[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 153) to incorporate the Saskatchewan Power Company.-Mr. Mc-Craney.
Bill (No. 154) respecting the Board of the Presbyterian College, Halifax.-Mr. Law.
Bill (No. 155) respecting the Pontiac Central Railway Company.-Mr. Brown.
Bill (No. 156) respecting the Northern Bank and Crown Bank of Canada.-Mr. Guthrie.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I rise to a question of privilege. I am informed by a telegram from British Columbia that the Victoria ' Times ' has reported me as having opposed in a recent debate in this House legislation for the protection of white labour in British Columbia against Asiatic labour. I desire to say that that statement is absolutely and utterly untrue.



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance in the absence of the Prime Minister whether or not there is a departmental investigation proceeding in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and whether that investigation is being carried on by the examination of witnesses under oath. The question was put the right lion, the First Minister yesterday who replied that he was unable to say. I venture to suggest that this matter is one on which the government should have some information and of which information the House should be possessed.


Mr. FIELDING.: My right hon. colleague the First Minister left the House a moment ago to attend His Excellency in the Senate Chamber. In his absence I could not make any definite answer but my hon. friend will have his answer later.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to bring the matter to the attention of the First Minister ?


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly.



THE ROYAL ASSENT.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the secretary of His Excellency the Governor General the following communication:-	[DOT]
Ottawa, April 10, 1908.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Administrator, will proceed to the Senate Chamber this afternoon at 3.15 o'clock, for the purpose of assenting to such Bills as have passed the Senate and the House of Commons.
I have the honour to he, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. HANBURY WILLIAMS, Colonel,
Governor General's Secretary.
The Hon.
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
A message was received from His Excellency the Administrator by the gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:-
Mr. Speaker,-His Excellency the Administrator desires the immediate attendance of

your honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly Mr. Speaker, with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the'House that his honour the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills :-
An Act respecting the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the London and Lancashire Guarantee and Accident Company of Canada.
An Act to amend the Inland Revenue Act.
An Act to amend the Immigration Act.
An Act to amend the Act relating to Ocean Steamship Subsidies.
An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act.



SUPPLY-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go in Committee of Supply.
['It is simply to grant an extension of time for the construction of the branch lines.']
Mr. H. S. CLEMENTS (West Kent).: the farmers in a position where they can make only 3 per cent upon their investment? I am aware that the western farmers do not favour protection upon manufactured goods. But I venture to make this statement, that if the western farmer was given the Canadian market for his products, possibly he would not be so averse to protection upon the manufactured goods which he has to buy. But he has a right to protest against more protection upon the goods, upon the implements which he is compelled to buy, at the same time that he has to sell his farm products at a much less price than he could get for them if he had the home market to himself. Now X have heard the statement, I think in one of the by-elections, that this government was a farmer's government. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that is about the greatest joke that has ever been sprung in this country. Take for instance the French treaty. X would be one of the first to support our French compatriots in securing a treaty with France if I was sure we would be getting some benefit in return for the privileges which we give to France. But to my mind this French treaty is a one-sided treaty, beyond any doubt. Take agricultural products, they are practically prohibited in the French market, while at the same time we have to pay a large subsidy to steamship lines, and lose about $600,000 revenue yearly. I cannot see for my part how we are going to get any advantage from this treaty.
There is another grievance that we in Ontario complain of, particularly the manufacturers, and that is that we have to pay so heavy a duty upon our coal. Our manufacturing concerns, especially in the province of Ontario, where no coal fields have been opened up, are obliged to compete with manufacturers in districts where coal is plentiful. I should like to see, in the interest of the manufacturing industries of Ontario at least, coal placed on the free list, so as to enable these manufacturers to produce cheaper than they can at the present time. Such a change would not only be in the interest of the manufacturers themselves, but it would mean that the consumer, the farmer, the labourer and the mechanic would get the articles which he required at a lower rate. Take the case of gas companies, for instance ; the gas companies of this Dominion import yearly 170,000 tons of coal annually, upon which they have to pav a duty of 53 cents per ton. In the interest ot the gas companies, to say nothing of the farmers and the manufacturing concerns, it would be an advantage if we had free coal, because it will enable them to supply the consumer with a cheaper article.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) is held up to us as being a farmer himself and as having a personal knowledge Mr. CLEMENTS.
of the needs and interests of the farmers. I have nothing personal to say against the Minister of Agriculture only I think that he is deserving of censure because I do not think-that, as the minister representing the great body of agriculturists in Canada, he has not held out for their interests as he should have. I think the ministers in charge of other departments have rather outwitted him in that they have been able to get more money voted to be expended in their departments than the Minister of Agriculture has been able to secure to be expended in the interests of the farmers. Last year $5,500,000 were spent on the public works of the Dominion, whereas upon the great .agricultural class, which represents the most important interest in this Dominion, $500,000 was all that was spent. If the Minister of Agriculture would take into consideration the speech that wTas delivered by my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder) the other night, it would be well for the farming community, because, if he followed the advice of my hon. friend from Dundas, he would do justice to the farmers. It will be remembered that the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) made the retort, during the course of my hon. friend's speech, that there was a difference between farmers, that one was a farmer and the other was an agriculturist. I would apply the term * agriculturist ' to the Minister of Agriculture, and if there is any one individual in this Dominion who has * done ' the farmers properly I believe it is the Minister of Agriculture who has so completely failed to look after their interests. The hon. member for South Wellington was in no sense justified in applying that term to my hon. friend from Dundas, because, as everyone in this House knows, my hon. friend from Dundas is an actual farmer. There is a large piping concern in the city of Guelph and I understand that the member for South Wellington has an interest in it. In this respect he has been playing the part of
*	agriculturalist ' in so far as he has been
*	doing ' the farmers of this Dominion. Lap-welded piping is largely used throughout the Dominion, especially by the farmers, and there is no lapwelded piping made in this country. Two years ago I gave expression to the belief that under these conditions lap-welded piping should come into the Canadian market free of duty so that it could be supplied to the farmers at the lowest cost. When any article is not manufactured in Canada, I care not what it is, it should come in practically duty free so that it can be given to the consumer at the very lowest cost. When any article is not manufactured in Canada, I care not what it is it should come in practically duty free, so that it can be given to the consumer at the very lowest price. When any set of manufacturers come to the Canadian government and show them that they are prepared to invest enough capital to manufacture an article in suffici-

ent quantity to supply the Canadian demand, I should always be Canadian enough to favour giving them a proper amount of protection to enable them to make a success of the industry. In the large piping concern to which I have already referred, they make nothing but butt-welded pipe, which is not suitable to the requirements of farmers and others and which will not stand the test as well as lapwelded pipe. Under these circumstances, I claim that instead of raising the duty from 17 per cent to 35 per cent, it should have been allowed to come in free until some of our manufacturers give evidence that they want to go into the manufacture of that article, and show the government that they are prepared to make it in sufficient quantity to supply the Canadian market. If the Minister of Agriculture wants to properly represent the great agricultural class, instead of adopting legislation which in many cases has been a great detriment to the farmers, he should look after their interests with respect to the questions with which they are especially concerned and see that they receive that consideration from the government to which they are entitled. Upon two occasions in this House I offered the suggestion that there should be a rigid inspection of wire fencing. Our farmers in the west, in Ontario, in Quebec, and especially in the older provinces, purchase yearly hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of wire fencing. While I believe that all the wire fencing, as far as the wire itself is concerned, is about of the same quality, I can show you in the district from which I come fencing which was purchased by farmers twenty years ago which is good fencing to-day and which has proved a good investment to the farmers who bought that fencing. I can show you hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fencing that was bought two or three years ago which is practically useless to-day from rust, and one of the reasons for this condition is that it has not been subjected to that rigid government inspection which should be insisted upon by the Minister of Agriculture in order to protect the farmer and which has been undertaken in other instances.
The farmers are in this position simply because the manufacturers are not using the proper galvanizing for the fencing. It is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to see that a proper inspection is made so that every rod of fencing should be stamped and the farmers in buying it would know that they were purchasing a proper article. The minister should afford such protection as this to the farmers instead of pretending to protect them as he has done, for instance, in the pork regulations. If these pork regulations had been carried out to the letter in the section from which I come, not one farmer in ten now raising pork would be raising it. When the regulations were "introduced, the pork manufacturers took advantage of them to beat down the farmers and then we have a protection against American pork of only 2 cents a pound, so that every farmer in Canada to-day, especially in the pork raising sections, has been compelled to sell his pork at a price from $1 to $1.50 a hundred less than he can possibly raise it for. There is not a farmer in Ontario to-day who, if put upon his oath, could say that he has sold 100 pounds of pork this year at a profit. I know whereof I speak, I know something of the raising of pork, I have been careful in feeding but this year had I sold the grain which I fed to swine and given the hogs away, I would have been $500 better off than I am. As I have said, the farmers are placed in this position first by the pork regulations, and second by the insufficient protection against the inroads of American pork upon this market. It should be absolutely prohibited instead of being permitted to usurp the Canadian market.
i nave protested against the policy of the government in regard to cold storage. In my section the climatic conditions are such that fruit ripens practically two weeks before it does in any other part of the Dominion, and in such a section the government could well afford to establish several large cold storage plants to demonstrate what it is possible to do by means of a proper cold storage system. Such an example would force others to go into it and that would be accomplishing something for the farmers. I believe that such a government cold storage plant could be run at a profit to the government as well as to the very great advantage of the farmers of that section of the country. Last year parliament voted $1,000,000 to assist in the establishing of cold storage throughout Canada. Thirty per cent of the cost of the plants was to be given as government aid. * n,ly sectioii no advantage has been taken ot that provision to any extent. It shows that the business men do not consider it a fair business proposition ; they do not care to invest 70 per cent of the cost and have the government control their establishment. As I have said, if the government bore the whole expense they could well afford to build several large cold storage establishments in sections of the country where they are most needed. They would be an advantage to the farmers, to the canners and to manufacturers generally. Mr. Guthrie in replying to the hon. member for Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) who had compared certain Russian markets with the Canadian markets, spoke in strong condemnation of the Russians. He is one of those who support a government who pay $5 and $10 apiece for every Doukhobor entering this country as an immigrant from Russia. I have strongly protested against that class of immigration coming into Canada and against the bonusing of any immiJ grants. With our great natural resources,


James S.: Waugh, of Chatham, has received to date $1,256, has an unpaid account of $26, and has been asked for a refund of $558 paid to him as commission on immigrants claimed bv him to have been placed at farm work or domestic service, hut whom the department has reason to believe did not engage at those occupations with the parties. whose names were given as their employers.
That is a sample of what is going on throughout this country. I want to be fair enough to say this, that while I have a return giving the total number of Immigrant agents appointed in Ontario, a great many
have been honest enough in their dealings with the government and the public where they live. I purpose to place this return upon ' Hansard.' I may say that when I asked for this return, the Immigration Department sent a circular letter to every farmer with which this agent claimed he had placed immigrants, asking if these immigrants gave satisfaction. Here is the circular letter which was seut out :
It has been reported to me that an immigrant who arrived in Canada some time ago, engaged with yon as a farm labourer. I would be pleased if you would let me know if such is the case, stating if he is still with you, what kind of satisfaction he is giving, and what wa?es he is receiving. I desire this information in order to form a fair opinion as to the satisfaction immigrants are giving to Ontario farmers. Please reply on space underneath and use inclosed envelope, upon whch no postage is required, in mailing your answer to me.
Your obedient servant,



[Stage Direction]
Superintendent of Immigration.
While a great many replies came back to the department, there are many farmers who did not reply. Possibly I should have known better myself but I never supposed, nor did any of the farmers and residents of the county of Kent, that the bonus of $2 was allowed not only on heads of families, but on every man, woman and child that came into that riding during the last season. Here Is the return : Here is the list :
Family Name.	Family.	Placed with	Address.	Commission.Joseph Ivison	Chatham	S cts. 2 00 6 00 6 00 4 00 2 00 2 00 2 00 6 00 2 00 6 00 10 00 8 00 8 00 6 00 4 00 4 00 2 00 2 00 2 00 2 00 2 00 2 00 4 00 2 00 2 00 2 00 6 00 6 00.Geo. Dugard	Sydney Marbrhem	
Joseph J. Pope	Walter Seth bridge	
A. J. Fuller					
Edwin Hammond					
Frank England					
E. Drake	 Arthur Dungate		Wife and child		M. M. Drachs		u 		
J. Heard					
E. R. Seach					
Arthur Hawkins		Wife and 2 children ...			
William Sault					
		Robt. Millinn		 The Defiance Iron Works		
Thomas Hills		Wife				
Frank Walwark	Colchester	
Dungale	
Chatham	
Ouvray	
Chatham	
...	James Barnett	-	A. V. Webb	H. Rupel	
Fred. Green	 Edward Merry		Wife..	D. McPherson		it 	 Harwich	 Chatham		
Lewis Bastin					
Austin Edwards					
Richard Paget				Chatham.,	 Allan vi lie	 ^Chatham		
W. J. Jackson					
F. W. Norwood			F. Bradey			
[Stage Direction]
Name.	Family.	Placed with	Address.	Commission.
				$ cts.
Wife	W. Brook bank	Eberts.	4 00Geo. Figden	A. F. Handy	Chatham 	2 00H F Chambers	T. W. Pardryn	Dungal	2 002 00Tbos. Waddie	2 00J. Ferry	Chatham	2 002 002 002 00Port Alma	6 002 00Chatham	2 000 006 00Darrell	2 00H. T. Salter	fi 002 00Cedar Springs	2 00C. Terry	Chatham	2 00W. G. Cain.	6 00M. Waddie	Doyle	2 00
Mrs.   .T.@: Gates		Wife and 3 children...	Thos. Brady		Buxton			 .	10 00
				2 00
	Child 				4 00
			Thamesville		2 00
				8 00
Geo. Holledge			R. T. Budd			2 00
				2 00
				2 00
			Chatham		2 00
			Selton... 		2 00
			Thamesville		2 00
			Chatham		2 00
			Kent Centre.. ..	8 00
				6 00
				8 00
				2 00
				6 00
			Pinehurst			2 00
			Chatham.-		
	Wife				4 00
W. F. Stubbesfield.. .				6 00
W. G. Wilson...				6 00
Kingold	
.	6 00J. Pendleton	h it 	R. Millin	Chatham	6 00,,	6 00Cedar Springs ....	2 002 00Wife	4 00H. W. Hibbard....	4 006 00Charing Cross	' 8 006 002 002 00A.-F. Wilks	2 00Wife...	4 008 00Sidney Russell	Wife and child	A. Williams	Williams	6 008 00R. Kings	6 002 002 00Port Alma	2 00Chatham	2 002 00Wallaceburg	2 002 00Chatham	2 00Wife ..	R Huff 	4 002 00F. Rayner	Peter McGeachey	2 00


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Family Name.	Family.	Placed with	Address.	Commission.E. Blaize	Wife-...	Buxton	$ cts. 4 00Wife and 2 children... Wife and 4 children..	J. C. Pullen	8 0012 00Fletcher 	2 00Hare Line	2 00Wm Ward	Wife and 2 children...	J. C. Pullen	Chatham	8 008 002 002 00


Thos.   A.@: Morklin		Wife and 6 children.. Wife and 4 children.			16 00
				12 00
				2 00
				2 00
J. H. C. Cook				2 00
James Gray. 					2 00
				2 00
				2 00
				6 00
G. W Bland..	Wife and 2 children...		,,	8 00
				
	Wife and 5 children...			14 00
				2 00
				2 00
	Wife	 ;				2 00
		W. McCorkel			4 00
	Wife and 6 children...			16 00
				2 00
H. W. Warring				Omry. 		2 00
		J. McKorkel			10 00
W. G. Barnes.				12 00
Fredk. Cheese	 Edward Daugherty		Wife and 5 children... Wife and 4 children..	R. Grey 	 Mrs. English		it 		14 00 12 00 8 CO
				16 00
				14 00
	Wife and 4 children...	J. Hedley			12 00
				2 00
				14 00
		T. Budd 			12 00
				16 00
	Wife and 3 children...			10 00
		E. H. Toll ..		2 00
	Wife 				4 00
				4 00
Wife	..	4 00H. J. Trevillyan	Wife and 1 child	James Coy	;; 	6 00 6 00Wm. Connoly	Wife and 5 children...	14 00R. S. Marshall 	2 00Wife and 4 children. ,.	12 00W. F.'Tropp	12 00


Richard R.: Spendiff.... Charles H. Baker.. . .				2 00
		W. F Tropp			6 00
		A. Wolf			? 00
E. W. Colt			W. T. Tropp			8 00
				10 00


Charles W.: Ward...				14 00
			Wallaceburg ....	4 00
		W. T. Tropp			6 00
	Wife				4 00
Wife	Fargo	
Charing Cross ....	4 00Hugh Cannington	A. Wolf 	2 00 2 002 00[DOT] 2 00Chatham	2 00Langstaff Brothers ....	Wallaceburg...	6 00S. White	Charing Cross	
Kent Centre	2 00Alfred Powell	Wife and 3 children. .	George Popey	10 0016 00Wife and 3 children..	10 00Wm. Chandler	
Richard Dennis	10 00Wife and 5 children..	G. Fulder	Chatham	14 00
lissioi
ots.
12 00
8 00
14 00
14 00


L2 00 10 00 L0 00 10 00 L2 00
[Stage Direction]
[3 00
2 00
2 00
4 00
2 00
2 00
4 00
2 00
0 00
2 00
4 OO
2 00
6 00
6 00
6 00
6 00
8 00
8 00
12 00
4 00

[Stage Direction]
Family.
Wife and 4 children... Wife and 2 children... Wile and 5 children...
Wife and 4 children .. Wife and 3 children...
Placed with
Address.
W. T. Prangly	 Dresden...
Wm. McKenzie	Chatham...
Wm. McKenzie		..
F.	Blondin	*	..JohnYoumaus	
n	..G.	Fnlder	
„	..G. Fulder	
n	..J. Stevens	..
Wife and 4 children...
Wife
Son	
Wife and child
Wife ....: !	'. Wife and child	
n
Wife and 2 children...
N. J. McGeachey.
K. Urquhart....
James Bellaney...


Mrs.   W.@: Thos. Brady.. . . H. A. Clark ... . J. R. Longmore..
D. A. Wilson...
Geo. Ball	
J. Purvis	
Andrew Grew... .
J. Rhode	
C. McKnight ....
Geo. Brown	
J. C. Steen....
J. Runyan	
A. Smyth	
J. McKenzie....
J. McKenzie....
Oungah	
Chatham	
Charing Cross....
Buxton	
Chatham	
Harwick


Puce P.: 0	
Chatham	
Baldoon	
Chatham	
Baldoon		.
Chatham	
Kut Centre... . Chatham	
it		
Wife and 4 children.. Wife and 6 children..
M	u .
Wife and 1 child	
Wife and 4 children..
Wife and 1 child ...


Jas.   C@: F.	Shaw	
D. Jordan	
J. D. McKay	
W. J. Holmes....
J. McCarkel	
M.	Campbell....
Geo. Frielell...
Wm. Blight	
Henry Gillette.... J. McCarkel	
J. Loaw	
J. Jewell	
Wm. West	
N.	A. McGleachey Arthur Johnston.. Geo. Falden	
J. McKay	
D. Mason	
J. English	
Neil McGerchy . ..
J. Tipping	
W. R. Mitchell ... [DOT]T. Fallon	
G.	Fielder	
Geo. Ball	
S.	Huxley	
W. Blight ... J. McPherson
ii
Warren by. Chatham..
North wood	
Charing Cross....
Chatham	
Armagah	
Chatham	
Northwood	
Tilbury	
Chatham	
Darrell	
Chatham	
Darrel	
Croton	
Chatham.,	
ii ....


Merlin ...: Chatham.. ..
ii	....
Kent Centre. Dover Centre Chatham	
	J. Irwin	
	F. L. Horton
	W. Blight ...
Wife
Wife and 1 child
Wm. West	
N. Horton	
J. Fallon	
G. Fielder	
D. Jordan	
S. West	
Thos. Asher	
J. McCorkel	
C.	L. Johnson.. . Hugh Montgomery
D.	Jordan	
J, Asher	
D. Mason	
Jas. McCorkel ....
Northwood . Kent Centre Chatham... .
Oungah


Kent Centre Chatham ...: Baldoon	
Chatham	
Louisille	
Oungah	
Chatham	
Dover Centre....
Baldoon


Charing Cross ...: 
Mrs.   .T.@: Chambers


Mrs.   W.@: Wattes	
D. Pender	
M. French or Freeman ..
R. Coatsworth	
F. Shaw	
J. Asher	
.7. N. McCoy	
Geo. Ramsdall	
J. R. Shanks	
Lay Ritchie	
Geo. Bailey	
II. McGregor	
M. McGregor	
H. Beattie	
W. Lancaster	
Jas. Peel	
H. Parrott	
J. Waugh	
H. Hildreth	
Address.
Chatham	
Dresden	
Chatham	
Pepperville...
Dover S	
Wallaceburg.. Cedar Springs Port Alma ... Charing Cross Wallaceburg . Chatham	
Port Alma....
Chatham	
Dresden	
Chatham	
Essex	
Commission.
8 cts.
00 00 00 00 00 00
2 2 2 2 2 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 2 00 2 00 2 00 2 00 2 00 10 00 4 00
I want to apologize for taking up so much of the time of the House, but as certain insinuations have been made in this House and as this agent and the department are shown up in connection with this matter, I propose reading some of the letters which were received by the Superintendent of Immigration from farmers in the neighbourhood of Chatham. In the tirst place, I have a letter written by Robert Gray with reference of Arthur Dungate, an immigrant who was placed with Mr. Gray. Mr. Gray says :
Fairly good man, still with us.
Underneath there is stamped upon the letter 1 claim deducted.' My reason for reading this return is that this agent placed farm labourers with manufacturers and other concerns and was therefore not entitled to the bonuses that he received. There is another letter from Mr. James Cornhill as follows :
We have seven Englishmen working for us in our brickyards here, but no one by the name of G. Head. You inquire about some of the men coming -out recently. I find them to he good workers and very sober and industrious fellows.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) JAMES CORNHILL, Frick manufacturer.
Claim deducted.
The next has reference to E. R. Leach, wife and three children.
I airly good man while with us; not here now.
(Sgd.) ROBERT GRAY.
Claim deducted.
Mr. Gray is a carriage manufacturer in the city of Chatham. There is a leter from L. English, Chatham, as follows :
Dear Sir,-We hare received several notices from you in reference to immigrants engaged with us. We only had one man, a Mr. Do-eherty, wife and four children. We engaged him 2084
at 75 cents per day, free house, wood and milk. They just stayed four days, as he said he did not care to be so far from the city, which was only two miles. I don't know why our names was sent to you. We certainly was disgusted with the one we did have. Beer seems to he the greatest trouble with these people. Pardon for not answering your other correspondence.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) LESLIE ENGLISH,
Claim deducted.
The next has reference to William Sault, wife and two children :
No good; worked a week.
(Sgd.) ROBERT GRAY.
Claim deducted. [DOT]
The next is from Robert Millinn another carriage manufacturer in the city of Chatham. It has reference to Joseph Gumbrell, wife and one child. This claim was also deducted.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Why were the claims deducted?	-


Herbert Sylvester Clements: When I asked for this return the department undertook to trace up the operations of this agent and when they found that, instead of placing these people with farmers, he had placed them with manufacturers the claim for compensation was deducted.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: The money has never been returned?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: No, the money has never been returned.


