the Minister of Justice, after holding his seat in this House by the barefaced use of public money, goes to North York and tells the people that he is not going to be a candidate again, and with a great flourish of trumpets a young lawyer is brought from Toronto, named Robinette, and he is par-Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTF.
aded before the electorate, and a stupendous campaign is commenced. After they had been campaigning for two or three months, they discovered that the candidate was not able tc carry that riding, and they held another conclave and decided that the Minister of Justice should stand again, if there is an election within the next year, and that Mr. Robinette should retire. I want to tell this House that there is a conscience in the people of North York and the people of Ontario. They are awakening to the knowledge that they have not been getting very much in the shape of public works, or they have been accustomed to see docks built where there is no water, and canals built on top of hills where there is no need. It was a great shock to them to see this canal being built through the town of Newmarket. Why, sir, there is no beginning or end to this canal. As a matter of fact, there is not sufficient water in the neighbourhood to make the canal a success. They have built locks with concrete works and steel bridges, costing $30,000 apiece, according to the report, and what is the use of them? But the people of Ontario are beginning to see through it. The good Scotch and Irish Presbyterian vote which has enabled the prime minister to remain in office here, men of the same race and religion as my-self, these mein have always believed the right hon. gentleman, and taken it for granted that he and his party are working for the .benefit of the country. The trouble is that they have not hitherto been able to see with their eyes how the public money has been expended; but now they can go and see this Newmarket canal with their own eyes. Throughout the summer people go there in pilgrimages to see this great public work of Ontario; it is something like the- Colossus of Rhodes or like the Suez canal, and people go to see it out of curiosity, and they get an object lesson that opens their eves t/o the way this government is wasting public money. They are beginning to realize that the government is no longer worthy of their confidence, and hon. gentlemen will find outt when the election comes what t(hqi voters think of it. The right hon. gentleman may rest assured that so far as the members on this side of the House are concerned, we are very glad to go before the bar of public opinion, and we know very well that the Minister of Justice will be adjudged the culprit; it is his case that is going to be tried, and I am satisfied that the verdict will be one of guilty. The Minister of Justice will find that the constituency of North York cannot be bribed in such a flagrant fashion as he is endeavouring to bribe it.
Now, let us see what there is about this canal. I think the gravest charge that has

ever been made against this government has been made by the engineer who made this report, or who has written this memorandum to the government. I have taken occasion to characterize the work of Mr. Walsh as faulty, I have called attention to the fact that Mr. Walsh did not appear to be doing his duty as a public officer.
I could not understand, for instance, why a public work that was estimated to cost $290,000 should, a few months afterwards, *be estimated by another 'engineer to cost over $900,000. I could not understand why, in view of all the traffic that could possibly pass over that canal, such a vast sum of money should be recommended by the engineers to construct it. I could not understand why the first engineer reported favourably, stating that the canal would ccst about $300,000, when a few months afterwards it was discovered by another survey and by another engineer that it would cost nearly a million dollars, and when the contracts were let we found as a fact that they did amount to over a million dollars. Now, Mr Walsh has told us the story in this report, he has shown that he was virtually coerced into recommending this work, without any consideration as to whether it would be of any public utility. As far as he was concerned, all he had to do was to figure out the cost of the work. He did not take into consideration the amount of traffic that could be procured for the canal, or what use could ever be made of it. Therefore he reported that the canal would cost a little less than $300,000. But to make a canal that would ostensibly serve election purposes the cost was immediately raised by other officers in the department to nearly a million dollars by putting in the most expensive construction they could, regardless of any possible utility. Why, it is the most absurd thing in the world for any person to say that the Newmarket canal will be of any value to this country commensurate with its cost. There is only a small population, there is only a small area of six by ten miles altogether over which freight can be carried by this canal. East of it there is a heavy rise of nearly 200 feet, and no one is going to bring stuff over, that height of 200 feet to get into the valley where this canal is built. On the westward there is another mountain rising 200 feet and no one would bring freight over that 200 feet in order to take it four or five miles to Lake Simcoe by canoe when there is a shorter cut down the valley which can be used. In order to serve a small valley in Ontario something like six miles wide by ten or twelve miles long, already served by two lines of railway with communication in every way and where a government road has been in existence since 1808, the government undertake an expenditure of public money to the amount of close
upon $1,000,000. It ill becomes the Minister of Justice to rise in his seat and say a word about that canal. He of all people should hide his diminished head in that respect. Whenever he appears on the public platform he has not the manliness to say: Well, the thing was commenced and I have recommended its continuance in order that something may be accomplished with it. Instead of that he is always trying to crawl under the ermine of a high court judge of Ontario, trying to hide his head and get out of it by saying:	I am not to blame.
The expenditure which was authorized at the instance of Sir William Mulock was very small indeed, and the work could readily have been stopped if it were found not to be a public utility when Sir William Mulock left this House and remained in retirment owing to illness for some time until he went upon the bench. It is very unmanly for any one who has been befriended as the Minister of Justice has been by Sir William Mulock, the man who gave him his seat as a free gift, to turn around and endeavour to place blame upon him. Sir William Mulock has very many friends on both sides of politics in Ontario. We always considered him a kind and companionable man who wras constantly thinking out good schemes for the benefit of the public at large. It is well known that his opinion on the question of public utilities drove him out of this House and out of the government, and for the man who was befriended by him, the man whom he placed in office, the man to whom he gave the riding of North York, virtually a pocket riding, to turn around in this House and cast aspersions upon him


Mr. LANCASTER.: After he had been rejected by Durham


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: After he had been beaten in the constituency which he chose to think he could carry on his own personality


Mr. HUGHES.: He never gave them that clock either.


Morley Currie: Then he made the people of Durham <a promise that he would provide them with a public clock, but he has not carried out that promise, in that respect being unlike the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. King), who has seen to it that a clock was provided for the people of his constituency. But there is a clock going to strike in a short time, and that clock is going to ring out the old regime of which one of the most brilliant examples is the Minister of Justice. The question of the cost of this canal has been brought to our attention by the report that has been given to this House by Mr. Walsh. Mr. Walsh was very deeply touched by some remarks I made

in this House on a previous occasion. I cast aspersions upon his work as an engineer and I think I was amply justified in doing so. But, I am willing to accept Mr. Walsh's explanation. Mr. Walsh has been an engineer of standing in various parts of the world, and no doubt he is a better engineer than any of those that were over him or who have superseded him. His own report shows that. I am willing to accept that explanation, but the red line that runs all through that memorandum of his is that it is not the independent opinion of the engineer who gives his services to the Department of Public Works or the Department of Railways and Canals that is wanted. That is a disgraceful condition. What safety is there for the people of this country? We can all understand how it was that the Quebec bridge fell. He has so stated it there. The engineering was not done in accordance with the views of the engineers. The work of the engineering staff is made subservient to political purposes. What can you expect! Can you not expect that docks will go oft down the river, as the dock went floating down the river at Sorel, that bridges will fall, as the Quebec bridge fell, that towers will tumble the same as the Laurier tower tumbled? What else can you expect when the men whose professional services are required are not at liberty to express their views and when all they have to do is to draw pictures on paper and endeavour to plan works in such a way as to suit the political exigencies of the occasion and in order to save the political lives of the friends of this government? Now, let us see; I pointed out on a previous occasion that this work was not finished. Mr. Walsh has some opinions on this question, and they are good as far -as they go, but he is not infallible. He points out here, for instance, that the dredging that was done in Holland river was done *with a suction dredge. In that he was mistaken. The kind of dredge they endeavoured to employ for that work was exactly the same kind of a dredge that he had recommended, but they have been unable to do any dredging in the Holland river, and the only motor boat that has run up and down the Holland river is now pulled up on shore, and -was not painted or launched this year. There has been nothing done on the Holland river, no attempt made to deepen or straighten the channel, or do any kind of work because there will have to be an expensive dredge built there, but nobody has taken on the work, and it looks as if the government were afraid to let the contract or continue the work. An hon. minister the other night said that a chain is just as weak as its weakest link. This canal wall disclose its weakness if nothing else will disclose it by its weakest link.


Morley Currie: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is it long enough to hide the Niobe?


Morley Currie: I think that you cculd put all the water in that canal in the hold of one of the Dreadnoughts, and I do not think you would need to start the pumps. There will not be enough water in these ditches to enable the government to lock five motor boats through a day and still maintain the water supply. That is one of the reasons why the Minister of Justice feels so very sore about this work. Great enormous steel bridges have been built. There have been thousands of dollars' worth of work done where the grass is growing to-day, and as far as I can see the work is of no utility. I think that nearly all the farms in New York have been called upon to supply field stone for the work. I do not know how much the farmers get; I suppose they are pretty well paid for it, and they are now looking around to see if they can get some form of stone they can sow over spring, or every time an election is coming on so that they can get a fresh crop of stone with which to supply that canal. There is no end to the expenditure of money and the expenditure of that money is entirely useless as far as I can see. The work so far is travelling towards the lake. It has now reached almost as far down as Holland Landing, but there are four or five miles more of work to be completed before they will get to the lake. I would be the last man in the world to say or do anything to interfere with any industry in the town of Newmarket.
No one would say there was any chance of that canal aiding or assisting any industry in Newmarket. Then again take the expenditures from year to year upon this canal by this government. I am satisfied that within the next two or three months 500 or 600 men will be placed at work on that canal in order to make the seat safe for the Minister of Justice. There is no necessity in the world for this expenditure of money, and there is no chance of the Minister of Justice being returned to this House, because the voters in North York have decided that they are not going to be held up to the scorn of the whole country for the sake of sending a Minister of Justice down here who encourages a work like that Newmarket canal.
Year before last something like $82,000 was expended on this work. There was not much done on it that year, and there is no doubt that the work will be continued as long as this government is in office; year after year and month after month, and especially in election years, great work will be done on that canal; it will be one of the most important works in this country.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: None after this year.


Morley Currie: No, because after there is a change of government the work will be finished; Laurier's work will be finished, and especially this canal. Last year $120,000 was expended by one department on this canal, but you can go along the canal for seven or eight miles and hardly see a man working on it. I do not know if men are on the pay-roll who are not working there, but I know there is a large expenditure of public moneys, and that every one in the province of Ontario treats this whole thing as a great big joke. It is believed that the government is doing work that is unnecessary, and that the efforts of every minister in this House are directed not to giving good service to the country, but to seeing that they are returned to office and they endeavour to spend as much money as they can in their own particular ridings. The minister had a dinner of some kind in North York. The member for South Essex went up there and told the assembled Grits that he had looked over that canal, and he did not like to express any opinion upon it. but he thought that any constituency that would send such an able man as the Minister of Justice to Ottawa should have a great deal of public money spent in it. That is a new code of political ethics, wider than ever; it is a case of wider open and spend all the money you can when you send a good man like the Minister of Justice to Ottawa. I should like to read the opinion expressed by the Liberal candidate in Centre York, Mr. Dewart, of the Minister of Justice, which is very amusing, but I have not the extract with me at present.
In Mr. Walsh's report, which has been placed before the House, reference is made to the close connection between the Minister of Railwavs and a certain gentleman named Lott.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Who is Lott?


Morley Currie: Mr. Lott is a fugitive from justice.


An hon. MEMBER.: A Grit?


Morley Currie: A Grit, in fact he was a Grit candidate in one of the ridings in eastern Ontario. One Saturday night he went across the river to the United States, and some. time during the night smuggled across that river into Canada a number of ballot boxes with secret bottoms. In that he was aided and abetted by an official of this government whp served a term for doing this work and, according to the evidence of Mr. Lott, the man he seemed to draw his light and his leading from on that occasion as well as on this occasion, referred to in the report, was the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Graham). I am sorry that minister is not in the House, as I would like to pass up a few compliments to him and tell him what the people of Ontario think of him, how, as the chief of the Grit machine in our province, he is looked upon as one of the most dangerous men in political life in Canada, and that as the last of that old brigade they are going to see that he and his machine are crushed in this election as they were at the last local election in Ontario eight years ago, when the people showed that they had done with the Minister of Railways and his fellows, and were tired of this political scul'lduggery, as the Minister of the Interior would say. But they find on all hands the same thing going on as was going on previous to 1904; the same old story is told; the same old machine is at work. The expenditures of the country and the work of government are conducted more in the interest of a single party than of the public. The public are going to take their revenge, they are going to get even with the Minister of Railways for his political peccadilloes; they are going to see that the machine which he has been oiling up for the last two or three years-and his present absence from the House is probably to put some oil on the wheels-is smashed. The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways will find that the people of Ontario will no longer put up with anything of that kind. They have tired of these political heelers, it is about time that we should have in Canada a government like the one we now have in the province of Ontario, a government that is fair and square and honest and above board, that deals with all people who come before it in one way, irrespective of whether they are Conservatives or Liberals. Let us see what the resolution says, and we will find whether the House is justified in voting for it or not. The resolution reads:
While the growth and development of Canada demand an expenditure of public money which shall at once be far-seeing, systematic and liberal, every such expenditure ought to be designed and carried out in the public interests and not for partisan purposes or for aggrandisement of party followers.
That is a great principle for which the Conservative party will have 'no hesitation in voting. This government do not ask themselves:	Is this going to be in
the interest of Canada? The only question asked by hon. gentlemen from what I have learned, is:	Is this going to help the
party? The second part of the resolution reads:
This House regrets that in many cases the government have departed from this wholesome rule and principles and have used and applied public moneys for purposes that were not in the public interest.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: What had Byron 0. Lott to do with the canal?


Morley Currie: The hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Wallace) read that part along with the rest of this return of correspondence of E. J. Walsh and the minister of the Department of Railways and Canals in regard to the Newmarket canal. At page 24 and 25, it says :
The only approach to politics was in connection with a certain appointment to the survey parties, wherein I was officially instructed to apply to the person controlling the 'patronage' for any local appointment; when, for instance, the party was being organized for the survey of the Trent canal route from Rice lake to Trenton, in October, 1904, I was told to apply to Hon. G. P. Graham of Brockville (' organizer of the Liberal party for eastern Ontario '); and having done so was referred by him to Messrs. D. O. Lott, of Anson, Ont., and John Douglas, of Warkworth, Ont., liberal candidate for West Hastings and East Northumberland, respectively, &c.
Here we have the grand sultan of the party, who dispenses the patronage, the Liberal organizer for eastern Ontario, the Hon. G. P. Graham. And here is his grand vizier, Byron O. Lott, who is now a fugitive from justice for bringing into this country bogus ballot boxes , and endeavouring to steal the franchise of the people. When the people, and especially the people of Ontario, vote upon the record of this government, they will have in mind this famous Newmarket canal, and will deal out to the Minister of Justice the justice to which he is entitled. And I feel confident that the verdict will be ' guilty,' and there will be no recommendation to mercy.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


Morley Currie: When the House rose, I was referring to the question of the influence 'and the work of the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Ayles-worth), and was giving a brief biography of his political life. It would not be fitting did I not add a gem to the collection, which has been presented to the public in the form of a letter written by Mr. H. H. Dewart, entitled "The. Political Situation-A Study in Cause and Effect." This letter appeared in the ' Toronto Globe ' of Wednesday, April 27, 1910. Mr. Dewart is a colleague of the honourable Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Ajlesworth), and he is to be a candidate,-yes, and a victim, in 'Central York. He was one of the disgruntled members of the Liberal party, and on this occasion he broke loose, somewhat violently, in the columns of the * Globe,' and in the course of his letter, he paid his compliments to the Minister of Justice. I do not think I can do better than place on record what Mr. Dewart has to say Mr. CURRIE (iSimcoe).
of the Minister of Justice. I will not read the beginning of the article, because it has no reference to the Minister, but I will take it up where he begins to speak of my hon. friend:
Yet the Liberal party in Ontario to-day, while strong in its constructive policy, is lamentably -weak in the matter of organization. Take the district of which the city of Toronto is the centre. Of sporadic and spasmodic activity at election times we have plenty; of the systematic organization that results in local educational work we have next to nothing. Victories cannot be won by shouting and bustling about for four weeks before an election. We need the organized and constant application of directed energies. Now, with regard ito the men who have done their best to galvanize the Liberal workers into an organization at election times and who have accepted office in the Toronto Reform association, often against their will and at considerable personal sacrifice, I protest against their being pilloried now. They have done their .best. The fault does not lie with them. They have done wonders in a centre of active Conservative organization and society influence like Toronto.
Where then must the responsibility be laid? It must surely be laid at the door of those ministers of the Crown who have failed to provide the directing power. A commander in chief, even if he be as brilliant and skilful as Sir Wilfrid Lanrier undoubtedly is, cannot be expected to achieve the success that he should without able tacticians between himself and the men in the ranks. Hon. Charles Murphy and Hon. Mackenzie King have not had a chance to earn their spurs as organizers, but they will be expected to do so It is a notorious fact that in the campaign of 1908 there was not a solitary minister of the Crown in the province of Ontario west of Brockville who was of the least value to the Liberal organization as an informing, energizing or directing force. In the Toronto district our only representative in the Commons is the Minister of Justice. None of our six senators can now be reckoned on in the matter of organization.
We find a different state of affairs in the provinces to the east. Their ministers of the Crown, and even senators, not only perform their administrative and parliamentary duties as well, but also 'take charge of their districts, feel the pulse of the people, bring informed minds to the consideration of political issues and see that the latent forces of Liberalism are brought into a political organization that means something. Analyse the returns in the province of Quebec and you will see that behind the personality of Sir Wilfrid there is the organized effort that spells out success in close ridings.
Constituencies in western Ontario can figure out this problem for themselves and make their own application. But I know that in the city of Toronto and surrounding ridings we have suffered and are suffering as a party because the minister^ who is supposed to represent this district is not a political force or even a factor in organization. A district or even a constituency may be lost if featherweight advisers are the main sources

105C2
from which knowledge of political conditions is derived. The local minister should be at least the mouthpiece through which the political views or needs^ of the district are expressed. There are important views relating to the immigration policy, as it affects us locally, to be expressed. Large questions relating to the expenditure of moneys on public works have to be considered. Other departmental matters of importance require solution. The consideration locally that these matters have received and to which they are entitled is due in nearly every instance to the direct representations made by active Liberal workers to the minister in charge of the department interested. Surely the public at large are justified in expecting the directing force of the Minister of Justice in these matters of local policy, just as much as Liberals are in matters of political organization. If our policy is sound and our views are right, as we believe them to be, the party leader who sees to it that organized effort and wise direction are brought to bear to achieve success performs a public as well as a party service.
I am not now entering into the arena to discuss the rightness or wrongness of the attitude of the Minister of Justice regarding matters that more particularly concern his own department. No one questions his pre-eminence 'as leader at the bar of the province or his comprehensive knowledge of the difficult problems of law it has been his duty to consider. The Minister of Justice can maintain and justify his opinions on these matters, stubbornly if need be, and no man better than he. But in view of his recent declaration that he is a ' partisan/ by which I understand him to mean a man of party views in the best sense, every party man has the light to ask why the Minister of Justice does not give effective party service. I maintain that we have the right, both from the political and public point, of view, on ibe ground that I have pointed out, to receive effective direction in public matters and organizing ability in party business from those who are chosen the responsible ministers of the Crown. I have hesitated for some time before expressing these views, but some one should speak out, even at the risk of incurring hostile criticism.
The history of Canada, even since confederation, is not without its political lessons. Sir John Macdonald retained weaklings in liis cabinet that no party could successfullly carry after his decease. Even strong men in the province of Ontario made the fatal mistake of failing to introduce much-needed new blood in time to avert a fatal ending. Politics, after all, should be like any other business in life. It is imperative that the fittest should survive. The country is entitled to the best service of the best men, and political prescience as well as sound executive ability is needed.
That is the opinion of Mr. Dewart on the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Ayles-worth). I hope the hon. minister likes it.
I might say that recently the hon. minister decided to retire from public life altogether, but a change has come over the spirit of his dreams, and now he seeks to tempt the fates again, and to test the oracle in North York. I want to tell him that 331*
when he does so at the coming election, he will find the answer will be that they do not want to have any more to do with a man of his capacity, narrowness of mind and meanness of spirit.
If the Minister of Justice had had the fairness politically, and the honesty to stand up and take his share of blame for this Newmarket canal instead of seeking to pass the odium on to a man whose shoe laces he is not fit to fasten,, like Sir William Mu/lock, I think even the best sports in North York would be willing to give him some support; but seeing that he is doing nothing but crawling on the question, and at the same time spending vast sums of money there to secure votes, the best minds in that riding are against him, and will record their verdict against him on election day. We all know that in ancient times public men sought public favour by the erection of enormous works of art and beauty with which their names would be forever associated. I would refer to the great monuments of Egypt, the public arches, and other works of art in the ancient city of Rome, and the great works in Constantinople. But I have also observed that the great men who have erected those notable public works with which their names have been associated went down into 'their own pockets and paid for them. Here we find a new rule on the part ox the ministers of the Crown in Canada. They make the public pay for these monuments. The name of the Minister of Justice will go down to posterity associated with a great public work of no use whatever, except as a monument and which will for all time be known as the Great Ayles-w-orth Ditdh.


Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE (Ontario).: that this canal is not a commercial enterprise. It was organized purely for political purposes. The people would tneveT have heard of the canal had' it not been that Herbert Lennox defeated Hon. E. J. Davis, a member of the provincial government when Mr. Davis' normal majority was 700 or 800. When Mr. Lennox succeeded in redeeming that old reform riding of North York in the Obnisexvative cause, then they had to devise means for spending the people's money in order to preserve the constituency to the ranks of the Liberal party. The clouds were gathering and the Liberal party workers in North York had to exercise their brains to devise means of spending the people's money in order to keep the old reform constituency of North York in the party lines. Everybody knows it was not a commercial but a political public work, and we find that notwithstanding the money that was spent in that oonnectioi, public opinion had become aroused over the matter, that the reform party, instead of gaining strength, is going back in that constituency not alone on account of the strong sentiment against reciprocity, but on account of this illegal, extravagant ana criminal expenditure on this public work. When the Minister of Justice announced his withdrawal from public life, and said he would not likely be a candidate in the next election, the executive of North York .met and .selected Mr. T. C. Robinette, a defeated candidate in Toronto and 'an excandidate in Centre York, but they found tfhe sentiment in connection with this illegal expenditure and on reciprocity .so strong that they had to drop Mr. Robinette, and they had to trot out the old war horse again, and keep the Minister of Justice in harness in the vain hope, and expectation of still holding that old time constituency of North York which has a normal Liberal majority of 700 or 800. Now, we find that Mr. Robinette has been side-tracked, he is not a strong enough candidate, and I venture the opinion that even such a prominent man as the Minister of Justice in harness in the vain hope position, with all the laurels he has won in public life, according to the story of his friends, and the expenditure of a great deal of money, weighted down by the opprobium of the Newmarket canal, and the unpopularity of reciprocity, has not the slightest hope of retaining that constituency which will be redeemed in the next election by a young Conservative candidate named Armstrong. The expenditure on the Newmarket canal is condemned not alone in this House, but on every public platform in York. Does anyone imagine for a moment that the hon. member for Centre York would dare to mova a resolution condemning this ex-Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).
penditure in his own county if it was of any use to the people? The mere fact that he brought in a resolution condemning the government in connection with this expenditure proves conclusively that the expenditure is improper, and Contrary to the public interest. We have no less a person than Mr. Archie Campbell, former member for Centre York, and now senator, at a Liberal convention in 1909 condemning this expenditure in no measured terms. What did Mr. Campbell say:
Some of the money was probably not expended in the best interests, he said, speaking generally.
The Conservatives point to the canal at Newmarket and call it the 'Aylesworth ditch' and say it is monstrous.
I'm free to say that if this should take place now, and with the knowledge that we have now, we probably would not have gone into it.
What kind of administration Is it that will launch ithe country on an expenditure of from one to two million dollars, burdening this country annually with a charge of $100,000 or $150,000 without first getting 'an estimate iais to the expenditure on a public nuisance such as this? It has been suggested by <an hon. member that the Newmarket canal will be a very appropriate grave in which to -bury the Minister of Justice at the next general election. This report of the meeting at which Mr. Campbell condemned the moral illegality of this expenditure continues:


And Mr.  T. C.@: Robinette was there, and Dr. McLean, ex-M.P., was there, and Mr. F. G.. Inwood, Liberal organizer was there, and fifty other Liberals were there, and not a man eaid him nay, and no sound of the waters rushing through the Newmarket canal was heard in the land.
One of the most .serious aspects, and features in connection with this monstrosity is seen when you consider the damages which were paid, and the expenditures from year to year. The expenditures, unlike Hie water in the Newmarket canal, ebb and flow, not with the tide, but with the dates of the elections.
We find in April, 1908, in. which year the election was held, that the money spent amounted to $400; in May, $10,000; in June, $2,000; in July, $10,000; in August, $10,000. Then when the election approached we have in September an expenditure of $26,000, and in October, the month in. which the election was held, $43,000; in November it drops to $22,000, and in December still further to $20,000. This absolutely improper undertaking cannot be characterized by any other terms than as a great breach of trust on the part of the administration. They are supposed to be administering the affairs of this country in the interest of the people, not in the in-

teres! of their political followers. But we find in connection with the land damages that the greatest injustice is being done, not only to the people ol this country by the excessive payments made for the land but by the political partisanship that characterized the assessment of these damages. We find the political supporters and workers of the -government are receiving excessive amounts for their lands, whereas Conservatives 'are receiving imfiinitessimally small am'ounts. There is not the slightest doubt, ini the light of the report of the engineer read by the hon. member for Centre York, that there ought to be a commission of investigation appointed to bring out the true inwardness of this whole rotten institution. I find, in speaking of the ebb and flow, not of the water in the canal but in the expenditures from year to year, that in June 12, 1908, the deputy minister of Railways and Canals', Mr. Butler, writes to A. J. Grant, superintending engineer, and wants to know if he has made any soundings to see if there, is any water for the canal. Whoever heard tell of a government beginning a great public work by the construction of a canal, spending thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars before they ascertain whether there is going to ibe any water to supply the canal?
Dear Mr. Grant,-What gaugings have you for the water supply for the Newmarket canal? If yon have not already taken a number, I would like you to run a series of them over the whole of this season to make sure of the water supply that will be available on tbat canal.	[DOT]	[DOT]
This was months after the work had been inaugurated and expenses incurred on this farcical undertaking. Then we have Mr. Grant's report of June 17, 1908, which is a marvel of its kind. He sa/o:
Water measurements taken during 1907, south of Newmarket, on the east branch of the Holland river: July, 369 cubic feet per minute; August, 315; September, 654; October, 477; November, 885.
Now when you consider that the average water wagon that is driven on the streets contains about 150 gallons of water, you can Imagine the terrific force of this current. So much for these reports, so much for this business administration, and so much for the quality of statesmanship that we see exhibited, the same kind as we have seen exhibited in the negotiations for reciprocity with the United States. If this is a sample of the business acumen which characterizes the present administration, no wonder the people suspect the reciprocity pact. I would respectfully suggest to the Minister of Public Works, to the Minister of Railways and Canals, to the Minister of Finance, and even to- the Prime Minister himself, that it would be a splendid diversion if they would organize a picnic up there, and take the whole House of Commons up to the Newmarket canal in order to exhibit this great public work. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the members would not require long rubber boots, nor life preservers, nor even bathing suits, because there is not sufficient water in that canal with which they may even moisten their lips. Such an excursion would relieve the weariness of our efforts here, and give us a day of needed recreation. And while the members of the House of Commons who participated in that excursion would not find any water, or any prospects of traffic, they would see stone heaps. They would see no stones on the farms adjoining this canal, because they have all been purchased within a radius of twenty-five miles, at so much per cord, and piled up along the canal, purchased during election time. It has been suggested that this bulwark of stones was placed along the canal in- order to prevent it from floating away. I do not, however, attribute that motive to those who purchased the stone, but I do say that if the members of this House will take the trouble to go there they will see municipal steel bridges -constructed in the different municipalities on the roads adjoining the Newmarket canal. Why the necessity for municipal bridges? Do these municipalities want public money spent to relieve them from building their own bridges? They were built in conjunction with the canal, although not necessary for the canal. These bridge's were constructed for the benefit of the various municipalities', three or four beautiful bridges, beautiful in design, beautiful in structure, beautiful iron bridges, which cost upward of $30;000 each. That is the reason why this expenditure has been incurred, in order that the people residing in that constituency might be relieved of their proper and reasonable expenditure on their own public undertakings.
I said that I was going to say something about the land damages. I have a report in my hand made by a reporter of a Toronto newspaper who went up to Newmarket to investigate the conditions surrounding this canal. It is dated June 9, and he says:
When the happenings of the federal elections last October were being chronicled, North York was not given the attention that it warranted. Perhaps it was because there were over 200 others in Canada at the time that a most interesting side line of Hon. A. B. Aylesmorth's campaign was overlooked. This was unfortunate, as it threw a strong light on the kindly, helpful impulses that determines the conduct of the Minister of Justice in those days of political stress.
Speaking of land damages and prices paid for holdings along the canal banks, he says:

Sometimes they were prompted to soothe the damaged feelings hy recompensing the owner for his loss hy allowing him as much for twenty acres as he had paid for eighty.
And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the damages were assessed by two partisan political supporters of the Minister of Justice. They went from place to place, from farm to farm awarding damages, and one of -them was the defeated candidate. The defeated candidate had the cheques with him, I presume with a view to influencing the owners of property before they received their cheques. One man who had thirty acres received more than double what he paid for it, clearing $1,500.
Feelings seemed to rule, and so it is not surprising that when some Conservatives were being dealt with, try as they would, generosity could not be called so suddenly into play. They had to struggle against life long convictions, many of them longer, for they were hereditary.
Accordingly it happened that when the farms of Mr. W. C. Howard, one of the most prominent of Liberal workers, and Mr. Henry Hulse, one. of the most prominent Conservative workers, stood side hy side, the damages must needs be different. For 18.97 acres Mr. Howard's damages were set at $1,725; for 20.07 acres, Mr. Hulse's, at $300. Mr. Howard accepted his award, Mr. Hulse did not.
The Liberal received about six times more for his holding than the Conservative was offered for about the same area.
Herein might the moralist find a text to discourse upon the painful strength that party affiliations exert upon the conduct of human beings.
And so on. There are other examples to which I would direct the attention of the House as they are most interesting. The Toronto 'News' sent its reporter out and he made several reports. He said that the valuators were either dishonest or the assessors wrong.
Startling Difference in Official Evidence of Value of Land.
Here are some of the comparisons.
Below are given some of the assessment figures with the price paid by the government valuators:
No. acres. Value.
Sarah Deene-
Assessment	 216	$7,900
Sold for right of way. 40.2	5,000
J. W. Bramuer-
Assessment	 60	2,300
Sold for right of way. 6.26	812


Mrs.   E.@: Bramner-
Assessment	 88	2,700
Sold for right of way. 5.92	600
The next is Mr. C. E. Lundy, and this is a most remarkable case. Mr. C. E. Lundy who was one of the assessors appointed to fix the values of land and the damages in Mr. SHARPE (Ontariol
respect to other people's property received an extraordinary price for his property and an extraordinary amount for his damages. They called in an engineer of the engineering department to fix the value of his land and estimate the damages in respect to his property. I direct your attention to the extraordinary figures:
C. E. Lundy- No. acres. Value.
Assessment	 34	$ 500
Sold for right of way. 26.1	3,100
Can you imagine such a state of affairs existing? Is in any wonder that this paper is characterizing the valuator's conduct as being dishonest or the municipality's assessor 'as beitag wirong in. his 'assessment? Mr. Lundy, one of the party workers in North York and one of the assessors to assess the damages and fix the value of the land of other parties, has 34 acres upon which he is assessed $500, and he sold for the right-of-way 26 acres and received $3,100 for those 26 acres.
No. acres.		Value.
Marv Williams and W. C.		
Howard- Assessment	166	200Sold for right of way. Frank Kelly-	20.2	2,400Assessment	95	3,000Sold for right of way. Henry Hulse-	16.07	2,000Assessment	166	6,000Sold for right of way. John Ritchie-	20.2	2,000Assessment	8	400Sold for right of way.	6.9	1,200
This gentleman has eight acres assessed for $400 but he sells for right-of-way, and the cheques are delivered on the eve of election 6-9 acres for $1,200. Can language be found that is adequate to characterize such administration? The expenditure is monstrous and the work is a gigantic farce. I had occasion upon the date of Mr. Lennox's picnic in the constituency of North York to characterize it as a gigantic farce. It is nothing short of criminal. I could show instance after instance where you have the same kind of political partisanship characterizing the assessors in their assessment of land damages and land values. But, I think, Mr. Speaker, the last stage of public condemnation is reached when the newspaper men start to write limericks about any undertaking. Public opinion upon being aroused finds expression in various ways but the last ditch is reached- Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario)-the last ditch is reached when the writers commence to pen limericks:
A dear little maiden named Sal Strolled along the Newmarket canal.
She fell in with a thud,	;
And stuck fast in the mud,
That smothered the life out of Sal.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE (Lisgar).: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to say anything on this subject, but if the Minister of Public Works had been in his place I would like to have asked him a few questions in connection with some public works in Western Canada. In 1904 they started to build a wharf at St. Laurent in the province of Manitoba and I would like to know why this work was started. I would like to know how many people it will serve or who will be benefited by it in any way, shape or form. I do not wish to take up the time of the House in connection with this matter of the Aylesworth ditch as it has been gone into very fully, but there were a few remarks dropped by the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) in connection with the impending elections. He grew very furious, made a very vicious threat across the floor of the House, and said that in a very few days we would he face to face with the people of Canada. I suppose he meant by that that we would be brought to an account before public opinion throughout Canada. I wish to say a few words in connection with Western Canada. I do believe that if the idea of the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurierd had prevailed in the Cabinet, and that at the moment this reciprocity question was launched they had gone to the people they would have swept western Canada, but I want to tell the government to-day that after the people of western Canada have heard the other side of the question we from western Canada are ready for the fight at any time. I have no hesitation in predicting right now that in so far as western Canada, and in so far as the western members are concerned west of the lakes, we will come back with a bigger majority than we have at the present time.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a big country, and when public works are .being carried on in different parts of the country it is not possible that every member of parliament or every minister of the Crown can have a personal knowledge of them. So I must frankly say that I have no personal knowledge about the Newmarket canal. I do not rise for the purpose of attempting to contribute to the House any information based upon my own knowledge. I only rise for the purpose of placing on 'Hansard' one or two newspaper extracts. We have been allowing our hon. friends opposite, or they have been claiming, the privilege of occupying very many hours in delving into the newspapers in the library and perhaps, that being the case, they will not object if I should occupy about five minutes as the result of a similar study.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No objection.


William Stevens Fielding: I am obliged to my hon. friends. The complaint about the Newmarket canal is not merely that too much money has been spent, or that some one got too much money for his land, but that the canal never should have been constructed. And to use the words of one hon. gentleman opposite: it was simply a scheme of the Liberal workers of North York to keep the Liberals in power. Now,
I hold in my hand an extract from the Toronto ' Globe.'


An hon. MEMBER.: That's good.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, it's very good.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hang on to it.


William Stevens Fielding: The 'Globe' will do some hanging for my hon. friend.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: It tried to hang the Hudson Bay railway.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will be patient, the ' Globe ' will help him through in that. This extract is from the Toronto ' Globe,' February 23, 1905. The first head line is:	'For the Waterway.'
The second heading is ' North York Deputation Interview the Government,' ' Advantages of the Scheme ably Presented,' ' The boon of Competition in Rates.'


An hon. MEMBER.: Where to?


William Stevens Fielding: I will give the hon. gentleman the information later, but just now I am only reading what the ' Globe ' reporter says.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Did the ' Globe ' editor write that at Washington?


William Stevens Fielding: That was not when the editor of the ' Globe ' was doing vood work in Washington, but he does good work in many places.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Most of it in Washington.


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. gentleman will not interrupt me I will continue. If we must waste time, I suppose it might as well be done by interrupting. This dispatch to the ' Globe ' from Ottawa is dated 22nd February, 1905, and it says:
The claims of the townships and municipalities of the northern portion of the county of York and of the county of Simcoe adjacent to the Holland river to have the Trent Valley canal system extended, were presented to the government this morning. The interview took place in the Railway Committee room, and was filled iby the thoroughly representative deputation representing the Trent Valley Canal Extension Association. The following gentlemen composed the deputation:-H. S. Cane, President of the Association, Newmarket; F. T. Daville, Vice-President, Mayor, Aurora.
I am sure that gentleman is not one of the Liberal workers of North York. Then

there is the name of ' T. H. Brunton, secretary-treasurer, Newmarket.' The same may be said of Mr. Brunton, I am told. However, without going into the names of these gentlemen individually, I am assured that many whose names I am about to read are leading, prominent, and highly respectable Conservatives of the Constituency of North York.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You've got into good company for once.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, and they will be m good company when they vote for reciprocity. Then come the names:	' W. H.
Fxeury, ex-mayor, Aurora; L. L. Hartman, ex-warden county of York.'


An hon. MEMBER.: Another good Grit.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, there are a lot of good Grits amongst these. If any hon. friend thinks I am representing all these as Tories, he is mistaken. We do not imagine for a moment that the people of North York are all Liberals, but in view of the statement that this canal is a rascally work and never should have been undertaken and that it was only promoted by the Grits of North York for political purposes, I want to read the names of the representative body which waited on the government to urge the construction of the work.


Thomas George Wallace: Does the report say or do you state that that deputation came to Ottawa to ask for the canal as it is built to-day?


William Stevens Fielding: What I say is that this deputation was the foundation of the proposal for the construction of the Newmarket canal. This shows how the government were induced to take up the work of constructing a canal at Newmarket.


Morley Currie: That report is what may be called a ' phoney ' report, because it contains the name of Conservatives who were not there at all and amongst them the name of Mr. Lennox, the member for South Simcoe. That was read in the House before and it was shown that it was not correct.


William Stevens Fielding: I made no mention of the name of the hon. member for South Simcoe.


Morley Currie: It is there.


William Stevens Fielding: I don't think it is there.


Mr. LENNOX.: I don't think it is.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the last name I read was ' L. L. Hartman, ex-warden of the county of York.'


An hon. MEMBER.: He is a Grit.
Mr. FIELDING


William Stevens Fielding: All honour to him for his good sense. The next name is the name of a gentleman who I believe is not a Grit. He is ' T. H. Lennox, M.P.P.,' anti I am told he represents the county in the Ontario legislature.


Samuel Hughes: Having defeated several Grits.


William Stevens Fielding: I presume Mr. T. H. Lennox is the gentleman who has been honourably mentioned in this debate today as the gentleman who correctly represents public opinion in the North York.


Thomas George Wallace: Does the report say he was an ' M.P.P.' then?


William Stevens Fielding: It says so, whether correctly or not. Mr. Lennox appeared with this deputation.


An hon. MEMBER.: What did he ask?


William Stevens Fielding: We will come to that later on. Then I find these names: 'Councillors-L. A. Wilson, Charles Webster, John Knowles, W. J. Bassitt, W. C. Towns, Messrs. W. Baldwin, D. A. Radcliffe, Aurora; Hon. E. J. Davis.' I don't think Mr. Davis is a Conservative. Mr. Davis is a Liberal, but strange to say he has been fiequently cited by hon. gentlemen on the other side in recent discussion, which goes to show that they consider the opinion of Mr. E. J. Davis of exceptional value. I presume they think that Mr. Davis was a gentleman well qualified to be present with this deputation.


Morley Currie: He is against the government now.


William Stevens Fielding: And being against the government now hon. gentlemen opposite have nothing but praise for him. There was a time when he was associated with the Liberal government of Ontario, and these gentlemen were not throwing iany praise at him then.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He saw the error of his ways.


William Stevens Fielding: Then follow the names of. 'Mayor Roadhouse, Councillors B. W Hunter, T. Somerville, Newmarket, C. E. Lundy, Newmarket.'


Samuel Hughes: They are all voting Tory now.


William Stevens Fielding: Then come the names of ' J. W. Wildman;' is he a Grit?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He must be with that name.


Samuel Hughes: A number of these gentlemen wrere Liberals at the time, but I am happy to say they are all voting Conservative now.


William Stevens Fielding: That only shows the generosity of the Liberal government in responding to the wishes of these gentlemen irrespective of their political leanings. Let me continue the names:
-A. W. Evans, R. H. Brimson, L. Cane, J. R. Y. Broughton, E. S. Cane, T. C. Watson, Dr. A. Webb, Robt. Schmidt, G. .S. Richardson, Wm. Keith, A. E. Widdifield, W. W. Bruce, C. G. Ross, bankers; Lieut.-Col. Lloyd, Wm. Hill, T. H. Lloyd, barrister; J. E. Hughes, N. L. Rogers, Newmarket; T. H. Legge, reeve, and councillors R. W. Phillips, S. Armitage, A. McMurchy, John Wells, King township; A McCallum, Jos. Rogers, county councillors, King township; R. Soules, reeve, Whitchurch; S. Foote, W. Leathers, Mr. Ressenetl, W. Thompson, councillors, Whitchurch; L. Baker, -ex-reeve, Whitchurch; councillors John Smith, F. Osley, J. Farr, W. H. Eves, East Gwillim-bury; councillors M. McC-ardell, Sutton; reeves G. B. Thompson, Holland Landing ; S. Oldham, Bradford; W. Woods, West Gwillimbury; councillor H. Stoddard, West Gwillim-bury. w
The Petitioners' Plans.
The deputation was -introduced by Sir Wm. Mulock. The Premier was -accompanied by Hon. R. W. Scott, Hon. Wm. Paterson, Hon. H. R. Emmerson, Minister of Railways and Can-al-s, and Hon. C. S. Hyman, Minister of Public Works. Secretary T. S. Brun-ton presented the petitions of the municipalities of Bradford, townships of West Gwillimbury and East Gwillimbury, -the town of Aurora, township of King and Whitchurch, village of Holland Landing, town of New-m-arket, village of -Sutton and -the -townships of North Gwillim-bury and Georgiana. The petitions asked that the Holland river and its branches be [DOT]widened and deepened so as to make commercial highway-s to give the towns of Aurora -and Newmarket -and the village of Holland Landing and Sutton the advantages of communication with the Trent valley canal system.
Many Advantages.
The various speakers impressed upon the government the advantages the improvement would bring to the large and populous district which would be given the boon of competition -in rates by water carriage. The Holland river, it was pointed out, is already navigable a largo portion of the distance. It was stated that manufacturers would save a large percentage of the cost of fuel, and that the saving to the farmers of the district in freight rates upon their grain alone would be $12,000 annually. As a result of the encouragement given to the cultivation of fruit by Sir William Mulock, there had been a great increase in the production -of apples and the extension of the canal would furnish an outlet for the crop to the -Northwest. The importance and extent of the manufacturing industries affected were also impressed upon the government.
Sir Wilfrid Impressed.


When Mr. T. H.: Lennox came in such excellent company even Sir Wilfrid Laurier was impressed.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier complimented the delegation upon the able manner in which their
arguments had been placed, and congratulated them that, instead of asking for a post office or cut-stone building, the first request ever made by -the county of York for the expenditure of public money was for the more substantial purpose of enhancing the facilities of transportation of the people for the development of commerce. The project was one which must engage the attention of the government.
Sir Wilfrid expressed pleasure that surveys were in progress, -the results of which would, he was sure, he brought before the government at -the earliest possible moment, and without which -the government would be unable to arrive at a determination. He assured -the delegation of prompt consideration and reminded -them that they liad a friend at court in Sir Wm. Mulock, whose persistence in a good cause was notable.
This meeting appears to have taken place in Ottawa on the 22nd of February, 1905, and the account of it is published in the ' Globe ' of February 23, 1905.


Thomas George Wallace: Does the hon. minister mean to tell u-s that the surveys for the Newmarket canal or deepening of the Holland river had not been made before the deputation got here?


William Stevens Fielding: I have told the House that I merely desired to read this document. I am not trying to tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) anything. I do not pretend to have the personal knowledge of this question that he has. Now, when I read this from the ' Globe,' some unkind member said: ' oh, that is the ' Globe,' and laughed. I anticipated that, and as I always like to be obliging, and to accommodate people, I propose to read an account of this meeting from another newspaper.


Mr. STAPLES.: Is that the first deputation that came to Ottawa, regarding this Newmarket canal?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not able to say with certainty. Possibly, there was a previous deputation. I snould judge there may have been, but I have no personal knowledge of the matter. The ' Globe ' not being accepted as reliable by 6ome hon. gentlemen opposite, let me turn to the report in the ' Mail.' It is not so long as that of the ' Glo-be,' but it contains one very interesting feature. I hope that nobody is going to assail the 'Mail.' I do not mind hearing things said in criticism of the ' Globe,' because I know they are not deserved. But I should not like to find anybody expressing doubt of the absolute impartiality and fairness of the ' Mail.' Everybody knows, at any rate, that if it has a weakness it is not in the direction of misrepresenting any gentleman on the other side, for it usually gives them credit for something even better than they have been saying or doing. I am

simply standing up to defend the ' Mail,' if anybody is daring enough to attack it. Head lines and all should go in so I quote them:
ASK DEEPENING OP HOLLAND RIVER. York County Deputation Supports Canal System.
Cheaper Freight Rates.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier Promises .Surveys will be .Made for the Government's Information.
Ottawa, Feb. 22.-A deputation from York county,_ on behalf of the Trent Valley Canal Extension Association, waited on the government to-day, asking for the widening and deepening of the Holland river.
Sir William Mulock introduced the deputation .to .the Premier.
In the presentation of their case, the secretary of the association read resolutions by the local municipalities in favour of the project.
Not resolutions, it will he observed, of the workers of the Grit party, but resolutions of the local municipalities:
Mr. Cane, of Newmarket, explained that they wanted the east branch of the Holland river deepened to Newmarket, and a cut made of eight miles to Aurora. The west branch of the Holland river they wanted cleaned out to Schomberg, and two,,miles of the Black river improved to Sutton.
Other speakers emphasized the advantage this work would be to manufacturers and to farmers in the reduction of freight rates. Mr. Henry, of Aurora, claimed that North York was entitled to some special consideration on account of its having returned to parliament for many years a gentleman in the person of Sir William Mulock, who had saved many millions of dollars upon the administrative cost of the country.
Now, the next paragraph is interesting. I have no knowledge of it personally, except it is here.
Haughton- Lennox, Conservative M.P. for South Simcoe, gave his cordial endorsation to the deputation's request, and said that although opposed politically to Sir William Mulock, he was proud of him as the member for North York, and one of the Premier's ablest colleagues.