Mr. FOWLER.: What do you mean by ' claim deducted '?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: The department have deducted these claims, but they have not received the money back from the agent. He still holds the money. He was paid for them all.


George William Fowler: And paid for them as farm labourers ?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Yes, paid for them as farm labourers. The next -letter Is from Eliakirn Newcombe and has reference to Edward Merry and wife. The letter is as follows :
Dear Sir,-I have never heard tell of such a man as you speak of. I had one of my neighbour's boys working for me last year.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) ELIAKIM NEWCOMBE.
Claim deducted.
There is another from Thomas Anderton referring to Richard J. Paget:
Sir,-I did engage Richard J. Paget who worked for me at $12 per month for the first month and $20 for the following month if he gave me satisfaction. This man had his supper with me on Saturday night and three meals on Sunday and one more meal on Monday morning and I have never seen or heard of Mr. Paget since then, but I think he went back to Chatham. I told him as he was going if every one used him as well in Canada as I did he would be lucky. He never did anything for me not even feed a chicken.
Yours truly,


THOMAS ANDERTON.
[Stage Direction]
Claim deducted.
He is a farmer. Here is a letter from B. Jordan regarding Joseph Cook. He says:
Jos. Cook was a good fair man, worked live months, $10 a week. He left to work in beet fields.
Geo. Degard was a very good man, worked about three months.
Jos.   J.@: Pope worked about four months. He left to work for Blight & Fielder.
F. Mumford was a very good man, worked five months, $10 a week. He left to go to work in Wallaceburg Sugar Factory.
These are all very good men.
Victor Story I did not know. He didn't work for me.
Victor Storey is reported by the agent to be with this man Jordan.
There is a letter from J. Storm regarding Alexander Martin, wife and child, on whom there would be a bonus of $6. It reads :
I wrote for a man and I didn't get one. If you sent a man and his wife, he didn't come to me. He has dropped off at some other place.
J. Jinks supposed to be a farmer, writes regarding T. Salter wife and child, on whom there would be bonuses of $0 :
Please excuse me for not answering your first notice on the grounds that I never had an immigrant and took no notice of your notice. I sent in an application last spring, also to the local agent in Chatham, J. S. Waugh. Both were for single men. So information is a little short here.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) JOHN JINKS.
There is one here from C. Terry as follows :


Herbert Sylvester Clements: W. D. Scott, Esq.
Received this letter. As I am not a farmer, nor do I know of a C. Terry, either a farmer, or any other occupation, nor of a Mr. Butler.
Yours,
(Sgd.) CHARLES TERRY,
Cab driver.
Mr. Terry is a cab driver in Chatham, and the only Terry of that name living there. He was reported to have an immigrant and the agent received two dollars on his name.
There is a letter here from David Martin, brick manufacturer, in Thamesville, who said :
This man only worked about four weeks. He would rather drink than work.
There is a letter with regard to A. H. Dunkin, which reads :
I never knew of a man of above name. You must have been mistaken with regard to him.


J. LONGMORE.
[Stage Direction]
He is the only farmer of the name in that district.
There is q letter from R. B. Gardiner, Chatham, with reference to Jonathan Ward, which reads :
In reply to yours of the 9th instant, I did not engage the man Jonathan Ward, nor have not seen him.
James Smytlie, of Kent Centre, writes :
You have been misinformed about my having an immigrant employed. I have none. Geo. Smyth and Joseph Smyth, Kent Centre, have married men employed. They can no doubt give you the information you desire.
It. Tipping writes with reference to J. J. Early and wife as follows :
In answer to the above, he engaged with me as a plasterer, but left this town for Windsor, August 12, where he is still following that occupation, the wages being 40 cents per hour. Trusting this will be a satisfactory answer.
W. A. McGeachy writes with regard to Fred Steers, wife and child :
I am sorry to say that the above never made their appearance, consequently cannot report.
George Hitchcock writes with regard to E. Lusk as follows :
I received your letter in regard to E. Lusk. I did not receive him. I got one from the agent, Hon. Mr. Waugh. The man I got is givine good satisfaction, earning $12 per month.
John P.: Cormode writes respecting F. Wilks, as follows :
I have not employed any immigrants this season and don't know anything of the one you inquire about.


Ray H.: King writes with reference to William H. Hanley, wife and one child as follows :

Yours of the 28th instant at hand and note what you say about Mr. Hanley apd family.
I do not know anything about same as I never had an immigrant engaged in any way.
I am told that your Mr. Waugh, I think that is his name, your immigrant agent in Chatham, sent in a good many names of men who have not even asked for a man. I am told that he got $2 per head for every immigrant he got work for and therefore sent for them when there was not even work for the Canadians who were here at that time. Therefore these immigrants came to our city and found no work, no home, and not likely to be any for some time. If it was not for the churches and the city council many of these poor people would have starved or frozen to death. X think this man should be put behind the bars if this is so.
D. Jordin writes regarding Henry T. Smith, as follows :
We had J. Cook and one named Mumford. They were both very good men to work. We paid them $10 per week. They are not with us now, nor do we know where they are employed.
These are all we had; we do not know anything about the following names, they were never in our employ: Henry T. Smith, Chas. Lee, Victor Story, Samuel Heather.
W. B. Lancaster, of Port Alma, writes with respect to Harry Angier ;
Mr. Harry Angier has not engaged with me, neither do i know of such a man being in the neighbourhood. I have not had an immigrant engaged this summer.
N. A. McGeachy writes in reference to James Cardwallardes as follows :
In reply would say, he engaged the above person to work on our farm, but he failed to fulfil engagement, as he did not come for one week. In the meantime we engaged another man and did not need his services. We have not heard or seen anything of him since.
J. C. Pullen writes regarding G. H. Warner, wife and family :
There is no Mr. Warner working for me.
N. Driver writes regarding George Dud-ney, wife and four children as follows :
Yon have been wrongly informed. I have not any immigrant in my employment and don't want any. I never saw or heard of the family named above.
Arthur Johnston writes in regard to W. T. Day, wife and two children, as follows :
As Mr. Bond has never had Mr. Day as a labourer, but a Mr. Driver, he worked a month for him, then came to me, hut has had very bad luck as he took sick with typhoid fever and I am just bringing him home from the hospital to-day after four and a half weeks' illness, so it will he a time before he can resume work, and then I do not expect he will he with me, as houses are scarce and it is too far to come to his work. He is a good man to work as far as I have seen yet, that is only about five weeks. He has been receiving $18 per month from me. His wife and family have had to have help from the township during his illness.


Mr.   R.@: Huxley writes :
About the beginning of last July I brought four young men to Chatham. My neighbours took them, as Dr. Maofarland took Percy Westbrook; James Payne took young Shipley; Wm. Chappie took Geo. Swingler, and I kept Harry Gosling. The wages were $10 first month with a raise after. My men stopped with me six weeks. The others are all at the same places and all gave good satisfaction.
This is marked : ' claim deducted/


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to explain how the claim was deducted ? If they were paid, how could they be deducted?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: It is the claim they had against the agent. It is doubtful if they have ever received it.


George William Fowler: Is this agent still in Canada?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Yes, I presume he is in Chatham. F. Dalsen, of Chatham, writes :
I don't know Jas. Gray; he never worked for me.


FRED. A. DALSEN.
[Stage Direction]
This is marked : ' claim deducted.' Richard Steen, whom I know very well, writes :
There has been no immigrant placed with me for the past ten years.

[Stage Direction]
Marked :	* claim deducted.' J. Blondie
who owns a planing mills in the city of Chatham, writes in regard to T. J. Harding and wife ;
You must he mistaken in the name, as there is . no immigrant by such name working for me or any other Blondie I know of. There are, however, some unmarried immigrants in the neighbourhood who are giving good satisfaction, while others again are worthless. Hoping this will be of some use to you,
I am, yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
Also marked :	' claim deducted.' Robert
Gray, of Chatham, writes ;
Fred Cheese is not engaged here as a farm labourer, but is working in our paint department. His foreman stated that he is giving good satisfaction, and his rate of wages will he from $1.75 to $2 per day, working on a piece-work basis.
THE WM. GRAY & SONS, COMPANY,
Limited.
This is also marked : ' claim deducted.' David Martin, brick manufacturer, writes :
Mr. Buxton has worked for me since July the 18th, and is still working for three or four weeks yet in my brick and tile yard. He is a good steady man, just the kind, of men we want in this country. I am paying him $1.60 per day of ten hours.
Another from David Martin about the same man. Both of these marked : ' claim deducted.' J. Carnhill, another brick manufacturer, of the city of Chatham, writes :
[Stage Direction]
Clias. Newton has worked for us in our brick works, and he has proven very satisfactory, is sober and industrious. Up to now he has been drawing $1.50 per day.
Geo. Jordan another brick manufacturer, "writes regarding J. Fitzgerald and son :
We did not engage any immigrant whatever. Would like to know who gave you such information. I think they are a nuisance in the country. A great many are working for their board.
Here is one from Jas. Brady, of Buxton, regarding- John A. Playford and wife :
Having received your letter I write to tell you that I never had any immigrants, so I cannot inform vou as to the wages or anything about them.

[Stage Direction]
There is a case where $lo was paid as commission, and it is marked, ' claim deducted.' Here is one from Langstaff Bros., Wallaceburg :
Hr. Goodall is not with us; in fact, I never heard tell of the man; he never applied to us for a situation.
S.	S. White, Charing Cross, writes :
I must say I never engaged this man Jos. Plant, nor do I know any man around Charing Cross that did; it must he the wrong place. I do not know the man.
I know S. S. White, the only man of that name living in Charing Cross. Here is a letter from E. Blondie :
Re Arthur Steers. I might say he has been working for us for the last two months, employed as a bricklayer, and has given very fair satisfaction.
This is marked, 'claim deducted.' F. Blondie, of Chatham, writes regarding Alfred Perkins, wife and flve children :
You have been misinformed in the name. F. Blondie is not farming; he is a mason by trade. There is no Blondie engaging any farm hands around this part of the country, as I am personally acquainted with all the Blondies.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have given evidence enough from this return amply to show to this House what has been going on in the Immigration Department regarding immigration agents who do not act honestly in that capacity. I do not blame the agents so very much ; I blame the system under which the government have allowed these agents to act. I say they should not have been given a free hand, as this agent was, to pay out money which belonged to the people of this country. I want to censure the Immigration Department for having paid out money in the reckless manner shown by this return, and then been compelled to ask the agent to return $600 which does not belong to him. If he were a brother of mine, I would say that this agent ought to be prosecuted.
Samuel Hughes: Hasn't he been arrested yet ?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: 


Herbert Sylvester Clements: He is running at large so far as I know, and I suppose this will only be a step to his getting promotion, as a great many others of the same class have been promoted by this government in other departments. I am looking forward to this gentleman getting promotion rather than prosecution. I hope that the government will see that that money is returned, because it belongs to the people of this country, and does not belong to the government or to any agent of the government. But the government evidently do not prosecute for fraud. I suppose we might give hundreds of cases of agents who acted in the same manner as this agent has done, and who have been promoted. I do not expect that in this case the government will attempt to collect a dollar. I want to say that there are many worthy immigrants in that district. Many of those English immigrants are willing to work and to accept what they can get. and will, I believe, make good Canadian citizens so long as they get a fair show.
They were all dumped into that riding, they came there in such numbers that there was not enough work for them, and they had to be placed on the hands of the public. That is one of the greatest detriments to this Dominion, because it is only natural that such people would write home to their friends, and possibly many who would make excellent immigrants and citizens would be discouraged in coming out. That is why I say the whole system carried on by this government is wrong, and I hope the government will see fit to cancel this, bonus for the bringing of immigrants into this country. I think there is encouragement enough in the country itself to cause immigrants to flow in without this additional incentive, and I believe immigration will continue to come in without our paying out a million dollars a year in bonuses to agents for bringing it. I believe that we could even take the step which the American union has taken and get a revenue for our immigration instead of paying out a million dollars in bonuses. I have spoken in what I consider the interests of the agriculturists. I want now to look at the question from the manufacturing standpoint. It was a great mistake when this government, by their revision of the tariff, practically wiped out the woollen industry. They thus practically destroyed many millions of dollars which were invested in woollen mills. Look around this Dominion and you will only find a few woollen mills running to-day. That certainly is no credit to this government. In a few remarks I delivered in this House a year and a half ago. I pointed out that a vast amount of shoddy goods were allowed into our market under the low tariff and that these goods were a detriment to every mechanic and labourer who purchased them. Besides that importation was the cause of depriving of work thousands of mechanics

who were formerly employed in our woollen mills. That policy was thus detrimental, from every point of view, to our mechanics and labourers. In 1890, when we had a tariff sufficient to protect the industries of this country, we imported $11,000,000 worth of woollen goods on which we collected $3,157,000 in duties. But in 1904, under the low tariff, we imported $15,159,000 worth and only collected $3,953,000 revenue. In other words, inside of five years there was $5,000,000 of low class goods imported which took the place of goods manufactured by Canadian labour and we only got the same amount of revenue. And I will say this, that I believe no woollen goods were made anywhere equal in quality to the woollens manufactured in this country. It is not to the credit of this government that they undertook to wipe out that great industry which had done so much for the people, both from the manufacturing standpoint and from the standpoint of furnishing our consumers with a better quality of goods. I sincerely trust that the government will reconsider their policy in the interests of both our agriculturists and manufacturers and give us a home market for ouy agricultural products and at the same time a superior home made article for our consumers.


Mr.  W. S.@: LOGGIE (Northumberland,N.B.) I have listened with considerable pleasure to the hon. gentleman's remarks and congratulate him on the lengthy statement he has given the House. The burden of his complaint was that the farmers are not receiving enough protection for their pork products and that the woollen industry does not enjoy a sufficiently high tariff to be placed on a stable foundation. Then he went on to cite instances in which he claimed the government have not managed the immigration carefully and prudently and have paid out money which they should not have paid. But to my mind the very fact that the government have discovered that money has been paid out wrongfully and have endeavoured to get it refunded is evidence of the care the department is taking in the management of its immigration business, and I think it has been very well established that the immigration or the bonus-ing policy of the government is : Pay your money for value received ; when the goods are delivered, the money is paid ; until they are delivered no money is paid.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: The government would never have discovered that money was wrongfully paid if I had not made a protest. It was only when I protested that this government found that out.


Mr. LOGGIE.: I am glad the hon. gentleman has been such a useful member and that those in charge of the department were wide enough awake to take advantage of the information as soon as it was brought to their notice. That is all any business man can do. The hon. gentleman tells us
that a considerable quantity of pork is imported, and he has the audacity to claim that our farmers are suffering because a class of pork is imported which Canadians do not raise.
As a matter of fact, I know from personal experience, a large proportion of the pork that is imported into Canada from the United States is a class that is not produced in this country to any great extent. It is known in the trade as ' fat back ' or clear fat pork. As a matter of fact, the farmers and packers of Canada do not produce in any large quantity this class of pork and cannot supply the demand for it. Now, if this statement of mine regarding this class of pork is true, and if this pork is used largely in fishing camps and lumber camps, is it fair or reasonable that you should heavily tax the people who consume it with the expectation that some one is benefited by it who produces a lighter class of pork in Canada? We have an example of the same kind of policy in the United States. In portions of Maine there are blueberry barrens, and the people there are so given up to the idea of protection that, for the sake of these few blueberry barrens in the state of Maine, they put a duty of 70 per cent on the canned article. But does that stop the canned article, packed in Canada, from finding its way into the United States? It does not, it simply enhances the price to the consumer. If any hon. gentleman wants this verified, let him go to Messrs. H. N. Bate & Sons in this city, and ask the price of canned blueberries for the wholesale trade. He will find that they are sold at 75 cents a dozen. Then let him write to Messrs. Francis II. Leggatt & Company, of New York, and he will find that they sell the same goods at $1.15 or $1.20 a dozen. So, to protect these blueberry barrens in the state of Maine, the whole consuming public of the United States is paying this extra duty. Is it wise to increase the duty on barrelled pork as suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Clements) especially the class of pork referred to by me as being used by our fishermen and lumbermen.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Loggie) will permit me, I would like to ask a question. So far as the statement he makes regarding American pork is concerned. which pork he claims, the fishermen require, no doubt he refers to the heavy, fat salt pork.


William Stewart Loggie: Yes.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I can tell the hon. gentleman that in the section of the province of Ontario from which I come we produce any amount of that class of pork and we cannot get sale for It. The Minister of Agriculture accused the farmers in my district of raising too much of that class of pork, and we are compelled


William Stewart Loggie: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clements) does not know it all. I am interested in a corporation that uses a large quantity of that elass of pork, and I know that when we apply to the Park-Blackwell people or the William Davis people and houses of that class, they are not able to supply that class of pork. I note what the hon. gentleman says about the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Agriculture is right. That is not the class of pork that we are adapted to raise in this country. This class of hogs is raised mainly in Iowa and is fed largely on corn. The people there raise a heavier class of hogs than we do. It is unreasonable for the hon. gentleman to ask an increase of duty. The duty is already 2 cents per pound, and I suppose that if he had his way it would be 3J cents. Well, it would only mean that the fishermen and farmers who use that class of pork would have to pay that much more.


Mr. BLAIN.: What about the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Doggie) own friends, who made up a deputation that went to ask for an increase in the duty?


William Stewart Loggie: I am glad the hon. gentleman mentioned that. I congratulate the government that they did not entertain any such proposition.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clements) has referred to the woollen industry. To my mind, if an industry cannot survive at a reasonable protection in a country like this, it would be better for our people to bend their energies in some other direction. With a protection-or revenue, if you like to put it that way, because all revenue tariffs afford incidental protection and industry suited to our conditions should prosper. My hon. friend from West Kent (Mr. Clements) has the audacity to tell the people of this country forsooth, that because we are not paying a higher rate of duty than 30 per cent on woollens the woollen industry cannot survive. Well, I know something of the woollen industry, and I can tell the hon. gentleman that that is not at all my opinion of that industry. But I shall have something to say about that later on and do not wish to discuss it at this moment. I think that the hon. gentleman, in stating his case, has made out a very bad ease-certainly, I would expect better from him.
Now, as the motion before us is one on which we can chose our subjects of discussion, I would like to say a word with regard to the fiscal and financial policy of the government. I congratulate the country and the Finance Minister upon the wonderfully prosperous condition of our finances at the present time. We find that for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1907, we expended on capital account $11,327,791. And, while we were able to do all that, we reduced the net public debt by $3,375,117. Then, again, the fiscal year that ended on March 31 last shows the very satisfactory surplus of something Mr. CLEMENTS.
like $19,000,000-not counting, of course, the special expenditure for the Transcontinental Railway, on which, during that year, we spent no less than $17,750,000. But, though we put this large sum into the Transcontinental Railway we increased the public debt by only $12,000,000. So, were it not for the extraordinary expenditure on the transcontinental, we should have had a surplus over all expenditures of nearly $6,000,000. It seems to me that wiser or more statesmanlike words could not have been spoken than those of the Minister of Finance when he said that the present is a time for caution, but-a rider to that, for I think the wise man, under the circumstances would not close his ' caution '-it was a time for courage. The showing that the hon. gentleman has made has done much, perhaps more than any one thing to maintain the high financial standing that Canada enjoys to-day and has enjoyed for a number of years past.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with a few of the allegations made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). First of all, he alleged that the Liberal party were npt true to the pledges they made in 1893 at the Ottawa convention. I want to say that it was my privilege and pleasure to be present at that convention, and I know somewhat whereof I speak; and if there was one thing at that convention that impressed me more than another it was this, that in future the tariff was to be based on the revenue principle rather than the protective principle that is in most cases, perhaps not every case. I must admit that I am a little bit tinged with the idea that our friends the farmers do have a little protection to the extent of 2 cents' a pound on pork; but practically speaking, we removed from the tariff the principle of protection.


Mr. HENDERSON.: How far?


William Stewart Loggie: I would invite the hon. gentleman to turn to the Trade and Commerce report, page 14, and I think he will be able to follow the figures I am going to quote. He will find that the average customs duty on all imports for the decade from 1887 to 1896, the last ten years of the Conservative regime, was 19-64 per cent. Then he will find that for the following decade, from 1897 to 1906, the average rate of duty on all customs imports was 16-88. The decrease in the ten years was 2-76. During the last ten years I refer to we find that total customs imports was $1,932,262,271, which sum applied to the 2-76 shows a reduction in taxation of $53,330,438. It would be fair perhaps to deduct from this saving in taxation the amount of bounty paid during the ten years, which, according to the blue-books, amounted to $9,501,385. That sum deducted from the sum I have already mentioned, $53,330,438, makes the reduction, or the saving that my hon. friend wanted to know about, of the appreciable amount of

$43,829,053. And yet the hon. gentleman from North Toronto in addressing the House used these words:
So I say in actuality the duty for protection has not been diminished to any appreciable extent.
As a matter of fact, it is beyond dispute that we had an actual saving to the country in the ten years, in the way of duty, of money that remained in the pockets of the people, after deducting the amounts paid for bounties, a sum no less than $43,000,000. These figures are beyond dispute. The books are there, and X challenge any hon. gentleman to prove me in error. Now, Mr. Speaker, we would not have so nice a story to tell if the prediction of hon. gentlemen of the opposition came to pass, when they said that if the liberals got into power and reduced the rate of duty, our industries would be closed up, we would not have any home industries to speak of, because the reduction in duty would take place at the sacrifice of the industries. Sir, we have proved many times that that has not been the case. We can prove as a matter of fact that although we have increased our imports? we have at the same time increased our manufactures, perhaps in quite as great a ratio as our imports have increased.


Mr. PATERSON.: While the hon. gentleman is referring to the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto, has he thought of adding the bonuses to the taxation? The bonuses that we paid on iron were paid out of revenue derived at the rate of 19-93. On the same principle you might say that all the moneys expended on public works and everything else were all paid out of revenue.


William Stewart Loggie: Of course that makes my argument all the stronger. X gave the hon. member for North Toronto credit for that, because he thought it was fair to deduct that. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out that this government have materially reduced the rate of customs duties on goods imported into Canada, and have thus enabled our people to live on less money than they would otherwise require; if by so doing they have sacrificed Canadian manufacturing industries then their policy would be a fair subject for criticism; if we reduced our rate of duty and saved the money for our people, on our imported goods, thus our people can live on less than they could otherwise, if we had thereby made the sacrifice of our home industries, that might be a question of policy. P>ut let us see if the prediction of the opposition has been realized. Have our mills closed ? have our industries deprecated? have our employees been dismissed ?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I pointed to the woollen Industry.


William Stewart Loggie: Let us see. I think there is no better test or index of the progress of
the manufacturing industry of this country than the manufactures of cotton. Now I have taken the liberty to take from the blue-books a table to prove what I say with regard especially to our textile industries. I do not take wool, I take cotton, because cotton enters into a greater number of textiles than wool. The imports of raw cotton for the last five years of the Conservative government were as follows:
1892		$3,389,232
1893		 3,201,452
1894		 2,610,538
1895		 2,853,987
1896		 2,845,371
Total	$14,900,580
or in round numbers there was an importation of $15,000,000 worth of raw cotton in five years.


George William Fowler: Have you the price per pound ?


William Stewart Loggie: No, that is the total value.


George William Fowler: You should have the price per pound.


William Stewart Loggie: We will get that after if you will have a little patience. This makes a yearly average of $2,980,116, or during the last five years of the Conservative regime, there was raw cotton imported amounting, on the average, to a little less than $3,000,000 a year. Let us compare the imports of raw cotton during the last two years with the imports during the period that I have mentioned. We find by turning up the blue-books, and these figures are beyond dispute, that in 1896 we imported no less than $7,626,625 worth of raw cotton, that for the nine months of 1907 for which we have returns we imported $6,631,489, and if the imports during the remaining three months, for which we have no statistics, were in the same ratio, we would have imported raw cotton to the amount of $8,842,995, which, I would ask the House and the country to note, is a threefold advance over the average importation of raw cotton during the last five years of the Conservative regime. I know of no better index than statistics of this kind of the progress and onward march of our home industries. I would like to congratulate the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) for a thought that he suggested in his speech the other day which I think is well worthy of tile consideration of the government. He said that we lacked Canadian statistics showing the progress of our home industries, that we had no reliable information to refer to or to get at. For that reason I have taken this information about raw cotton from the blue-books, and I believe that it is the best index that we can have of the marked expansion of the textile industry of Canada.


George William Fowler: You have not compared the prices per pound yet ?


William Stewart Loggie: No, I think we shall leave that until some other time.


George William Fowler: I think you should.


William Stewart Loggie: My hon. friend is very anxious to compare prices. I know that the price of raw cotton has somewhat advanced, but perhaps my hon. friend was thinking too much about the price to notice that there was an importation of raw cotton threefold greater than It was before. I have some other statistics that go to prove that the home industries of this country are-in a very prosperous condition. Let me give you a few items. I find that in 1905 the capital invested in our home industries, cotton mills, woollen mills, knitting mills had greatly increased. Let me point out that I believe that the knitting and woollen mills are in a prosperous condition. Of course, I cannot prove what I am saying, but I understand that the Penmans, the largest knitting people in Canada, are in a very satisfactory condition.


George William Fowler: You had better ask my hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Stanfield) ?


William Stewart Loggie: If I were to refer to my hon. friend (Mr. Stanfield) I think he would say that the knitting industry is in a fairly prosperous condition even in the maritime provinces. I have no desire to pry into his private business, but I am sure he would tell me that.


Mr. STANFIELD.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Loggie) how many woollen mills closed down in the province of New Brunswick during the last ten years ?


William Stewart Loggie: I do not know. I have not the details of that. I will give you what I have. I have a few figures here showing the wonderful expansion which has taken place in the industrial life of Canada during the five year period ended 1905 :
-	1905,	1900.	Increase.s	$	$Capita)	833,916,155	446,916,487	386,999,668


Employees ..: Salaries and	383,920	339,173	44,747wages.... Value of pro-	162,175,578	113,249,350	48,926,228ducts	706,446,578	481,053,375	225,393,203
It seems that this is another evidence of the wonderful prosperity of the country during the past decade. It is an answer to the prediction of hon. gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House that the manufacturing interests of Canada, when a Liberal administration had an opportunity of framing the tariff, would go to the wall. I think it is an answer that cannot be disputed. This table shows, to my mind, and I am sure it shows to the House and the country, a remarkable expansion, There being in the aggregate, an increase of $45,000,000 in salaries and wages and $225,000,000 in production within the short term of five years. We find also that the output of our Canadian industries increased approximately 50 per cent from 1901 to 1900 which is a somewhat greater ratio of increase than occurred in the foreign trade of Canada. In 1906 home consumption had approximately increased to $972,930,286, of which Canadian manufacturers supplied $595,830,253. This figure may not be accurate because there may be some articles which are entered twice in the trade tables. For instance, leather is put in and when it is made into boots and shoes it is included in the statement again and in that sense perhaps it may not be accurate.
In order to show this more fully I have prepared the following table showing the increases by groups of industries.


PRODUCTION BY GROUPS OF INDUSTRIES.
[Stage Direction]
Groups of Industries.
1905.
1900.
Increase.
Food products	
Textiles	
Iron and steel products	
Timber and lumber and their remanufactures...
Leather and its products	
Papers and printing	
Liquors and beverages	
Chemicals and allied products	
Clay, glass and stone products	
Metals and products other than steel	
Tobacco and its manufactures	
Cars, carriages, wagons, &c	
Vessels for water transportation	
Hand trades	-	
Miscellaneous industries	
172.017,002
84,370,099
52,587,051
109,500,970
41,201,872
32,773,880
13,928,701
15,290,822
13,558,921
50,068,669
15,189,720
36,911,124
1,892,253
1,433,753
65,721,741
706,446,578
125,202,620
67,724,839
34,878,402
80,341,204
34,720,513
20,G53,028
9,191,700
11,437,300
7,318,582
19,561,261
11,802,112
19,971,605
2,043,668
599,329
35,607,212
481,C53,375
46,814,382 16,645,260 17,708,649 29,159,766 6,481,359 12,120,852 4,737,001 3,853,522 6,240,339 30,507,408 3,387,608 16,939,517 151,415 834,424 30,114,529
225,393,203
George William Fowler: *6561

Under ' Miscellaneous industries ' I have included the value of our fisheries which in 1905 was approximately $30,000,000.
These figures show that our industrial production has kept pace with the increase in our population.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CRAWFORD moved second reading of Bill (No. 151) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.
David Henderson: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell us the nature of this Bill ? We have no copy of it yet before us.


Mr. CRAWFORD.: It is simply to grant an extension of time for the construction of the branch lines.


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

William Stewart Loggie: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I had practically finished what I had to say in regard to the taxation of the country during the past decade as well as during the preceding one, and had also made a few remarks regarding the industrial condition of Canada- as we find it to-day, and I think I substantiated by figures that the home industries of this country are in a very satisfactory condition *-that they are keeping pace with the increased population of Canada, as well as the export trade of Canada. Now I wish to make a few remarks regarding the expenditures of the country during the past decade as well as during the few years preceding the same. It is well known to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House that the expenditures of this country are divided into two classes-namely, certain recurring expenditures which are charged to consolidated account, and expenditures which are not recurrent but are rather of a permanent character which are charged to capital account. In this connection I wish to refer to some remarks of the hon. ex-Minister of Finance, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). On page 5349 of ' Hansard,' referring to the expenditures made by the present administration, he said:
Some unthinking person says they have given it all hack to the people. Not at all, every dollar of that money that is put in fixed works, such as buildings and works of that kind, which return nothing to the people except use, and the money invested in hundreds of
thousands of different constructions into which the people's money is put, is effectually barred out from the currency and from the money power of the country. It is as if it were hoarded. Much employment has been given for the time being but so far as returning any value is concerned, its usefulness has absolutely ceased. It is fixed in these constructions which are of use but return nothing in a financial way to the people of the country.
I wonder at the hon. member for North Toronto making these disparaging remarks in regard to the expenditures of the country during the last ten years ; but I wonder more when I read his further remarks, as follows :
The Conservatives in their last years of office preferred to incur a debt of $31,000,000 and leave that extra. taxation which they would have had to take from the people of the country with the people who needed it, and to do with that $31,000,000 of debt, what was necessary in the way of capital expenditure to be used and to be enjoyed not only by the people of those years but by the future generations. That is the proper way of financing.
The hon. gentleman has the audacity to tell us that for ordinary small public works the proper way to finance is to go into debt. Now, let us see what the hon. gentleman did during the last .five years that he was Finance Minister of this country. The figures I give you can find in the blue-books. In 1892 we find charged to capital account $2,104,456, but in the same year he went into debt to the amount of $3,322,403; that is to say, he had not sufficient money from current account to pay the ordinary expenditure chargeable to consolidated account, but actually had to borrow money for that purpose. In 1893 he charged to capital account $3,088,317- and borrowed $549,605. In 1894 he charged to capital account $3,862.969 and borrowed $4,501,989. In 1895 he charged to capital account $3,030,490 and in that same year he added to the net debt of the country no less a sum than $6,891,897. In 1896 he charged to capital account $3,781,311 and borrowed no less a sum than $5,422,508. These figures, when added together, prove to us that the Conservative party, during the last five years of their regime, expended on capital account $15,927,743 and borrowed no less a sum than $20,688,402. That is to say they borrowed $4,761,659 more than they paid out during the entire five years on capital account. In other words they borrowed $5,000,000 to pay' for ordinary expenditure, and yet hon. gentlemen opposite have the audacity to tell us that as they expended $31,000,000 and that they thought it was a wise thing to borrow this $31,000,000. What other way had they of paying for it? They did not have the money in the treasury, they did not have it in the revenue, and they used their only recourse which was to borrow the money. And the expenditures were

small. They were not sepcial expenditures to meet which would be the proper thing to borrow.
During the last five years of the Conservative regime, we find that they expended in round numbers $16,000,000 on capital account. Now let us see what was done by the present administration in the following ten years. I find that they expended on capital account no less a sum than $89,000,000, viz., on canals, on the Canadian Pacific Railway, on debts allowed to provinces, on Dominion land, on new public works, and during the same period although they expended $89,000,000, they added only $5,000.000 to the net public debt. Compare that with the last five years of the Conservative administration when we find that they expended only $16,000,000 and borrowed $21-, 000,000 and added ter the net debt $21,000,000. Then spent $16,000,000 on capital account and $5,000,000 on ordinary consolidated account.
Carrying the comparison still further, we find that the parties in power from 1868 to 1896, twenty-nine years - twenty-five of which were under Conservative regime-expended on capital account $204,000,000 and increased the net debt of the country $182,000,000. Compare that with the capital expenditure, during the decade I have already referred to, of $89,000,000 and yet with only $5,000,000 added to the debt, whereas the other expenditure on capital account was $204,000,000 and $182,000,000 added to the net debt. It seems to me that this comparison speaks golden words for the present administration.


Mr. BENNETT.: How does it compare with the Robinson administration?


William Stewart Loggie: I have no doubt it can stand the comparison.


Mr. MORIN.: Is not my hon. friend giving the House wrong figures? The debt of the country in 1896 was $258,000,000. At the time of confederation it was $75,500,000. When Mr. Mackenzie was in power he added $19,600,000 to the debt. Make a calculation on those figures, and you will not get $189,000,000.


William Stewart Loggie: That would make it practically correct. It included Mr. Mackenzie's administration. I said twenty-nine years, twenty-five of which were under Conservative regime, and I gave the figures for the whole twenty-nine years, so that they are quite correct.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: $75,500,000 and $19,000,000 would make at once $96,000,000. Deduct $96,000,000 from $258,000,000 and that will not work out your result.


William Stewart Loggie: That works it out exactly correct. I told you that I included the $19,000,000 in the $182,000,000 which makes it exactly correct. We expended on capital account from 1897 to 1907. $84,000,000 and Mr. DOGGIE.
did not add practically one cent to the net debt. Here is the point I want hon. gentlemen particularly to note. During this period, we reduced the rate of customs duty 13-86 per cent and the per capita debt 15-7 per cent. I think that the country deserves to be congratulated on this very favourable showing to a decade to which I have refer-ed. It shows that the words of my honoured leader, which were quoted by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), have been fulfilled. These words were :
We shall be in power before long, and when in power I promise you such an era of prosperity that it will not require statisticians to prove it. You will have it in your pocket.
It seems to me that the fact that this large amount of money could have been expended on necessary public works without our adding to the debt of the country to any appreciable amount, is an evidence of this great prosperity which the right hon. the First Minister promised.
I have pointed out to you that the Conservative party, during the last five years they were in power, went in debt to the extent of 334 per cent or thereabouts more than they paid out on capital account altogether. If the expenditures which the present administration have overtaken had been overtaken by the Conservative government in the same ratio, they would have added to the debt no less a sum than $112,000,000. That is, we have expended $84,000,000 on capital account without borrowing money, and, if you add one-third to that, you get $112,000,000. So, had they made the same expenditures with the same proportion of revenue, they would have had to spend all their revenues and borrow $112,000,000 besides'. If it were necessary, as I say it was-and there has not been any question about the necessity of expenditures on capital account-to spend this large sum of money and run the country into debt to the amount of $112,000,000 besides, should we feel like going into debt for another $100,000,000 to build the Transcontinental Railway ? I think the credit of the country would not have stood as high as it does if such had been the case. But we echo the words of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) when he said that we glory in the fact that we had this money to make these expenditures without adding to the debt. Thus we are in a position to go on with this great and laudable undertaking, the building of the Transcontinental Railway. I believe that when we are spending so large a sum of money on an undertaking like the Transcontinental, the proper businesslike way is to borrow money on the credit of the country instead of endeavouring to meet so large and such an expenditure out of ordinary revenue.
Now, let me deal for a moment with the net debt. My hon. friend from Dorchester 1 (Mr. Morin) tells us that in 1896 the debt
<5565

was $258,000,000, which is right enough, In 1906 the net debt was $267,000,000. In 1907 it was reduced to $263,000,000. So, we find that the net debt has been increased by nearly $5,000,000 over 1896. But we must not forget that a considerable sum of money has been expended on the Transcontinental Railway. As a result of the operations of the year just ended, we shall probably have increased our net debt by $17,000,000 as compared with 1896. But, as an offset to that, we find that we have expended no less than $26,000,000 on the Transcontinental. And this is an undertaking that we think is a valuable asset to the country. We know as a matter of fact that, after a certain number of years, we are to receive a rental equal to 3 per cent of the cost of the railway.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: After seven years.


William Stewart Loggie: Yes, after seven years. And we shall have expended probably $100,000,000 on this great undertaking. And certainly the country is to be congratulated that its credit is in so favourable a condition that we are able to go on with such an undertaking. Not only shall we receive benefit in the way of transportation by the construction of this road, but we believe there will be opened up large areas of land fit for settlement and agriculture, settlement which will add to our strength and help to increase our home industries. My hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Stanfield), for instance, will find that his goods will find their way into the northern part of Ontario and Quebec.


John Stanfield: They do now.


William Stewart Loggie: I congratulate my hon. friend on having goods that commend themselves over such a large territory. Now, I have referred to a few items that are charged to capital account comparing the last five years of the Conservative regime with ten years of Liberal rule. I would like to refer also to certain items charged to consolidated account. In 1896, the expenditure on consolidated fund account was $36,0000,000 but, under the Liberal administration, in 1906, the expenditure was $67,000,000-an increase of nearly 100 per cent. All this has been paid out of the ordinary revenue of the country. Had these revenues not been available, either the necessary public works could not have been overtaken, or we should have had to borrow money to provide them. The following figures will give a comparison of the expenditure under Conservative and Liberal rule :-
1896.	1906.
Fisheries	$427,250	$968,702Agriculture	
210,877	603,812Immigration	
120,199	842,668Quarantine	
95,247	624,758
Lighthouse and coast service 466,057 2,530,307
1896.	1906.
Ship subsidies	$ 534,916 $1,227,560
Ocean and	river service	..	181,451	1,013,682
Mounted Police	 533,014' 1,004,079
Militia	
1,136,713	4,294,124Post Office	
3,665,011	4,921,577Railways	
3,826,225	8,779,677Public Works	
1,229,768	7,484,715Provinces	
4,235,661	6,726,372Inspection	of staples..	..	2,921	109,939Trade and	Commerce ..	..	9,462	63,625
I have not given all the figures for the $67,000,000 of expenditure, but this group represents a total of about $41,000,000 as spent by the Liberal administration as against about $16,000,000 spent by the Conservative administration. This table I think indicates growth and prosperity during the past decade, each department of the public service requiring-now note the word 'requiring' because of the prosperity of the country-requiring an expenditure on consolidated account, no borrowing. I have indicated to you that $5,000,000 had to be borrowed to pay on consolidated account during the last five years of the Conservative administration. Here in the group I have named, there was $41,000,000 spent, and not a dollar borrowed. Surely the government and the country are to be congratulated. We find, in referring to this matter again, that on the fisheries service we have expended $550,000 more in 1906 than the Conservatives did. You will understand that that means the fostering and care of our fisheries, and I think the country is to be congratulated in that we had the money and were able to take care of those services that devolved upon us. Then again in agriculture, we have expended $400,000 more than they did ten years ago, and we know as a matter of fact that agricultural interests have prospered wonderfully. Then again on immigration, we find that $750,000 more has been expended in 1906 than in 1896. We all know the wonderful development that has taken place in that regard, 300,000 immigrants or thereabouts coming into Canada during the past year. Then we find that on lighthouses and coast service we expended in 1906, $2,000,000 more than they did ten years previously. What benefit have we received from that? We know, as a matter of fact, that our coast line has improved lighthouses, that our buoy service is improved. In place of the old fashioned service we have gas lighted buoys, as a rule, and the fog alarm service has been very much improved.
Then ship subsidies is another matter worth noting. We are now spending $700,000 a year more than the Conservatives spent ten years ago. This is a very important service. We know that our transportation service and mail service are in-dispensible and have been greatly improved. We have now a direct service to South Africa, to Mexico and other ports, and these aids to our industries will enable them to reach new markets. And last, but not least, we

have a direct through service to France, which we think will largely aid in the development of Canadian industries. Then we have another item ; we find that for ocean and river service $SOO,000 more is expended in 1906 than in 1896, and what does that mean ? You know, Mr. Speaker, that we have a long coast line, and we find that railways and aids to steamboat companies afford transportation facilities to localities that would have no other means of bringing their products to market. Then we have the mounted police. We have expended $500,000 more on that service, and I am sure we can only speak in terms of laudation of the work performed by our mounted police. Then we have $3,100,000 extra expended on the militia. We know that this is a very important service. Of course, it is much more expensive because we have taken over the permanent force, and we have had to add to the expenditure some $5,000,000. We must expect to spend more money on our militia if we are to become a great country. We are only in our youth yet, and if we are to broaden out and take our place amongst the nations of the world we must spend more money on that department.
Then we have the Post Office Department, and 1 am sure we can only speak in words of praise of the hon. gentleman who presides over that department, and of his predecessors as well. In 1906 we expended $1,300,000 more than the Conservatives did in 1896, and with what result? We find that during the interim we have reduced the postal rate about 50 per cent. We have done more than that; we have turned deficits into surpluses, and surely we can congratulate the country over the management of the Post Office Department. Then as to the Railway Department. We find that in 1906 we expended $5,000,000 more than the Conservatives did in 1896. We find that during this time the railway earnings have more than doubled. Railway earnings have increased in a greater ratio than has capital account. Not only have earnings increased more than capital account, but the mileage has increased more than capital account as well. So we find this department in a very satisfactory condition. We find that we have spent $6,000,000 on Public Works. I mean the ordinary small recurring public works ; this is $3,000,000 more than in 1906 than in 1896. And who will say that a town here and a town there with
2,000,	3,000 and 4,000 inhabitants, does not need a new post office? Would the hon. gentleman tell me that this money is not wisely spent? A man that is in business must erect his store. The money is locked up in it, it is true, but it is decidedly in the interest of the business, and it is just . as much in the interest of this great country that its population should have proper public buildings in every town where there is sufficient population.


William Stewart Loggie: 
Mr. BOYCE.: What about New Brunswick?