Hon.  E. J.@: Davis, who was present with the deputation, also argued strongly in behalf of the plea they submitted.
Sir Wilfrid, in his reply, said it was unique to receive a deputation from York County. Surveys would he made, he promised, and when completed the government would look into them. The deputation knew, he added, that they had a strong friend at court, for when Sir William Mulock made up his mind on a subject he was very persistent.
As I stated, I have no comment to make. I simply wanted to read this interesting report, for what it is worth.


Haughton Lennox: As my name is mentioned in this matter I would like to say a few words, although I have spoken on the subject on a Mr. FIELDING
previous occasion. There is no fact in the statement that Haughton Lennox, member for South Simcoe^ was present and spoke either for or against the hon. Sir William Mulock. I spoke in the House about a week before the deputation referred to, and I spoke in opposition to this project. Sir William Mulock on this occasion told me that it would be well for me to reserve my opinion because a deputation was coming down, and that if I would listen to the arguments of that deputation I might change my mind. He also told me that there would be a deputation here from my own riding. I answered Sir William Mulock that I would in all probability be present when the deputation was waiting on the government. I knew the situation at that time, and on the occasion I refer to, I spoke very definitely against the scheme. I never at any time hesitated, or changed my mind, and I never had any uncertain views upon this question.
I saw some of the gentlemen who came with the deputation, and they told me that my cousin, Mr. T. Herbert Lennox was there. He is quite a politician, and a fairly good jollier, so much so that at times I have wished I could follow him in some of his ways of treating public questions, and public men. However, I wanted to speak to him, and I went down to where I presumed the deputation was to assemble, in the Langevin block. In arriving there I found a group of men talking a good deal, but not doing anything. I understood from them that Sir William Mulock was making preparations to entertain the boys right royally in the evening. It was quite a jolly party. Now, as I well knew, the whole scheme had been arranged at Newmarket long before this, at the instance of Sir William Mulock, and some Liberals, who assembled as a Liberal organization, and there was a report of it in the Newmarket ' Era.'
I spoke for a moment or two with some of the members of the deputation, but said nothing in reference to the deputation except to Mr. T. Herbert Lennox. I said to him:	' How does it come, Herb, that you
are down on this thing?' He laughed and said:	' Well, Haughton, it is quite a good
scheme.' I said:	'It is nothing but a
scheme.' And he answered:	'Oh, it is a
fine scheme.' What he meant by that, I do not know. But my opinion is that as he was a politician, and these men wanted him to come along, he decided he would come. Now, we did not discuss the matter at all, and I came away immediately after this conversation with him. I did not speak at the deputation, and was not present when it met. I do not know who introduced the deputation, nor do I even know where they met. There were no

ministers present, and no deputation proceeding while I was there.
Now, this is the second time I have been called upon to speak on this matter, and this is the second denial I have made. So far as the ' Mail and Empire ' is concerned, I have no doubt the report was made in perfect good faith, but the mistake was the substituting me for Mr. T. Herbert Lex-nox. I presume the hon. minister knew this perfectly well, because be has gone over this programme before. We had it rehearsed here at all events, and pretty nearly every member of the House knew that there was not one syllable of justification for connecting my name with this except that on all occasions I have condemned, as T do unsparingly condemn)) now, this nefarious project to exploit the public money in the building of this canal.


Edmund Boyd Osler: This matter has been so often threshed out in this House that I should not consider it my duty to speak, nor would I have spoken had not the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) quoted these extracts. The hon. minister told us that he did not know anything at all about the matter. Well, it seems to me only natural that when public money is being expended he should make some inquiry.
Of all the fool reports I have ever heard read, the report just quoted by the hon. minister from the ' Globe ' is the biggest fake that was ever presented to this House. I think I can speak with some authority on this subject, because I was born up there, and as a boy I. used to bathe in the Holland river at Newmarket. I can tell the hon. members of this House that very often in the month of August there is not enough water in the Holland river for the boys to bathe, unless they make a mud dam to retain it. Many times as a boy I have helped to make a mud dam so that we might get enough water to bathe in this beautiful stream. I have lived on Lake Simcoe during the summer for the last twenty-six years, and week after week I have passed that magnificent river by train, and in an automobile, and many times have I seen people take a trip up to this grand river to look at the gorgeous fake. The thing is such a circus that people talk about it, and go out to see it.
The government are trustees for the people's funds, and I say that in spending money for the Newmarket canal they are committing a breach of trust just as serious as the breach of trust committed by the directors of the Ontario and Farmers' banks. They know it is of no use. There is not enough water in the place to float a boat if there was freight for a boat to carry.
There is not one single tug boat on Lake Simcoe, there is not one single ton. of
freight on Lake Simcoe to be moved through that canal. When I first summered there, there were tugs going up and down Lake Simcoe hauling logs to a very extensive sawmill at Bradford and Belle Ewart. There is not a stick of timber towed on the lakes now, and there is not a mill on the lake shore. There is no business to go to Newmarket, because the cost of freight from Newmarket to Toronto by trolley would be infinitely cheaper than anything that could be charged by the canal. There was a heavy wind storm at that point four or five weeks ago, and unfortunately it blew down 40 to 60 very fine pine frees which were the beauty of the property owned by the late Sir James EdgaT. I was told that these trees were sold to one of these Newmarket mill owners. They were loaded on the trolley which passes the property, and in half an hour they were in Newmarket, in a shorter time than it would have taken to ship them to the wharf and tow them over to the mouth of the canal. There is one pleasure steamboat on that lake, as old as I am I fancy, which makes excursions once or twice a week around the lake.
The government about the time they commenced to build the Newmarket canal, [DOT]started to spend money ion wharfs on the (lake. They spent $4,000 lor $5,000 building a wharf at Roches Point, where it was not wanted. A few planks had 'been thrown out in previous years when the season opened at a cost of $20, so the building of that wharf was just so much money wasted and thrown away. It was never used, it was an absolutely worthless expense. In the first place there is no water to supply that canal if the canal was wanted unless the water could) be pumped up from the lake. We have an instance of how foolish people may be in the case of the old Sir Lister Kay farms in the northwest. It will be remembered that this gentleman established many farms for growing wheat in a district that afterwards turned out to be unsuitable for growing wheat. His foreman thought he would overcome the difficulty, and send up an enormous number of watering carts to these farms. He started to send out the water carts which he filled from a little stream there, over the 5,000 or 6,000 acres of wheat. They may fill the Newmarket carnal with a watering cart, 'and get enough water to have a stream1 Tunning down which would carry a rowboat. This work has been discussed so often, and so strongly, and there is so much money spent on it that it is the duty of the government to send some independent outside man to make a full report on it with a view to stopping this expenditure of money. I say it is a breach of the trust of public

funds, and no man of common sense, engineer, merchant or farmer, can go there and see the work, see the conditions, and not say that every dollar of that money is being wasted. Probably for some years it will entail on the country a large annual expenditure to keep it up before it is finally abandoned as an absolutely useless work.


William D. Staples: The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe), referred to a public work undertaken in the constituency I have the honour to represent, the wharf at St. Laurent, and I believe it is my duty to once more explain the shameful wastefulness and extravagance of this expenditure. The Minister of Justice has referred to the Newmarket canal as a sand pile. I might refer to this as a rot heap. This government, for political purposes in 1904, in order that they might corral the whole vote in that part of my constituency, undertook to build a wharf. They got a dredge and began work with great activity. Orders went out that no person need apply who would not support the Laurier candidate, and they gathered up some 60 or 70 men. They held these men there until the day before the election, and then they went off on a jollification, winding up at the polls. Since that time not one dollar has been spent there, -and there has been no effort to make any public use of the wharf. That $25,000 of public -money was wasted, and stands there in a rot heap to-day. The Minister of Justice has told the House that he challenges any speaker on this side of the House to go into the constituency in which the Newmarket canal is situated, and make the speeches they have made here. I am told that they have all been there and have made much stronger speeches than they have made here. I challenge the Minister of Justice to go up into St. Laurent and undertake for a moment to justify the expenditure of some $20,000 on that wharf. I asked for a return which showed that they had expended $15,870, but that d-oes not cover it all. They built a dredge there, and when they -abandoned the work they left the dredge, and it stands there -a monument of ruin beside the wharf. The Minister of Finance has tried to justify this expenditure. He is the man who has control of the public chest and who should see that the public money is expended in the interest of the people, and not wasted on such works as the-se. He has been in Winnipeg, and so has the Minister of Public Works. The Minister of Public Works almost promised me that he would come up and look at the wharf at St. Laurent, but I -suppose when he got to Winnipeg, and some of his own political Mr. OSLEE.
supporters told him of the shameless waste up there he was ashamed to go further. I invite the Minister of Finance to go up there as the member for West Toronto has invited him, and look at the way in which the public treasury has been robbed. When they undertook to construct this work, if they had spent $25,000 or $30,000 more, possibly it would have -been of some public use to the people up there, but the government refused to expend any more, and while I was up there during the recess, I visited the wharf in company with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell), who will verify everything I say. There would be sufficient water to float a boat if it were dredged deep enough, but no -boat has ever landed there, there has never been any traffic over this wharf which has cost some $20,000, and there it lies rotting. The hon. member for Dauphin stood there and kicked the boards into the river. I h-ave no hesitation in believing everything that has been said regarding the Newmarket canal, and other public expenditures that have been made throughout this -country by this government, when I know, and have seen right there in my -constituency the condition of affairs. There is no road- to- the wh-arf, you cannot get to it without going down the beach a distance of over a mile, with sand up to the axles. I say that if the people of Canada coul-d go up and look at this one foolish waste of money they would immediately say: We have no further use for this government, they are not responsible, they have no consideration for the interest of the public; -all the consideration they have is simply to loot the public treasury.
While we h-av-e had, d-uriing the recess, members from this House going up -and down the western -country appealing to the people to forget all about wasteful expenditures, to forget the Newmarket canal, to forget -the St. Laurent wharf, to forget the sawdust wharf, and others that" it would take me an hour to -mention, and to -stick by the reciprocity -agreement, let me tell the h-on. member for As-sinib-oia (Mr. Turriff) that the people of the west are just as much interested against extravagant expenditures as they -are in reciprocity, and they will be much more interested in hearing the facts than some of the clap trap that the hon. member put up at his meetings when he did more -damage to his -cause than he -could to help it. The -attention of the people where he held hi-s meetings was -directed to these public expenditures, and also -to misrepresentations which the hon. gentleman made, both on the public platform and in this House, and I will refer him to one of them. He -stated -in this Hou-se that a man who bad been -down to -his house, I think his name

was Moffett, claimed that he had paid 3^00 in cold cash to put two carloads of flax into the Duluth market. I ask if that is the case?


*Mr. TURRIFF.: No, Sir, it is snot the case.


William D. Staples: 'Hansard ' says so, and I will read it to him.


John Gillanders Turriff: I will explain it.


William D. Staples: I want no explanation, we will take the hon. gentleman's words in 'Hansard.' The hon. member for As-siniboia stated throughout the country, and on the floor of this House, that it cost Mr. Moffett $500 in cold cash to put two carloads of flax on the Duluth market. What [DOT]are the facts? Take the trade land navigation returns, 'take the questions that were asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr Rutan). He put a question on the Order Paper asking how much flax had been exported during the last three years to the United States from the respective provinces, and we found that not one bushel had gone to the United States from Saskatchewan. I give you that instance, Mr. Speaker, as a fair sample of the clap trap that the hon. member for Assiniboia indulged in. Referring again to this famous St. Laurent wharf, that I suppose the Minister of Finance will not even get up to defend, that the Minister of Public Works has endeavoured to defend, I say that if the government had any regard for decency or honesty they would get up in this House and acknowledge the wastefulness and folly of such an expenditure. Now, I do not wish to be accused of obstructing, the obstruction is due to the action of this government in going into such schemes as this Newmarket canal. I believe it was a deputation originally that came down here and asked for something else, but they did not ask for what has been undertaken, they did not ask for a canal through a sand bank where there is no water. But there is water up in St. Laurent, and if that work had been conducted on business principles, if it had been completed, it would have been of some benefit to the people- in that district. But it stands there absolutely of no use, the $20,000 has been wasted, the whole thing is rotten and is tumbling down into the creek. Sir, I have no hesitation in supporting the resolution of the hon. member for York (Mr. Wallace).


John Gillanders Turriff: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Did I understand him aright to say that Trade and Navigation Returns showed that in the year 1910, there was not flax exported from Saskatchewan info the United States?


William D. Staples: No.


John Gillanders Turriff: Well the statement I made


William D. Staples: 
William D. Staples: This is a personal explanation, and I want to reply.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman has introduced some matter not strictly relevant to the amendment. I do not know that I -can allow any continued reference to this matter. The question before the House is the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and an amendment with regard to certain expenditures. The discussion now must properly be limited to the terms of 'the amendment. In a matter of personal explanation the rule is relaxed, and if the hon. gentleman feels that he has not been fairly dealt with, I will hear a word from him, but not a continuation of the discussion.


William D. Staples: I consider that I have not been fairly dealt with. Now, the hon.

member for Prince Albert (Mr. Rutan), on the 10th day of April, put the following question on the Order Paper:
What have been the exports by provinces from Canada to the United States for the years 1908, 1909, 1910, respectively, of wheat, barley, flax, oats, pease, eggs, butter, sheep, swine, potatoes, hay and fruit?
In the year 1910. Did the hon. member for Assiniboia hear that?


John Gillanders Turriff: I heard it.


William D. Staples: If he will look over it he will find that there was not one bushel of ax seed shipped to the United States from Saskatchewan in 1910.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say one word.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I think it well to point out to the House that only one hon. member is entitled to speak at once, and that when an hon. member has risen to address the House it is verv improper that there should be a debate in the form of a conversation across the floor from one hon. member to another. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) has the floor.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mr. Speaker, if I had heard nothing said here to-day with regard to this amendment which is in your hands than the-I cannot say speech- statement of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) I would be obliged, in the interest of my duty, to vote for the amendment on the statement, and the statement alone of the Minister of Finance. We have here the chairman of the Treasury Board, the 'censor of all the estimates, the hon. gentleman who moves the House into Committee of Supply year after year to pass those estimates, having the assurance to stand up in this House and say that he - has no knowledge whatever of the Newmarket canal, that he does not attempt to make any statement of it of his own, but that because the ' Globe ' newspaper made certain statements he asks his followers to vote down this amendment. Anybody on either side of this House who is anxious to honestly vote according to his conscience in regard to an amendment of this kind with no other statement than that of the Minister of Finance, it seems to me, is obliged to vote for this amendment. I have dispelled from my mind everything I have heard in this House in support of the amendment from hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and I am going to vote for this amendment because of the very want of knowledge of the Minister of Finance in Mr. 'STAPLES.
regard to the matter and because he has put these estimates before the House, has asked the House to carry them and has sanctioned the payment of these moneys year after year unon this work which he says he has absolutely no knowledge of. That is my reason for voting for this amendment, and I do not require to hear any speeches from any other hon. gentlemen to cause me to do it.
Mr. ARTHUR MEIGHEN! '(Portage la Prairie). I was on my feet a moment ago in response to a challenge from the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). I had the privilege of following the hon. member for Assiniboia through a part of his own constituency, and I regret I cannot bring him any very good tidings as to the prospect of his own success there


John Gillanders Turriff: Do not worry, my friend.


Arthur Meighen: Among the statements which I found credited to the hon. gentleman, which, no doubt he will confirm now, were two. One was that the United States is importing 190,000,000 bushels per year.


John Gillanders Turriff: I never stated that.


Arthur Meighen: The other was, and if he disputes this


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The point has been raised that the matter that the hon. gentleman is introducing is not relevant to the amendment. I fear I must rule, in so far as I can judge of it, that it does not appear to be relevant to the amendment that is in my hands.


Arthur Meighen: I quite agree with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I congratulate the hon. member for Assiniboia. I happen to live within 25 or 30 miles of this famous St. Laurent wharf, and I have been more than once on the ground there, or I should say as near the ground as one can safely get with a due appreciation of the value of his life. Under the terms of the resolution, which is more or less general, as to the system or lack of system employed by the administration, this wharf properly comes into contemplation. I stand to say this, that if members of the government who had to do with the planting of $20,000 of public money there, and with the leaving of it there to rot until it now is worthless, had a due appreciation of what they owe to the people of the country they would return that money to the public treasury out of their own pockets. That wharf stands in shallow water. It cannot be reached by water because it is too shallow, and it cannot :be reached by land because the land is too moist and soft. It stands out in solitary and dismal isolation, a monument

to the criminal wastefulness of the Lau-rier administration. Why was it built there? There is a long stretch of lake which protrudes southward into the municipality of Macdonald. There is a lagoon near that protruding lake. The government with its dredge dug a ditch between the lagoon and the lake. The lake lies on the sand, and the sand is close to the surface everywhere near the southern shore of Lake Manitoba; in fact, one can walk out sometimes half a mile into the water. The dredging was done between the lagoon and the lake to a fair depth, but it was never dredged beyond, and the consequence is that never could any vessel get to it at any time during the existence of the wharf. The wharf is built along the line of the ditch wheTe the dredging was done, and the only way it can be reached is for one to hire a horse and plough through sand a foot to a foot and a half deep for a mile and a half, and it will take an hour and a half to do it. The wharf is used by nothing to-day except the mud hens and gulls that frequent the southern shores of the lake. It is a mockery to any administration that acknowledges it as its work. I would like to test hon. gentlemen opposite; I would like a resolution put to this House deprecating the expenditure on the St. Laurent wharf, and I wonder if the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) would not respond to the party whip, and vote for that wise and provident expenditure.


Mr. MOLLOY.: He will look after himself.


Arthur Meighen: They hope if possible to satisfy the Liberal workers in the constituency, and reward them for sending a Liberal to parliament, and possibly to conciliate a certain proportion of the Conservatives, and for this purpose they commit the country to an expenditure of $1,000,000. The defence of the Minister of Finance this afternoon is equally applicable to the numerous and heavy expenditures all over his own province of Nova Scotia. He knows that by playing the game in Nova Scotia as it was played at Newmarket, he has been enabled to gather around him a cohort of supporters from his own province. He has seen the long record of supplementary estimates which, year after year, and especially in a year preceding an election, are brought down for Nova Scotia. No wonder that the first thought that springs to his mind when justifying an expenditure, is to endeavour to show that it will meet the [DOT]avaricious intentions of certain residents of the locality. Never did we hear the Minister of Finance, and never did we hear the Minister of Public Works attempt to defend an expenditure because the people of Canada got commensurate 'benefits from it. If the Minister of Finance had risen to defend the notorious steal on the Gaspereau river he would have used the same argument as he did this afternoon. If he attempted to defend the sawdust wharf purchase, he would have done the same thing, and no doubt that if next week mayhap he should defend the Bathurst wharf he will look in vain for any other footing on which to place himself than the voracious appetite of certain supporters. Let my last word be as to what has occurred close to my home. I ask the Minister of Finance to come to western Canada. I do not know that he has ever been there except on a rambling tariff commission, but I do know that he has never entertained friendly feelings foT our great western country. I know that only twenty years ago, he stated in the legislature of Nova Scotia that the western provinces were of no use to confederation, and criticised the policy of endeavouring to add to the grandeur of confederation the provinces of the west. He has always had a jealous eye on the expenditures in that country, and western Canada has never had reason to look to him as a friend. I ask him to come to the west and to see the present condition of the St. Andrew's rapids with a landing place standing 30 feet from ithe ground that no one can use. Let him come a few miles further west and see the St. Laurent wharf, a resting place for gulls and mud-hens, standing out a mile and a half from human access; let him see rotting to waste the expenditure of $25,000 of the money of the people on that wharf. There may have been traffic there to justify a Mr. MEIGHEN.
reasonable expenditure on that wharf, but there is nothing in the ingenuity of an honest mind to defend the spending of $20,000 of $25,000 of the people's money there and leaving it to rot 'in the water for seven years, until now, even suppose they continue the work, no value can be received from the expenditure already made. Will the Minister of Finance dare to say that that is not to be marked against his government with a black mark, if you could see black marks on it now? There is not a member of the Liberal party in this House -watch and see if what I say is not correct-there is not a member of the party in the House now, and they cannot gather one in from room 16 and the corridors, who will attempt to say that the people of Canada have got one dollar's worth of benefit from the $20,000 expended on the St. Laurent wharf.
That is a great state of affairs. Is that a credit to the Laurier administration? Was it the fault of the engineers? We do not need an engineer to find out that if the sand comes within a foot and a half of the surface of the water you have to dig through that sand before you can sail a schooner there. You do not need an engineer to tell you that if there is a lagoon or a marsh, you must put a road across it before you can reach the other side by walking. These abuses cannot be laid to the charge of any officials; they rest on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and the government, and they cannot get out of it simply by changing cabinet ministers.


Mr. GLEN CAMPBELL (Dauphin).: 

counted from the bottom up to the top. A space was left, and some eight feet of brush piled in, then the sand was put on top o-f that. To-day if you go down there with a team of horses you will bury the team in the holes where the brush has rotted out. It was the money of the people of Canada that went to pay for that wharf, and it is the Department of Public Works which is responsible for it. I say the Department of Public Works, but, perhaps the primary responsibility must rest on the rotten administration of the Liberal government. Mr. Speaker, the day is not far away, and we will welcome it, when the people of Canada will have a chance to say that they will not stand for that sort of thing.
I had intended to speak for perhaps a couple of hours', but I understand my Liberal friends are anxious to get home to the bosoms of their wives and families, therefore, I will cut my remarks short; but at the same time let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I could stand here for hours-, and detail the crookedness, malfeasance and incapacity of this administration in dealing with the money of the Canadian people. Let us take the case of Ri-chibucto wharf, passed upon by Mr. Stead, the resident engineer of the Department of Public Works, as being worth $700, and inside of two or three weeks passed upon by him, when the people of Canada had to pay for it-as being worth $5,000. When be said it was' worth $700 who was going to buy it? A great party heeler of the lowest description. When he valued it at $5,000, who was going to pay for.it, inside of two months? The people of Canada-the suckers.
Let us look at the case of the Bathurst dredging. The contract was illegally awarded to the friends of the government-in fact one of the partnership was a person allied very closely in relationship to a member of this House. $30,000 of the people's money went into it, and that is what brings *him here-his part of that $30,000.
The Guysborough Marine and Constructing Company-$34,000 of the" people's money illegally given by way of a contract again. Mr. Speaker, .do you think the people of Canada are going to stand for this wholesale robbery? Then, there is a little lake called Lake Maquoit. The dredging there cost about $48,000. Did it benefit the people of Canada? Not for one second. Their money was expended in digging a hole in the ground. Again $36,000 of the people's money was handed over to George Mc-Avity as a rake-off in consideration of his political influence with hie side partner the hon. Minister of Public Works. Thousands of dollars were expended to dredge for the Dalhousie Lumber Company, and no one has ever denied that the hon. Minister of Public Works, is at least, a sleeping partner in that company.
Mr, CAMPBELL.
I would like to refer to one other point, and that is the fact that a certain gentleman who three or four years ago was adjudged by the courts- as unfitted to occupy a seat in this House has had more public money spent in his little constituency than we have had expended for public works altogether in the province of Manitoba during the -course of the last year. If the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) were here, where he ought to be, I would have referred to another matter._ However, seeing that I am on my feet I will speak of it in any event. It is a matter pertaining to the people of my constituency. I refer to the dredging of the Mossy river. For years before I had the honour of representing that constituency we had what we called the * political dredge ' at the mouth of the Mossy river. On various occasions I pointed out to the hon. Minister of Public Works- that this was, in fact, a political -dredge, and was of no- use in the world. On every occasion I got a distinct pledge from him that he would reconsider his ways, and be wise in the expenditure of the people's money, and that he would spend the money in a proper manner. To this day there has been no- money expended there. But, at the last election he found that this political dredge was no good, and for the first time in the history of the place, the Conservative candidate got a majority; therefore, he -discarded the dredge and. dismissed his- men, as being of no use to the people of Canada, and more particularly to the Liberal party.
I wanted to ask the hon. Minister of Public W-orks (Mr. Pugsl-ey) some questions about this matter.
Unfortunately, he is not here. He should be here. Why is he not here? I wanted to ask some questions about Swan Creek dredging. The -dredge worked there up to the day of the election, and no man could work on that dredge five minutes unless he promised to vote for Theodore A. Burrows. The day after the election, what happened? The dredge was put out of commission, everything was thrown aside, the people's wants were overlooked. The only object, so far as it applies to Manitoba and the Northwest as far as I have -seen it, of the Public Works Department is to- use that whole department and its employees as a political partisan department, and the -machine for the furtherance of the crookedness of the Liberal party.


Mr. W. R. SMYTH (East Algoma).: I am not at all astonished to hear members on, this side of the House criticize this Government for their -actions in regard to the Newmarket canal. It is only the old old story told over and over again, and it is the only oldltory that we have, especially
in the newer parts of this Dominion. I have the honour to represent a great deal of waterfront along the Georgian bay, the Sault Ste. Marie river and Lake Huron, and during the last election they employed dredges at different points to dredge out rivers and streams. Immediately after the elections the dredges were withdrawn.
I wish to speak in regard to a matter nearer my own home. In the town of Thessalon during the last election this government were very busy constructing a breakwater that is much needed at that point and which was very much needed at that particular time for the Liberal party. The people of Thessalon who needed that breakwater very much believed the government to be to a certain extent sincere. They went so far as to buy the timber and stone from their farms near the town, and the stone and timber are still piled near the wharf, with a man watching to see that the stones are not stolen and the timber does not rot iainy more than is possible during the time between the last election and now. Thus the Newmarket canal is only one of manj instances. The people of the town of Thessalon are, no doubt, going to be told again that they are going to have this breakwater. I notice that they are very busy already and very anxious that the people of Thessalon shall get this breakwater. All along the shores of Lake Huron and Georgian bay you will find wharfs that are very much needed, which are getting no repairs and no attention from this government. You will find wharfs sitting out miles in the lake, that are not needed at all, but have cost the people of this country a great deal of money. Not one boat has ever reached them or ever will, they are simplj monuments to the Laurier government, to the Laurier humbug, to the Laurier fraud, that is being perpetrated on the people of this Dominion.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Wallace).
Haggart
Herron,
Hughes,
Jameson,
Kidd,
Lancaster,
Lennox,
(Winnipeg), Taylor (New
Westminster),
Thornton,
Wallace and Wilson (Lennox and Addington.-45.
NAYS:
Messieurs.
Allard,	MacN utt,
Allen,	McAllister,
Aylesworth (Sir	McCoig,
Allen),	McColl,
Black,	McIntyre,
Borden (Sir Fred-	McKenzie,
erick)	McLean (Huron),
Bureau,	McMillan,
Cash,	Major,
Champagne,	Marcile (Bagot),
Chisholm	Martin (Regina),
(Antigonish),	Michaud,
Chisholm (Inverness), Miller,	
Clark (Red Deer),	Molloy,
Clarke (Essex),	Nesbitt,
Congdon, .	Papineau,
Conmee,	Parent,
Currie (Prince	Paterson,
EdWard)/,	Pickup,
Demers,	Proulx,
Devlin,	Prowse,
Emmerson,	Pugsley,
Ethier,	Rankin,
Fielding,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fisher,	Richards,
Fortier,	Ross (Middlesex),
Fowke,	Ross Rimouski),
Gauvreau,	Roy (Montmagny),
Geoff rion,	Rutan,
Girard,	Savoie,
King,	Schell,
Knowles,	Smith (Middlesex),
Kyte,	Sperry,
Lachance,	Templeman,
Lafortune,	Todd,
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Turcotte (Nicolet),
Lapointe,	Turcotte (Quebec
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), County),	
LeBlanc,	Turgeon,
Lemieux,	Turriff and
Loggie,	White (Victoria,
Lovell,	Alta).-79.
Lew,	
PAIRS:
YEAS:
Messieurs.
Messieurs.
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Armstrong,
Barker,
Best,
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Chisholm (Huron), Clare,
Crcsby,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe), Donnelly,
Fraser,
Goodeve,
Lewis,
Macdonell,
McCall,
Maddin,
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Osier,
Porter,
Schafiner,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Smyth,
Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Stewart,
Taylor (Leeds),
Brodeur,
Oliver,
Murphy,
Guthrie,
Graham,
Pardee,
Rivet,
Seguin,
Carvell,
McGivern,
German,
Dubeau,
Sinclair,
Chew,
Gordon (Kent), Macdonaid,
Martin (Wellington),
Haggart (Lanark), Cowan,
White (Renfrew), Poster,
Bristol,
Periey,
Broaer,
Doherty,
Northrup,
Roche,
Elson,
Henderson,
Monk,
Reid (Grenville), Blain,
McCarthy,
Sexsmith,
332i

Law,
Douglas,
Tobin,
McLean (Sunbury), Warburton,
Brown,
Beland,
Tolmie,
Bickerdike,
Hunt,
Talbot,
Harris,
Carrier,
Neely,
Harty,
Stratton,
Boy (Dorchester), McCraney,
Martin (St. Mary's), Mayrand,
Smith (Nanaimo), Robb,
Smith (Stormont), Sealey.
Wright,
Lake,
Ames,
Daniel,
Worthington,
Lortie,
Paquet,
Marshall,
Forget,
Lalor,
Owen,
Beattie,
Arthurs,
Barnard,
Price,
Gordon (Nipiseing), Thoburn,
Magrath,
Nantel,
Blondin,
Bhodes,
Wilcox,
Edwards,.
Bussell.


Mr. LAPOINTE.: The hon. -member for Bellechasse (Mr, Talbot) has not votedi.


Mr. TALBOT.: I am paired with the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Owen). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment. While I am on my feet I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there is not a single representative from the province of Quebec present on the opposite side of the House. I trust the Montreal ' Gazette ' will take notice of it.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.

['Press (Ques.) 2157 (ii).', ' Total Expenditure to 31st Dec., 1910,\nEstimated Cost of Completion of Winnipeg and Moncton Section (Ques.) 1497 (i).\n*\n\n (M. for ret.*) 1727 (i).', 'Train Hauled Filling, Payments re\n(M. for ret.*) 1500 (i).\nNorth Shore Taxpayers and Voting at Federal Elections (Ques.) 1082 (i).\nPost Office Buildings, Total Value, Expenditure, Subsidies re Mails, &c. (M. for ret.*) 1501 (i).\nPrefeiential Tariff, Concessions granted to G. B. (M. for ret.*) 1501 (i).']
Mr. THOMAS BEATTIE (London).: Mr. Speaker, the reciprocity proposal before the House to-day, I consider, is a most dangerous one for this country, and if [DOT]carried out will prove disastrous to -Canada. I -believe it has -been concocted by shrewd United States politicians, thinking and believing in the end it might lead to the annexation of this country to the United -States. For the past three months I have observed the remarks of almost all the senators, as well as the papers -of the United States, and I think without exception all desire -closer political relation with Canada.
With respect to the commercial aspect *of the question, let -me here quote an item that was sent from Toronto yesterday to the Montreal ' Star ':
Nearly every day live stock from the United States as brought into Toronto, the Canadian duty paid thereon, and then sold against Canadian animals.


William Ross Smyth: Yesterday 289 sheep from the States were sold on the Toronto market at 5J cents a pound. They weighed 640 lbs. and brought $3.52 each. The duty was 88 cent6. Canadian sheep brought 16 cents less.
American 6heep can be brought into Toronto, pay freight, the 25 per cent duty, and compete with home animals.
With the duty off, and Reciprocity will take the duty off, the Toronto live stock market would be flooded with American sheep, and prices would drop about a dollar a head. What is true of sheep is true of hogs and cattle. It is up to the Ontario farmer to hear this in mind.
When this -question of reciprocity was introduced into tbis House, I at once pronounced it the old policy of commercial union revived under the new name of reciprocity. At that -time I stated my opinion of -it to the press of the -city of London. I -condemned it then -as severely as I could, as being injurious to -Canada. And, from that time until -the present day I have heard nothing from my friends -but commendation of the views I then expressed. About the year 1866 the late reciprocity treaty which had been in existence for some fifteen years was Te-peal-ed. In the same year there was a large convention in the -city of Detroit, Michigan. The principal speaker was Senator -Chandler, and w-hat -did he say? He -said: ' We will starve those Canadians until they will be obliged to knock at the door for admission into our union.' That was largely applauded by all present. I believe that was the general feeling throughout the United States; and, the same feeling exists to-day.
We have -been told that the President of the United -States offered our Canadian delegates absolute free trade in manufactures. That, I did not consider very clever on President Taft'-s part. To me, -Sir, it looks like the offer of a full grown man to wrestle with -a Canadian lad of fourteen in -short pants, because he knows -he -can down him. I consider th-e offer of free trade in manufactures to Canada, if the Word is parliamentary, a very -cowardly offer, knowing we could not accept, -and it would seriously injure our Canadian manufactures, which are yet in their infancy. Canada is not knocking to get into the American union to-day. The United States is knocking to get into Canada. I hope they will not 'Succeed, on their terms. If they want to get into our markets, let them take down -their tariff (oars, come into Canada and buy all they wish.
After forty-five years, the United -States has discovered that they made a great mistake in repealing the late treaty, and are now -most anxious to renew it on much broader lines. In fact they -offer much more than we. dare accept unless we wish to injure many of our infant industries. Let us be very careful; it -is their own

welfare they aie considering, not Canada's. Ever since the repeal of the late reciprocity treaty, the United States Congress has raised their tariff bars so high that very little of Canada's natural products could enter the United States, and only at great disadvantage. Canada, to-day, is quite independent of the United States or any other country, except the mother country, Great Britain, and no persons know that better than President Taft and his people. I say to the government, is it not better to leave well enough alone?
The United States' politicians are very clever and are now trying to repair the injury they did themselves by getting us back in their net again. But, to me their net is too transparent, it is like the spider's web, 'nice to look at,' but, like the fly discovered, Very dangerous to be caught in.
About the time the late treaty was repealed Canada was tied up to a large extent with the United (States. Much of our exports were being shipped through Boston and New York ports; not so to-day, our own ports are doing the business. But, now Mr. Speaker, we have our own splendid ships, none better sailing, from any ports. And, last Sir, but not least, the great Cunard steamship Company, having discovered the importance of the Canadian business, has decided to enter the St. Lawrence river, and that company coming after Canada's business speaks volumes for our trade. The people of the United States have not got their eyes shut, but have them wide open, and are watching Canada's great development, and I know are somewhat jealous at our success; I remember the day when they sneered at the name of Canada; now the name of Canada in the United States is respected.
Mr. Speaker, after the repeal of the old treaty Canada was in low water for some time, when Sir John A. Macdonald boldly adopted a 'remedy, and obtained from the people of this country a mandate to create a National Policy for Canada, which he did. Ever since that time Canada has prospered as she never did before, and will continue to prosper if that policy is let alone, and I trust it will be. I have been told some of the present cabinet, after Sir John A. Macdonald had the mandate from the people for the National Policy, said he dare not carry it into effect; he did carry it into effect, and from that date until the present time Canada had been prosperous, and if let alone will continue to prosper. There is one thing I must give the present government credit for, that is having the good judgment to let the National Policy of the late Sir John A. Macdonald remain pretty well the same as he left it. That is what they may thank for the prosperous times .since they have
been in office. Will any member in this House state one single act of the present party in power that has contributed to the prosperity Canada has enjoyed during the past fifteen years?
To my mind there are just two reasons why Canada has been prosperous, and has advanced in the past few years, and without those two things she would have reremained where she was forty years ago. First of all, I think the National Policy commenced Canada's prosperity; I do not think any man in this House will deny that statement. The second was the building of the Canadian Pacific railway. We, Canadians, should ever feel grateful to that company of wealthy Canadian gentlemen who got together and took their commercial and financial lives in their hands and carried that great work to a satisfactory completion, after being told it would never earn money enough to oil the wheels. I consider it made the west; it largely assisted to make this country prosperous. It advertised the Dominion far and wide; it is a credit to Canada; it is a credit to the empire; every British subject should be proud of it.
I wish the Hon. E. Blake was, to-day, able to express his opinion on this question. This was the self same question that dTove him from political life in Canada. The Hon. Mr. Sifton, Mr. German, Mr. Harris, are only following the lead of Hon. E. Blake, and I am told there are many others in the Liberal ranks, but have not the nerve to speak out their minds as those gentlemen have done. In 1903, I find the right hon. gentleman who leads this government expressed these sentiments during the Grand Trunk Pacific discussion:
I have found in' the short experience during which if has been my privilege and my fortune to be placed at the head of affairs, by the will of the Canadian people, that the best and most effective way to maintain friendship with our American neighbours is to be absolutely independent of them.
Evidently the hon. gentleman has changed his mind. Now, Mr. Speaker, why should the Canadian wheat crop be sent to the United States for manufacture into flour? Why should it not be ground in this country? This would be one of the prices for Canada to pay under the proposed agreement. What further price must be paid? The admission to our markets of the farmers of Argentine, Austria-Hungary, Bolivia, Colombia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Venezuela. Many of these countries are large exporters of animal and agricultural products which are produced in this country. Under the proposed treaty these twelve countries are entitled to receive, and will receive the same right of entry to our market which is conceded to


Thomas Beattie: The editorial -explains that reciprocity not -only will preserve the future of tb-e export trade of -Great Britain in wh-eat as well as flour for both the -producing countries, but it will give the miller-s of Canada -and the United States a common ground of operation whereby they will be al-e to meet the -competition of British mill-s which now bav-e -a monopoly of the flour trade in Great Britain.
H. M. Kinney, general manager of the Winona Wagon Company, Winona, Minn., recently read a paper before the Winona Merchants' and Business Men's Association, stating his position on the question of Canadian reciprocity. After the close of Mr. Kinney s remarks, the association adopted resolutions favouring the ratification of the proposed agreement. Ml*. Kin-ney read his paper following a banquet which was attended by more than a hundred members of the association, many of whom took part in a general discussion of the question following Mr. Kinney's statement of the proposition. His address was in part as follows:	, ,
' Let me say right here that if I thought the consummation of this agreement would he disastrous, or even at all injurious to the farmers of this country, I would not favour it for a moment. I believe, on the contrary, that it will not only do no harm to our farmers, but will eventually be of great benefit to
th*The facts are that the Minnesota millers need some No. 1 hard Canadian wheat in order to use the softer variety grown in Minnesota. If they cannot get the Calnadian, they cannot use our wheat; therefore, why not bring in the Canadian wheat free of duty to enable the millers to use more ot our own?
' Another argument in favour of admitting Canadian wheat is that it will enable the large mills in Minnesota to make -a flour suitable for export and thus largely increase the output of their mills. The additional offal, with such farm products as it should be mixed, will make a perfect dairy preparation for over 6,000,000 head of cattle or stock. Germany and France offer inducements to the millers for securing this offal for their dairy farms.	'
' The Canadian provinces are not adapted to the growing of live stock, but are distinctly a wheat country. Their packing houses now in -operation at Winnipeg, Calgary and other places will be obliged to buy our live stock, thus affording the farmers a new and excellent market for it. We find by examining the proposed treaty that the duties cancelled by both countries cover 116 products, but that there is a much larger number of duties reduced.
' I met a Canadian on the train a short time -ago and had quite a discussion with him about this reciprocity question. He was decidedly opposed to the treaty, saying in reply to my statement that the farmers of Canada were anxious to market their wheat in this country. "You will have to buy our wheat in a few years, anyw-ay, and pay the duty and also our price. Your consumption is overtaking the production and it won't be so very long in getting there; then what are

you going to do?" The gentleman was right, and maybe we had better be making this bread and butter trade while we can. Let this fact be borne in mind-and I want to make it most emphatic-should that treaty prove unsatisfactory, it can be terminated at any time.'
At six o'clock, the House took recess. .
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Beattie: Mr. Chairman, since the visit of the farmers' delegation this great question has been brought to the attention of the Canadian parliament and people. I refer to the reciprocity compact with the United States, Certain gentlemen in this country who are strongly opposed to protection and who apprehend danger from trusts and combines urge with great force and apparent sincerity that we can obtain relief by entering into commercial union with the United States, the .most highly protected country in the world.
Common sense naturally impels one to inquire how it is possible that relief from the evils of protection can he .achieved by interlocking our fiscal system with that of a country which maintains the highest tariff wall in the world.
We are said to be suffering from oppressive prices imposed under a protective tariff and we are urged to fly for relief to a country which maintains a tariff nearly twice as high. To avoid the danger of trusts and combines in Canada we are pressed to merge our fiscal system in that of a^ country wherein trusts and _ combines wield a power and influence which fortunately are unknown in Canada up to_ the present.
I may say that we have given the impression in the United States that we are anxious for union with that country. I received a letter to-day from the state of Virginia in which a man has the impertinence to tell me that
Annexation has already set in and nothing can stop it.
Fancy that coming from a gentleman who is the principal of a school for young men. It shows the impression that has gone abroad. I have another letter here which I received last night and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall read it:

Major Beattie,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Hon. Sir,-I beg to advise you that while I have a very high opinion of Qir Wilfrid Laurier, I am absolutely in opposition to reciprocity with the United States.
I am a farmer's son, and for some time I have been making considerable effort to unload my city holdings for a good sized farm in southwest Ontario in .exchange, so that I am certainly interested.
I have a number of relatives who are actively engaged in farming; my late brother's boys are the owners of farm lands to the extent of about 1,500 acres, and I do not know of a single Grit or Tory relative engaged in farming who is in favour of this proposed measure. Of course, a Grit political follower is not >so outspoken as I usually am, being an out and out independent, I am free; but I know the silent opinion of. my relatives. They say that they cannot entertain for a moment any chance for the unloading of American horses and other farm products against their home productions, particularly in that territory which has cost the good people of Ontario so much to put into being, that is our great Northwest.
Of all markets, the most cherished and best is always the home market.
Now, when we had no Northwest, so to speak, and it was then a desirable proposition to have a trade arrangement with onr neighbours, how were we treated?
I have not forgotten it, even if Mr. Fielding or Sir Wilfrid never knew from actual experience what it meant to us who have helped do the building and the ploughing. We were turned down bard, and why? Simply with the hope that some day we could be coerced into American bidding. Now that we have shown Hncle .Samuel what a great people we could be under trial, and now that our broad acres look tempting for the purpose of feeding his hungry workmen, he would like to get access to onr resources in order that he might the better compete in his manufactured products. In other words, we have our dear old uncle 'beaten to .a finish; and in so far as I can do it there will be no chance for his proposed measure being adopted by Canada.
Mr. Taft, a business man representing a business people, now sees the great mistake they made in the past.
Let ns as true Canadians hold fast to what we have so hard earned. We have no time to divide this great wealth with a people who have never done anything for ns. Taft and taffee may suit the politicianbut for a Canadian business man, I would if I could place an injunction on the whole plot.
That is from a veTy good man whom I know very well, and I thought it was worth reading.


Mr. PATERSON.: A Canadian or American?


Thomas Beattie: A Canadian. I will let my hon. friend see the letter if he wishes; it is no secret.


William Paterson: No, no.