William Stewart Loggie: Well, we will talk about New Brunswick too. In the province of Nova Scotia, as compared with five years ago, there is an increase of $5,500,000 in the produce of the smelting works. Then. I think we can very well refer to the increase in the value of the fisheries as well as to the increase in the value of our timber exportation. It would be fair and reasonable to refer to the growth and prosperity of the export trade through the maritime ports. I refer particularly to the port of St. John, and as far as that shipping port is concerned we know that during the last decade it has bounded from nothing until to-day it is a very important shipping centre outwards for the trade of the prairie fields of Canada. While I am on my feet I want to say a word in reference to my own province. Not only are we going ahead in the lumbering and fishing industries, but we have recently discovered that we have a country rich in minerals. In the county represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Tur-geon) there has recently been discovered one of the most valuable iron deposits perhaps in Canada. This has been purchased by the Drummonds, these mines will be developed and will, I think, add much to the material wealth of our province.
I wish to refer briefly to the transportation question as it affects the maritime provinces, particularly the Intercolonial. This question of transportation is a burning one all over the country. Hon. gentlemen will remember that a few years ago complaints were made that the Canadian Pacific Railway were not building branches fast enough in the west and that the farmers were obliged to haul grain twenty or thirty miles. It was considered a great hardship that it should cost 10 or 15 cents a bushel to haul grain to a station to ship it. I sympathize with these farmers; I realize that it is a hardship to be so situated. But we ought not to forget that the older provinces are enduring the very same hardship to-day. We must realize that if the Intercolonial Railway is to be a common carrier for the people of the maritime provinces, that railway owes a duty to the territory adjacent to that trunk line. It must not be forgotten that practically every branch line which serves as a feeder to the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway has been taken over by these great corporations and

made a part of the system, thus feeding the trunk line and aiding the industries situated along the branch lines. It is not possible to manage these branch lines as profitably independent of the trunk line. The Intercolonial Bailway with its trunk line between Riviere du Loup and Moncton has practically a monopoly of that whole country and it is not fair to'leave the adjacent territory without proper facilities nor is it fair to expect private corporations to build branch lines, because the branch lines could not live, the population is not sufficiently large to make them paying ventures, they would not receive a sufficient return on their short haul on freight which they would have to hand over to the Intercolonial Railway which would have the long haul. It is the duty of the government and of the people of Canada, the owners of the Intercolonial Railway, to see that the territory adjacent to the Intercolonial Railway has proper railway facilities and that the industries of that locality are not retarded because of want of transportation. Simply as an illustration, I would point out that even in my own county there is a section of country between Indian town, where the railway terminates, and Red Bank, a large and thriving village, without any railway facilities, practically without any transportation facilities whatever We are trying to have a steamboat service inaugurated there but in order to do that we shall require some assistance. That section between these two places should have a railway in the interest of the country and I would ask that this matter should receive the favourable attention of the Minister of Railways and of the government. We have also a large and rich section along the Mira-michi between Newcastle and Tabusintae that deserves the consideration of the people of Canada, the owners of the trunk line of the Intercolonial Railway because they have a monopoly of transportation there and it is their duty to see that the people there do not suffer. ' They are suffering to-day because of lack of transportation facilities to enable them to send their commodities to the markets of the world on as advantageous terms as other sections of Canada. The maritime provinces are an old section and deserve the attention of the government even as much as the western provinces, and I ask on behalf of the maritime provinces, and particularly the sections I have indicated where the Intercolonial Railway is the only means of transportation, that branch lines should be constructed as a part of the Intercolonial Railway system. Where there is another railway, the situation is not so bad, as one railway will compete with another; but where there is only the one line and that owned by the government, it is the duty of the government to provide efficient transportation facilities. We in the maritime provinces never say a word about the cost of the canal system in Ontario and Quebec; that is provided in the interest of the countrv at large. The Intercolonial Rail-Mr. LOGGIE.
way is a part of the great scheme of confederation, it is a link in the chain that binds us together, and as such, if it is to perform its mission, it ought to provide for the maintenance of branch lines. As a matter of fact a portion of one branch line has been lying all winter unoperated and to-day, although there is hardly any snow on the ground, carload after carload of freight has to be teamed. Yet there is a railway there and the blockade exists simply because the railway has not the necessary equiqment. All that is required is equipment, with proper equipment there would be no trouble in keeping the rail open all winter. It is not fair and I bespeak in the interests of the maritime provinces the favourable consideration of this matter by the government.
I was deeply interested in an important subject which was referred to in the House the other day, the All-Red line, an imperial means of transportation. When the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) was speaking, f was impressed with the difficulty of dealing with the present investments, in transportation, that is to say what is to be done with the transportation interests now operating. It occurred to me that if the great ocean lines or the corporations owning the ocean lines, could combine and form one great corporation to perform this all-red service, all infringement on existing vested interests would be obviated. The question of hauling the traffic on Canadian soil would also require consideration. Possibly some arrangement might be made between the transcontinental railways so that the traffic would be handled by the Intercolonial Railway between Halifax and the nearest point on a transcontinental railway. The Intercolonial Railway, I presume, would be double-tracked between Moncton and Halifax. For instance, at Moncton they would hand over to the Grand Trunk Pacific its share of the traffic; at St. John they would hand over to the Canadian Pacific Railway its share, and they would hand over to the Canadian Northern its share wherever its nearest point would be; and if one road got more than its share according to its mileage, there might be a division made. In that way, if we could get our capitalists of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Allan line and the Dominion line to form one great corporation, we might have its financial interests largely in Canada, and thus make Canada the centre of this great project. These are matters which ran through my mind while the hon. member for Brandon was presenting his case.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to close with a word or two of congratulation to the country, particularly on the fact that we have at the head of affairs a gentleman of the statesmanlike qualities of the Prime Minister. It was his duty, as well as his pleasure, I am sure, to represent this country on a recent occasion at a conference in London. We all followed with interest his re-

marks on that occasion. Bearing them in mind, we can see him as it were with the main sheet of the ship in his hand rounding a big boulder at the entrance to the conference, while inside we see dropped in the placid waters of the conference the anchor bearing the title " Imperial Conference." We certainly should feel proud that we have at the head of this young and rising nation a gentleman of the capacity of the Prime Minister. Then we gave him a royal welcome back to his own country. He is not long back, however, when we hear a flurry out on the western coast-the Japanese are overflowing our country! Listen to the prudent words of the leader of this young nation when he says : ' Patience; we must respect treaty rights ; the rights of the western provinces will be conserved, but we must not jeopardize the interests of our country as a whole.'. I do not quote the exact words, but they were words to that effect; and we know what a happy issue they had. To-day we have practically what the Prime Minister said would come- the rights of the Pacific province have been conserved and yet the integrity of the treaty has been maintained. Then we find him at the neighbouring industrial center of Canada, Toronto, and what does he say there of the proposed All-Bed line? He said he would not dictate to the mother of parliaments, perhaps that would not be becoming but he would remind the Imperial authorities that they had subsidized a service, very much like the proposed fast Atlantic service, from the motherland to a foreign port, and perhaps it would not be too much to ask them to do the same for their own kith and kin. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that these were the words of a statesman, and we all congratulate ourselves and the country at large that at the head of the affairs of this young and thriving country we have an hon. gentleman who can thus wisely guide the ship of state, so that we realize in our own pockets the fulfilment of what he said down in Halifax, as quoted by the hon. member for North Toronto. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. gentlemen, for the attention given to me in my first attempt to say a word on the financial conditions of the country.


Mr. P. H. McKBNZIE (South Bruce).: Mr. Speaker, in rising on this occasion I must express my reluctance, at this late hour of the night, and at this late stage of this very important debate, at trespassing on the time of the House. I would not have done so had it not been that I do not speak very often in the House; and that on this occasion it behooves those who take an interest in the welfare of their country, and I think we all on' both sides of the House do that, to have something to say at this, as we may call it, stock-taking time 209
for the Dominion of Canada. I would preface my remarks by complimenting, as others have done, the Finance Minister on the splendid statement he has been able to present to this House and this country in his annual budget. When we consider that this country has been eleven years under the present tariff with very little change, and when we consider the success that has been achieved by this country under it, we are led to inquire what are the special features of that tariff, as inaugurated by the present government, and specially by the present Finance Minister. The Fielding tariff, as it is commonly called, has been a very great success. It appears to be a distinctive tariff, a tariff different from almost every other tariff in existence at the present time in constitutionally governed countries. There has been a good deal of discussion as to whether it is a protective tariff or a revenue tariff. If I were to express my honest conviction, I would say that it is part of both. Its basic principle is that of a tariff for revenue ; but incidentally it affords protection for the industries of the country consistent with the requirements of the whole country. That was a plana in the platform adopted previous to the introduction of this tariff, and I think that has been lived up to. While this tariff affords a certain amount of protection, it does not decrease trade, but increases trade, and at the same time produces an abounding revenue. This seems to be a remarkable feature of this tariff. I would also refer to the preferential feature of the tariff. A preference to Great Britain had been discussed for some years previous to the introduction of this feature in the tariff, but the idea had always been that if Canada should give the mother country a preference, it would expect something in return. So when the government gave the preference to Great Britain, our friends on the opposition side found fault with them for not getting an equivalent from the British government. I might read you statements here but it would take too much time to show how public opinion stood on that matter in Great Britain at that period and also, that it has not changed since. Had the government stood on their, dignity, as members of the opposition advise, and said to Great Britain: We will give you a preference in our market when you give us one in yours, Great Britain would not have had that preference to-day. But this government conceded the preference without asking any thing in return. I claim however that the preference has been just as great to Canada from Great Britain-that is, the indirect preference, not so much the preference described in figures. There has been from the British people an indirect preference which has been of very great benefit to Canada.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: In what way has it been a benefit to Canada?


Peter H. McKenzie: In this way. It drew attention to Canada and Canada's products were asked for. Previous to 1896 many Canadian products entered the British market as American products and were sold as such in that market. Canada was to a large extent unknown in the British market on that account. But the day this preference was given, we touched the great heart of the British people, they began to inquire among themselves, what can we do for Canada which has done so much for us? In that way we gained the good will of the English people and that amounts to a great deal in the matter of trade.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will my hon. friend be good enough to tell us whether Canadian goods are sold in the British market out of sympathy for Canada or whether it is not because of the quality of the goods?


Peter H. McKenzie: I would answer that question in this way. At the beginning of the increase of our trade with Great Britain, it was largely due to a sentiment, but now it is due both to sentiment and quality. Through the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture very largely, the status of our products that enter into immediate consumption in Great Britain has become' so improved that they are now asked for on their merits, but the sentiment in our favour still exists and our market is extending, in consequence of that sentiment to a great extent, in other products. That is undeniable, and I am astonished that members on the other side, such as the hon. member for Lambton, should endeavour to combat that idea. The figures are there and they show that since we gave that preference, our exports began to increase and our trade to expand.
Let me now say a word on the intermediate feature introduced into our tariff. That is practically a new idea, and I notice that the Americans are studying our tariff with the idea of incorporating this very feature into it. It stands to the credit of this government that they introduced this feature, it is a tribute to their inventive genius, and by means of it they have been able to negotiate the French treaty. My hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) is very anxious to have the markets of the German empire opened to Canadian products. Well, if we are to obtain any advantage in that market, we will get it under the intermediate tariff.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then why do you not get it ?


Peter H. McKenzie: I think that events are moving in that idirectioni The Germans are gradually coming to their knees and you will soon find them ready to negotiate with this government. When we Mr. McKENZIE.
look at the revenue and find what surpluses we have to our credit, when we find that we have a surplus of $19,000,000 this year over actual outlay, that is something we ought to congratulate ourselves upon. Our post office surplus is considerably over $1,000,000, which is very gratifying. I have a quotation here from an English authority, which I shall read to the House. Commenting on our preferential tariff, Mr. Asquith said :
The United Kingdom could not adopt any form of preference involving the taxation of corn, meat or raw materials. The colonists on their part could give no form of preference which would admit the British manufacturer on level terms into competition with their own protected industries. That was the principle upon which the Canadian, the best of all colonial tariffs, was based. It was a principle still more conspicuous in the new Australian tariff. If the government left office to-morrow he would wish them to be judged as to whether they had not justified the confidence of the nation in their colonial administration. ^
That is the testimony of an eminent authority in Great Britain regarding our tariff. Let us take ten years as a comparison in the matter of imports and exports between Conservative and Liberal regime. Take the total imports of 1896, they amounted to $118,011,508. In 1897 they had risen to $359,793,278. Our total exports from Canada in 1896 were $121,013,852. In 1907 they had risen to $258,171,674. Or the total trade in 1896 was $239,025,360, and in 1907 $617.964,952. I wish to give the figures here to show the increase of our trade with Great Britaiu. Our trade with Great Britain in 1896 amounted to $99,513,758, including coin and bullion. In 1906 it amounted to $202,276,456, so that we have the gratifying fact that our trade with Great Britain increased $102,762,729 from 1896 to 1906.
Look at the tariff from another standpoint. The debt of Canada was $50.09 per head in 1S96. In 1906 it was reduced to $42.84 pet-head. Under Conservative rule our population in eighteen years increased 4 per cent whereas, during the last eleven years of Liberal rule it increased 25 per cent. Our foreign trade in the eighteen years of Conservative rule increased about 16 per cent, whereas in the last eleven years of Liberal rule it increased 158 per cent. The trade in 1896 was $42 per head and in 1907 $93 per head. If we turn to the rates of duty, we find that in 1889 the rate was 31-86 per $100 worth of dutiable goods imported into Canada; in 1891 it was 31-38, and in 1896 29:97, showing that under the present tariff, while the duty has been decreasing the revenue has been increasing. From 1896 there has been a gradual reduction until the rate reached the lowest point, 26-33, or a difference of 3-63 per $100 in favour of Liberal administration.
Now we come to the expenditure. And a great deal has been said by the opposi-

tion members concerning the increase of expenditure. The amount expended on capital account during eleven years of Conservative rule amounted, in round figures, to $80,000,000. Of this, as has been stated by previous speakers, the Conservative government borrowed $62,000,000-they added that much of their expenditure to the public debt. During eleven years of Liberal rule, $127,000,000 has been spent on capital account of which only $5,000,000 was borrowed. And I may say in passing that of the $127 000,000 spent on capital account by the Liberals during the last eleven years, $90,000,000 has been spent in improving the transportation facilities of the country.
Now, I am free to say that I am not in favour of extravagant expenditure either in public or in private affairs. But I realize that no private individual and no government can afford, in a young country like this, to hoard money for the sake of what it will bx'ing by hoarding. Canada is much in the position of a farmer or business man. If a man has a farm that requires improving-as many of our Canadian farms *do, and progress in this line in Canada is steady-if he has the money to improve his farm, he is foolish if he does not spend the money in the necessary improvements. A man must pay attention to his business and improve his facilities-to stand still is to go back. And the same is true of a business man engaged in a store, factory or office. A man cannot afford to stand still. He must progress, his business must grow, or others will go ahead and he will fall behind. The same is true of the country. We want economical and wise expenditure, but we do not want the affairs of the country to stand still-' progress ' must be the word. Members of the opposition have been pretty constantly talking about expenditure, and, I have no doubt, will continue to talk about it when, in the country, they speak of the actions of this government. But when they do so, I would like them to notice what members their own side propose that the government should embark in. They all have their proposals involving expenditure of- money. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) would consider the advisability of government ownership of public utilities, an idea that would involve millions upon millions for this country. My hon. friend from East Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) has an idea in the shape of free rural mail delivery, on which he has given us a great deal of information.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: May I ask the hon. gentleman, is he opposed to adopting it in his riding ?
Mr. MeKENZIE. At the present time, yes. I hope that the time may come when I can say : ' No.' But that time has not 2091	*
come yet. I wish to be perfectly candid in the matter. I do not think the people of my riding would thank me for advising this government to embark upon such an extravagant expenditure as that at the present stage of our history. However desirable it might be, it would add some millions to our expenditure. Then the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. E. D. Smith) has been complaining a great deal about the Department of Agriculture. He wants more fruit inspectors, he wants better cold storage facilities. And hon. members on both sides of the House, including a large number on the opposition side, are in favour of the construction of the Georgian bay canal, which would probably cost $130,000,000. And our friends from Prince Edward Island want a tunnel. When men so strongly advocate economy of expenditure, it is rather surprising that they should even allude to such enormous expenditures as they propose to be added to what the country must spend in other directions.


Mr. LEEURGEY.: We believe that these would be economies in some cases.
Mr. MeKENZIE. I am not disputing it, but it would involve a large expenditure. I hope the time will come when the Dominion can give to Prince Edward Island better means of communication than are now provided. But Prince Edward Island is not disposed to wait, they want the tunnel now. According to their view, no matter what stands, this cannot stand. I would say to hon. members of the opposition that the problem we are up against in Canada is not so much to cut down the expenditure as to make the expenditure in the right direction. There is no doubt that in Canada the transportation problem is a very expensive one and one that must be met by the government. There was a time in Canada when we were pretty well content with the Welland canal, the Canadian Pacific Railway, and other existing railway connections. But the time has come when we need improved facilities. The Welland canal is too shallow, too narrow, too roundabout. The cry is for a direct route and the proposal is made to build the Georgian bay canal. The cry is for a better railway across the continent with better grades and easier curves. This demand the government is trying to meet with the Transcontinental Railway. The time may come when we shall decide that it is necessary to build the Georgian bav canal. Canada is progressing. Canada ha's begun the development of her great west; the great north is being discovered. Canada cannot afford to stand still, and I do not believe that the people, when the matter is properly laid before them, will wish to stand still. I would advise the government to go on courageously with any wise expenditures. But let the money be spent

on a system. If the Georgian bay canal is to be built, for instance, do not touch it until we can build It with a depth of 25 feet. If we must build this canal, let us build it so as to meet the requirements of the future. Vessels are constantly getting larger and of deeper draft, and canals allowing only a shallow draft will soon be out of date. But no mistake should be made by the government in taking up new schemes. They should wait until they are ready to build the thing right, keeping in mind the future of Canada.
A good deal of criticism has been levelled at the Department of Agriculture. Being speaking of agriculture, I cannot resist the temptation to look back to the period before 1890 in the history of our farmers. I can well remember those dark days; I can well remember that times were hard for the farm-era previous to 1896. The population of Canada was leaving us by hundreds of thousands, Canada was not growing and even our natural increase was not remaining with us. No change could have been more marked than that which has t^Jten place. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Clements) this afternoon whining about the poor farmer of his county. I felt that he was not doing justice to his county. I cannot see for my part why such a whine should go up from that splendid county of Kent, and by their own member in this House. I do not- think there is another member in this House who would rise up in his place and say the same regarding his county. I am sure my hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. P. Christie) would not do it, and I am sure my hon. friend from Bast Huron (Mr. Chisholm) would not do it. I do not think it was fair to the county of Kent that such a statement should be made regarding it. I know they have had their troubles in Kent. I know they have had hog disease that has injured the farming industry, and perhaps they have had some other drawbacks. But I do not think the government should be blamed for that. The Department of Agriculture has done their best for the people of Kent to help them over these difficulties, both in past years and in the present year. I do not see why so much fault should be found with the government for the condition of the farmers in Kent, if they are in that condition, but I very much doubt it.
Now I wish to refer to a remark made by one of the previous speakers, I think the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). He spoke of the fact that Canada was going back in her exports as shown by the balance of trade, and instanced butter as one of the articles which showed a falling off. Now let us look at that matter for a moment. In the ten years between 1877 and 1886, the total exports of butter were $22,706,360; in the next ten years, from 1887 to 1896, the total exports had fallen to $8,252,088, showing a decrease of $14,456,272 dur-Mr. McKENZIE.
ing Conservative rule. Now in sharp contrast to that we find that in ten years under the Liberal government from 1897 to 1906, butter exports amounted to $46,599,782. The items of bacon and hams show a like result. The total exports of bacon and hams for the ten years ending June 30, 1896, were $17,-
671,000,	as against $115,000,000 during the ten years ending June 30, 1906. The hon. member for Brantford blamed the govern-men in regard to the item of butter. We all know that Ontario had a dry season last year, that the quantity of milk fell off and consequently the production of butter. We exported largely in the early part of the year and that left us short in the latter part of the year, with the result that we had to import butter again from the British markets for our own consumption. But this was only an isolated case, and may not occur in Canada again for many a day to come. I regard the agricultural interests of Canada as so important that they should receive careful consideration from any government that may be in power. We find that at the present time there is invested in agriculture in Canada $2,200,000,000. The value of farm products exported and consumed at home was last year $450,000,000. Compare agriculture with manufactures. In 1896, the money invested in manufacture was $200,000,000. and in 1906, it was $600,000,000 a sum still far below the investment in agriculture. Therefore I think that agriculture may safely be called the basic industry of Canada at the present time, and will remain so for many years to come.
Some members of the opposition have recently criticised the Minister of Agriculture severely. I think that one hon. gentleman in particular has criticised him and given him little or no credit for having done anything in the interest of agriculture. Let me refer to one of his late acts to show what he has done for this industry. It was called to my attention recently at a meeting I attended, by the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Saskatchewan. We are all sorry to know that last year the west was struek by a bad frost, with the result that the grain was damaged. No sooner had the Department of Agriculture here in Ottawa learned of the damage, or supposed damage, by frost, than orders were sent at once to the Ministers of Agriculture in the west, and through them to other correspondents throughout the western provinces, to send as soon as possible samples of their grain down to the department at Ottawa that it might be tested to see to what extent damage had been done. That was done as soon as the grain was threshed and got dry enough. Mr. A. H. Clark, the chief commissioner at the head of that department at once set to work experimenting with this grain, and he found the most astonishing result that but a very small portion of the oats was fit for seed, that the vitality of that grain for seed purposes had been practically destroyed.

This information was communicated to the western provinces in a bulletin; and Mr. Motherwell told me that on his way down to Ottawa, when he came to Winnipeg, the great cry was: Have you seen A. H. Clark's bulletin? This was in everybody's mouth, the information seemed to be so incredible that people were looking at one another in blank amazement. Is it possible that the immense crop of oats in those western provinces is going to be of no use for seed? Mr. Motherwell stated at a meeting in the Normal School Hall here in Ottawa, that the work done by the department in reference to that seed grain had saved the west from a total failure in respect to oats and barley, and partly in respect to wheat. He said that the prompt action of the government in testing the seeds had saved the western provinces from a great loss. Let me tell the House that Mr. Motherwell stated that his own crop of Oats looked so well and weighed so heavy that he would have sold them without any compunction for seed oats, had he not known that from the experiments made in Ottawa their vitality was destroyed. The result, he said, was a saving of millions of dollars to the west. Now that is one thing that the Minister of Agriculture has done for this country, he did it last year. Now I would like to show what Mr. Clark says about this matter.
Prior to governmental operations in the matter of guaranteeing seed supply in unfortunate districts in western Canada, wholesale business interests were sceptical as to the ability of farmers within those districts to meet present and future payments on goods- farm implements, &c., 4c. In consequence the farmers and all retail business interests within those districts found it difficult to obtain credit on reasonable basis from wholesale merchants, from banks or lo-an companies.
The very action of the government in procuring seed grain, served as a guarantee of a crop so far as seed supply is concerned and at once restored confidence on the part of business men and financial institutions that the prospective crop output for 1908 would be equal to present and future liabilities. Then and not till then were farmers in general able to procure reasonable credit to enable them to purchase supplies of seed grain on their own account. Many farmers needed more seed grain than the governments undertook to supply-namely, 200 bushels wheat, 200 bushels oats and 100 bushels bar-ley. Many thought perhaps they could get it cheaper and were encouraged in that thought, by numerous unfavourable newspaper comments Such newspaper comments also may have induced many to take the risk of sowing their frozen grain, but the fact remains that not until action was taken by the government were they able to get the financial accommodation they needed to help themselves.
This action of the government has had a very beneficial effect and Mr. Clarke has told me, immediately on his return to Ottawa, that the information that a certain district was to be supplied with seed had
a most astonishing effect. Business men and others who had refused to give credit at once loosened up, the banks and financial institutions began to lend money, and every one took a more hopeful view of the situation.
Another matter that was criticised very severely by the hon. member for Wentworth was the action of the Department of Agriculture with reference to cold storage facilities on sea-going vessels. It was stated that a-very small quantity of goods were being shipped in cold storage as compared with the quantity that was expected to be shipped. I have a return showing the number of packages that were shipped in cold storage this year and this applies to early apples and perishable fruits such as peaches and pears. There were in all thirty-one shippers who shipped by cold storage 3,847 barrels of apples as well as 94 packages of smaller fruits. The fact has been alluded to that a quantity of fruit was sent across the equator to South Africa in cold storage and landed in good condition. That fact is likewise stated here. But we have also the fact that 12,017 packages of California fruit came through Canada, sent through the Canadian cold storage in preference to their own, and this, I think we will all admit, is a tribute to the character of the accommodation which is being furnished by the ships on the Canadian route.
Again, in regard to the Fruit Marks Act, it has been very severely criticised. I should say that this year the conditions surrounding the trade in fruit have been exceptional. Fruit in the country was not up to the average, and at the commencement of the barrelling season it was thought that apples were going to advance in price. A great many people went into the business and prices went high in the orchard. After it was known that the supply was abundant, the price was decreased and a number of dealers packed a good deal of inferior fruit with the object of trying to come out even. I have here an American opinion o the Fruit Marks Act of Canada which I will read :
Comparison of American and Canadian apples by United States Vice-Consul Albert S. Phillips, Writing with reference to American and Canadian apples in Great Britain, he says:
The Canadian government has regulated these grades as to quality and size of fruit, and if packers deviate therefrom they are liable to a fine. This government control inspires dealers with confidence, and the fact of there being only three grades simplifies the trade, making it possible for dealers to have a perfect knowledge of what they are purchasing. These conditions do not obtain, however, in the United States; on the contrary, marks run from lx to 25x, and the sizes of the boxes and barrels differ in every state, thus, according to the dealers here, rendering the trade most complicated. I have been shown large numbers of barrels (Ameri-