Thomas Beattie: I know the man very well. A great many people have the idea that a high tariff makes high prices. 1 believe that a high tariff makes low prices when it gets fairly started. No man will invest his money in any business if he is not sure that he is going to succeed. Unless you give that man some chance of making a success of his business he would be very foolish to put his money into it. A

The tariff of 1842 made the minimum duties on cotton fabrics six cents per square yard on plain, and nine cents per square yard on printed or coloured cottons. These duties were about equal to one hundred per cent on the importer's valuation of their goods. A few months after the adoption of that tariff, Mr. Horace Greely, editor of the New York ' Tribune,' made an inquiry as to the prices on cotton fabrics in Lowell, Mass., the principal cotton manufacturing centre of 1 the United States at that time, and published in his, paper the average prices for the three months after the new tariff was imposed. The prices were as follows:
	In May,	In Sept.
	June and	Oct. and
	July, 1842.	Nov., 1842
	Cents.	Cents.
Drillings	7J	7Shirtings, common...	5i	5Shirtings heavy.. ..	61	5JSheetings, common ..	6!	6Sheetings, wide.. ..	8*	7fFlannels (cotton) ..	10	8i
Thus, though, according to free trade theory, the prices should have been doubled as a result of the high duty, they were actually reduced. Later on still further reductions were made as new factories were built in the United States, and home com-petiton increased. We might fill pages with similar illustrations of the fact that a protective duty is not usually added to the price except temporarily, but it will not do to weary the House with too many figures.
Those who believe that all Great Britain's progress has been due to the adoption of free trade should read the speech made by Henry Clay before the United States House of Kepresentatives when the protective Bill of 1824 was being discussed. Mr. Clay, who has been called the father of protection in the United States, made a statistical comparison between Great Britain and other countries of Europe, showing how greatly the British people has prospered under protection.
Britain at that time had a higher protective tariff than any other country, and Mr. Clay's comparison shows that it was the most prosperous country in the world, that the earnings of the people were greater in proportion to the cost of living, and that the wealth of the country was increasing in a most extraordinary way.
In conclusion Mr. Clay said:
The committee will observe that the measure of wealth of a nation is measured by its protection of its industry, and that the measure of the poverty of a nation is marked by that of the degree in which it neglects and abandons the care of its own industry, leaving it exposed to the action of foreign powers. Great Britain protects mo-st her industry and the wealth of Great Britain is


Thomas Beattie: consequently the greatest. Erance is next in the degree of protection, and Erance i3 next in the order of wealth. Spain, most neglects the protecting the industry of her subjects, and Spain is one of the poorest of European nations. The views of British prosperity which I have endeavoured to represent, show that her protecting policy is adapted alike to a state of war and peace. Self-poised, resting upon her own internal resources, possessing a home market, carefully cherished and guarded, she is ever prepared for any emergency. We have seen her coming out of a war of incalculable exertion, and of great duration, with her power unshaken, her means undiminislied. We have seen that almost every revolving year of peace has brought along with it an increase in her "manufactures, of her commerce, and consequently of her navigation. We have seen that constructing her prosperity upon the solid foundation of her own protecting policy, it is unaffected by the vicissitudes of other states. What is our own condition? Depending upon the state of foreign powers-confiding exclusively in a foreign to the culpable neglect of a domestic policy-our interests are affected by their movements. Their wars, their misfortunes are the only source of our prosperity. In their peace, and our peace we hold our condition the reverse of that of Great Britain, and all our interest stationary or declining. Peace brings to us none of the blessings of peace. Our system is anomalous; alike unfitted to tranquillity and to a state of war or peape on the part of our' own, country, it can succeed only in the rare occurrence of a general state of war throughout Europe.
One great mistake was made in the past by public men and newspapers of both political parties. The United States tariff was described as an 'unfriendly tariff.' Because it was very much higher than the Canadian tariff it was regarded as hostile to Canada. Now, on the other hand, when the politicians of the United States are disposed to lower their tariff on Canadian products and are even agreeable to unrestricted reciprocity their attitude is described as 'friendly,' and we are urged by the advocates of reciprocity not to reject these friendly advances.
As a matter of fact the high tariff of the United States was not adopted on account of any hostility toward Canada or any other country. It was simply designed for the purpose of protecting home industries, and it had the effect it was intended to have. The Americans are a patriotic people, and we had no right to find fault with them for protecting their own interests. Nor is their present attitude the result of any increase of friendly sentiment toward Canada. It is prompted entirely by self-interest.
The greatest compliment we can pay the Americans is to imitate their policy of adopting measures to develop their own country regardless of the policies of other nations. When the British people decided

upon a free trade policy the Americans did not consider it necessary to follow suit. They had sufficient courage and confidence to maintain their own policy. Nor is there any likelihood that they will be offended if we imitate them in this regard. The United States is a great and prosperous country. It does not need our money or our men, but Canada in this stage in its history needs every man and every dollar that can be kept in the country to aid'in its developple of other countries to come in here and take away that which belongs to the workingmen in our own factories. This Dominion was created under the Union Jack. I was born under the Union Jack, and I hope to die under it; and I hope this Dominion of Canada will exist forever under the Union Jack. Mr. Speaker I wish to say right here that closer relations with the United States will never come so long as I live, with my consent.
ment.	[DOT]
If, instead of adopting reciprocity, the Dominion parliament would increase the Canadian tariff against the United States and other foreign countries, American capitalists would regard it as an invitation to invest capital in Canada. They secured British capital to develop their resources by means of high protection, and they will help us in the same way that British capitalists helped them if we give equal tariff security. Within a week after the raising of the Canadian tariff a number of large American concerns would have representatives in Canada looking for sites for branch factories. A bold, independent tariff policy would excite the admiration of the American people.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, again I say had we not better leave well enough alone. Why risk a certainty for an uncertainty? Because, Mr. Speaker, I find nearly all of the United States senators in their remarks are not so much in favour of reciprocity as they are for the political union of this country with the United States, which they will never obtain.
Senator Nelson, of Minnesota, declared that his only hope of benefit from the Canadian reciprocity was it might lead to annexation of Canada; but, 'if we can accomplish the annexation of Canada we will have accomplished a great deal.'
I consider those remarks coming from Senator Nelson, to say the least, are insulting to all Canadians as well as they are to all the British Empire.
What did Senator Lodge of Massachus-setts say?-'I intend to vote for reciprocity measure because I think in the long run it will draw the United States and Canada closer together.'
Before concluding, let me say a word about the British preference. I am told by our people in London that there are many agents coming in from England and selling manufactured goods the same as they make, right at their doors. That should not be. While I am in favour of the British preference, I think it should not be raised so high that it will hurt people in our own country. There is no better imperialist in this House than I am; at the same time I am for Canada first, I believe we should protect our own people first, and that we should not allow peo-


Mr. J. W. MADDIN (South Cape Brecon).: Mr. Speaker, I should be derelict n my duty as a member of this House, I would not be discharging my duty to my lonstituents, or to the people of the province from which I come, nor in a broader sense would I be discharging my duty as i Canadian, if I were to allow this debate to come to a division without contributing ny views to this very important question. Let me at first take a brief glance at the history of this country. In 1775 when the 13 British colonies that now constitute the greater part of the United States kindled the torch, and drew the sword, and cast the tea chests into Boston harbour, they probably had some justification for doing it at that time. But there were a laTge number of British subjects among them who thought differently, and they shook the dust of those colonies from off the|r feet, and came northward into the province of Ontario, and into the province of Quebec; they made their way down to the maritime provinces, and perhaps the greatest Canadian we have ever had up to the present time, the Hon. Joseph Howe, from the loins of one of those United Empire Loyalists. Now, Sir, the Tesult of that revolution was that the people of the United States made a declaration of independence, and began to map out their own career. The other British colonies which now constitute the Dominion of Canada remained outside that union, preferring to live under the Union Jack. Our neighbours to the south, who are so friendly to-day, and who come up to the line with an olive branch in their hands seeking to make an inroad on our natural resources, ;n 1812 invaded thid territory, and our forefathers met them at the frontier, met diem on their ships, gave them battle, md fought to maintain this territory as a part of the British Empire. In 1837 when die Mackenzie-Bapineau rebellion took place, it is a well known and well recognized fact that it was financed m the United States, and that a great deal of the arms and ammunition that were put mto the hands of the insurrectionists came irom across the 50th parallel. Now that was in 1837. The United States were not so friendly towards us then. In 1866 again the Fenian raid took place. Let me point out also that the United States had some

troubles of their own between 1861 and 1865. The people of Canada had entered into a reciprocity agreement with them in 1854, it was to continue for ten years at least, with two years notice of abrogation. That notice was given, and the treaty was abrogated in 1866. During the American civil war the British government was so indiscreet, according to the views of some of the people in the northern states, as to recognize the southern confederacy. On the other hand a large number of Canadians had gone over and fought with the northerners against the confederacy to help emancipate the slaves. A few Canadians expressed sympathy with the southern states, and some of the refugees from that country sought an asylum in Canada. This incensed the people of the northern states against the Dominion of Canada, and the people of the south were incensed against Canada as part of the British Empire, because Britain would not recognize the southern confederacy. The result was that when the war closed in 1865, the treaty was abrogated in 1866. Then the United States, that is so friendly to-day, set about, by the raising of a high tariff wall, to cut off communication between the two countries with the ultimate object of forcing Canada into annexation. That was a time calling for strong men and stern men; the occasion brought forth the men, and history repeated itself as it always does. At that time we had in Canada the late Sir John A. Macdonald, we had the late George Brown, we had the late Sir Leonard Tilley, we had Sir Charles Tupper, we had the late Sir George Cartier, we had the fathers of confederation. These men, gathered from the various provinces, set about to meet the situation which was now fraught with danger, and threatened to wipe the British colonies out of existence. What did they proceed to do? They brought these scattered provinces into a confederacy, they brought them into what is now known as the Dominion of Canada under the British North America Act, which is the constitution under which this parliament is sitting. After that was accomplished Canada raised a tariff wall against the United States. She struggled on as best she could, mapping out her own career, trying policy after policy, under the Conservatives first, under the Liberals afterwards, and in 1878 the Liberal-Conservative party adopted the National Policy. Instead of buying our manufactured goods from the United States, we made a tariff sufficiently high to protect our own manufacturers in articles that we could produce in Canada, thereby giving employment to people within our own borders, and by building railways and canals, extending interprovincial trade, and building up this country without any assistance from the United States.


James William Maddin: This was continued down until 1896. In 1896, the present administration came into power. A great many people expected that they would at once wipe out the National Policy. As the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) said during the course of this debate, he understood that the fiscal policy of this country had been fixed ever since the Fielding tariff of 1897, so that every man from Vancouver to Sydney, from the' Great Lakes to the Arctic Ocean, knew what it was. There was no difference of opinion among statesmen or politicians in this country, with regard to the best policy for the people of this country. During all these years, from 1867, some 44 years, we mapped out our own career, we blazed the trail through the forest, we built railways and canals that have cost this country over $500,000,000. We built them east and west, we bridged a chasm of 1,200 miles of Canadian Pacific railway that does not originate one dollar's worth of freight or passenger traffic. We built these lines of canals east and west, and because geographically that was the proper route to build them by, but because we had a neighbour to the south so hostile that we were obliged to build them east and west whether we liked it or not. We have built those lines of trade and we have developed an interprovincial trade which hon. members who have preceded me have described. On the 1st day of January last every one in Canada was happy, contented and prosperous. We had developed our trade interprovin-cially, we had built our railways and canals as I have pointed out, and whilst we did it we lived under the Union Jack. We did not share in England's difficulties. The people of the old country had extended the British Empire until we boasted that the sun never set on it, but Great Britain never asked us for one single dollar. We went on developing our resources until it is said now that the fruit is ripe to fall from the tree. Whilst we were building our railways and canals, whilst we were extending our manufactures in the Dominion of Canada, there i3 not a member of this House who picked up a British or a colonial newspaper and read the head lines of threatened war between Germany and Britain, between France and Britain, who gave it a second thought. We crawled under the_ sheets and went to bed when we felt like it, we got up when we felt like it, and amongst the worries of the day we did not carry any national responsibility. Why? Because Britain's North Atlantic squadron patrolled our Atlantic seaboard; because 110-ton disappearing guns were mounted at York Redoubt on the shores of Halifax harbour; because masked batteries at Port Pleasant, at the eastern passage, fortified Halifax harbour and because 3,500
redcoats and 500 sappers and engineers with guns and ammunition guarded the city while we slept. At Quebec the same conditions obtained. The fortifications were there, equally fit, prepared to meet the invader and there again there were 4,000 redcoats of Great Britain manning the forts, patrolling the city whilst the people of Canada were developing its resources, extending its trade, meeting the competition of our hostile neighbours to the south. On the Pacific coast, at Esquimalt, similar fortifications, every days' pay at the port hundred redcoats were there and the South Pacific squadron of Great Britain patrolled the Pacific ocean. Every ship, every man aboard those ships, every dollar's worth of fortifications, every days' pay at the port of Halifax, Quebec and Esquimalt, was paid by the burdened taxpayers of Great Britain, who were holding the flag secure above our heads, and all that we did was, on May 24 or Dominion Day, to give ourselves a holiday, sing ' God Save the Queen,' ' Rule Britannia, Britannia Rules the Waves '-that was our contribution. On Friday, the 19th of last December, a delegation came from the west. They filled the chamber, they filled the galleries of this House, they packed the corridors around this House. They numbered some 1,600, and they came from the west which had grown up and developed after the building of the Canadian Pacific Tailway. They filled this House and they had the right hon. the First Minister and a few of his cabinet sitting where you, Mr. Chairman, and the Clerk of this House sit tonight. Their representatives stood up and read resolutions asking for what? Asking for this trade pact?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


James William Maddin: Resolutions asking for free natural products.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


James William Maddin: They asked for free farming implements, they asked for free leather goods, they asked for free shelf hardware. That is what the people of the west asked for, and they were told in a ten-minute speech by the Prime Minister that no material change would be made in the tariff until a commission had gone over the matter, and they would see what could be done to alleviate the circumstances that existed in the west according to the representations made by that delegation. Who doubted the First Minister when he made that announcement the day we left to spend our Christmas holidays at home? Who supposed that on the 26th day of January, at four o'clock in the afternoon, like a bolt from the blue, an announcement was to be made of a trade pact such as we have to discuss to-night? What had
happened in the meantime, what had come over the political situation? I will tell you. President Taft, a Republican President, found himself surrounded by a Democratic majority. He knew the attitude of the Democratic party, he knew it was towards the lowering of the tariff of the United States. There were good reasons for that. The people of the United States, living behind their 46 per cent tariff wall, had grown in population from 11,000,000 in 1775 to 90,000,000 in 1911. They had depleted their forests, they had no wood for telephone poles, railway ties, pulp or anything else. They had depleted their fisheries and exhausted their resources to a large extent. The barbed wire fence west and north had inclosed the grazing lands and they required more meat. Prices soared so high that they were pressing very hard on the wage-earner, and the Democratic party adopted a policy that the tariff wall should be lowered. President Taft knew they would lower that tariff. They were pledged to lower the tariff, and President Taft thought he would go one better, he thought he would secure a couple of easy marks from Canada and get them down to negotiate with him in Washington, and so secure a quid pro quo, get something in exchange for what the Democrats would have given free. So an invitation was sent to Canada to send over a couple of plenipotentiaries to negotiate a treaty or pact. It is strange that this is called a pact. One might very well do_ as the Minister of Justice is fond of doing and propound a pun by asking: When is a treaty not a treaty, the answer being:	When
Fielding knocks it.
Mr. Taft sent for two representatives to go over to the United States to negotiate with him. The Democrats were sorely in need of a lower tariff. They had to get the raw material, and natural resources of some country, and Canada is only divided by an imaginary line which it would take an experienced surveyor days and days to find. Intersected by railway lineal, .and |being 1 adjacent, Canada was the only place that they saw to secure their raw material from. They had used theirs up-by exporting it raw, as we are invited to do, by sending it in an unmanufactured state out of the country, as we are urged to do now. No, Mr. Chairman, they took their steers, they drove them- up the gang planks into the slaughter houses at Chicago, they slashed their throats, and in a few minutes cars carried a_way four quarters |of dressed ibeef, the intestines were worked up into bologna sausage, -the offal into fertilizer, the horns and hoofs into buttons and ladies' hat and hair pins, the hides were shorn of the hair, and this was manufactured. The hides were tanned, but they did not sell the hides; they sent

the hides to Lynn, Salem, Worcester, Woonsocket, Haverhill, and numerous other towns in the New England States, they were there manufactured' into shoes and shoe^ strings, and they would he very glad to dispose of them in a market that would admit them free of duty. By manufacturing their resources to the very highest state they have become a wealthy nation, and now they want more raw material. They have invited us to give them that steer in order that they may work it up into its different products. Then they will send it back to us labelled ' Armour's beef,' at 25 or 30 cents a pound. We 'are told that it is a splendid thing to send cattle south at 6 or 7 cents a pound on the hoof, and buy the product , back in tins at 25 or 30 cents a pound. If the people of the United. States want our beef, give us a chilled meat industry to meet the situation, and we will manufacture it here in all its different grades and sell it to them as they sold it to us.
When the cal] came from Mr. Taft to send down delegates from Washington, whom did the Prime Minister or his cabinet select?-the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), and the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), two hon. gentlemen for whom I entertain the highest and profoundest regard. But, it will not be lacking in respect to say that the Minister of Customs, being out of 'active business, and out of active touch with the development and growth of this country, having served his country for so many years in the past, had outlived his day of usefulness for international negotiations. The Minister of Finance, it will not be disrespectful to say, was not much better fitted to carry on these negotiations. Whom were they invited to discuss this business with? We have been told on the hustings, in the Liberal press, on the floor of this House, that the day was passed when we would go begging to Washington with our hats in our hands, that Washington was coming to Canada. But, when this nefarious treaty was to' be drawn up delegates went from Ottawa to Washington. Whom did they go down to meet? They went down to meet the trained tariff experts of the United States, young, strong, virile men, graduates in the class of economics and political economy of the leading universities of the United States, trained amongst the tariff experts of the country that has the highest tariff on the face of the earth, dozens of them at the beck and call of President Taft and Secretary Knox. Our two unsophisticated Canadian ministers, these guileless old gentlemen, made their way down to Washington to negotiate with an aggregation of that kind. Why, Mr. Chairman, we might as well have sent a pair of English sparrows to a convention Mr. MADDIN.
of eagles. Canada never had a look-in from the commencement of these negotiations. Some day or two subsequent to the arrival of these gentlemen in Washington, they sent hack for the commissioner of Customs, and Mr. Bussell. Had not these two gentlemen gone down to fortify the ambassadors of Canada I have no doubt that such a pact would have come back signed, sealed and delivered as would have exchanged the Union Jack for the Stars and Stripes on the flag pole over this chamber before this late day.
In regard to the past political record of the hon. Minister of Customs I must confess that I am not very familiar with it, hut I have pointed out what I consider to be the epoch making marks in Canada's history-confederation, the building of the Canadian Pacific railway, the National Policy, and on every one of these occasions the hon. Minister of Finance has been found on the opposite side fighting them tooth and nail, opposed to them at all times. In 1867, he was opposed to confederation, and from that on until 1878, actively, through the most powerful, at the time, Liberal organ in eastern Canada, the ' Morning Chronicle,' argued strongly against the adoption of the National Policy. In 1881, when the Canadian Pacific railway was being built, the Minister of Finance, through the columns of the ' Morning Chronicle,' fought it tooth and nail. He poured out with all the ardour and venom in his power his opposition to that enterprise, all that he could say he said and reiterated, and 'all he could add to that he expressed against the building of the Canadian Pacific railway. In 1882 he became a member of the Nova Scotia legislature. Within two years he was premier and provincial secretary of Nova Scotia, and on his first appeal to the people of that _ province after his appointment as provinical secretary and premier he appealed to the electorate asking for a repeal of the union. He addressed a memorial to the people of Nova Scotia which appeared in the ' Morning Chronicle ' of May 26, 1886. In the last paragraph of this manifesto he says:
If the people of Nova Scotia are satisfied with the fruits of Confederation, they will have the opportunity of recording the fact by depositing their ballots on the 15th June. But if, as we believe, they are deeply dissatisfied with their position in the union and determined to bring about a better state of affairs, they will doubtless feel that they can best advance the true interests of this province by sustaining the repeal policy which the lccal government submit for their approval.
I have the honour to be, gentlemen, your most obedient servant,
(Sgd.) W. S. FIELDING. Halifax, May 25, 1886.

On June 11, in support of his' appeal to the people to favour repeal, he published the following in the editorial columns of the ' Morning Chronicle ':
Electors of Nova Scotia.
Remember you are under Canadian corn laws, which compel you to pay 50 cents more for every barrel of flour you use than you would have to pay if the tariff permitted you to get it from the States, and besides this duty you have to pay 50 to 60 cents per barrel to bring it by railway, when you could get it from the States for ten cents freight from Boston, and fifteen cents from New York.
That was on the 11th of June, 1886, and the leading editorial on the 15th of June, the morning of the election, commenced as follows:
The first day of July, 1867, was the darkest day in this history of Nova Scotia.
On July Uth, 1886, he wrote as follows:
Farmers of Nova Scotia remember repeal means reciprocity

He had the reciprocity bee in his bonnet as early as that:
-and reciprocity means 15 cents more for every bushel of potatoes you raise. Quebec and Ontario take no potatoes. Our market is in the States and we can get that market opened to us by repeal.
On June 8th, 1886, under the caption 'Farmers, Attention,' the editor of the 'Morning Chronicle' says:
The haying season is coming on and the paternal government at Ottawa thought it a good time to take something more from you in the way of taxes, so they have just passed an amendment to the tariff under which the duty on scythes is made $2.50 per dozen. There is a Tory manufactory of a second-class article in Ontario, and of course it must be kept up at your expense, and an inferior article forced on you by a corrupt government for the benefit of their Tory friends.
There, Mr. Chairman, was a statement to the farmers of Nova Scotia that the Tory government had raised the duty on scythes, $2.50 per doz., and the same doctrine was preached by the Liberals in the campaign of 1896, but when they came to office the first two Senators they appointed were Mr. Melvin Jones and Mr. Frost. The farmers of Canada from Vancouver to Halifax were told during the campaign of 1896 that they were being sweated by Massey-Harris and Frost & Wood, and that the Grits were going to wipe out every vestige of protection when they came to power, and the Minister of Finance, then Premier of Nova Scotia, urged upon the farmers that they were being robbed by the paternal government at Ottawa for the benefit of its Tory friends. In 1896, up to polling day, the farmers were
told that they were being robbed by Frost & Wood and Massey-Harris, the two large farming implement concerns, and Mr. Jonea is practically the head of the Massey-Harris concern, and Mr. Frost, the head of Frost & Wood, and these were two of the first men selected by the Liberals for seats in the Senate. And, Mr. Chairman, have not these two firms prospered well since these two senators took their seats. Is it, perhaps, because these two gigantic farming implement concerns have fortified themselves in the Red Chamber that this government, instead of giving free farming implements to the farmers of the west in answer to their prayer of Friday the 19th day of December last, preferred to take a trip to Washington to bring back something the farmers had not asked for. A great many people were surprised when in 1896 the hon. Mr. Fielding had been called to Ottawa to discharge the dignified and onerous duties of Minister of Finance. His career in his province had been watched. Just about the time the First Minister was making his speeches before the Boston Club and talking annexation, the Minister of Finance evidently took a cue from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, because when in January, 1896. the Hon. Chas. E. Tanner introduced a Bill into the legislature of Nova Scotia to make Dominion Day a public-school holiday in the province, the Minister, of Finance took certain action with respect to it. I quote from 'Hansard' of the legislature:
Hon. Mr. Fielding suggested to the hon. member (Mr. Tanner), that a day be named when, he would move in relation to the Bill respecting Dominion Day.
Mr. Turner said he was not in a position to name a day at present.
Hon. Mr. Fielding said any day would do equally well; he merely desired that it should not he brought up without notice.
At a later date during the same session:
Mr. Tanner said he had intimated that he would to-day probably move the second reading of the Bill to declare Dominion Day a holiday in the public schools of the province. He was not prepared to move the second reading of the Bill at present but would prefer to have the matter stand over.
Hon. Mr. Fielding said he was content the motion should stand over on the understanding that a day's notice should be given.
The Bill was finally introduced on February 13th, 1896, and the late Hon. T. F. Black, then representing Cumberland county, moved in amendment:
That in view of the circumstances under which the province of Nova Scotia became a member of the union and the strong feeling manifested on the subject by a large part of the people, the unity and harmony which are so desirable to the advancement of the interests of the country would be better promoted by leaving the celebration of Domin-

ion Day in this province to the voluntary action of the people, than by the passing of an Act to compel the observance of the day, therefore, the further consideration of this Bill be deferred until this day three months.'
On a division being taken the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cumberland was put and carried, there being 21 votes for and 11 against. Names being called for there appeared before the convention, hon. Provincial Secretary:
That is our Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), to-day. I need not read the names of the other twenty. Now, if at that time he could vote>
for an. amendment to a Bill making Dominion day a holiday in the schools of the province of Nova Scotia simply because a number of people felt a little sore towards the union, could he not ask himself in his secret soul who had sown the seed of sedition there? Had1 not he been preaching it not merely for ten years since 1886, hut from 1867? He advocated, it so strongly that he went back from the country with a strong majority in favour of repeal. But he knew that the government of Ottawa would veto any such legislation on his part, and that the Imperial authorities would not countenance the disintegration of a confederation which had cost the people of this country so much.
Now, we have had delegation after delegation come to this parliament; in fact this has been a government of delegation; delegations have come about farming implements, .about railways, about bridges, and dear knows what all. We have had petitions and representations from people all over the country. When there was a probability, or possibility, of change being made in the tariff relating to coal, Premier Murray of Nova Scotia invited the coal operators of the province to assemble, and, to a man, they gathered in the city of Halifax. Nine-tenths of the whole revenue of the province of Nova Scotia, outside of the federal subsidy, is derived from coal, and anything that would interfere with the coal trade was a matter that would affect the province of Nova Scotia. So, Premier Murray discharged his duty in calling the operators to convene and express their opinions and reasons with regard to the duty on coal. When these gentlemen had deliberated they prepared some reports which, when compiled formed a brochure which they submitted to this government, and to Mr. Fielding, personally. There were at that gathering the Dominion Coal Company, Limited; The Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, Limited; the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company, Limited; the Acadia Coal Company, Limited; the Intercolonial Coal Mining Company, Limited; the Inverness Railway and Coal Company, Limited; the Port Hood Richmond Rail-Mr. MADDIN.
way. Coal Company, Limited"; MacKay Mining Company, Limited and the Colonial Coal Company, Limited. And they reported as follows:
The companies engaged in coal mining in the province of Nova Scotia understand that reciprocity in coal may form one of the subjects for consideration at the proposed conference between the government of Canada and that of the United States of America in reference to reciprocal trade relations between the two countries. The operators have made a careful study of the effect of any reciprocal arrangement in coal and the result of their investigations and the knowledge gained by experience in the business convinces them that reciprocity would he disastrous to the coal industry of the province.
The reasons given for this opinion and the statistics in support thereof are printed as appendices hereto and the coal operators are convinced that a study of these papers will lead to the conclusion that their opinion is right.	[DOT]
There is now invested in the coal mining industry of this province over $50,000,000 and more than 17,000 men and boys are directly engaged in mining alone. One-fifth of the population of Nova Scotia is dependent on this industry for a livelihood and more than one third of the total revenue of the province is from royalties on coal. The production has increased from 800,000 tons in 1879 to 6,300,000 tons in 1908. At least $10,000,000 is paid out for wages and supplies every year and about $8,500,000 of this amount is for wages. To realize the importance of the industry to Canada there must also be taken into consideration the men employed by the railways and in the fleet of ships necessary for transportation of the coal, and about its storage and handling in Montreal and other cities. The amount paid by the coal companies to the harbour commissioners of the ports of Montreal and Quebec alone amounts to over $100,000. Next to steel, coal is the best revenue producer of the Intercolonial railway.
The manufacture of steel can only be carried on successfully near an abundance of cheap coal. If production is curtailed less slack (cheap) coal will be made and the steel industry is made impossible. More than 6,000 men are employed in the steel industries of Nova Scotia and one-eighth of the total revenue of the Intercolonial railway is derived from the transportation of steel products.
It is abundantly clear from the debates in parliament and the speeches of public men both before and after the National Policy tariff of 1879 that the duty was placed on coal to offset the duty on flour; that compact was made between the public men of Canada that the maritime provinces would subinit to a duty on flour to benefit the province of Ontario, and as a compensation therefor Ontario would support a duty on coal. This agreement was one of the 'give and take' arrangements so often entered into between provinces with conflicting interests and has become part of our national life and it is submitted that Nova Scotia has the right to have the compact maintained.
I pass now to some of the reasons these coal operators gave why the duty on coal should not be interfered with:

It must be remembered that most manufacturers use slack coal, upon which there is a duty of only 15 cents, or anthracite dust, which is free, and that the duty round bituminous ooal does not enter into the cost of the principal lines of manufactured goods. Reference is had on this point at page' 15. The maintenance of strong companies in Nova Scotia is essential to cheap coal for Ontario and Quebec, a's the United States producers will maintain the price on the lakes at a point that will prevent the marketing of Nova Scotia coal. Oust Nova Scotia coal from the St. Lawrence market and the price can then be fixed as the foreign producer may dictate. . . . The operators submit that the effect of reciprocity would be to develop lines of trade north and south and render all the efforts of Canadian money and enterprise to establish these lines east and west. This would have a ruinous effect on the trade of the Intercolonial railway and the business of the ports of Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax. The Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Moncton would be made valueless to Canada.
The operators are of the opinion that under any reciprocal arrangements as to coal:
(a)	That little or no Nova Scotia coal can be profitably marketed in New England.
(b)	That a large part of the St. Lawrence trade would be lost to Nova Scotia.
(c)	That the effect will be most disastrous to the coal industry and will seriously imperil the growing steel industry.
(d)	That it will disorganize interprovincial trade and cause serious loss of revenue to the Intercolonial railway.
(e)	That it will prejudicially affect the provincial revenue.
(f)	That it will impair the revenue of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal ami Quebec.
(g)	That it will throw out of employment large numbers of men and take away the home market from our farmers and merchants.
(li) That coal will not be any cheaper in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
(i)	That all the advantages would accrue to the United States operators and railway companies.
(j)	That under the present tariff the coal industry has expanded Enormously, enabling large steel industries to be established, and the operators say it is against the best interest of the state to alter an institution that lias proven economically sound.
And this is signed by all the companies whose names I have just read. Now, in this brochure, which was submitted to the Minister of Finance, and this government, they point out that a reduction of duty would seriously imperil that industry, and also the steel industry, these two being the backbone of the province of Nova Scotia.
These coal operators were sent for. They were taken to Halifax. They were closeted together, and discussed this matter in its different phases. They drew their deductions, which were presented to this government, and especially to the- honour-333
able the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding).
When the duty of coal was reduced from 60 cents to 53 cents, 224 per cent of the coal supplied to the market in the St. Lawrence, at Sorel, Three Rivers, Quebec and Montreal, was supplied bj the United States, whereas only 2i per cent was supplied when the duty was 60 cents. I have the authority of the sales agent of the Dominion Coal Company, who stated to me in 1908 that when that- 7 cents was taken off coal, 12 or 15 American coal agents went to the customers of the Dominion Coal Company at the different points I have mentioned, and simply cut the price of the year before by 7 cents. The result was that the Dominion Coal Company was obliged to crawl down to that level or lose the contracts. Now, if under this pact, 7 cents more is taken off coal the result will be that American competitors will be able to come in here and tender at exactly 7 cents less, and the Dominion Coal Company 'and the other coal operators of the province of Nova Scotia who ship into the St. Lawrence market will be obliged to accept 7 cents per ton less for their coal.
I would like to point out something very significant in connection with this. On the files of the Labour Department will be found returns of several boards of conciliation in regard to disputes under the Industrial Act, where the emplojees of the Dominion Coal Company sought to have an advance of 2 cents per ton for mining coal. After a properly constituted board had heard the sworn testimony of the miners on the one hand, and of the coal operators on the other, they unanimously agreed that the company could not grant an increase of wages. I remember sitting on a board of which Dr. Shortt was chairman, and Dr. Allison of Mount Allison University represented the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company. I represented the miners. After carefully considering the whole matter we unanimously agreed that the miners were not earning a living wage. Under the provisions of the Act, we were .given access tp the company's private books of account, we were shown the cost of production and the price of coal. We knew the men were not receiving adequate compensation or a living wage, but at the same time we came to the conclusion that the company was not in a financial position to advance the pay of the men one cent per da\. In the face of the evidence of the coal operators summoned to give their judgment in the matter, the Minister of Finance comes back from Washington with a trade pact which takes 7 cents per ton off the coal. How are the operators to compensate this? Will they go on earning 1 less dividends by 3 cents per ton, and then make the underpaid miner assume the bal-



ance? I submit that if the hon. Minister of Finance ('Mr. Fielding) had consulted the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), or the reports of the Labour Department, particularly the reports of the conciliation boards, he would have found that the duty on coal could not be tampered with at all. But a deaf ear was turned to this petition on behalf of the coal operators, and, seemingly, the hon. Minister of Finance paid no attention to it. During the three years I have had the honour of occupying a seat in this parliament, there have been applications and petitions made, but there never was a .petition or an application presented to this House asking to have the duty on coal tampered with. Why, then, was 7 cents taken off the duty on coal as between Canada and the United States, when the miners of Nova Scotia are not earning a living wage at some of the collieries, and when the coal operators cannot receive sufficient money for their coal, with the duty at 53 cents to enable them to give a higher wage?
But, that is not all, Mr. Speaker, the steel industry which has been growing up in the Citj of Sydney started a department known as the rod mill, in which they successfully undertook the manufacture of wire rods. When they started this mill the government gave them a bounty of $6 per ton on wire rods. This bounty expired on the 30th June last. These wire rods were manufactured from steel which at the commencement of the manufacture of the rods was also receiving a bounty of $3 per ton. In other words, when the wire rod industry was established in the city of Sydney the company was receiving $9 per ton in the wa) of bounties. The bounty on the steel which entered into the rods having expired two or three years ago. and now this bounty on the rods themselves having expired, wire rods are left on the free list. The provincial government of the province of Nova Scotia still remits back 6 cents per ton 'of royalty on every ton of coal consumed in the manufacture of steel, and in this way has been paying to the Dominion Steel and Coal Company from $60,000 to $70,000 per annum, yet the hon. Minister of Finance comes back from Washington, and says " Not only do the steel wire rods bounties discontinue, but we are prepared to leave wire rods on the ijree list." Was there ever such folly? Imagine creating an industry, then withdrawing the bounties, and leaving it to compete with the United States. If that is not creating an industry to-day, a: d knocking it to pieces to-morrow, then I admit I may be talking the folly rather than that the hon. minister should he *acting the folly.


James William Maddin: The hon. Minister for Finance made some observations on the floor of this House on Monday the 24th inst., to which I would invite the particular attention of hon. members. He said:
We have achieved a reciprocity in natural products, without having to make any important concessions in the matter of manufactures.
This reciprocity is a good thing for the manufacturer, and I venture respectfully to repeat a word of advice which I offered them not long ago. I say unhesitatingly that from the point of view of the manufacturers of Canada this reciprocity agreement is a good arrangement, and, if it goes through, we may reasonably say to the western farmer: 'Well, you cannot have all you want in this wicked world, but this goes a long way towards meeting your demands, and we can fairly ask you o give and take, and let the eastern manufacturer have a fair show/ and we believe they will do it.
I would also like to draw the special attention of the House to the following sentence of this paragraph:
But, if perchance the manufacturers in their great power should unite in opposing and possibly condemning, or even defeating this measure, then there will rise up in that western country a storm cloud bigger than a man's hand, and the end will be a change in the fiscal policy of the country, which the manufacturers will find much greater than anything they conceived of.
Mr. Chairman was there ever a more cowardly threat levelled at the heads of the manufacturers of Canada? And when we realize that it comes from a minister of the Crown in a British colony it seems to have all the more degrading ring about it. Could there toe anything more dastardly than to practically threaten the extinction of any maunfacturer who dares to raise his voice or mark his ballot against this iniquitous pact because two old gentlemen brought it back from Washington? If the Finance Minister goes on making these threats, we will, by a process of elimination, soon discover who the -contributors to the $120,000 purse were. We can fairly draw the deduction that there were not many manufacturers contributing to that purse, and if he were to denounce a few other sources, then, by a process of elimination, we could readily conclude who (he contributors were. I submit that no minister of 'the Crown in any British colony would have the audacity, the baire-facedness to express on the floors of any colonial parliament


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I draw your attention to this expression of my hon. friend in attributing cowardice to a minister of the Crown.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is not, of course, in order to attribute cowardice to

any member of this House. The hon. gentleman did not conclude his sentence, and I am not sure that he intended to attribute cowardice to any hon. member, tout I would draw his attention to the fact that it is not in order to attribute cowardice to any member of the House.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Will he withdraw the expression.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have not ruled that the hon member was out of order, as he has .'.ot concluded his sentence, but I call nis attention to the fact that to attribute cowardice to a member would be out of order. I do not think he intended to do so although his sentence contained the words.


James William Maddin: Positively not. I think the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) must have a pain.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I wish to know if the hon. member will withdraw this expression. I maj have a pain and I may tell my hon. friend what my pain is.


James William Maddin: I submit that the a'ct of threatening the manufacturers of this country or any manufacturer is a cowardly act.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Will the hon. gentleman be allowed to go on with hi3 speech without withdrawing?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have not ruled any expression of the hon. gentleman out of order; so there is not any withdrawal required.


James William Maddin: If the hon. the Finance Minister were to _ single out a few other sources from which such a contribution could come, we must draw a reasonable inference as to the source of that fund.
On the same day,, July 24, the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), speaking in this House, made the following statement to which I wish to take exception:
My hon. friend has said that beoause this member or that member has not spoken there is some doubt as to his convictions. I would be very sorry to be judged from that standpoint. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) did not speak, it is true, in this House on the question of reciprocity. I did not speak, but I would not wish my views to be judged from that fact. I do know that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) during the month of June spent practically all his time campaigning, not only in Pictou, but in every county of the province of Nova Scotia. Doing what? Advocating reciprocity.
I know positively that he did not speak in any one of the counties of Cape Breton, Colchester, Digby, Cumberland or Halifax. He did speak in his native county of Pic-ton. which lie represents. He did speak in the town of Westville, where in 1904, the 3334
member for Pictou was some 400 votes behind Mr. Charles E. Tanner, whom he defeated on that occasion and in this election Mr. Robertson, a Liberal-Conservative candidate led the poll with over 600 majority. But, Mr. Chairman, we have 'been told over and over again that reciprocity was not an issue- in the provincial elections in Nova Scotia. So far as I can make it am issue in participating in that campaign I made it an issue. It may have been an issue down in Yarmouth county, and that may be one of the counties that the hon. member for Pictou campaigned in, but in the county of Yarmouth, which for *many years had sent Liberals to support the government of Nova Scotia, one of the provincial ministers of the Crown was defeated by a Liberal-Conservative candidate. He may have spoken in .some of the counties of Nova Scotia, but metbinks that he was not overly anxious to discuss reciprocity in that province. Reciprocity was not an issue there. I have before me a copy of the Sydney ' Record ' of June 13, and it outlines what, in the opinion of the Liberal party there, was the issue in the province of Nova Scotia at that time. They say:
The opposition have forced federal issues into the present contest. They are asking the electors to vote on reciprocity, coal tariff, and steel bounties, questions over which the local legislature has no control. The result, then, in Cape Breton will be regarded in the nature of a verdict on federal policy. The navy is the big federal issue in Sydney. It cannot now be shirked. A vote against Premier Murray will be equivalent to a vote of want of confidence in Fielding and Laurier. It will be regarded at Ottawa as a pronouncement not only against reciprocity but against the navy. Therefore, vote for Kendall and Carroll if yon are in favour of the navy and shipbuilding at Sydney. An adverse vote will encourage the opposition at Ottawa to block the navy contracts.
That was the issue held out to the electors in Cape Breton. But they knew what the issue was, they knew that the steel bounties and the duty on coal were being struck at 'by this pact, and that the Nova Scotia government had put the brand of approval on it before they went to the country. There were good reasons why the member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) would not care to discuss reciprocity at any great length in Nova Scotia, because he had gone out with the Prime Minister on his tour _ through the west. He had left behind him the cool and turbulent waters of the Atlantic, and he went out over the prairies on a railway that would never have been built had the two very gentlemen who were going out there had their own way about it.
They crossed the prairies from Lake Superior to the Rocky Mountains, they

penetrated the passes of the Rocky Mountains, and made their way to the limpid waters of the gentle Pacific, having followed their sinuous course across the continent. The hon. member for Pictou had been living for weeks in the hallowed presence, he had followed the white plume across the continent, and had learned words of wisdom there. He was in the confidence of the Premier of Canada. He came home with a message to the people of Nova Scotia, and he received a welcome at New Glasgow in proportion to the welcome that the Premier himself received in the city of Montreal. So important was the return of this gifted son of Pictou to his native heath, that the Liberal population of that county urged that the merchants in the town of New Glasgow should leave their electric lights burning in the windows in order to illuminate the streets down to the park where the address was to be made to the returning hero who was coming back from the feet of the man he worships as a political god. After the address had been presented, the hon. member for Pictou spoke in reply. I read this from a report of his speech sent in a dispatch of September 12, 1910, to the 'Morning Chronicle,' a paper of Halifax, and published on September 13, 1910.


An hon. MEMBER.: Is it a Liberal paper?
Mr. MADD1N. There is a strong suspicion in Nova Scotia that it is a Liberal paper, and I think the suspicion is well founded.
Above ail else lie prized tlie confidence of the Pictou county Liberals greater than anything else, and he -always wanted to be known as Ned Macdonald, son of the plain people.
Mr. Macdonald enunciated the policy of the Liberal party as affecting the tariff question. They had the same policy in the west as in the east The people of the west did not want free trade any more than those in the east, and they ascertained that the only shouting for free trade in the west came from the Tory camp. He believed that the future of Nova Scotia was wrapped up in its manufactures, and there would be no tariff changes to disturb them.
The motto of our neighbours to the south had been to look out for number one, and previous to fourteen years ago it had been almost the annual custom of the Conservatives^ tc send delegates on tariff missions to Washington. Now the order was changed and the missions were from Washington to Ottawa, and Canada through Sir Wilfrid intended to look out for number one. Some rough spots on the tariff would be smoothed out, but no change will be made that would interfere with British preference or with the vested interests of men who had put their money in the east. The policy he declared, was that the tariff will be maintained as it is, only remedying where it unduly presses.


James William Maddin: Now, here was the appeal of a gentleman who had spent some considerable time in the company of the Prime Minister, and was no doubt with the Prime Minister when he was making just such a speech in the city of Montreal. It sounds very much like that which the Prime Minister delivered in reply to the farmers of the west last December in this chamber. I am not surprised that he did not care to discuss reciprocity to any extent in the county of Pictou, or in any other part of the province of Nova Scotia. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have pointed out that the Minister of Finance received, that brochure from the coal operators of JNova Scotia; he absolutely disregarded it, and I cannot understand how, since he has disregarded it, that in the last local election in Nova Scotia, so many of the coal operators' bosses should be active partisans, and been busy brow beating and intimidating the workingmen of the Dominion Coal uompany in order to get them to the polls to vote for the Murray candidates. The Finance Minister absolutely disregarded that petition. The same seems to have been true of every other petition that has come from the county of Cape Breton. I can remember when there was a Libera! sitting for the county of Cape Breton. It is only a few years ago when a delegation left the city of Sydney headed by the warden, Mr. Levatte, and some two or three of the municipal councillors, with Mayor Richardson, of Sydney, Mayor Macdonald, of Sydney Mines, and two or three councillors from Glace Bay and Dominion, people who had been appointed at a public meeting in the courthouse in the summer of 1908, to come up, here and strengthen the hands of Mr. Johnston, who then occupied a seat on the floor of this House supporting this government, in an endeavour to obtain a railway from St. Peter's canal down the shores of Bras d'Or lake into the city of Sydney. That is government by delegation. But that railway has not been built, although such a strong Liberal aggregation came up here to assist a Liberal member occupying the seat which I occupy to-day. it was only a year or two before that when D. K. McIntyre, of Sydney, at the expense of the parishioners of East Bay, came up to Ottawa to strengthen the hands of Mr. Johnston to get a subsidy towards that railway. Why, Sir, when the people of the town of Glace Bay wanted four drop letter boxes in their town, they did not get them until Peter E. Ogilvie, one of the town councillors of Glace Bay, came as a delegate to Ottawa to strengthen Mr. Johnston's hands. Always Mr. Johnston had to be fortified, always Mr. Johnston's petitions and delegations were turned down. In 1910 the coal operators of the province had their petitions and their requests turned down. I submit it is time that the people of the