can apples) where the packing was very uneven, consisting of small green apples on the top and bottom, with decayed fruit in the middle. It has also been pointed out to me- and judging from the fruii l have seen on the Cardiff market I am forced to admit it- that Canadian apples receive more care in gathering and. packing than the American fruit.
Quoted from ' California Fruit Grower/ December 28, 1907.
That is American testimony to our Canadian Fruit Marks Act and its results. I do not say that the hon. member for Wentworth decried the Fruit Marks Act; he criticised it, but he did not decry it. He said it was a good Act, but that it did not go far enough, and that the government should appoint more inspectors and institute a separate branch for fruit. That is a matter of expense. I think myself from my knowledge of matters in connection with the Department of Agriculture that it would be to our advantage to have a separate branch in the Department of Agriculture devoted to the fruit interests, but it means a considerable addition to the expense of the department. I think also with the hon. member for Wentworth that it would be well to appoint more inspectors, that seems to be a necessity, and that fruit should be inspected at the point of shipment as much as possible. I think these are changes that could be beneficially made, but I would say on behalf of the department that they did make an honest endeavour to carry out the Fruit Marks Act this year. We have a return showing that last year there were 30 prosecutions under the Act whereas this year they have run to 100 already and they may run to 150.
I would like to say a word before I leave this subject in regard to the recent investigation into the tobacco industry in Canada. As chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization I take an interest in this matter, and the facts justify me in saying that the Minister of Agriculture has been beforehand in this matter of the growth of tobacco in Canada. Some years ago he appointed an expert to give directions as to the cultivation of tobacco. The investigation we have just gone through before the Committee on Agriculture has shown us that there is no necessity for Canada importing tobacco. It has shown us that we can grow leaf equal to the American leaf or to the leaf imported from other foreign countries, and it has also shown us that with the changes that the Department of Inland Revenue has just made in the Act it is reasonable to believe, in fact, it is almost a certainty, that when the rehandling business is in the hands of men who have capital to provide rehandling buildings in which to properly cure the tobacco we can export tobacco very profitably to England and Belgium. If this is true, and I believe it is-
I am quite satisfied that from hearing the Mr. McKenzie.
experts who have been examined

we will add another industry to the agricultural industries of Canada. I am not a tobacco user and some one might say that I have no right to speak in this way but I feel that tobacco has come into general use to stay ; we are sending out a large amount of money for imported leaf and if we can produce it in Canada we are no worse off in the matter of the consumption of tobacco than we would be if continued to import it, but on the other hand, we will have another industry added to the industries that our farmers can engage in. These are matters that we would like to talk on, but there are other matters. Before going into them I might say a word on immigration. I had almost forgotten to say anything upon that subject. The immigration branch has been severely criticised for the conditions prevailing at the present time in the matter of immigration.
Speaking of present conditions in Canada, members of the opposition have taken advantage of the exceptional conditions to criticise the general immigration policy of the government. We hear a great deal about the adverse balance of trade in Canada. As we might expect, different views have been advanced during this discussion as to whether a country can be prosperous under an adverse balance of trade. For my part I think that it is not at all surprising that we should have an adverse balance of trade in Canada to-day. A close examination of the returns will disclose that the excess of imports is largely due to the importation of raw materials on account of the great progress Canada is making in'manufacturing and the building of great railway works, particularly the National Transcontinental Railway. We heard to-day from the hon. member for New Brunswick (Mr. Doggie) of the enormous amount spent for the importation of raw cotton, while we as farmers import a large quantity of corn, our raw material. A great quantity of settlers' effects are also imported and these things together would make up the difference between the exports and imports. My solution for the difficulty would be to pump in the immigrants. That was Kipling's solution of the Japanese problem ; I do not know whether it was as true in his case as it is in mine, hut I am satisfied that mine is correct, we should have no diminution of the stream of immigration to Canada if it is of the right class. I wish to be distinct on that point, we want the class that will go on our lands, or will go on public works presently and afterwards on the land. We cannot get too many people of this class. It is true that during the last months of last year we had an excess of immigrants, many of whom have stayed around the towns and have been a burden in a sense on some towns in Ontario. A great deal has been said about the conditions in shack-

town in Toronto. When that is mentioned it recalls to our minds the conditions previous to 1896 when all over Canada soup kitchens had to he opened to feed not immigrants but Canadian born citizens, and men and women who have been in Canada for many years. We do not find that to-day and the conditions in those cities are entirely due to this excess of immigration, in the latter months of last year, of people without means who could not get work, and this, of course, was partly due to the stringency of money which restricted the labour market. That condition could not be foreseen or avoided and naturally there was some little congestion in centres like Toronto where these people congregated. So I do not think we need be alarmed about conditions in Canada. These people are moving out of Toronto as quickly as may be to public works in progress throughout the country and will very soon be earning their own livings and will no longer be a charge on the charity of the city or province.
I have here an interesting statement showing the immigration into Canada from different countries for the nine months of the fiscal year up to December 31, 1907. It is as follows :-
Number of
Source.	immigrants.
British Isles	 111,238
Continental Europe	 77,165
United States	 46,925
From 1903 down to the present time British immigration has taken the lead and every year has shown an increase while the immigration from continental Europe has shown a decrease in comparison. That fact I wish to note particularly. It is a condition which we are all very glad to see. It is true that there are many countries in northern Europe from which we welcome immigration. There are countries in the south from which we do not want it. Our Immigration Department cannot be too particular to discourage immigration from these southern countries of Europe altogether. It must be remembered that unless we prohibit these people from entering the . country, a certain number of them will come. While we can keep out a certain number it is very difficult to shut the doors against immigrants coming from Europe, and the government cannot be blamed if a certain number from southern Europe do come in ; but we would blame them if they encourage that class of immigration. Immigration from northern Europe is very desirable. If we go to the western provinces, ' into the settlements of immigrants from northern Europe, while individual members may decry that immigration and discount it as compared with the British immigration, I say that these people are filling a need that we cannot fill from British sources ; we cannot get the number of people from
the British Isles, from the older provinces of Canada or from the United States we require. We have an immense country to fill. It is true that we should fill it if possible with tiie very best class possible, and the government must exert themselves to secure immigrants from the countries 1 have indicated. I would favour particularly German immigration. I have noticed that German immigrants, no matter from what country they come, whether Germany, Russia, or any other country, if they are of German extraction and belong to the German race, are desirable settlers. They came into Ontario from the United States and from the old country as well. I have them in my county and there is no better class of farmers, no better class of citizens in the country and no class that is doing its duty to the country in the way of increasing population and wealth in a greater degree than the Germans.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why not get into their market ?


Peter H. McKenzie: We will get there, I will help you, friend Armstrong, if I can. It is significant that we are confronted, with no great question of policy in Canada to-day. It is remarkable, that we have got away from matters of policy altogether. The policy of this government seems to have been such a success, so much above successful criticism, that the opposition, in order to get something wherewith to influence the electors, have left the weightier matters, the matters of greatest importance, and have resorted to cries discreditable to Canada, cries of graft, graft, graft, scandal, nothing' but scandal, the government of this country not worthy of the least consideration. It is true that the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) received from the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) a little consideration. That hon. gentleman said that Providence might be seen walking with him, but certainly not with any other member of the government. That is strange language for a leading politician in Canada to utter. It is almost a slur on Providence. I wonder who gave us the success we had as disclosed at our stocktaking time in this particular budget. It was not the other fellow I am sure, we do not look for blessings from him, so I think the hon. member from North Toronto must have been very hard up for an argument when he made the statement that Providence would not be seen walking with the Minister of Finance. He was with him all the time.
Now we are forced to speak of the matter of scandal. We have heard a great deal of it for several sessions. This session we are getting a surfeit of it; but I notice that the scandals of past sessions have been getting stale, and are not now so often alluded to. There was one scandal which I had

something to do with personally, having been chairman of the committee that investigated it; that is the scandal in regard to the North Atlantic Trading Company. I am going to state as briefly as I can to the House how that appeared to me, as I sat listening to the evidence day after day. The Conservative government had been in the habit of getting immigrants from Europe by means of correspondence with booking agents, corresponding with over a hundred of them. When Mr. Sifton came into power, he saw that if he could get these people united into some sort of a company and conduct the correspondence with their representatives, it would be a great improvement. Such a company was formed, and a contract was made with it, along with an agreement that the names of the members of the company would be kept secret, otherwise they could not live in the country ; they would be ostracised and perhaps imprisoned for inducing emigration from the country. The government pledged their faith that the names would be kept secret, and in pledging their faith, they pledged the faith of the people of Canada whose representatives they were. Time went on and this investigation took place, the names of the company were called for day after day. Frequently the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) who was leading the attack, would appeal to the committee to have the matter referred to the House. I often remonstrated with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, saying,
' Why not wait until we report the whole matter to the House, and then we will discuss it fully.' But, no, he wanted to get the matter referred to the House before the investigation was ended, r thought the object was to stampede the country before the truth came out. Finally the Prime Minister sent for the names, brought them to this House in a sealed envelope, rose in his place in the House, and offered the leader of the opposition to go with him into a room and open the envelope and satisfy him who the members of that company were- that there were in it no members of the government or friends of the government, or if there were he would know it. Before the leader of the opposition could say any thing in reply, his supporters shouted ' No, no '. The leader of the government turned and said : ' If you have not enough confidence in your leader to allow him to go into a room with me and open this envelope, I would suggest that you appoint three or four of his friends to go with him, and we will appoint three or four of our friends, and we will all go together into a room and open the envelope.' That likewise was refused. What reasonable man could come to any other conclusion than that it was not the names the opposition wanted, but an attempt to stampede the country with a cry that there was nothing in. I had recently Mr McKenzie.
occasion to address a public meeting. Before the meeting a leading Conservative came to me and said : * Do you know anything about the North Atlantic Trading Company ? ' I said, ' I know a little.' He said : ' Is it true that Sir Wilfrid offered to go into a room with three or four members from each side and give the names of the members of the company ? ' I said : ' Yes, that is true.' He said, ' Will you speak of that to-night ? ' I said : ' I will if you like, but this matter is getting old ; now it is teaspoons and teacups and pemmican and other little matters that are engaging the attention of the opposition, while the North Atlantic Trading Company is relegated to the past.' ' Well,' he said, ' that is a matter I want you to bring up, because if what you say is true, it means a good many votes for your candidate.' I spoke of it and tried to show that the government was justified in keeping faith with those men, and that everything was done to enable the opposition to see the names consistent with the honour of the country.


Mr. SPROUEE.: Does the hon. gentleman think that it would be satisfactory to the representatives of the people for a few of them to get the names without being able to go into an inquiry as to who those men were, whether they were fulfilling their agreement or were capable of doing so, or using their names in many other ways, as they would be obliged to do in following out the inquiry ?	'


Peter H. McKenzie: I know perfectly well that that is the position the hon. member for East Grey takes ; I have heard him ask the same question of other speakers. If the hon. member or any other member of the opposition had been desirous of getting at the facts of the case, they would have gone that far at least. It could have done no harm, and the fact that the Premier's offer was not acceded to showed me most clearly that it was not the names they wanted. I think the opposition in this House have some interest in the honour of this country when the word of its representatives is pledged as well as members on the other side, and they should have shown that on that .occasion. I think the people of the country will take my version of the case, as they did on the occasion I have alluded to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When a member of this House stood up and held up what was declared to be an Act of incorporation of a company incorporated in Amsterdam, and the opposition accepted that declaration as correct, and when they found out in the inquiry that that was an absolute perjury, what would they have done in this case if they had not been able to follow up the inquiry ?


William Stevens Fielding: What difference was it where the company was incorporated ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did it not make a great difference in the statement of a public man on his honour that the company was incorporated, and professing to produce the Act of incorporation, when in reality there was no such incorporation ?


William Stevens Fielding: What difference would it be whether the company was incorporated or not, for ail substantial- purposes ?
Mr. SPItOTJLE. It made this difference, that they deluded the public with the idea it was a respectable company when there was no such company.


William Stevens Fielding: Incorporation does not create respectability.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Forgery does not create respectability. People guilty of it generally get behind the bars.


Peter H. McKenzie: 
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If it was such a good contract, why did the minister cancel it ?


Peter H. McKenzie: For the simple reason that the company was not living up to the contract in regard to immigration from the northern countries of Europe. They were going to countries further south where they could get immigrants at less expense and with less effort instead of going to Scandinavia where they would have to spend more and take more trouble. Previous to that being done, I had a talk over the matter with the Minister of the Interior. He gave me this idea of it and I commend him for the course he has taken. I did so as chairman of the Colonization Committee.
There is another matter in which the public have taken a good deal of interest and that is what is called the Saskatchewan valley land deal. That transaction, which is well known to hon. members, has been characterized by the opposition as a gigantic swindle. But a short history of this transaction will show that it was nothing of the kind. We all know that Osier, Hammond & Nanton built two lines of railway, one from Calgary to Edmonton and the other from Regina to Prince Albert. The company got a grant of 1,000,000 acres of land and were given a large area from which to make their selection. They found that the land was not good enough. They selected a small portion and then wanted to throw the land back on the hands of the government. I need not go at length into the transaction but I would point this out. The company were willing to take as low as $1 an acre for the land if the government would take it off their hands and give them a money grant instead. They even went so far as to institute a suit to compel the government to take back the land and give them money in its place. While this dispute was going on, a certain American firm, Davidson & McCrea, who had just closed out a land transaction in Minnesota, heard about this block of land and came up to look over it. They heard the company's proposition, and they bought from the company 1,000,000 acres at $1.75. They brought up with them to look at this land men engaged in farming in the dry states, and who were engaged in farming on a pretty large scale. They brought up three or four of these men, and three Of these are still farming in that country. These men, after looking over the land, after testing the soil and comparing it with their own dry states, made this offer to Davidson & McCrea :	If you can get us the even
numbered sections in a certain area in this territory from the government so that we can start farms on a large scale, we will make the experiment. Davidson & McCrea were not willing to go into the matter by bringing in individual settlers because they were afraid that individual settlers might not adapt themselves to the style of farming required in that country and the experiment might prove unprofitable, so they accepted the proposition of these men. And they proposed to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) that they would like to get a certain quantity of even-numbered sections so that they might establish large farms and experiment with this land in that way. The transaction was closed for
250,000	acres of land at $1 an acre, subject to settlement conditions. These conditions were that the company would put twenty settlers on twenty even-numbered sections and twelve settlers on other sections or 32 in all on each township. Just look at the transaction from a financial standpoint.

Tlie government would have given away the land for nothing in any event, hut in-, stead they got in cash $250,000 and had 32 settlers in each township as well. Look at it from the standpoint of settlement, and you have an influx of immigration of the most desirable character. You have 32 settlers established in each township and a system of farming introduced specially adapted to that Saskatchewan valley. I have been there and in almost every part of the west and I know something of the various systems of farming adapted to the different portions of the west. With regard to the soil in the Saskatchewan valley, I can say that it requires a system of farming entirely diiferent from that required by the sections around Portage la Prairie or the Red River valley. The soil of the Saskatchewan valley is hard and solid and requires deeper ploughing and more thorough pulverization. Unless that is done, you cannot have a crop grown successfully on it. I have seen crops on the soil there, which was deeply ploughed and thoroughly pulverized, and crops growing on the soil lightly ploughed as in the country further south, and while the fix'st was a great success the latter was a complete failure. Those three men whom the company sent out there to examine the land have their farms there still. They have most beautiful farms and are growing wheat successfully. The settlers around them are following the same system of farming, a system adapted to that section, and farming there could not be made a success following auy other system. This is one of the greatest advantages derived from that transaction, namely, the fact that this particular system of farming was introduced and developed there and demonstrated to be the proper system for that country. What has been the result? There has been a flow of immigration into that Saskatchewan valley since and we have several large towns, including Saskatoon, there to-day, whereas before that transaction took place the railway was running 60 miles without a settler and 100 miles with only three settlers. And the Americans are still flowing in there. The year before last and last year a Minnesota company ran their own trains right up into that country and delivered immigrants at points right along the line every two weeks. These immigrants they had collected at Minneapolis and St. Paul and ran them right through. That is the system which the Americans have adopted and that has been applied to that country in consequence of the Saskatchewan valley land deal. And that flow of immigration is going to be large again this year, and that valley, which at one time was considered a semi-ariid region, not fit for the growing of wheat, is going to yield millions of bushels. I cannot see why any one should condemn the Saskatchewan valley land transaction from Mr. McKenzie.
any standpoint. If the men who took up that contract did make some money from the rise in values, they were entitled to it, and the country has gained a great deal more than they did, and they got considerably less prices than the property has since been sold for, because these lands are appreciating in value all the time.
^ I would like to say something about the ' Arctic ' and the ' Montcalm ' scandals, but these have been dealt with already very fully. I might just mention one matter with regard to the ' Arctic ' which has been made a great deal of. I see the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) looking at me very hard.


David Henderson: I am wondering what you can have to say in defence of the ' Arctic ' scandal.
Mi-. McKENZIE. I shall just make reference to one item and that is the item of pemmican. The firm of Davis & Company offered to supply pemmican at 35 cents a pound. I have taken the trouble to find out what kind of pemmicau that would be.


Richard Blain: How much did the government pay ?


Peter H. McKenzie: $1.25 per pound, but the pemmican that could be bought at 35 cents a pound would not last on ship board on such an expedition three months. It would not keep, whereas the pemmican taken aboard the ' Artie ' when she went on her first expedition, and for which $1.25 per pound was paid, is fit for use to-day and as good as ever. So, we see there is pemmican and pemmican. I do not deny that you can buy pemmicau at 35 cents per pound. But there is a special method adopted in making pemmican that will keep long enough for the use of these expeditions to northern latitudes and that is what was bought for the ' Arctic.' I do not see why the two sides of the case should not be given. I am surprised at the use that has been made of the affidavit in the matter of this pemmican. Had the other and cheaper pemmican been taken, the chances are that the stuff would have become so rank long before the three years' cruise was over that the men could not use it, or, if they did use it, the result would be sickness and death.


Richard Blain: What did the affidavit say?


Peter H. McKenzie: It was read in the House.


Richard Blain: It stated-if the hon. gentleman will permit me-that the manager of Win. Davis Company had examined the pemmican and would agree to supply them in quantities at 35 cents per pound, what the government were paying $1.25 per pound for.


Peter H. McKenzie: If that is the wording of the affidavit, I will accept the hon; gentleman's word for it. At the same time, I

do not believe it could be done, for X have gone into this matter to some extent. The process is so elaborate and so difficult, and the quantity is so reduced, that, taking meat at the ordinary prices and prepare it for long keeping as I have stated, the price is increased.


Richard Blain: If the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) will permit me-I do not wish to interrupt him-I will read a portion of the affidavit:
I have examined a sample of the pemmican so-called, furnished for the ' Arctic ' expedition. and the firm with which I am connected would be pleased to furnish to the government or any institution or individual an article similar and equal in quality, in lots of 1,000 pounds or over, packed in 10-pound tins, boxed, strapped and shipped to any point in Canada, for 35 cents a pound.
This was signed by the manager of the Wm. Davies Company.


Peter H. McKenzie: Where doctor's differ, it is hard for us to decide. The affidavit seems straight enough, but I have satisfied myself that they cannot do it at the figure. He could produce pemmican, but it would not keep for the length of time required for such an expedition. Now, I wish to say a word about transportation. A good deal has been said about the Hudson Bay Railway. Looking to the future of Canada, I must say I am very much in favour of something being done to provide a road to Hudson bay. I thiuk the country will require an outlet for the northern part of the west, not immediately perhaps, but within five or six years. I have heard a good deal and read a good deal about the northern part of Canada, and am very much of opinion that a great part of our country there is adapted for agriculture, that it has greater resources iu the way of valuable minerals and otherwise than we are now aware of. I am likewise of opinion that our northern country is improving in climate. From what I can read, the low temperature is passing away from northern Canada and is travelling eastward over Greenland and towards Siberia, and that, as years roll on, our west and northwest will grow milder in climate and we shall have a great asset for the production of agricultural products in that north country. The Hudson bay road is not a very long stretch, only 500 miles. And, seeing that lands in that part of the country have never been alienated from the government, I think it would he wise for the government to look towards building that road with the proceeds of sales of lands in that northern country. I would not say that the general revenue of the country should not he finally taxed for this purpose. The country might have to advance some money in the initial stages of the enterprise, but I think it should be so financed that, eventually, the land would pay for the road. I think this is a proposition for the near future. With
regard to the Georgian bay canal, I do not look forward to the building of it iu the near future or until the Transcontinental Railway is completed, and until we see what it is going to do for us with its improved grades, its straight lines, its capacity for carrying heavy loads ami its cheap rates. Until this is known, I thiuk we should not rush on with large expenditures for other transportation lines. 1 think that, possibly, the Intercolonial should be extended to the centres of Ontario, and, perhaps, to the Georgian hay. I believe also that branch lines in the eastern provinces should he considered by the government with a view to strengthening the system. These things, I think, are in the interests of Canada and the government should look in this direction.
I have read the statement by a learned English professor that, within a generation, Canada would be the centre of the empire. I confess that I cannot take so sanguine a view as that. What may come to pass in three generations or more we cannot say. But, of one thing I have no doubt, and that is that a great future is before Canada. I believe Canada has the most valuable part of the North American continent. I believe that we shall have on this northern part of the continent, a population strong and progressive-this must be the result of our climatic conditions. I see no reason why any Canadian should be pessimistic as to the future of his country or why Canadians, when a slight stringency occurs-a stringency that is far greater in other countries-should howl poverty and disaster for Canada. Our credit has stood the strain well. We find that there is a great inpouring of capital from Great Britain into Canada to-day, and here I would like to read to the House a statement of the bond issue of Canada for 1907.
The total Canadian bonds issued in 1907 was approximately $82,635,740. This compares with:
1906	$ 53,987,008
1905	 134,871,531
1901	 31,529,247
Corporation	$58,931,200
Municipal..	  14,430,540
Provincial	 9,274,000
Total	$ 82,635,000
Corporation issues then nearly doubled and municipal issues increased nearly fifty per cent. Throughout 1906, financing was withheld in the expectation of lower inten st rates. Bonds were issued in 1907 partly through immediate necessity and partly because the expectation was given up of a quick return to lower interest rates. It is an indication of the excellent standing of Canadian securities that during the time of such stress the market took Canadian bonds iu such large quantities.

The distribution of Canadian bonds issued
iu 1907 was as follows:
Canada has taken	$11,761,683
Great Britain has taken.. .. 63,095,057 United States has taken,. .. 1,779,000
Total	$82,635,710
The most interesting thing about this comparison is that Great Britain took during 1907 nearly two and one half times as many Canadian bonds as in 1906, and came well up towards the $85,021,395 taken in 1905, the year of the' Grand Trunk Pacific and other large issues. This is especially gratifying as an indication of the continued increasing interest of British investors in Canadian securities.
We welcome this capital, we get it cheap, use is nere and make a good deal more than the interest we have to pay upon it. The future of Canada depends largely upon getting population of the right class. 1 would say to the government:	Do not
relax the efforts to secure immigration, but bring in the people and settle them in the west. The prosperity of the west will build up the prosperity of the east. We have only to look at the result to-day of a partial failure in the west to see how one part of the country depends upon the other. Western Canada, for years to come, with ordinary success and fairly good crops, will tax the manufacturing industries of the east to their utmost capacity. How ? By the increase of its population. Not only do these people, going on the land, increase their own products, but the supplying of their needs in many lines of manufacture means prosperity for the whole country. I thank the House for the consideration shown me, in this almost my maiden speech.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is one thing the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. McKenzie) said that I can agree with, and that is that the outlook of Canada may well be optimistic. There is no substantial ground for pessimism if, as he says, the flow of immigration continues, and we get the right sort. Every one will agree with that. But the question naturally suggests itself: We have the flow of immigration, is it of the right sort? Who is responsible if it is not the right sort ? Why, it is the government. Every one admits that a large percentage of what we are getting is not of the right sort, and yet the government are spending the money of Canada to bring in the wrong sort and fill up the country with what is entirely unsuitable. The hon. gentleman dealt with several subjects, but I have not time to do more than touch upon them. He told us one thing we did not know before with regard to the North Atlantic Trading Company. He told us that Mr. Sifton asked them to form such a company. That is new information. So I presume after this, if the hon. member from South Bruce is reliable, we may fairly Mr. McKenzie.
hold the member for Brandon responsible for the formation of that company, and whatever odium may attach to that company he is largely entitled to, because he, it seems, was one of the originators of the company, and his man Preston carried it out. The hon. member for South Bruce justifies the action of that company, lie justifies the expenditure, he justifies the secrecy surrounding the expenditure, and surrounding the so-called company, and he justifies the denial of the right to the representatives of the people in parliament to ascertain who got the $300,000 or $400,000 of Canada's money for immigrants that was paid out to this company, a large percentage of whom were entirely unsuitable for Canada. The hon. member for South Bruce holds that the' secrecy was justifiable, that it was ample for parliament to be told : If you send one or two men into a room with me I will show you the names of the individuals who form that North Atlantic Trading Company, provided you never mention them outside. I would like to ask him if he thinks his constituents would be satisfied with that. I would like to ask him if the farmers of South Bruce would be satisfied if he told them : I went into a room, I saw three or four German names and one or two English names, I do not know whether they were paupers or millionaires, whether they were in the immigration business or not, how much of Canada's money they got, whether Canada got any return for it or not; we were not allowed to go on with the inquiry because we were told that those names were to be kept absolutely secret. I ask the hon. member if he thinks his constituents would be satisfied with an explanation such as that. We were assured in this House that the expenditure of this money was all right, that it was expended by a very wealthy corporation of responsible and respectable men, a body corporate and politic, and the letters of incorporation were shown in this House as representing that respectable corporation that was incorporated in Amsterdam, with the seal on it, showing it to be a wealthy corporation, to be an honest corporation. These letters of incorporation were held up before the eyes of the people's representatives as evidence that the money had been spent by these respectable men, and we had to accept the assurance. But afterwards, when we were endeavouring to ascertain who composed that corporation, we found there was no such company iu existence, that an absolute deception had been practised upon the people's representatives-I say, to the eternal shame of the man who stood up and defended it. And the hon. member for South Bruce was satisfied with all that, and would, have been satisfied to this day, and would have gone out no doubt and told the electors of South

Bruce that this money was spent with a *wealthy incorporated company of respectable men, had the opposition in parliament not gone on and made inquiry and ascertained that no such company existed, that no such corporation had ever been formed, or were in existence at that time. The whole thing was an absolute forgery and deception. How discreditable, how disgraceful it was, and I ask the hon. member for South Bruce : Are his constituents satisfied with that ? Will they justify the government and their supporters in endeavouring to burke an inquiry with regard to that large expenditure of money on the North Atlantic Trading Company ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Why did the government cancel the contract ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That question has been asked. If we were getting such satisfactory results, why did the government cancel the contract ? Can the hon. member for South Bruce answer that ? Does he forget that Lord Strathcona said that we would get as many good immigrants if we never spent a dollar on that North Atlantic Trading Company ? Is he aware of the fact that since the contract was cancelled we are getting immigrants equally as good, in as large numbers, increasing numbers every year? Yet that contract-was cancelled, all expenditures were stopped, as regards that North Atlantic Trading Company, it is not operating any longer. So far as we know, Canada has not suffered in any respect by the cancellation of that contract and we are saving hundreds of thousands of dollars that we were paying out before.


Peter H. McKenzie: The hon. gentleman has quoted Lord Strathcona. Did not Lord Strathcona justify keeping the names secret ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I don't remember that he did, but I think he sjaid he saw no reason why the names should not be given.


Peter H. McKenzie: I do not think so. s


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But he did not agree that . we should ever enter into such a contract as that. He says in- his letter that it was against his views, but because he believed it was the policy of the party in Ottawa, and because the deputy minister came from Ottawa and associated himself with Mr. Preston and went into the organization of that company, he did not feel like going against their views, knowing also that it was the view of the Minister of the Interior, whose representatives were over there. But his judgment was that it was wrong and improper, and we would get no substantial return for it.


William Paterson: Did you not say we wrere paying nothing now ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I said to the North Atlantic Trading Company.


William Paterson: No, you said we had been spending this money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Cus-ttoms is too respectable a man to try to make me say something I did not say. I said we were not spending a dollar with that North Atlantic Trading Company for that purpose.


William Paterson: You said we were saving the money, I think.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The money that we paid to the North Atlantic Trading Company.


William Paterson: But you are paying it to some one else.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are paying it to ppople that we know, we are paying nothing to that company. Now with regard to the class of immigrants. The hon. member said : If we were getting the right class. Are we getting the right class ? Have we got the right class, and how are they placed ? Then we are paying $5 a head to bring men here who are presumably farmers.


William Paterson: How are you saving it then ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
William Paterson: That is poor saving.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is poor saving. How has the other $600 been taken out of the country? Unfortunately, improperly, stolen! Who has prosecuted the man who did it? What has been done by the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of Agriculture ? Nothing has been done. This was going on all year until finally it was brought to the attention of the House. These men who were brought out to this country and were declared by the Department of Agriculture to be farmers and agricultural labourers were planted out among the farmers when they had never spent a day on the farm but had come from the cities and towns of England and other European countries. As farmers and agricultural labourers $5 a head was paid for them, $2 a head was paid to the agent to locate them and in many cases no immigrant was ever located. Letters from farmers were read by my hon. friend from Kent (Mr. Clements) in the House today showing that this agent never earned the money which was paid to him. in one case $10, in another $12, in another $8, in many cases $5, $4 or $2 and in many of these cases no immigrant had been placed at all. And no -prosecution ! This is the country's money, is it not ? Who is responsible for the stealing of this money out of the public treasury ? The government.

Who was this agent ? The government's agent. The government, although they have ' a guilty knowledge, although they are responsible, in so far as we know, have not raised hand or foot to punish the individual who did this. Is that what the country expects from a moral government, from an honest government, a good meaning government, a government of business men ? I say it is a disgrace to any civilized country in the world. What does their own agent say in regard to many of these people coming out to Canada V What does Mr. Bruce. Walker say ? In a pamphlet which he has issued he tells us that the East End Emigration Fund has sent out 0,096 immigrants and the Central Emigration body 2,842. What do the members of the government say about that ? We have beeu told that they are bringing out nothing but the very best, that the government are exercising supervision over those that come ; that they are examined there and they are examined when they land here, both at the point of embarkation and the point of debarkation, that those who are unsuitable for Canada are sent back. But, what does Mr. Walker say ?
The Central Emigration Board, an executive body, not at all of a philanthropic or charitable character, was brought into existence for the purpose of providing a machine for booking and emigrating the products of the provincial distress committees. The latter have not taken kindly to the organization, inasmuch as provincial distress committees object to overlooking the claims of local booking agents, probably ratepayers in their community

To whom we pay $5 as well.
-in order to deal with the Central Emigration Board in London, from whom they receive no return, and no special consideration. Consequently, therefore," notwithstanding the inauguration of this body, with considerable press display, and not a little prestige from important and influential persons on the directorate, it has not done a great deal of business. During the year it sent to Canada 228 persons.
Then he says :
In inclosing you in tabulated form the totals of persons emigrated by such philanthropic societies as I have dealt with in this report, I beg to offer, in the most respectful way, the suggestion for submission to the minister, that if this emigration is not to be discouraged in toto, some means must be devised at once for its proper supervision and control.
Thereby admitting that there is no proper supervision and control over the immigrants that come here.
Mr- PATTERSON. You are in favour of that, are you uot ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In favour of what ?


William Paterson: What he suggests ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The government have been telling the country for five years that they are doing all they can and their immigration agents says they are not. That is what I want to bring to the attention of the government and of the country. What they have been declaring they were doing they are not doing at all, and it must be done if the country is not to suffer.
In my opinion, it will be an unfortunate condition of affairs if such organizations are permitted, unrestricted and unrestrained, to pour upon the shores of Canada large numbers of persons, few of whom are morally and physically quite fltted.
That is the class that are coming in.
Mr, PATERSON. No, we will not allow them to come.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will not allow them to come? They are coming in thousands, they are filling our charitable institutions in Toronto and Montreal and, what is worse, they are filling our hospitals.
It might be well to institute a regulation that the same permission should be obtained for the emigration of such persons as is obtained for the emigration of persons from I workhouses, and it might also be permissible j to insist that such organizations in England must have a complement 'organization in Canada.
To distribute them.
Here is what one of the judges of the country said in regard to this matter in addressing the grand jury of the county of Carleton :
_ In addressing the grand jury at the opening of the high court assizes yesterday Judge MacMahon referred to the injurious results of immigrants coming into Canada who were not mentally sound. He read statements of Dr. C. K. Clarke, superintendent of the Toronto asylum, to the effect that of the 362 admissions to that institution last year 136 were foreign born. The majority were recent arrivals. Of these most were deported but there were about 40 that the province would never get rid of, - and each patient that is retained would cost the province $6,000.
That is only speaking of one of the cities of Canada.
The Provincial Secretary's Department has deported thirty since January last. Of these weak-minded foreigners, sixty-live per cent were afflicted with dimentia prjecox, the same form of insanity accredited to Harry
K.	Thaw.
And this is a class for which we are paying $5 a head when we should be filling up the country with desirable citizens. These were the most undesirable classes of lunatics and were likely to live a great many years. In other words they were the failures sent from the old country by immigration companies to try and make good in Canada if possible. The judge explained that this disease was usually contracted In early life,

and in 60 per cent of the cases becomes evident before the age of twenty-five years.
And that is the class we are bringing in in such large numbers. Mr. Bruce Walker also speaks of this class and condemns the policy that had been carried out for the last five years during which time the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Agriculture have been telling Canada that the government were exercising the greatest care in the selection of immigrants.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend said that we paid $5 a head for these.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I said for some of these.


William Stevens Fielding: The mere fact that these people came in does not prove that we paid $5 a head.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I reached that conclusion because they are taken right to the farms in the country and come out as farm labourers. I know that they are brought out as farm labourers and were booked as such, because they said they were advised to put themselves down as farm labourers, although they had never worked a day on the farm. I have had four or five in my own employ and I do not think that they had worked on a farm before.


William Paterson: Were they crazy?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Some of them were, not the ones I had, however, and we raised money and sent them to Toronto. They were Imbeciles.


William Paterson: Did the Ontario government bring them out; did not they place the men on the farms?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I made application at Toronto and I think the application was forwarded here and they were sent on to me as soon ns they landed by the immigration agent for the Dominion. Three of them were sent on. As far as I know, they were sent from the immigrants brought in by the Dominion. They told me that they were instructed to book themselves as going on farms, although they had never worked on farms.


William Paterson: You had better mention that to Mr. Whitney.


Mr.   SPROTJLIO@: I mention it to the people responsible, to the people who did it, who spent the people's money ; I mention it to the guilty parties.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Was their information reliable, if they were crazy?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not say that the men I had were crazy ; I said the men who were brought into our locality and put among the farmers were in some cases crazy and some were sent to Toronto.


William Paterson: Were they the ones you were talking to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No. I think the hon. member for Ottawa will have to put an insurance policy on this man or he will explode again. At the meeting of the Associated Charities in Toronto it was said that the medical inspection was ' farcical.' This was stated by Dr. Hodgetts, I believe. Mr. Samuel Arnold, secretary of the Associated Charities, at the same meeting gave a statement of the position of the allied societies. This was in September last, really before the season of the year when distress is felt in the cities. The statement was as follows:
St. Andrew's Society, he said, had not one family to provide for. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul suggested that men with families should have enough funds to support them for six months. St. George's Society assisted persons 681 times-


Rodolphe Lemieux: M'hat city is that?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Toronto, last September.
-sent nine to the hospital, and had seven funerals in the past year. On the register of the British Welcome League there were 5,293 names. . Of these, 603 were without money, 347 with less than $2, 310 with over $2 but less than $5, 185 married couples with 352 children, wthout cash, 318 couples with 865 children with less than $5 a family.
They had been landed down in Canada and at once became practically paupers on the country. These were the desirable immigrants that the government * were bringing out to the country.
During the past year 30D persons applied for work at the office of the Associated Charities, and of these over 200 were recent arrivals. At the city hall 216 persons asked for relief and 44 for hospital treatment. All had lived less than three months in the country.
And that is the class we are paying so much money to bring into Canada.


William Paterson: Does it say the Ontario government brought them out?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the million dollars being spent for by this government? To bring them out and to pay bonuses.


William Paterson: I am asking you


Thomas Simpson Sproule: -to pay bonuses to the booking companies and many of these were brought out as desirable settlers.
Out of 200 families aided by the House of Industry, 150 were immigrants.
Rev. Canon Welsh appealed for quality, not quantity, in immigration, and said immigrants should have definite employment guaranteed them before they left home.


Mr.   R.@: Hudson showed that on paper the rules of the Dominion government for the medical inspection of immigrants were excellent, but in practice they were execrable.
The discussion was continued by Dr. Pepler, Mr. W. P. Sexton, Mr. J. C. Bayliss, Mr. C. W. Mogridge, Mr. H. M. Mowat, K.C., and Mr. G. E. Harman.
Dr. Hodgetts said that the medical examination of the immigrants was farcical, as a

physician was not allowed time sufficient to properly examine all who passed through his hands. Cases of heart and lung diseases and even of imbecility frequently escaped their notice.
That is the class of men who are being brought to the country and we are expected to applaud the government because they are bringing them to Canada. What is the result to-day ? It is that there are over
2,000	people in Toronto out of employment. I saw in a paper no longer ago than yesterday that two or three of these men had been offered $25 a month and their board to work on farms near Toronto, and refused because they could not get $26 a month. These men are lying about the towns and cities of Canada and are absolutely useless to go on farms. They have no sense of honour and no regard for a bargain, whether it is written or oral. Large numbers of them come from London, and they tell us they never worked on a farm; yet they are sent out as farmers. I employed one on a farm, and I saw him walk around a field three times to learn how to put in a plough, and he could not manage it properly if he got a million dollars. I was to pay him $20 a month, with board and washing.


William Paterson: The Ontario government brought him out. You should mention Hie matter to Whitney.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He told me he was booked at the Dominion government agency in London. I have had three more of them since. I had one who left only last week, who had been paid $20 a month, with board and washing, ail winter, although I do not think he was worth half that. He went away on Saturday night, and never came back, and he is now looking for work. Another remained three days ; another remained nine days. This is the kind of immigration the hon. member eulogized. Some years ago in the Committee on Agriculture the hon. member moved a resolution recommending the government to try to get the embargo taken off cattle, and he stood up with the greatest simplicity and innocence and assurances to tell the Committee that the government of England was going to change shortly, he believed, and a reform government was going to come in and would take the embargo off cattle. That reform government came in. Has it taken off the embargo yet ? How many times has the Minister of Agriculture applied to it, but he has not succeeded. Have we heard anything about it since? Not a word lately. If the hon gentleman is a prophet. I am afraid he is one of the false prophets. He talked a great deal about the cold storage provided by the Minister of Agriculture and told us what beneficial results we had from it. He said that practically all our products, including cheese and butter and eggs, were sent in cold storage and were therefore sold at a higher price in the British market Mr. SPROULE.
than before. Am I correct in that my understanding of his contention ?


Peter H. McKenzie: I spoke more particularly of early apples and small fruits during the months of August and September.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought he mentioned cheese, butter and egggs.


Peter H. McKenzie: In reply to Mr. E. D. Smith. Of course, I accept the statement of the hon. gentleman as the truth.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman accepts my statement as correct. Then what did the Minister of Agriculture say in this House in answer to a question by Mr. Armstrong ? This is the question :
What was the total number of boxes of cheese, butter, eggs, bacon, apples, in boxes and barrels respectively, shipped in cold storage, the number in cooled air chambers, and the number shipped in ordinary storage in twelve months previous to March 1, 1908?
What was the answer to that ? Here is what the Minister of Agriculture said :
Of the cheese sent over in cold storage, there was not a single box in the twelve months; in cooled air chambers, 290,076 boxes; but in ordinary storage, 1,721,000 boxes.


Peter H. McKenzie: I would like to ask the hon. member if lie expects cheese to be shipped in cold storage. You can ship but ter in cold storage, but you destroy cheese if you ship it too cold.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did not the hon. member state the benefit that the farmers .were receiving from it, and did he not admit that what I stated practically represented his sentiment ? How much butter went over in cold storage ? 66,S96 boxes. I take meats; how many boxes went in cold storage ? 2,858. How many in cooled air chambers ?
29,000.	How many in ordinary storage ? 25,900. Take lard-how much went in cold storage ? Not a single pound. How much in ordinary storage ? 1,000 packages. Then I take apples, which the hon. member says cold storage is for ; how many went over in cold storage ? 6,131 barrels. How many in cooled air chambers, 1,720 barrels. How many in ordinary storage ? 634,000 barrels. There is what the farmers got from this splendid system of cold storage.


Peter H. McKenzie: Surely the hon. gentleman does not expect the whole trade of Canada to go in cold storage. Surely he must know as well as I that during the latter part of the summer, when our winter apples are going forward^ there is no necessity for cold storage. That is required for the earlier apples and perishable fruit.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then why did the hon. gentleman misrepresent the facts by saying that practically it all went by cold storage? He said that nearly all the apples went in

cold storage, but I have shown him that by far the greater proportion went without cold storage. When the farmers of South Bruce read what he said and then compare his statement with the facts, what credit will he receive from them? Of the tender fruit, how much went in cold storage? None at all. How many eggs went in cool air chambers? 931 boxes. How many in the ordinary way, without cold storage at all ?	24.249 boxes. And the
farmers are expected to bow down and be grateful to the Minister of Agriculture. I see that the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) Is here. What did he say on that question? He also eulogized the Minister of Agriculture for the wonderful things he had accomplished by his cold storage, and he went on to say that practically all that the farmers sent now was sent in cold storage, and their products were consequently laid down in splendid condition in the markets of the world. The hon. member for Eambton (Mr. Armstrong) put to him this question: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that all these articles he has mentioned were exported in cold storage ? And the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) replied: That is my understanding and my opinion. But I have given the facts to show how utterly absurd his opinion was. Then the hon. member for South Grey went on to give a list of figures, showing the quantity of eggs and butter and cheese and bacon and hams exported, and he left the inference to be drawn that all these went in cold storage. The hon. member for Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) again asked him if these were all exported in cold storage, and the hon. gentleman replied:	That is my understanding. But we find that exactly the contrary is the case. What has the hon. member for South Grey to say, in the face of the 'figures given by the Minister of Agriculture to-day? If the farmers of South Grey only heard the one side, they might believe the hon. gentleman, but if the facts are put before them what will they think of him? They will conclude that either he is absolutely ignorant or dishonest-that he either does not know the facts or is dishonest enough to give figures which the facts do not bear out for the purpose of making some political advantage for himself and party and his wonderful Minister of Agriculture.


William Paterson: Cold storage is a good thing, is it not? Whether they ship by cold storage or not, is it not a good thing? Or are you opposed to it?


Mr.   S PR OXIDE@: The hon. minister from Brant (Mr. Paterson) is very fond of putting -I was going to say silly-'but I will say irrelevant questions. I do not like to be offensive but I cannot see the sense of his putting the questions he does. We have had held up to us the action of the government in furnishing seed as a great boon to 210
the farmers of the west. Well, a great many of the farmers do not approve of the system the government have adopted. It would have been far better if the government had made some arrangement by which the farmers, whose crops were a failure, could have been furnished with the money with which to buy seed from their neighbours, whose crops were not frost bitten and who consequently had seed for sale. Take one section where the grain was destroyed by the frost and adjoining that you will find another where the grain was first-class and where those farmers, whose crops had failed, could get all the seed they required if they had the money to pay for it. But instead of doing this the government are providing the seed themselves and taking security for payment from the farmers, and the government are giving a bonus of 3 cents a bushel in the way of a higher price for it to those who will turn in pure seed. Who is getting that bonus? A good manv of the friends of the government are getting it and those who are not friends are not getting it. That discrimination is wrong. In any event the price of seed grain is raised 3 cents a bushel and the farmer who requires it has to pay that. His neighbour who has equally good grain cannot sell it to him because he has not the money to pay for it, and he is compelled to take the government grain and pay 3 cents a bushel more. I am not giving this as an argument of my own. I had it from a man in Saskatchewan who is farming there. He has in his granery as fine wheat as you coutd wish to see yet he cannot sell lo the farmers, who are in want of seed, because they have not the money to pay for it. Those farmers are obliged to give the government security and have to pay from 3 cents to 5 cents more per bushel for grain which is no better or cleaner than they could get from adjoining farms. I am not blaming the government so much because I think that was not what they intended. I believe they were doing their best, but when we are doing our best, it does not always work out exactly right. This man said to me that if the" government had provided some means whereby the farmers could get money enough to buy from their neighbours, they could buy equally as good grain and very much cheaper. But to-day they have either to do without the grain or give security and buy from the government at a much higher price.


William Paterson: Was it known that the grain you speak of was all right? Was it tested?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was wheat which no man with an eye in his head and who was a farmer could doubt was first-class wheat.


William Paterson: They say the oats that were blighted looked just as well.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You could be deceived easily in oats but not in wheat.

<3607

660S


Mr. N. F. WILSON.: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the people appreciate the fact that they can get outside grain and prefer to pay 3 cents more per bushel for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The government can get as good grain in the country.


Norman Frank Wilson: They do not want to get it from their neighbours but want to change the seed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is largely moon-sliinei Besides most of the wheat is not imported at all but bought in the country there. I wish now to refer to the discussion which took place this afternoon. My hon. friend from West Kent (Mr. Clements) was dealing with a very important subject, and during most of the time he spoke there -was but one minister present. I do not know whether the ministers have entirely abandoned their functions as such, but the House sat with only one minister present and he a subordinate one, although at the moment the government were being charged with dereliction of duty and improper conduct. The benches were empty nearly the whole afternoon and but one minister present.
Mr. iMcKENZIE. Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? While he was speaking it struck me very forcibly-would it not be well to refer to the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) for his absence ? This country is paying that hon. gentleman a good salary and he has been in his place very little within the last month.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not against the leader of the opposition that charges are made, but against the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Immigration, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) is not responsible for these.