county of Cape Breton, above all other counties should cease sending delegations to this government in the hope of obtaining fair and equitable treatment.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is another matter I would like to point out. I have endeavoured, from a historical point of view, to trace the growth and development of this country, the difficulties which have been overcome. We are merely passers by. We are inheritors by the law of descent of one of the finest countries under the sun. Commencing at the Atlantic seaboard, the province of Nova Scotia, for its square mileage, cannot be surpassed in its mineral resources, its fisheries and its forests. There is no better farming, lumbering and fishing province than the province of New Brunswick. The province of Quebec has its manifold advantages in farming and mineral resources, and its great commercial enterprises. The province of Ontario has long been described, and properly so, as the banner province of the Dominion of Canada, When we pass by Lake Superior to the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, we have a country of rolling prairies, of fields of wheat, capable of producing sufficient to feed the whole of the British Empire, and almost the whole of the English speaking people. Then, after crossing the Kocky Mountains to the province of British Columbia, we reach perhaps the richest of them all in natural resources. These provinces, under a confederation such as we have, are not ours to dangle in the market, they are not ours to dispose of by a deed in fee .simple. They are ours merely for the purpose of a life estate, we are merely the trustees for our descendants who are to come after us. We have committed to our charge a great responsibility in looking after the interests of this great country, for which we shall be held responsible by our children and our children's children.
We cannot deal quietly with a situation of this kind. We have a certain amount of trade with Great Britain. She carries our .grain back to the old country when she brings some of her manufactures out to this. Divert our trade north and south and what will be the result? If our wheat is to find its way to Minneapolis, to the Atlantic seaboard, through the United States, or through the rolling mills of the United States, there to be rolled and shipped to England in its manufactured form, England must suffer to some extent, and we must suffer even to a greater extent. In 1886 the Minister of Finance was persuading the people of Nova Scotia to look for cheaper flour-always in the United States. At. the very moment almost when the Canadian Pacific railway was opened up, in 1886, he wafe telling the
people of Nova Scotia: Secede, secede from confederation, let us have free trade with the United States, let us have reciprocity- his very words. The reciprocity bee has been in his bonnet now for more than a generation. He never conceived the idea that the wheat for the Nova Scotian's flour could be raised in the Dominion of Canada, but a great statesman had conceived the idea. Sir Charles Tupper ha.d said that when the road was built traffic would be carried eastward and westward, and tbey would open up a country capable of raising 200,00.0,000 bushels of wheat. Hon. gentlemen at that time in the House, talking about it in the corridors, said he was crazy. On the floors of the House they were more respectful, but they were none the less severe. They said that the railway would not pay for its axle grease, that there were nothing but buffaloes and Indians in the west and that it was folly to have built the road. Sir Charles Tuuper is living to-day to see his prognostications verified and the Minister' of Finance and bis friends who had fought for reciprocity and who had tried to turn the hearts and minds of the people of Nova Scotia towards Boston for their flour and other supplies hoped that some day they would occupy the treasury benches where they would reap that which Sir Charles Tupper had sown.
I do not intend to occupy the attention of the House much longer. I can only say that while we have been developing our country to the extent of 8,000,000 people while we have built up our manufactures to aggregate over a million dollars a year, while we have money stacked in the bank to the extent of $990,000,000 while we have prospered to the extent we have, while we have -been doing that, as I pointed out to-day, we did it without having to assume any national obligations. But, we went through the fire of test which tried our manhood, which tried the stuff that was in us. We have developed this country, and it is our duty to maintain it and discharge our obligation towards the mother country. Those people who manned those vessels, who manned those fortifications, who built those fortifications, who built those warships, who made British traffic on the high seas safe, who made the British household safe, have been borne down by taxes until to-day Great Britain is face to face with the two greatest problems which confront the white race. One is the question of the unemployed. Travel across this continent from Vancouver to Sydney and you would not find a door at which you could knock and ask for a meal and be turned away. We have no poor or impoverished peopie in this country. It may he that in Montreal or Toronto an

occasional family are in want, but it is a matter of pride more than anything else. They could easily be relieved. Some of our people are poor, some of them have nst much money, some of them have no ships, or lands or automobiles, but they all mane an lionest living, they can all find plenty to eat and plenty to wear. This is not true of the other side.
They have the great burden of taxation which was borne upon the shoulders of the mother country.. In guarding! us while we were in our swaddling clothes there has grown up a condition the result of which is that there are hundreds of thousands of people born in empty doorways, or drygoods boxes, under wharfs, in cellars, in out of the way corners; there are hundreds of thousands of these to be found in London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Nottingham, Manchester, Dublin and Glasgow, who never had a roof over their heads but the sky, hundreds of thousands who never use a knife or fork or eat off a table. Great Britain is face to face with the task of coping with the unemployed, aged and impoverished. There are hundreds of thousands of them in Great Britain, and Uncle Sam comes up to his tariff wall with the olive branch and beckons to us and asks us to tear down the wall to let them obtain access to our natural resources. We give them 160 acres of the best land on the face of the earth, give them admission to this country, we let them come in and compete on even terms with our farmers, we let the farmers from Dakota, Montana and Minnesota cross the parallel, come into our western country, take up Canadian farms, become, perhaps, Canadian citizens in name at least, raise identically the same crops that they were raising in those same states and then send them back and trade with the same old customers that they traded with before they came to this country. That is what the United States asks us to do. Shall we do it? Have we come to the parting of the ways? We have developed the resources of our country under the conditions which I have outlined here to-night. Surelv there is sufficient of manhood in_ us that we shall meet our obligations in a* manly way instead of lowing our tariff wall, instead of negotiating with this people, who fought us, let us maintain the advantage which we now have. The first printing press that was ever set up in Ontario was set up for the purpose of publishing sedition and treason in order to influence the Canadian mind, set up by Americans and paid for with American money. Shall we lower our tariff wall and allow free access to the people of the United States to take up our square mileage, raise the same crops and send them back to the same customers? Shall we permit them to take our raw materials, manufacture them and sell them Mr. MADDIN.
to Britain or sell them to us? Or shall we assist Great Britain in such a way as to relieve the pressure that now bears heavily upon the shoulders of the mother country? Had we mot better open up the developed country of the west, enable her to solve the unemployed problem and so contribute some little at least to the discharge of this great national obligation which we can never fully repay.


Mr. EDWARD KIDD (Carleton, Ont.).: Mr. Chairman, since I have been a member of this House I have not taken up very much time, but this reciprocity agreement is such a very important measure that I feel it my duty to say a few words in opposition to it. I think that the people of Canada regard this as one of the most drastic measures that was ever brought into this House or placed before the country. From what we have heard from the other side of the House we never thought for a moment that this measure or anything leading up to it would be brought before the House, or that we would be called upon to sanction it. We have a very good reason for that belief in the following expression by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lanrier) in 1901:
I remember, and you remember also, that since the abolition of the reciprocity treaty in 1866, we have sent delegation after delegation to Washington to obtain reciprocity. We are not sending any more delegations. But I rather expect, and I would not be surprised, if the thing were to take place in a few years -I say-I rather expect that there will be delegations coming from Washington to Ottawa for reciprocity. Having learned from our friends in the south how to receive such a delegation, we shall receive them in the proper manner-with every possible politeness.
In 1903, in proposing the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway legislation, the Prime Minister was uncompromising:
I have found in the short experience during which it has been my privilege and fortune to be placed at the head of a Bairs, by the will of the Canadian people, that the best and most effective way to maintain friendship with our American neighbours is to be absolutely independent of them.
Then at the Imperial Conference in 1907, he said:
If we were to follow the laws of nature and geography between Canada and the United States, the whole trade would flow from south to north, and from north to south. We have done everything possible by building canals and subsidizing railways to bring the trade from west to east and east to west so as to bring trade into Brtiish channels. All this we have done, recognizing the principle of the great advantage of forcing trade within the British empire. . . There is no boundary line except a purely conventional one over the whole territory of North America. Their habits are the same as ours, and,

therefore, we are induced, to trade and cannot help it by the force of nature. But so far as legislation oan influence trade, we have done everything possible to push our trade towards the British people as against the American people. . . .
There was a time when we wanted reciprocity with the United States, but our efforts and our offers were put aside. We have said good bye to that trade, and we now put all our hopes upon the British trade.
Everybody can see from this language that the Prime Minister never thought then of submitting a reciprocity proposition to parliament. At the last three general elections there was nothing about reciprocity, and the Liberal rally was ' let Lauxier finish his work.' I wonder what work he had to finish; whether it was the Quebec bridge that fell down or the Laurier tower that tumbled over in a like manner. We need not wonder at our American friends being very much in favour of this pact. It is worth while to note what was said by Mr. Champ Clarke, the leader of the Democratic party which now controls the House of Representatives. He said:
Therefore, I am in favour of the reciprocity treaty, because I hope to see the day when the American flag will float over every square foot of the British North American possessions clear to the north pole. They are people of our blood. They speak our language.
Their institutions are much like ours. They are trained in the difficult art of selfgovernment. My judgment is that if the treaty of 1854 had never been, abrogated the *chances of a consolidation of these two countries would have been much greater than they are now. I do not doubt whatever that the day is not far distant when Great Britain will joyfully see all of her North American possessions become part of this republic. That is the way things are tending now. I do not confine my support of reciprocity Bills to this one. I am in favour of reciprocity treaties with the Central and South American republics, including Mexico. The quicker we get them the better off we will be. Of course, as between the two, if we had to have reciprocity with Canada and not with these countries to the south, or with the countries to the south and not with Canada, I would take reciprocity with Canada.
We know that the reciprocity treaty which was in force between 1854 and 1866, was very favourable to the Americans, because in these years, during which they had their own civil war, they wanted our products, and so they lowered the tariff on them. At the'present time, to show a comparison of prices for agricultural products between Ogdensburg in the United States, and Prescott, on the other side of the St. Lawrence, I take the following from the report of the tariff board appointed by the United States:
Commodity.	Price.	Ogdensbuhgh, N.Y., a Producer's price.	nd Peescott, Canada. Wholesale.	H ighest.	Lowest.	High.	Low.Per 100 lbs.	Per 100 lbs.	Per 100 lbs.	Per 100 lbs.Beef cows	A.	85 00	83 00	$5 60	$3 50C.	4 50	3 00	5 00	3 50A.	14 50	5 00-5 10	C.	5 00	3 50	5 60	4 10Per head.	Per head.	Per head.	Per head.Milkers and springers	A.	$60 00	$28 00	875 00	$35 00C.	65 00	25 00	75 00	30 00[DOT]	Per 100 lbs.	Per 100 lbs.	Per 100 lbs.	Per 100 lbs.A.	85 60	$5 00	$6 20	$5 50C.	6 60	5 50	7 25	6 00A.	4 00	3 75	4 50	4 00C.	4 25	3 75	4 60	4 25Hogs 	A.	8 00	5 90	9 00	6 50C.	8 50	. 7 00	9 20	7 00Poultry dressed	
A.. . .21 cents to 29 cents.
C.. ..24 cents to 29 cents.
I>o-s	A.. ..28 cents to 35 cents.
C.. ..30 cents to 36 cents.

The comparison between the prices of the Buffalo market, and the Toronto market is as follows:
		Buffalo, N.Y., and Toronto, Canada.			
Commodity.	Price.	Producer's price.	Wholesale price.	Highest.	Lowest.	Highest.	Lowest..Beef steers and heifers	A.	Per 100 lbs. $6 20	Per 100 lbs. $4 00	Per 100 lbs. $6 75	Per 100 lbs. * 86 25C.	5 65	4 00	6 25	4 50Beef cows	A.	4 80	3 55	5 35	4 00C.	4 75	2 60	5 25	3 00Stockers and feeders	A.	4 75	3 30	5 25	3 75C.	5 00	3 75	5 50	4 25Calves	A.	0 55	5 35	7 25	6 00C.	7 80	2 50	8 50	3 00Milkers and springers	A.	Per head. $61 00	Per head. $18 00	Per head. $70 00	Per head. $20 00C.	71 00	26 00	80 00	30 00Per 100 lbs.	Per 100 lbs.	Per 100 lbs.	Per 100 lbs.Lambs	A.	5 90	$4 15	$6 50	$4 75Sheep	C.	5 70	5 20	6 25	5 75A.	4 00	2 25	4 50	2 70C.	4 15	2 55	4 65	3 00A.	7 75	[DOT] 5 40	8 50	0 00C.	9 30	6 50	10 00	7 15
You will notice from this comparison of prices, that there was nothing in favour of the American side, hut it all goes to show that the Canadian markets are better for the Canadian farmers. It is I believe a fact that although the consumer is paying more for his stuff on the American side, that is due to the manner in which the trusts control the situation in the United States, and the actual fact is that the^ producer gets a lower price in the United States than in Canada.
I quote the following with reference to dairy cattle:
Prices of dairy cows range from $33 to $39 a head in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York. In Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and North Dakota the range is practically the same. In the western border states of Montana, Idaho and Washington the range is from $41.80 to $46.50. In eastern Canada, prices of dairy cows range from $32 to $48, and in western Canada, from $39 to $41. The highest Canadian price quoted is $48 in Ontario as against $46.50 in Montana, the highest American price.
Now, I have some facts here which show that we have a market in which we can command sales at good prices. We need not go begging to any American city or to the United States government for the prices I am going to give you.
Dispersion sales of pure-bred cattle held in Canada during 1910 brought some record pr ices, iaaid the f ollowing figures prove conclusively that our Canadian breeders are under no obligation to the Americans in order to get a remunerative market for Mr. KIDD.
their surplus stock. The first sale I wish to refer to was held by James Benning of Williams town, Ontario, on April 20, 1910. His 81 head of cattle brought $11,916, an average of $147, each. Forty-two aged cows brought $207. Other prices were as follows:
Herd bull sold for $400.
12	yearling bulls averaged $85.50.
13	bulls averaged $108.
10 1909 heifers averaged $114.
16 1910 calves averaged $42.25.
The highest prices paid for cow $590.
Highest price paid for two year old heifer $425.
Highest price paid for 1909 calf $200.
Highest price paid for 1910 calf $95.
Highest price paid for 1909 hull $125.
Mr. John Campbell's sale held near Dal-rneny on April 19, realized some good figures. Eight Holsteins brought $1,475, an average of $184 each; one cow brought $290; twenty-one aged Ayrshire cows brought $1,676.
William Higginson's sale of registered Holstein cattle held at Inkerman, Ontario, Tuesday, November 1, brought the following figures:
Ninety head realized $12,457, herd bull sold for $850, highest price paid for cow $300, twenty-one males brought $2,220, average price of males $105.35, 69 females brought $10,235, average price of females $148.
Still more gratifying were the prices realized at the sale of Holsteins held by Brown Brothers, on December 28, among which were the following:

48 head brought $11,355, an average price of $230.50.	.
13 females brought $2,185, an average puce of $252.	.
] ues brought $2,185, an average price of $168.
15 1910 calves brought $1,575, an average of $105.
3 yearling heifers brought $595, an average of $198,33.
9 two year old heifers brought $2,645, an average price of $294.
9 three year old heifers brought $2,230, an average price of $239.
33 head, calved previous to 1910, brought $8,700, an average price of $280.60.
Highest price realized for female $1,000.
Highest price realized for male $800.
Highest price realized for yearling, $220.
Highest price realized for two year old heifer, $700, and another one sold for $620.
Highest price realized for three year old heifer $160, and two others sold for $450 and $385 each.
Highest price realized for 1910 calf $240, and another sold for $200.
Highest ^rice realized for 1910 heifer calf $135.
Distributed, the cattle went as follows: Leeds county 34, Dundas 5, Carleton 2, Prescott 1, Grenville 1, Western Ontario 2, United States 3. At Benning's more than 75 per cent of the animals were sold to Ontario breeders. Hig-ginson's cattle were distributed as follows: Western Ontario 3, New Brunswick 3, Dundas 27, Leeds and Grenville 27, Carleton 7, Glengarry 5, Russell 2, Stormont 2, New York state 8, New Hampshire state 6.
Now, I desire to give an account of another sale, this one being held in Maxville. The total sum realized was $40,715 for 119 animals. The highest priced animal went for $2,600. An account of the sale was given in the press, and that account reads, in part, as follows:
According to the statement of the secretary of the Canadian Ayrshire Breeders' Association the sale of animals of that breed held at the farm of Robert Hunter and Sons at Maxville on Wednesday, was the greatest on record on this continent. About six hundred buyers or intending buyers were present from as far east as New York city and as far west as Ballard, Washington. One hundred and nineteen animals were auctioned ofi under the direction of Mr. Andrew Philips, -who conducted the sale. The highest price realized for any one animal was $2,600. This price was paid for the stock hull Bar-genock Victor Hugo, by Mr. D. Ryan, of Brewster, N.Y. The highest price paid for a female was by Mrs. Earhart, West Berlin, New Hampshire. The total sum realized was $40,715, and the average price per head was $342.15.
Now, let me give a few figures showing the character of our sheep trade. The following figures show' our exports of sheep to the United States:
1907,	63,034	head,	value	..	..	$195,6551908,	53,583	head,	value	..	..	206,0891909,	43,803	head,	value	..	..	158,660
And our total imports of sheep to Canada from the United States have been as follow's:
1907,	135,344 head, value.. .. $750,242
1908, 101,589 head, value .. .. 589,285
1909, 67,656 head, value .. .. 365,155
Now why should we look to a country that has more sheep than we have, as a market for sheep? The United States export far more sheep than we do, and yet we are supposed to look to the United States Eor a market.
There has been a great deal of comment and discussion made by the members of the government in regard to this pact, concerning hay. I am sure no farmer should think of looking for a market for his hay -at least only for a very small quantity of it. For any farmer who will raise hay to sell year after year will soon have very little to sell. The same thing applies to potatoes. We do not pretend to raise many potatoes to ship, and none of our farmers should build on the potatoe market. Potatoes are a perishable article, and we should not take any credit for creating a market for them. If the Americans want any of our products they know what to do in order to get them. I know in former years when they wanted anything from this country they simply let down the bars. In 1902 or 1903 when they wanted our young cattle they reduced the tariff on cattle, and after they had brought in what they wanted, they put the tariff up again.
The following statement will show the exports of cheese from the United States to Canada for the years mentioned and the total exports of cheese from the United
States:
Lbs. Value.
1907	
1,540,552	$ 166,510]<)08	
452,361	56,7041909	..	120,844	14,952
Total Exports from United States:
Lbs. Value.
1907	
17,285,230	$2,012,6261908	
8,439,051	1,092,0531909	
6,822,842	857,091
The Total Exports of Milk from the United
States were as follows:
Value.
1907		$2,191,111
1908		 2,455,186
1909		 1,375,104
The Total Exports of Cheese from Canada were:
1909	$22,106,108
1910		 180,859,866 = 21,607,692
There has been a great deal of stress put on the fact that we will have a market for our cheese. That is not the case. Cheese was high in the United States last fall, but we all know how that came about.

They sold themselves short in the early part of the season, and later on a few men cornered the cheese market and raised the price to about 14 cents. If those who are endeavouring to secure reciprocity are looking for a market for $21,000,000 worth of cheese, when the Americans themselves are exporting cheese to the extent of over $2,000,000 in 1907, and over $857,000 in 1909, how can they expect a market from these people? We make a very superior cheese in Canada to-day. The Ontario government is spending on an average over $65,000 a year for instruction in what we call the outside service-that is outside of the agricultural centres. They are spending this large amount of money educating the farmers of the whole country to make a fine cheese, which they are doing. Everybody knows that tha United States is making a very inferior article, and that they would be only too glad to mix their cheese with Canadian cheese and so lower our price or raise theirs. I am sure if this reciprocity pact passes it will be a great injury to our cheese trade. We have taken a great deal of, pains and been to large expenses to make a good article, and put it on the market in good shape. I know from the conditions existing across the line that reciprocity would be a great injury to our cheese trade.
In 1910, we exported 4,615,380 pounds of butter valued at $1,010,274. We must admit that our butter exports are decreasing. At the same time we take a great deal of care to put what wre have to sell on the market in proper shape, and we would derive no advantage from shipping our butter to the United States. In 1907, we shipped 12,544,777 pounds valued at $2,429,489. In 1908, we shipped 6,463,061 pounds valued at $1,407,962. In 1909, we shipped 5,981,265 pounds valued at $1,268,210.
Dairying has expanded in other countries just as it has in ours, as will appear from the following paragraph:



[Stage Direction]
South Australia shows Strong Forward Movement.
Adelaide, South Australia, July 20.-South Australian produce always finds a ready market in the United Kingdom, and since the establishment of the government produce department and the appointment of a trades commissioner, an appreciable increase in the output of perishable produce has taken place. Producers now know that should the local market fail they can profitably export through the department; consequently they have not hesitated to extend their operations.
The dairying industry especially has expanded, and the exportation of butter this season shows a marked improvement compared with previous years. In 1908-09 a total of 456 tons was shipped from Port Adelaide, in 190910, 822 tons, while the aggregate shipments to date for the 1910-11 season total 1,747 tons. The quantity of blitter now made in the state Mr. KIDD.
I exceeds eight and a half mil^on pounds annually.
Most of the separating is done by farmers on their own farms, and the cream is then forwarded to the various butter factories, which give employment to a large number of people. The opening up of new lands, the extended practice of irrigation in the Murray valley and at other places under government supervision, has given a great impetus to the industry, and these totals will probably be exceeded in the near future.
This shows that if this pact goes through our markets will be flooded with produce of all kinds from these favoured nation countries. Denmark for instance has been shipping very large quantities of dairy) produce to Great Britain where it competes with our produce. What would the result be if Canada were to enter into an arrangement for free entry of butter from Denmark under this pact? What would the results be if Canada should enter into free trade in butter under the proposed reciprocity agreement?
Our farmers would be confronted with the competition on our own markets of such producing countries as Denmark, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Argentine Republic, Sweden and Norway, as well as the United States.
Would this competition amount to anything?
At present the import demand from Great Britain is the controlling factor in the Canadian butter market, and it is interesting to note that the average prices realized in Great Britain during the year 1909 for butter imported from Russia, Australia, New Zealand, United States and Argentine Republic were lower than those obtained for Canadian butter. In the matter of prices, then, these countries would be prepared to undersell Canada on her own market, as they do now on the British market.
Denmark, which is the largest exporter of butter to Britain, gets much more for her products than does Canada. This is because of the quality of the Danish butter, which is said to be superior to any other make in the world. The fine flavour of Denmark's dairy product would thus ensure a successful competition on the Can-, adian market even in the face of lower prices. Just as the English consumer is willing to pay more for Danish butter, so would the Canadian consumer do the same.
Great Britain in 1909 imported 455,034,944 pounds of butter worth $109,134,815, from the following countries:
Denmark	 $51,671,648
Russia	 14,325,256
France	 11,292,185
Australia	 9,770,695
Sweden	 7,170,746
New Zealand	 7,164,799
Netherlands	 3,879.999

Argentine	Republic	 1,907,801
Norway	 797,481
Canada	 585,913
Other countries	 568,292
So you see that if the produce of these other favoured nation countries were admitted to enter Canada and compete with our produce this country would be very greatly affected.
The following comparison of tariffs on butter, if reciprocity becomes law, shows that Canada gives free entrance to all her competitors, but must pay duty to all of them, except the United States, if she wishes to send butter back to them:
Canada-Free from Favoured Nations and British Possessions, including Denmark, Russia, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Argentine Republic, Norway and United States; otherwise 4 cents per lb. Australia-6 cents per lb.
New Zealand-General Tariff, 30% ad valorem British Preferential Tariff, 20% ad valorem (Canada is entitled to the B.P. Tariff.) Denmark-In hermetically sealed vessels, 4Jc.
per lb.; otherwise free.
Argentine Republic-4 2-5c. per lb.
United States-From Canada, free; otherwise 6c. ner b.
Sweden-2 2-5c. per lb.
Norway-Minimum Tariff, l 4-5 c. per lb.
Maximum Tariff, 3c. per lb.
Russia-1 7-100c. per lb.
Canada's export trade in butter is not so great at the present time that her farmers can afford to imperil their dairy industry by a tariff scheme that would, in all probability, make the country's imports in this article greater than her exports. In the year ending 1910 Canada shipped only 4,615,380 pounds of butter, worth $1,010,274. Canada's imports of butter on the other hand amounted to 687,454 pounds, worth $104,301.
I wish to place on record a comparative statement of the exports of eggs from the
United States and Canada. These figures are as follows:
Export of Eggs from United States.
Dozens. Value.
1907	
6,968,985	$1,542,7891908	
7,590,977	1,540,0141909	
5,207,151	1,199,522
Exports of Eggs from Canada to United States.
Dozens. Value.
1908	
32,991	$9,846 001909	
59,483	14,952 001910	
39,917	13,896 00When the United States export these large quantities of eggs why	should we
expect to have any market for eggs there? It is a well known fact that last year eggs were higher in Canada than in the United States, and at the present time I understand a very large firm in Toronto has a contract for eggs with a firm at Buffalo at 15 cents, and where our farmers are getting a much higher price than that right at home.
Serious difficulty may be experienced in Canada owing to the importation of oleomargarine, an imitation of butter, into our market. The manufacture or sale of oleomargarine is absolutely prohibited in Canada. The United States are to-day exporting large quantities of this imitation butter, the figures being as follows:
Exports of Oleomargarine from United States to Other Countries.
Pounds. Value.
1907	
5,397,609	$520,4061908	
2,938,175	299,7461909	
2,899,058	293,635
The export of horses into Canada from the United States and vice versa have been as follows:
United States into Canada.		Canada into United States.	
Number.	V alue.	Number.	Value.
	$		$
26,361 15,324 17,376	3,336,353 1,962,438 2,221,562	33,882 19,000. 21,616	4,359,957 2,612,587 3,486,617
The prices of horses range from $106 to $125 in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York; in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and North Dakota the average is from $111 to $126, and in Montana, Idaho and Washington from $80 to $108. In eastern Canada prices range from $107 to $139. You will see that our prices range far higher than those in the_ United States. In western Canada the prices range from $107 to $156. In Indiana, Illinois and Iowa the prices range from $120 to $124.
[Stage Direction]
In all the Canadian provinces the prices are higher than in the United States. If this pact goes through, which I hope it will not, our market will be injured very-much for Canadian horses. I remember, when I was a very small kid, that our horses were always supposed to be very much better than American horses. We had many of our southern neighbours up here buying our horses a few years ago for street car purposes and it was claimed that three of our horses would outlast four or five American horses owing, no doubt, to our horses being raised in a colder climate and therefore being hardier and more valuable horses than the American horses. There is no doubt that our farmers will be greatly injured if this pact goes through because it will be taking from them their western market which is the best market in the world to-day for eastern horses.
Now, let me cali your attention to the bacon and ham trade. The following is a statement of the exports of bacon and ham from Canada to Great Britain.
Year.
1906		$12,119,804
1907		 9,196,305
1908		 11,153,749
1909		 8,625,005
1910		 6,836,392
You will see that in the last couple of years there is a decrease in our exports. Where does the rest go? The answer is that we are using the rest. We are using far more bacon and hams than we did some years ago.