William Stevens Fielding: Did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clements) give notice to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) of any such charge to be made?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Some time ago.


William Stevens Fielding: That is not very defiuite.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I heard him in his place give notice to the House that it was his intention


William Stevens Fielding: That is not the kind of notice that is due to a minister. He should get notice of the time when the matter is to be brought up.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the kind of notice that any member should give and It is all the government should ask or expect.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. iSproule).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am speaking from a knowledge of some years which is worth as much to me as the experience of the min-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: ister (Mr. Fielding) is to him. Here are charges made against the Department of Immigration, not merely of mismanagement but of absolute fraud in the expenditure of public money. Yet we do not learn of any effort made to compel restitution, or to punish the parties. The hon. member (Mr. Clements) read case after case, seven hundred in all, of people for whom the agent had received a commission of $2 a head. And when letters were addressed to the individuals who were supposed to have taken these employees, half of them declared that they had never had these men. Yet this agent got $1,200 for locating these people, half of whom were never located at all;- pure dishonesty. And, that charge being-brought to the attention of the government, they have not a word of reply, but sit as dumb as oysters. They do not try to punish the individual, or get back the money, or offer any excuse. But is it any wonder that this individual should act in this way? I do not think so. He knowTs what is going on in the departments of the government. Everybody who deals with the government expects to get a rake-off or to steal some of the public money. And the man who gets only a small portion feels that he is hardly doing himself justice because somebodv else is more astute than he and gets a larger amount. Now, not only wms $2 a head paid for locating these people in this country, but $5 a head was paid for bringing them here, and this was done on the plea that they were farm labourers. Yet what do these lettters show that were read by the hon. member (Mr. Clements)? One man had never worked as a farmer, but was a plasterer by trade; another had been a mechanic; another stayed a few days and then went and got work in Detroit. And these were the people that were sent out as farm hands, labourers, $5 per head being paid to bring them here and $2 a head to locate them, though many were not located at all. And yet the government has not a word to say. Was this not a fraud? It would appear that somebody buncoed the government, but no attempt seems to be made to punish the parties. What percentage of these people belong to the agricultural class? Not half of them. In fact, half of them were not located at all. so that probably not more than one-quarter of these people were agriculturists. This shows the slipshod methods employed by the department, which are also illustrated in the examining of immigrants at the port of debarkation.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) is said to be a practical farmer, a man *whose ambition it is to do something for the farmers of this country. He often tells what a wonderful thing he did in getting the United States regulations changed so as to enable us to get our cattle sent into that country, and this is how it works out at the

present time. If the hon. gentleman disbelieve me, my hon. friend from Russell (.Mr. N. F. Wilson), whom I saw at the gathering of livestock men the other day, will verify what I say. Here for instance is the regulation with regard to horses-it provides how these horses may be brought into Canada :
A proper pedigree referring to the English or American stud-book to be given by the breeder in his certificate, but in the case of such blood horses whose pedigree is not entered in the stud-book an authenticated certificate of purity of blood and identification will be sufficient, provided the animal is found on inspection to have the properties and qualifications essential to improvement of breed.
Then, as to short-horn cattle :
The breeders' certificate shall embody a correct pedigree, referring to a recognized shorthorn herd book.
These regulations were made in November, 1887, before the present government came into power. And yet, they have been telling the farmers of the wonderful things the Minister of Agriculture accomplished by going to Washington and arranging with the Secretary of Agriculture for an exchange of pure-bred cattle between Canada and the Vnited States. I find in the ' Farmers' Advocate ' of Manitoba announcement of a sale of pure-bred cattle at Wetaskiwin, on March 31. And where are the cattle from? They are from the United States. They are consigned to a Canadian who sells them in his own name. These are advertised as pure-bred cattle, and the farmer who buys them thinks he is getting cattle that can be registered here in the herd-book of Canada. He goes on and buys them and what does he find? He buys them as purebred cattle, and he finds that they won't register here at all. Thejr have four registration herd books over there, they belong to joint stock companies who make money out of the business. Therefore they are lax in it, and we would not admit their registration at all. But the cattle they are bringing in and pretending to be pure-bred cattle as we know and understand the term, are cattle that cannot be registered in Canada. Will the Americans allow us to do that with our cattle? We are sending cattle over there and what do they compel us to do? They compel us to register our cattle before they get in, and it costs $100 a head to register. But we allow them to bring theirs in here free, and they sell their cattle in Canada as pure-bred, and we find that they are only grades when wet get them. So the Canadian farmer is deceived and imposed upon, a fraud is perpetrated upon him, and our beautiful Minister of Agriculture is letting it go on.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does he know about it ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, he was at the meeting, and they brought it to his attention, and they asked for a remedy. I asked the question the other day : Are the government taking any steps to regulate this, and under what regulations are the cattle coming in now ? The Minister of Agriculture did not answer, but the Minister of Customs answered, and said they were coming in under the same regulations as in 1887. Yet the Minister of Agriculture told the farmers of this country in the meantime, I fancy a hundred times: What a blessing it is that you have me as Minister of Agriculture, because he went down to Washington and had one consultation with the Minister of Agriculture there, and arranged everything on a fair basis so that there was a free interchange between the two countries in thoroughbred stock, and grade stock as well, to the advantage of farmers in Canada. Now they bring in horses, what are they wrorth when they bring them in ? I am told they are no good, the horses cannot register here. I say that also is a fraud perpetrated upon the farmers of Canada, and it becomes a tax placed on our good cattle. Our farmers are paying three prices for them. One case is cited of a man who paid $2,100 for a horse that the party who referred to it declared on his judgment was not worth $.700. Yet these horses come in under the regulations, the Minister of Agriculture knows it, and he is making no effort to change it, and the farmers are suffering in consequence. Yet we are told by the hon. member for South Bruce and others that we ought to be profoundly thankful because we have a practical farmer at the head of the department.


Norman Frank Wilson: Does the hon. member mean to state that all thoroughbred cattle going over to the States to be sold come under this hundred dollar regulation ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The man that was trying to ship them was told that he could not take them in unless he paid $100, he had either to give it then, or to pay it beforehand.


Norman Frank Wilson: The cattle that pay this $100 registration fee in order to be sold in the States are cattle of recent importation. I know the cattle we have bred and sold in the States have been registered before this clause was adopted requiring a hundred dollars to be paid, and we don't pay anything extra in order to sell in the States.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When was that clause enacted ?


Norman Frank Wilson: Two years ago. Up to the time of our national registration we registered all our cattle in the American Shorthorn herd book.
6611


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If they are registered there, of course you could take them there. But now they have to be taken in by an American, and they have to be registered as well-so I am informed, and if am not correct I want to be set right. That is the regulation, and I complain because the Minister of Agriculture allows American cattle to come in under such a regulation on their side, while we are deprived of the benefit of their market, and the Minister of Agriculture sits by and allows Canadian farmers to suffer.
Now as we are practically discussing the budget, I wish to sa'J' a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Brandon. I was amused to see how highly the reform press eulogized that speech. You would think it was one of the most wonderful deliverances ever heard in the House of Commons. It was original, it was new, it was practical, it was valuable, and if it was carried out, what wonderful benefits would result to Canada. Well, if all this is true, is it not a condemnation of the government who waited all these years for the hon. member for Brandon to tell them what they should do ? In proportion as Ills deliverances were wise and his recommendations valuable, in the same proportion did he condemn his late colleagues because they have not been doing what he says they should do. His whole speech is a rebuke to the government. He says that several reforms are urgently demanded, and not one of them was mentioned in the speech from the Throne or in the budget speech. Not a word in the speech from tile Throne about building the Hudson Bay railway, not a word about his other propositions, excejit something about the all-red line in the budget speech. Now is there any justification for the fulsome eulogies of that speech by the Reform press ? Were these suggestions new ? Not one of them was new, they had been discussed in this House over and over again. What are they ? Reforming the Department of Trade and Commerce by the appointment of commercial agents to increase our trade. What were we told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce? They were going to establish commercial agencies all over the world, who would collect statistical data that would be of great value, they were going to increase immensely our foreign trade ; and that the Department of Trade and Commerce was going to do wonderful things that had never been done before. But the member for Brandon says it wants to be reorganized ; it is out of date. We have paid sufficient money to enable the government to get it up to date. We have 32 or 33 agents appointed in England, South Africa, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and other countries and yet the hon. member from Brandon tells us they are no use. We want it reorgan-Mr. N. F. WILSON.
ized and that is what the country needs to-day. If it has not got it who is to be condemned ? The government told us when they organized the department and agreed to pay $7,000 a year to the head of it that they were going to have wonderful results from it, but the hon. member for Bra-ndon tells us: We never had any wonderful results. Is that not a condemnation of the government ? Certainly it is, and they must be responsible for it. The next question referred to by the hon. gentleman was that of civil service reform. We have had civil service reform discussed over and over again since I came into this House thirty years ago. Every year some one is going to reform the civil service. Before the Conservative government went out they appointed a commission and they were prepared to reform the service and woud have done so if they had not gone out of power.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is mistaken. They did not go out of power for nearly four years after that. The commission was appointed in 1891 and made its report in 1892. They made no reform at all.	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On account of going out of power.


William Stevens Fielding: They had all the time they needed but they did not do it.*


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not going to debate that now. The present government have been in office for twelve years. They have had two civil service commissions and they have not reformed the civil service. Yet, the hon. member for Brandon says that it should be reformed. Is that not a condemnation of his own friends ? On the contrary, they have deformed it. They have been in office for twelve years and there is no result as yet.


William Stevens Fielding: We have had the report of the commission for three weeks and the late government had the report of their commission for four years and did nothing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But you had a commission before this.


William Stevens Fielding: Never.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, they reported long ago and you introduced two measures in consequence of it.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is mistaken ; there was no commission.


Samuel Hughes: What was it ?


William Stevens Fielding: There was no commission. I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There was the inquiry upon which you based your Superannuation and Pension Fund Bills.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend lias made a statement and lie is questioning about some other things. He has said that we have had two commissions. I say that he is mistaken. There has been no commission but the one that was recently appointed and which has reported.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I will give my hon. friend the facts later.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When Sir .Win. Muloek introduced the Superannuation Bill there was no commission.


George William Fowler: 
George William Fowler: By the government, I suppose.


William Stevens Fielding: Every Bill is the subject of inquiry.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The next question that came up was the fast Atlantic service. When the present government came into power there was a provisional abstract made for a fast Atlantic service which called for an annual payment of $7501000, but the present government declared that they could provide a service for $500,000 a year, and that they would not pay $750,000. Man after man got up and said that we did not want a fast Atlantic service, that we required something to carry freight and it did not matter whether it was carried rapidly so long as it was carried cheaply. They took two grounds, first, that we did not need it, and, second, that we were paying too much for it. Now. we are told by this wonderful Daniel-come-to-judgment that it is the most pressing need of the times and that it would be cheap for Canada to give $1,226,000 for it, the only difference being that it will extend across the Pacific as well as the Atlantic. This wonderful thing is something new, something great. They are all talking about it now. The press have eulogized the deliverance of the hon. member for Brandon for advocating something that was practically ready to be realized some twelve years ago but which the government, with its want of foresight and good judgment, prevented from being accomplished. The government refused to ratify the contract which was made by their predecessors, they declared the service was not needed and now we are told that it is one of the most pressing neeus of the country. The next was the building of the Hudson Bay Railway. I listened to members from the Northwest the other day saying how much they wanted it. I believe they do want it. When I was in Winnipeg five years ago I was asked by the ' Free Press ' if I would give them an interview on what the country needed and I said that one of the most urgent needs of the time was the Hudson Bay Railway. I was taken to task very severely by a good many people on
both sides of politics for saying so. That was my opinion then and it is my opinion still. Now the hon. member for Brandon comes forward as an advocate of this project forgetting that the only effort that was ever made to build that road was by the late government. If they had remained in power the whole of the road would undoubtedly have been built long ago but because they went out the present government have allowed the men who held the subsidy and charter to dilly-dally with it. They have renewed the subsidy and kept it alive but the railway is not built and it never will be built so long as the laxity of the present government continues.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that the Hudson Bay Railway is being built and that it is already built for a considerable distance ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am aware that a portion of road which is used for other purposes is being built as part of a line going to the Pacific coast. Can the hon. gentleman tell me how much is built and how much they got to build it ? I do not think he knows anything about it. He has heard some one tell him. What a wonderful inspiration it was that came from the superlative cranium of the hon. member for Brandon when he said that the road might bo built by setting aside a portion of the land ! Practically the late government were carrying out the same principle in giving alternate sections of land for the purpose of building it. What is the difference ? The member for Brandon says hold the land for, say ten years, until it becomes valuable. If you hold the land for ten years it may become valuable but there is the interest accruing on the money in the meantime. The only practical effort that was made to build the road was made by the Conservative party. These are the wonderful deliverances of the hon. member for Brandon. The last was that the government should buy back the lands from the railways and throw them open for settlement. We have discussed that in the House a dozen times and a dozen years ago. Every one of these old subjects has been revived and revamped, and the utterances of the hon. gentleman with regard to them are considered to be a wonderful deliverance as If be were an oracle from Heaven. Every Liberal paper praises the hon. gentleman and in proportion as it .praises him it condemns its own friends.


William Stevens Fielding: But the Tory papers praised him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, and I said they were slobbering over nothing. I have heard it discussed so often. There was not a suggestion made in the speech that was not debated over and over again in this House, and the fact that they are not ful-
6G15

filled to-day is in several instances due entirely to the present government who had It in their power to carry them out. The late government were prepared to carry out the suggestions had they remained in power, and would have carried them out long before this. If the people do not to-day enjoy these advantages it is because of the men-I was going to say the incompetents -who have occupied the treasury benches for the past eleven years. I would not have spoken upon this question had it not been that the government have not dared to utter one word in defence or justification of this, or to say what they are going to do with regard to the stealing of the money of the country, the dishonest conduct of their own employees.


John Howard Sinclair: This debate, Mr. Speaker, has taken a very wide range. Hon. gentlemen opposite have gone back into ancient history and have made many gloomy predictions as to the future ; but not one of them, to my mind, has made any fair attempt to meet the splendid statement made in ,the budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding).


Samuel Hughes: Is this the budget debate ?


William Stevens Fielding: You might ask the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Clements) who said that he was cut out on the budget debate and was now cutting in.


John Howard Sinclair: The story which the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) had to tell was heard with delight by every patriotic Canadian. It was a story of increasing trade, increasing prosperity, increasing deposits in the savings banks, improved transportation facilities, a surplus on the Intercolonial Railway, a surplus in the post office and a surplus in the general revenue of the country, the largest in the history of Canada. With all these evidences of prosperity before them my hon. friends have made more blue-ruin speeches than it has ever before been my misfortune to listen to. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) went pretty far; he saw all kinds of bogies across his path, but the past master as a blue-ruin prophet was the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt). There was nothing too doleful for that hon. gentleman. The lamentations of Jeremiah were cheerful reading compared to that hon. gentleman's remarks in this debate. If there is one thing more than another characteristic of the Canadian people it is that they are hopeful, that they look forward with great courage and hope to the future, and that they have no use for the pessimist, for the man who sees nothing but blue ruin ahead of the country. My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) to-night made a very eloquent Mr. SPROULE.
reference to the ship of slate. Let me tell these hon. gentlemen that the people of Canada will never commit the care of the ship of state to a lot of Jonahs, a number of whom mutinied the last time they had charge of her, who are always afraid to get outside the harbour and always see breakers ahead, whereas in fact the sky is clear, and the wind fair and the ship is sailing along on her triumphant course, steered by a pilot who has weathered many a storm, who still has a steady hand on the tiller and in whom the people of Canada, the owners of the ship, have implicit confidence. I sympathize with hon. gentlemen opposite in the fact that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has left them nothing to talk about, that he has exhausted the whole subject. He went over every thing that a man could possibly discuss in connection with the budget debate, leaving nothing at all for the men who sit to his right and left.


George William Fowler: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is referring to a previous debate.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman who preceded him (Mr. Sproule) did nothing but refer to a previous debate and why should not my hon. friend enjoy the same privilege ?


George William Fowler: It was open to my hon. friend to take the point. I will answer the question of the Minister of Finance. It is now twelve o'clock at night and I do not think the members are desirous of listening to a written essay such as is being given by the hon. member for Guysboro, who is reading his speech. For that reason I rise to the point of order in order that we may not have such a speech.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member for West Kent (Mr. Clements) was permitted to enter upon the budget debate ; every one who has spoken to-night has done so and I submit that it is now too late to object.


George William Fowler: I have the right to raise the point whenever I see fit.


John Howard Sinclair: I intend dealing with questions discussed by the last speaker (Mr. Sproule). That gentleman referred at great length to the question of immigration and endeavoured to condemn the policy of the government in regard to the paying of bonuses on immigrants. I understood from him-I do not know whether he intended to convey that idea to the House-that he was under the impression that the government were paying bonuses on all immigrants coming into Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No.


John Howard Sinclair: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was I not speaking most of the time of farmers and farm labourers on \thom they do pay bonuses ?


John Howard Sinclair: He said they represented themselves as farmers and farm labourers, and found their way into this country in that way. He said that the government had paid bonuses on these people. Would he be surprised to find that the government had paid bonuses on only a small proportion of the immigrants who have come into Canada in the last eleven' years ? I find from the record that from 1897 to 31st December, 1907 we received in Canada from northern Europe 359,575 immigrants, and paid bonuses on only 27 per cent of that number.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did that include the North Atlantic Trading Company ?


John Howard Sinclair: That included all the immigrants we received from Northern Europe, not including the British Islands, during that period. My hon. friend will also note that a great many people came into Canada from other parts of Europe on whom the government did not pay any bonus. Hon. gentlemen opposite appear to think the government have been paying bonuses on people coming from southern Europe, whereas they have never at any period paid bonuses on such immigrants.


Samuel Hughes: Would the hon. member explain what he means by southern Europe ?


John Howard Sinclair: I mean the countries of southern Europe, such as Italy and Greece.


Samuel Hughes: What about Rou-mania, Bulgaria and Transylvania?


John Howard Sinclair: I stated that the government never paid bonuses on any immigrants coming from countries of southern Europe. For every man on whom the government paid a bonus they got a settler on the western lands. They have placed more homesteaders on the lands of the west than the number of men on whom they have paid bonuses. If hon. gentlemen will examine the records of the Interior Department, they will find that while bonuses were paid on 27 per cent of the immigrants from northern Europe, 28 per cent of these immigrants settled on the lands of the west. When hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, they paid out a great deal of money to bring people to this country, but got almost no settlers, so that after eighteen years the western prairies were still a wilderness, while we have this splendid record,- that for every man from northern Europe on whom a bonus was paid we have settled a man on the western prairie. So
we have not lost one dollar of the bonuses we have paid. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) wishes to know the countries from which the people come on whom bonuses are paid. Under the present arrangement the government pays bonuses on three classes of immigrants- farmers, railway navvies and female domestic servants coming from the i following countries : Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Fiance, Belgium, Germany and Finland in northern Europe, and also from the British isles. My hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), in his speech the other day, informed the House that we ought to be paying bonuses on people coming from Germany. I was surprised to find the hon. gentleman, who is supposed to be an authority on German questions, making a statement like that. I do not know whether there are any Germans in his constituency but I suppose there are, and his speeches must be for them.


Samuel Hughes: I might take the liberty of informing the hon. gentleman that the hon. member for East Lambton has no Germans in his riding. He talks on the basis of principle. I know it is a surprise to the hon. gentleman to find him doing so.


John Howard Sinclair: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement, but I would like to have some explanation of the deep interest the hon. member for Lambton takes in the Germans. This is what he said in regard to immigration :
Then, Sir, on account of the present regulations of this government, within the last eleven years the immigration into Canada frein Germany has been little or nothing, and 1 am sure there is not a man in this House but who realizes the importance of a German community in any country such as Canada. Instead of us assisting immigrants to come i1 om southern parts of Europe it would be better for us to get into better relations with Germany


George William Fowler: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise the point of order again. The hon. gentleman is referring to a previous debate. I would like to have your ruling on that.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Of course, the rule is well understood, that there cannot be any reference to a past debate. But this afternoon and this evening it seems to have been accepted by the House, commencing with the hon. member for West Kent (Mr. Clements) that the budget debate should be practically continued, and I have been assuming up to this point that that was the disposition of the House. If the point of order is pressed, I shall of course have to rule that there cannot be any reference to a past debate.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: If I may be permitted, the hon. Minister of Finance and I think the Speaker rather misquoted me in saying that I referred to the budget debate. I did not treat on it to any extent.


William Stevens Fielding: I was obliged to leave the House to receive an important deputation, and as I left I distinctly heard the hon. gentleman state that he had some observations to make in the budget debate, which he now wished to continue. I admit that the hon. gentleman cannot make the quotation. We have been on the budget debate the whole afternoon.


John Howard Sinclair: I was pointing out that the hon. member for East Lambton condemned the government for paying bonuses on immigrants from southern Europe.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman is doing the same thing again. If he proposes to do that, I propose each time to raise the question of order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If the hon. member refers to a past debate and the point of order is pressed, I shall have to rule that he cannot do so.


John Howard Sinclair: I am simply discussing the question which the hon. member for East Grey discussed. If any hon. gentleman asserts that the government has been paying bonuses on immigrants coming from southern Europe, he is mistaken. There has never been such a policy. If any hon. gentleman is under the impression that the government is not now bonusing immigrants from Germany as well as from other countries of northern Europe, he ought to try and inform himself on that question, and when an hon. gentleman gets up in the House and tells us what we ought to do. when it happens to be the very thing we are now doing we are surprised.


Samuel Hughes: Has this government an agent in Germany?


John Howard Sinclair: I understand that the policy of the government is to pay bonuses to booking agents in Germany or anywhere else in northern Europe-that since the contract with the North Atlantic Trading Company has been cancelled, any booking agent in northern Europe who sends an immigrant to Canada, and succeeds in settling that immigrant on the lands of Canada, is entitled, after the immigrant has become a citizen of Canada, but not before, to the $5 for securing the immigrant, provided the immigrant is a farmer, a railway navvy or a domestic servant.


Samuel Hughes: Is $5 the bonus today ?


John Howard Sinclair: I understand that it is.


Samuel Hughes: Has it not been doubled ?