[Stage Direction]
Year.	Quantity.	Value.
Lbs.
1907	
2,710,369	$287,4601908	
4,957,022	532,4421909	
5,759,930	620,193

[Stage Direction]
Year.	Quantity.	Value.
Lbs."
1907	
250,418,699	$26,470,9721908	
241,189,929	25.481.2461909	
244,578,674	25,920,490

[Stage Direction]
Year.	Quantity.	Value.
Lbs.
1907	
209,481,496	$23,698,2071908	
221,769.634	25,167,0591909	
212,170,224	23,526,397
I will give a short comparison between Chicago market prices and our Ingersoll market prices for the years 1901 to 1910:

[Stage Direction]
Price at Price at Year.	Chicago. Ingersoll.
1901	
$5	71	$6	701902	
6	76i	6	681903	
5	88	6	07
Edward Kidd: 1904	
5	04	5	321905	
5	18	6	411906	
6	23	7	171907	
6	09J	6	851908	
5	36i	6	871909	
7	53|	8	041910	
8	59f	9	11The Ingersoll prices averaged 58 cents per hundred weight higher than the Chicago market prices.	,
Now I will read a paragraph from the report of the committee appointed by the Senate committee to make inquiry into the comparative prices in Canada and the United States:
Why is it that an American hoard of investigators thus finds itself confronted with these superior conditions in Canada ? Simply because of the better product cultivated by the Canadian farmer. With regard to this point of quality in our hogs

This is taken from Senate Document 849. This is where some of the figures I have quoted are taken from and they are figures that this tariff board spent a great deal of time in Canada and the United States in procuring in order to make a comparison of prices.
The lack of corn, the existence of a well-established dairy production and the advisability of suitable forage, has led to the introduction of another agricultural speciality in which Ontario excels, to wit, the breeding and rearing of bacon pigs, as contrasted with the heavy corn fed lard hog of our middle west.
We all know that just as soon as this pact goes through we will be confronted with the American fat hog, which will reduce the value of our pork to a large extent. There is no doubt that we raise a far superior quality of hog to that of the Americans. Fox 15 or 20 years we have been breeding a superior quality of hog, we kill him at the right time, and put him on the market at the proper time. Our consumers consume far more bacon and pork than they did a few years ago. For years we made our hogs very heavy for the shanty trade, and the Americans followed in the same direction. But we have ceased sending large fat hogs to market now. This market will all be upset if this pact goes through. Now, Sir, I wish to draw your attention to the amount of spring wheat that is grown in the United States compared with what we have in Canada, and the average grown per acre. The United Slates, in 1910, raised 231,390,000 bushels of spring wheat, average per acre 11 '7, value per bushel 98-8 cents; of winter wheat they raised 464,044,000, average per acre, 16-8 bushels, value per bushel, 89-1. In the United States the total amount grown of winter wheat was 695,443,000 bushels; in Canada, of spring wheat there were grown 133,379,600 bushels; average per acre, 15-53 bushels; value per bushel, 73-8 cents.

Of winter wheat there was grown 16,610,000 bushels; average per acre 23-49 bushels; value per bushel, 87 cents. The total wheat grown in Canada in 1910, 249,989,600 bushels. Now we can easily see that the Americans raised a very large amount of wheat, and still our people are anxious to get their market.
Now let us look at the exports of Canadian wheat for the last five years to Great Britain and to the United States:
Exports to Exports to Great Britain. United States.
P906	
$30,622,824	$298,1601907	
20,710,973	630,3491908	
42,911,810	102,8491909	
51,350,211	602,6611910	
58,538,772	1,883,637
Wheat imported into Canada from the United States:
1906.
1908,
1910
Busli.
578,622
1,167,402
5,138,455
9,431,346
12,070,811
Now with this large amount of wheat, I do not see why we should be looking to the United States for a market. Here is a table showing wheat exports from the United States:
Bushels. Value.
1907		, 76.569,423 $60,214,388
1908	
100,371,057	99,736,7671909	
66,923,244	68,094,447
Now why should we be looking for a market from which is exported so large a quantity of wheat? I do not see any advantage that we could have. 1 can see quite well the advantage the Americans would have in this trade. It is a well-known fact that our wheat is a great deal better, of a superior quality to that of the Americans. We often hear it said that unless their wheat is mixed with some of our Canadian wheat it will make nothing but dough. They want our wheat to mix with their own, and that is one reason why they are so anxious to have this reciprocity treaty concluded. Let me here read you a short paragraph from a speech of President Taft at Indianapolis, in favour of reciprocity, made on the 4th Q-f July last:
President Taft put tlie parting touch on his part in the celebration of the city's 'safe and sane' Fourth in a speech on Canadian reciprocity at the Marion Club banquet to-night. The President made his answer to the argument of other Republicans that reciprocity, as he has proposed it, is not good Republican doctrine, but Democratic doctrine.
Replying to the contention that reciprocity would be made wholly at the expense of the farmer and in the interest of the wage-earner of the large cities, Mr. Taft said that in his judgment ' the reciprocity agreement will not
greatly reduce the cost of living, if at all.'
' It "will,' the President continued, ' steady prices by enlarging the reserves of supplies for those things that are raised in both countries, and it will make more remote the possibility of cornering commodities and extorting excessive prices for tbem from the public.'
The complaint that the farmers would suffer by the agreement, the President said, when analysed would be found to be an argument that the admission of Canadian wheat free of duty would lower the price of wheat raised in the United States ten cents a bushel.
'The answer to this argument,' he said, ' is that this cannot he, for the reason that the price of wheat in the United States and Canada both is ultimately fixed by the price of wheat in the world, and that the world's prices are adjusted and made at Liverpool by the relation of the supply of the exported wheat to the demand for it by countries which do not raise enough to supply their people.	i 4i
Is not that a strong admission of President Taft that reciprocity will not raise the price of wheat. I read this from the To-1 ronto ' Globe,' July 24, 1911:
In the United States we have seen the same .sequence of events in our own time. A people formerly agricultural have become city dwellers. Their exports, which were mainly natural products a generation ago- wheat, corn, cattle, cotton and. similar articles -are now in ever-increasing degree manufactured goods. Under the protective system in its application to foodstuffs the duties on wheat, barley, oats, beans, cattle, fish and meats have been prohibitive since tbe passage of the McKinley tariff twenty years ago. The inevitable result has been the frequent cornering of .the wheat market, and the increase of the price of wheat and flour far above that prevailing in .the world's open marts. The meat trust has taken toll of the people without mercy, and the cost of living has been forced up so high that the town dwellers, and in some measure the farmers also, have revolted, and demanded the removal of the food taxes that were used to make great fortunes for the manipulators of the markets. On the one hand, the trusts were able to depress the farmers' selling prices, and on the other to compel the consumers to pay enhanced prices fer their food supplies. The secret of the meat trust's tremendous power lay in the fact that the farmer was. selling cattle at prices pre-arranged by a little group of men who controlled practically all the packing houses in the United States, while the consumer was buying meat at retail stores similarly controlled by the trust.
You can see, Mr. Chairman, from this that the trusts control nearly all the articles consumed in the United States, and there is no doubt that under reciprocity they will extend their influence to Canada without the least ^trouble in the world. It is a well known fact that the local butchers right! aross the line cannot buy cattle direct from the farmers as the Canadian butchers do, - beeausp the trusts crowd them out of the

market. A farmer that lives three or four hundred miles from Chicago will have to sell his meat to the trust, and the consumer has to pay the railway frieght on the live stock cargo, and the freight on the dead meat from Chicago to New York, thus paying a double rate. They pay on the live' cattle going into Chicago and on the dead meat going out, and in the meantime there are two or three middlemen to make money. There is no better managed market the world over than in the Dominion of Canada; nearly everything the producer raises goes direct to the consumer, and the producer gets more for what he produces than does the American producer, while the American consumer has* to pay more for his food, the reason being that the trusts intervene between the producer and the consumer in the United States. This proves that we should continue to do business in the future, as we have done in the past. President Taft at New York plainly indicated the intention of the United States to prevent by this agreement the possibiilty~-of a commercial union of Canada with the empire. He said, speaking to his own people:
I have said that this was a critical time in the solution of the question of reciprocity. It is critical because unless it is now decided favourably to reciprocity it is exceedingly probable that no such opportunity will ever again come to the United States. The forces which are at work in England and in Canada to separate her by a Chinese wall from the United States, and to make her part of an imperial commercial band reaching from England around the world to England again *by a system of preferential tariffs, will derive an impetus from the rejection of this treaty, and if we would have reciprocity, with all the advantages that I have described, and that I earnestly and sincerely believe will follow its adoption, we must take it now or give it up forever.
In the same speech Mr. Taft disclaimed any desire on the part of fhe United States for the annexation of Canada. He cannot speak for the United States on this subject -but assuming that he is right with regard to annexation, he certainly is right with regard to Canada's future with the empire if reciprocity takes effect, and again we ask: 'Why. take the risk?'
It is not much wonder they should talk this waj, because they know right away that if they talked commercial union or annexation it would kill the Bill in Canada, and so, they ask for reciprocity in order to help Canada. Did you ever know of the Americans doing anything before to help Canada? Never. I quote the following remarks of Senator Works:
Washington, July 19.-Senator Works, of California, insurgent Republican, urged the passage of the Canadian reciprocity Bill in a vigorous speech in the Senate to-day. He expressed the belief that reciprocity would not injure the farming interests of the nation.


Edward Kidd: except to cause some temporary disturbances in border states, which would soon adjust themselves.
Senator Works said he did not believe President Taft had used undue influence to secure the passage of the reciprocity Bill through congress, and that Mr. Taft was 'too good a lawyer to overstep well recognized bounds.'
Attempts to amend' the Bill were obvious attempts to defeat reciprocity as a whole, said Mr. Works, who defended the Bill as fair and just and of lasting benefit to the country.'
No wonder, Mr. Chairman, that all these politicians of the United States are in favour of reciprocity with the United States.
The New York 'Journal ' is very confident about the future:
Intelligent Americans will favour this treaty; intelligent Congressmen will vote for it. Eventually, beyond question the whole North American continent will be one nation.
The Oriental 'Review ' of New York regards the trick as already done:
This great republic has morally added to its union one more state without fighting for it, and without any future need of 'knocking it' into proper shape.
When the International boundary between Lake Superior and the Pacific was being delimited, the United States desired it to be at latitude 54.40, instead of at parallel 49, where it now is. Ardent spirits wished to settle the question by the sword. The difference between 49 and 54.40 is that 54.40 is north of the Saskatchewan, and that if the boundary had been fixed there no part of the Canadian west that is growing wheat for export would have belonged to Canada. The St. Paul ' Dispatch ' is reminiscent :
The arrangement is just as good for the United States, so far as it goes, as the policy of '54-40 or fight' would have been had it succeeded.
The unique position and possibilities of Canada in world politics are keenly realized by many business men and publicists in the United States. They see that Canada's political strength within the British empire will be increased as her trade with the empire increases.
Control of trade and trade routes is the most powerful incentive to political aggrandizement! They openly profess that the agreement is a blow to Great Britain and to the empire. Whatever is a blow to Great Britain and the empire is a blow to Canada.
Mr. Knox, the United States Secretary of State-chief member of President Taft's cabinet.-speaking at a reciprocity dinner in Chicago, which, to quote the official report of the Chicago Association of Commerce, was representative of ' cities as far

north as Duluth, and as far south as Nashville; as far east as Cleveland, and as far west as Omaha,' said:
In providing for free wheat we also take into account the facilities which the United States possesses for handling a part of the surplus Canadian crop, and thus preventing the demoralization of prices which results through the dumping of large quantities upon the European markets, where the world's price is fixed. The free admission of grain from Canada thus meets the present situation and provides against contingencies when the Canadian surplus becomes greater by placing the control in the hands of our own grain-growers.
It has been the object of Canadian statesmanship to build up Canadian ports, because control of maritime trade is of the essence of building and preserving a nation with seacoasts. Governor Foss, of Massachusetts, is wholeheartedly for the reciprocity agreement because it will draw all kinds of trade away .from Canadian ports.


Subsequently Mr.  A. J.@: Hill, chairman of the board of directors of the Great Northern railway, said:
It is not what we have gained by the reciprocity treaty that is most important, but what we have prevented. In the comment on the treaty when it was pending nearly every argument for it spoke of the good it would bring and it will bring good. My views in favour of reciprocity are so well known that I need not repeat them, now that the Senate has acted favourably. But the good that it will bring is only the smaller consideration of the question. What would have happened if we had not passed the treaty? That is the big question. There would have been a revival of a move for imperial federation, and if we had refused to trade with our good neighbour, our second best customer, and, for our manufacturers the best customer we have, we should have been 6orry for it in years to come, for the opportunity was before us to make a favourable agreement with Canada and it would not have been before us again for many years if we had refused it this time.
That is why I say that while the treaty will mean much good for both the United States and Canada-and I believe that it will stimulate trade on both sides and that it will not be long before everyone will see its benefit and see that the wise thing to do was to act favourably upon it-yet, after all, [DOT] that is the secondary part. There is not the slightest doubt that the situation was such that had the vote in the senate been against it, the report would have gone over the *world and would have stimulated activities elsewhere for obtaining trade that we are in the best geographical position to handle, and in England it would have meant the beginning of action for such imperial trade federation as would have shut us out.
Will it hurt Canada? Not a bit of it. It will he of great benefit to Canada. It ought to help Minneapolis and St. Paul, and Winnipeg, and all our country and Western Canada. There never was any more reason why there should he a line of custom houses along the northern Minnesota-Montana border or the border of eastern Canada, than there should
be between Minneapolis and Wisconsin or New York or Pennsylvania. What has made the commerce of the United States so great? That provision in our constitution that said that trade shall lie free and untrammelled between the states. Althodgli there were those who doubted the wisdom of free commerce between all the states when our country was in the formative period, it b&s been the greatest thing iti our history. It will be the same between the United States and Canada.
You see, Mr. Chairman, all these prominent men in the United States are in favour of this pact. But even so lately as a year ago had they any favours to offer Canada? No; they wanted the highest tax they could put on-25 cents a bushel on wheat, 6 cents a pound on butter, and so all along the line. They never were anxious to give Canada any favours but sought to do everything they could to hurt her trade. Mr. Chairman, it is growing late, and I will now move the adjournment of the debate.
Progress reported.


RECIPROCITY DOCUMENTS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. KING moved that the report of comparative prices in Canada and the United States, 1906-1911, be printed, and that rule 74 of the House be suspended in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. FISHER.: I beg to lay on the table complete information in r-eply to a question asked by Mr. Sharpe (Ontario), dated March 16th.
I would also lay on the table for the information of the House some comparative figures which have been prepared by the department in regard to agricultural products affected by the pact with the United States.
At the request of the right hon. the Prime Minister, I lay on the table the report of the committee of the Imperial Conference convened to discuss defence at the War Office, June 14-17, 1911.


George Taylor: Does the hon. minister (Mr. Fisher) propose to have this report printed forthwith.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the intention.


Mr. BRODEUR.: I beg leave to lay on the table the interim report of the Fishery Commission of Alberta and Saskatchewan.


George Taylor: Might I ask what business will be proceeded with on Monday?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Reciprocity will be interesting, I think.
On motion of Mr. Fisher, House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Parliament was dissolved on Saturday, July 29, 1911, by proclamation of His Excellency the Governor General.
IlsTDEX


THIRD SESSION-ELEVENTH PARLIAMENT, 1910-1911.
[Stage Direction]
Abbreviations of well known words and Parliamentary expressions are used in the following -.-1°, 2° 3°, First Reading, Second Reading, Third Reading ; 3 m. h., G m. h., G w. h., Three Months' Hoist, Six Months' Hoist, Six Weeks' Hoist ;*, without remarks or debate; Accts., Accounts; Adjn., Adjourn- Adjd., Adjourned; Amt., Amendment; Amts., Amendments; Ainalg., Amalgamation; Ans., Answer; Ass.; Assurance; B., Bill; B.C., British Columbia; Can., Canada or Canadian; C.P.R., Canadian Pacific Railway ; Com., Committee ; Co., Company ; Cone., Concur, Concurred, Concurrence ; Consd., Consider, Consdn., Consideration ; Cor., Correspondence; Deb., Debate; Dept., Department; Depts., Departments Div., Division ; Dom., Dominion; Govt., Government; His Ex., His Excellency the Governor General; Hse., House ; H. of C., House of Commons ; Incorp., Incorporation ; Ins., Insurance ; I.C.R., Intercolonial Railway; Man., Manitoba; Mess., Message; M., Motion; m., moved; Neg., Negatived; N.B., New Brunswick; N.W.T., Northwest Territories; N.S., Nova Scotia; O.C., Order in Council; Ont., Ontario ; P.E.I., Prince Edward Island ; P.O., Post Office; Par., Paragraph; Prop., Proposed ; Q., Quebec ; Ques., Question ; Recoin., Recommit; Ref., Refer, Referred, Reference; Rep., Report, Reported ; Reps., Reports; Res., Resolution ; Ret., Return ; Ry., Railway; Rys., Railways; Sel., Select; Sen., Senate ; Sp., Special; Stmnt., Statement; Sup., Supply; Suppl., Supplement, Supplementary; Wthdn., Withdrawn ; Wthdrl., Withdrawal ; Y.N., Yeas and Nays; Names initalics and parentheses are those of the mover.
ALLEN, Mr. H. E., Sta fford.
Fenian Raid Veterans, Claims re Compensation, on M. (Mr. Middlebro) 9619 (v).
Reciprocity - with U.S., in Com. on Res., 7661 (iv).
AMES, Mr. H. B., Montreal, St. Antoine.
Alcoholism Internationa 1 Congress, Delegates to (Ques.) 5632 (iii).
Aliens Naturalization, Legislation re (Ques., 2666 (ii).
Australian and Can. Reciprocal Negotiations since 1900 (M. for stmt.*) 1501 (i).
[Stage Direction]
 Inquiry for Ret., 2140 (ii).
Charing Cross Bank, and Atlantic Quebec and Western Ry. Co. (M. for cor with Govt) 1726 (i).
Chemin Gouin, Postmastership, Name ot, Salary, &c. (Ques.) 7038 (iv).
-[DOT]

 Postmaster A. C. Miquelon, Superannuation, &c. (Ques.) 7210 (iv).
Colonial Conference, 1911, Canada's Proposals,. &c. (Ques.) 1280 (i).
Customs Tariff with Foreign Countries, Ai rangements by Govt. (M. for ret.*) 981 (i)
G.T.P. Lake Superior Division, Construction Limit, Penalty re (Ques.) 1492 (i).
See 'N. T. Ry.'
Half Breed Scrip, Cor. with Rt. Rev. George Holmes (M. for copy*) 1912 (i).
Harbours and Rivers Expenditures by Pub-blic Works (M. for ret.*) 1339 (i).
N. T. Ry., Changes in Original Specifica tions, Ac. (M. for ret.*) 1500 (i).
A
AMES, Mr. H. B.-Con.
N. T. Ry., Change in Structures to the amount of $10,000 (M. for ret.*) 1500 (i).
[Stage Direction]
Commission, List of Members of Engineering Staff who have resigned, &c. (M. for ret.*) 1500 (i).
[Stage Direction]
Construction Work, Change in Concrete used, &c. (M. for ret.*) 1499 (i).
[Stage Direction]
Contractors, Amounts paid on Force
Account, &c. (M. for ret.*) 1500 (i).
[Stage Direction]
Contracts, Estimated Quantities re
(Ques.l 1491 (i).
[Stage Direction]
Moncton and Winnipeg Contracts,
Original Estimates, &c. (M. for ret.*) 1500
(i).
[Stage Direction]
Shops, Plans and Specifications for
Machinery (Ques.) 1569 (i).
[Stage Direction]
Shops, Specification re Emplymt. of
And Mr.   J@: Press (Ques.) 2157 (ii).

 Total Expenditure to 31st Dec., 1910,
Estimated Cost of Completion of Winnipeg and Moncton Section (Ques.) 1497 (i).
*

 (M. for ret.*) 1727 (i).

Train Hauled Filling, Payments re
(M. for ret.*) 1500 (i).
North Shore Taxpayers and Voting at Federal Elections (Ques.) 1082 (i).
Post Office Buildings, Total Value, Expenditure, Subsidies re Mails, &c. (M. for ret.*) 1501 (i).
Prefeiential Tariff, Concessions granted to G. B. (M. for ret.*) 1501 (i).