John Howard Sinclair: I think the hon. gentleman will find that is the bonus.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) says so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was informed it was that some time ago. It is a little more now.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: 


John Howard Sinclair: I am afraid there is a good deal of misapprehension, not only among hon. gentlemen opposite but in the country with regard to this question of immigration. I was very much suprised the other day to see an article in the Toronto ' Globe,' on the front page of that paper, framed in a pretty way and headed with large letters ' The Goth is at our gates ' and giving the name of some Italian who had murdered some other Italian somewhere in the province of Ontario and suggesting that the government should not pay bonuses on immigrants from southern Europe. I was surprised to find that such a well informed paper should haye been led astray, but the reason is hon. gentlemen opposite from day to day make these statements in this House and the Conservative press repeat them, and the result is that they deceive the very elect, and the people run away with the idea that our immigration policy is altogether different than what it really is. I have xiointed out to the House that out of all the immigrants we have received from northern Europe, we have only paid bonuses on the 27 per cent who have settled on our lands. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Bin ini asked some questions a few days ago and got a reply, and since then the matter has not been referred to by my hon. friend, but the question he asked was such an interesting one and the answer was so interesting that I wish to place both on record :


Mr. PLAIN asked:: 1.	How many immigrants of every kind arrived in Canada each year since 1896?
2.	On how many immigrants has a bonus of any kind been paid in each year since 1896 ?


Hon. PRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: Total No. on which
		Total No.	bonuses
		arriving, were paid.	
1.1896.. ..	. 16,835	4,4841897.. ..	. 21,716	2,4321898.. ..	. 31,900	8,6G11899.. ..	. 44,543	4,5881900 to June 30	. 23,895	19,7001900-1.. .	. 49,149	16,3091901-2.. .	. 67,379	15,2911902-3.. .	. 128,364	27.9151903-4.. .	. 130,331	47,9731904-5.. .	. 116,2GG	32,6011905-6.. .	. 189,064	33,6801906-7 (9	months).. .	. 121,667	14,0701907-8 (9	months).. .	. 235,328	20,5161,209,437	248,249So that	it appears	that out of	1,200,437
who reached our shores since 1896, we only paid on 248,249.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are the immigrants from the United States included in that ?


John Howard Sinclair: I think so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What calculation was made with regard to the bonuses on these immigrants? The government pay $3 a

head on what they get from the States, but I suppose they are not Included in that as bonus paid immigrants.


John Howard Sinclair: I am endeavouring to expose the fallacy that we have paid bonuses on all the immigrants who have come in. I do not wish the hon. gentleman to run away with the idea that when he finds a crazy man in some part of Ontario who happens to be a newcomer, we have paid a bonus on that man. Some of the crazy men he discovers in parts of Ontario are most likely men on whom we did not pay a bonus at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there a calculation showing that we have paid a bonus on the Americans or not? My understanding is that we paid $3 a head to the agent who gets them. If that is not a bonus, I do not know what is.


John Howard Sinclair: True we are paying a bonus of so much a head but only on certain classes and we have only paid on a very small proportion of the whole. What does the hon. gentleman want? Does he want to build a stone wall around the country and keep out these immigrants. The Department of the Interior is taking great care in the selection of immigrants. I have watched them arrive at the port of Quebec. Every man was examined by a doctor. I heard the questions asked as they went through the turnstile, and none were allowed to pass unless fit to pass examination. A large number were sent back and the greatest care was exercised by the officers of the department. What is the policy of my hon. friends opposite regarding immigrants or have they any policy at all? Do they condemn the policy of paying a small bonus of $5 on a farmer who will settle Tm our western land and help to defray the burden of taxation ? Do they remember that the debt of this country per head has been reduced by the fact that the policy of the Interior Department has been so vigorous. When they were In power the debt per head was $50, but because so many immigrants have come into the country, the debt per head to-day is only $42. Do my hon. friends remember that ? What is their policy I would like to know ? They have condemned the government, but I do not think they are justified in condemning the government for paying a small bonus of $5 for farmers who settle on the western land. Farmers are necessary out west to till the soil and so are navvies to build our railways. Then there is a great demand for female domestic servants. Our fellow citizens in British Columbia paid $400,000 into the revenue of the country to introduce Chinamen to do the domestic work of that province during the past year. That is the condition throughout Canada.
I do not think that my hon. friends, if they face this question squarely, will condemn the government for their present policy. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) said we did not get the right kind of immigrants. Well, we are paying $5 a head for every respectable farmer from Ireland who comes to this country. Are they the right class of immigrants ? I have heard it said that my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) claims to be of Irish descent. Does he object to immigrants coming from Ireland ? Are there no good men there ? Or what does he mean by condemning the payment of $5 a head for farmers from Ireland ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not object to that. The hon. member (Mr. Sinclair) is merely setting up an argument of his own to answer it in his own way.


John Howard Sinclair: Is not the farmer from England all right ? The hon. gentleman dilated for a long time on the class of immigrants from London. Well, are we going to shut out a man from this country because he happened to be born in'London ? The hon. gentleman says that we ought to be condemned for letting men come here from the cities. Well, if a man is so unfortunate as to be born in a city is he to be kept outside the borders of Canada ? Surely the hon. gentleman is not so narrow as that. But, what do these hon. gentlemen mean. I have listened to their speeches, but I fail to find out what their policy is. We are paying for immigrants from Germany. Does the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) condemn that ? I think that if the question is looked at fairly, hon. gentlemen will change their minds concerning it.
Some hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken of the rural delivery of mail. I do not think that we in Canada are ready to adopt that policy. I am inclined to think that it would be too expensive. We have too many other things to do. Our people are very anxious to have transportation facilities, ^they are in need of railways, public works, of canals-of many things that are more important to them than receiving their letters and newspapers at their own door. This appears to be the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, but it will be a very extravagant policy. They lecture us day after day on economy. But, if we introduce rural mail delivery, we must spend a great deal of money. It is estimated, I believe that it cost $30,000,000 in the United States. I do' not think it could be done for anything less in a sparsely settled country like Canada. At any rate it will cost a great deal of money-perhaps $20,000,000. I do not think we can afford to spend $20,000,000 in the carrying of our mails. Of course, like everybody else, I am proud of the record our post office has made. When the Liberals came into power, as everybody will remember, the post office service was in a very backward condition. Like all the other departments, it had become a kind of political machine. Mail contracts were giv-

en to favourites of the late government. When Sir William Mulock took charge of the post office as a member of this government, hon. gentlemen will remember there was a deficit of $781,000. One of the first acts he performed was to cancel a large number of improvident mail contracts-perhaps I should use a stronger term than ' improvident.' However, he cancelled them and put the contracts up to tender, the result being that he saved on these contracts the sum of $103,000 a year. If you consider that these contracts run for four years you will see that he saved no less than $412,000. It will be remembered, as it was drawn to the attention of the House this winter, that a proposition was laid before the late government to reduce the postage from 3 cents to 2 cents. But Sir Adolphe Caron, then Postmaster General, said it would be impossible to do so. Here are his words :
The government has no intention of reducing the rate of postage on letters. The loss of revenue would be $700,000.
It was only about three years after that that Sir Wm. Mulock took this step that was said to be impossible and made the reduction proposed. And we all know what the result was. He had deficits for the first two or three years and then he began to have surpluses. And if we look over the record for the last eleven years, every man must be proud of that record.
(1)	Postal facilities have been provided for the Yukon and for a large number of new settlements in the west at very great cost.
(2)	The number of letters increased from
116.028,000	in 1896 to 364,095,000 in 1907, an increase of 248,000,000. Of course there was also a large increase in the staff of the employees to handle all these letters.
(3)	The annual mileage or travel of the mail has Been increased by 12,254,211.
(4)	New post offices to the number of 2,186 Jmve been established.
(5)	7,941 money order and postal offices have been established.
(6)	298 new savings banks have been started.
(7)	The increase in the amount of money transmitted by money orders and postal notes aggregated the enormous sum of $34,847.440.
(8)	The number of savings bank depositors has doubled.
(9)	The salaries of postmasters of smaller places have been increased from $12 to $35, and, of course, in the larger post offices large additions to the service have been made and paid for. Notwithstanding all this, last year, instead of a deficit of $781,000 as in 1896, we had a surplus of $1,011,965 for nine months. Estimating at the rate for the whole year, we should have a surplus of $1,349,030 But. to make a comparison, with 1896, we should


John Howard Sinclair: add the old deficit, and this gives us a financial betterment of no less than $2,130,172. But even that is not all. By the reduction of the English postage from 5 cents to 2 cents, and the Canadian postage from 3 cents to 2 cents, we have saved another $1,000,000 which is in the pockets of the people of Canada. I say this is a record of which every Canadian ought to be proud, 1 do nbt care on which side or he ouse he is. There is one thing I want to suggest and I am glad that the Postmaster General (Mr. Leinieux) is here, and that is that the surplus should be spent in improving the system. We cannot afford rural delivery of mails, but we can afford a great many more daily mails than we have at present.
Speaking for my own province, and in looking over the post office returns there are 96 post offices in the province of Nova Scotia that have only a weekly service. Now in this 20th century I think there should be no people in this country receiving a mail only once a week. There are a good many who receive only two mails a week, and a good many others who receive only three mails. As much as possible I think we ought to give to the people in the country districts a better mail service. My idea would be to spend the whole of the surplus in improving the service, in increasing the number of daily mails. That would be doing the greatest good to the greatest number. Our farmers and farmers' sons would be more content to live on the land if they were brought into closer touch with civilization by getting a mail every day. I trust therefore that the Postmaster General will take that matter into consideration, and that instead of piling up surpluses he will, as the member for North Toronto says, ' open the floodgates,' atnd let us have a larger number of daily mails throughout the country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am open to conviction.


John Howard Sinclair: While I am talking about the financial state of the country, I wish to refer to the fact that the Intercolonial has shown such a good year, I would not be properly representing the people of Nova Scotia if I did not show an interest in the success of that great railway. That Intercolonial Railway, like the post office during the time of the Conservative regime was also a political machine. In 1896 it had been allowed to depreciate, the rails were worn out the roadbed was bad, the rolling stock was bad, it was a second-class affair all round. It had no western terminus, it ended in a field opposite the city of Quebec. It could not be expected to get business. But this government pushed it forward to the great city of Montreal, to the centre of commercial life in this country, and they did it against the determined opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite. Hon. gentlemen oppo-

site opposed that project, as they opposed every other progressive movement we have in this country for the last eleven years. They were not only opposed to that railway, hut they were opposed to the railway through the Crow's Nest Pass, which has done a great deal for the development of the west. They wrere opposed to the Grand Trunk Pacific, which lias broadened the habitable belt of this countrv and opened up an enormous district in the west. Nearly everybody in Canada is in favour of the Grand Trunk Pacific to-day. But the record of these gentlemen is that they were not only opposed to the Intercolonial coming to Montreal, but they have been opposed to every progressive movement to improve transportation which has been made by this government for the last eleven years. Now I was pointing out that this road had no western terminus. But this government provided one, the old 56-pound rails were taken up and replaced by 80 pound rails; better roadbed was made, new rolling stock was obtained, fine large engines were purchased, bridges were made and strengthened and built of steel, and we have now a splendid railway running down through the maritime provinces. We have some of the best trains you will find on the American continent : I do not think there is a better train .anywhere on this continent than the Maritime Express. Not only in the passenger service but in every service a great improvement has been made. Under the old system that existed in those lonesome eighteen years that we all deplore, when you shipped freight on board the Intercolonial you did not know when it would reach Montreal. Sometimes it was for weeks on the way. At present, we have a schedule train called the fast freight, that leaves Halifax and Sidney at a certain hour in the day, and arrives in Montreal under schedule time. It takes about 60 hours I think from Halifax to Montreal. But you are sure when you put your freight aboard that train that it will reach its destination in failtime. That train has done a great deal for the development of the industries of Eastern Canada; it has done a great deal for the fishing industry, because we are now certain that when we put a crate of fresh fish on board that train it will get through in proper time, whereas we could not be certain under the old system. Improvements of that kind have been made, and the Intercolonial to-day is a credit to the people of Canada.
But the Intercolonial is not perfect any more than the post office, and I have this criticism to make, that it has not done enough to develop traffic and to reach the outlying districts along the route, that it has not done enough to work up traffic by acquiring branch lines, and by building branch lines to places where traffic can be secured. The Intercolonial is a great artery passing through the country but has no veins to feed
it. No government that has existed so far have adopted the policy of building branch lines. You would scarcely believe it, that in the province of Nova Scotia, one of the oldest provinces in Canada, there is a district lying east of the city of Halifax, about 150 miles in length and forty miles in width, with about 40,000 of a population, with great resources of timber, a good agricultural country, a mining country, with large fishing resources, and that for thirty years this Intercolonial Railway has been skirting the northern border of that district, and I do not think they have ever sent an engineer into that district to explore it, and to see if it were possible to work up a traffic by building a branch into it. That was the policy of the Intercolonial under the past government and so far it is the policy under this government. So far we have not squarely faced the question of building branch lines. I trust that we will, I know that everything cannot be done at once. My hon. friends opposite are on the wrong side of that question also; because a few days ago my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), who is the railway authority that hon. gentlemen opposite follow, said that the capital expenditure on the Intercolonial must stop. Now, Sir, I presume that is the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, that they are following their leader in that as in other matters, and that if they were in power they would not spend another dollar on capital expenditure for the Intercolonial Railway. That means that we can never acquire any of the existing branch lines, that we can never build branch lines, for we cannot build them out of ordinary revenue as everybody knows. That seems to be the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, and is the same kind of policy that I have described in regard to the other railway and transportation proposals in this country. They are on the wrong side of that question as they have been on the wrong side of all the other progressive movements that have been made. I trust, however, that the government will take that matter up, that they will look at it carefully, and see where there are places that traffic could be worked up and where branch lines could properly and successfully be built, so that they may make of the Intercolonial, not only in name but in reality, the road of the people of Canada.
My hon. friends opposite have been condemning us for the expenditure. Now, Sir, it is true that we have spent a good deal of money during the the past eleven years. That question has been settled by the people on two or three different occasions. You will remember, Sir, that in the election of 1900 we -were condemned for this expenditure and we were returned by a very large majority when the people had pronounced their verdict. In the election of 1904 hon. gentlemen opposite, with the defeated candidates, who are so numerous among their friends, spoke in every hall and school house

and from every platform in Canada condemning this government for their large expenditure, but when the people marked their ballots you know what the verdict was. My judgment is that the people want expenditure, that they are anxious to have it and hon. gentlemen opposite, with the propositions they make from day to day, such as rural mail delivery, the building of tunnels and the building of this and that, although they condemn the government for doing these things, in their moments of weakness they seem to be in favour of large expenditure themselves. At all events, they have voted for most of these expenditures and they are now condemning the government for them. Not only are the people satisfied with these expenditures, but they are proud of the fact that this government has been able to expend so much money without putting the country in debt. The people are very much impressed with the fact that while the government have spent a large amount of money on capital account they have been able to do this out of ordinary revenue.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The Grand Trunk Pacific, for instance.


John Howard Sinclair: As my hon. friend has reminded me of the Grand Trunk Pacific, I would like to speak of that for a moment. We are proposing to spend this year $30,000,000 on the Grand Trunk Pacific. We are proposing to borrow only $12,000,000 of that amount. Do my hon. friends think that is a very bad record? When we went into the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific we expected to borrow the whole of the money. We were not aware that we wovdd have a surplus with which to build any part of the road, but instead of borrowing this money we are going to be able to build a large portion of this road out of ordinary revenue. We are going to be able to invest $18,000,000 out of the ordinary revenue of the country in a permanent investment-not a debt at all- but an investment of our money that will bring the people 3 per cent for all time to come. Are my hon. friends not satisfied with that? Three per cent on $18,000,000 will bring over $500,000. We are making an investment that will put half a million dollars each year into the treasury of Canada for all time to come. When the youngest man opposite has reached his hundredth year, if he lives to be a hundred, the sum of half a million dollars will be paid into the treasury of Canada for the ordinary revenue of the country on account of the investment that we are making this year. Surely they ought to be satisfied with an expenditure of $30,000,000 and a borrowing of only $12,000,000. Yet they cry out about the terrible thing that we are doing. We expect to have a fair return from that investment, not only a return in interest, but a larger return in the development of the country. I am surprised that hon. gentle-Mr. SINCLAIR.
men do not get converted on that question. I could say a good deal, if I had the time, about the question of expenditure. I could point out that certain services of the country were very much neglected in the time of hon. gentlemen opposite, for example, public works on the coast of Nova Scotia. There was very little attention paid to that class of expenditures in the time of hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) laid down the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to that question wrhen he said that these little places on the coast of Nova Scotia should not receive any consideration at the hands of the government, but that we ought to expend our money in the larger places, in the big places like Toronto. Those were the places where the Dominion government ought to spend their money and they should allow the people who live in the little places to go without such public works, or construct them at their own expense.


George William Fowler: I would like to ask my hon. friend when and where the hon. member for North Toronto ever said that?


John Howard Sinclair: In a speech on the 6th day of July, 1905, which my hon. friend will find in ' Hansard,' page 8926. The hon. member for North Toronto, in discussing these expenditures, said:
I never knew that it would be possible to find in the province of Nova Scotia, for instance, the names of so many places where wharfs and breakwaters and piers could possibly be built, as I find in the estimate which has been placed before us this year. All geography needs to be revised, all knowledge by the most liberal-minded and best travelled has to be extended in order to grasp the almost infinite number of little places in the province of Nova Scotia where large expenditures are made, and I am bound to say, out of nine-tenths of which no corresponding revenue at all comes to this country.
Then, a little further on he makes this statement:	.
The expenditure is going up millions and millions every year, this government usurping enterprises which ought to be carried out by individuals, by corporations, by municipalities and by provinces. It is a nice thing for the provinces, but it is a demoralizing thing to the countrv as a whole.


George William Fowler: It does not bear out the statement that the hon. gentleman made.


John Howard Sinclair: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it does.


George William Fowler: Absolutely, no. There Is not a word about Toronto in connection with it.	[DOT]


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend was talking about the construction of wrharfs and public works on the coast of Nova Scotia and he made the statement in effect that the government should not undertake these works at all in the little places, but that they should be built by the munici-

palities and provinces, meaning that if the fishermen in these places along the coast of Nova Scotia wanted public wharfs or breakwaters built, they must tax themselves for them, while the larger places like the city of Toronto are to get all the money that is to be spent for public works by this government. While the hon. gentleman was condemning the expenditure on the coast of Nova Scotia there was before the House at that very time a very large expenditure for a public work in the city of Toronto and he did not raise his voice against it. That was allowed to go through ; but if it is proposed to build a little wharf for the protection of fishermen and for the use of the fishing industry on the coast of Nova Scotia he condemns it. What does he mean, when he refers to an infinite number of little places ? Does he mean that those little places should have these wharfs or does he mean that they should not have them ? I think if the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) will analyze that speech of his leader from North Toronto, he will find that he is opposed to these expenditures for wharfs and breakwaters on the coast of his own province as well as on the coast of Nova Scotia. That seems to be the policy of the hon. gentlemen opposite, but it is not the policy that will be acceptable to the people of the country. The people of Canada are prepared to develop not only the west but the older provinces as well. We have a good country in the east, we are doing to-day everything in our power to develop the industries and the resources that we have in the east as well as in the west, and if hon. gentlemen opposite would take an enlightened view of this question, if they would look at it as we look at it on this side, they would support us in these expenditures instead of condemning us year after year. I could continue this argument at greater length if the hon. gentleman desires me to do so, but I think I have satisfied him that his party have been on the wrong side of this question, as they have been on the wrong side of the transportation question.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: On the wrong side of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: That is what keeps them there.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not care to make invidious comparisons between, expenditures in one place and in another but when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) stated that the little places on the coast of Nova Scotia, where this government is building public works, should not receive these benefits.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. member never made that statement.


John Howard Sinclair: He condemned the building of these wharfs and breakwaters on
the coast of Nova Scotia-I do not think that is putting it too strongly. I had the curiosity to look up what he did in this respect when he was a minister himself. I selected for comparison the public works in the city of Toronto and on the coast of Nova Scotia, and I find that the expenditures by the late government for the years from 1885 to 1894 inclusive, were as follows :
Harbours	Toronto
and rivers	Public
Nova Scotia.	Works.
1885	$	14,050	$ 21,3281886	
95,400	23,4001887	
208,162	66,8501888	
60,450	117,5751889	
60,700	70,8001890	
143,200	81,5001891	
166,810	135,3001892	
135,990	80,8001893.. ..'	
97,154	165,0001894	
105,102	91,0001,077,018	856,553
This shows that when my hon. friend was a minister he spent nearly as much in public works in that one city as he did for wharfs, breakwaters and improvements on the whole coast of Nova Scotia. It will be noticed in this list that the large expenditures are in 1887 and 1891. Perhaps my hon. friend from Hamilton will know why the expenditures in Nova Scotia were so large in those particular years ? Perhaps he will tell us ? In 1887 the comparatively large amount of $208,162 was spent on the coast of Nova Scotia ; whereas in 1885, two years before, only $14,050 was spent, showing that during the year of the election in 1887, my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) increased the expenditure by 1,500 per cent above what it was two years before, and in the year 1891, he increased it 200 per cent above what it was in 1889. What does that mean ? My hon. friend is always very fond of percentages, and it is an extraordinary circumstance that in the year of the election 1S87, he should have increased the expenditure on the coast of Nova Scotia by 1,500 per cent compared with what it was two years before. This is the hon. gentleman who lectures us, who day after day turns up the whites of his eyes and lectures the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance on buying the people of Canada with their own money. I could hardly believe that when he was Minister of Finance ' he would open the flood gates in that way during the election years. Surely it was not done in the public interest ? He is always asking if these expenditures by this government were made in the public interest. Was it in the public interest to increase the expenditure by 1,500 per cent in the year of the election, or was it done in a moment of weakness ?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Would the hon. member point to any expenditure made at that time which was not in the public interest ?


John Howard Sinclair: Certainly not. I think they were in the public interest; the trouble was there were not enough of them.


William Stevens Fielding: If there had not been an occasional election we would never have got anything.


John Howard Sinclair: Even the election in the county I represent did not bring any money because we had a habit of sending members here to support the Liberal opposition and during fourteen out of the eighteen years there was no money at all spent in my county. Expenditures were made in certain other portions of Nova Scotia ; lighthouses, breakwaters and improvements of that kind were required in Guysborough but no expenditures were made although eloquent appeals were made by Mr. Fraser and Mr. Kirk, my predecessors. No money was granted and we were told by a minister of the Crown who .visited us on one occasion that if we wanted any money we must vote for the government. We were told very plainly by a late Minister of Public Works that that was the only way we could get any money for expenditures in Guysborough. But we chose to support the Liberal opposition and continued to do so during the whole period. We are there still at the old stand, and will continue to support the same party in the next election.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friends are cheering. I tell them it is a fact, that it would be very difficult to return even one Conservative in Nova Scotia if the elections were to come on now. The hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield) looks a little alarmed at that, but I think that even the people of Colchester will be of the same oninion as ourselves and will say that the present government is good enough for Nova Scotia.


Richard Blain: New Brunswick is down in the east.
Motion agreed to and House went into Committee of Supply.
Progress reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Richard Blain: What business will be taken up on Monday ?


William Stevens Fielding: I understand there was an agreement between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, that a motion which my hon. friends of the onnosition will make will come up then. In supply, the estimates of the Minister of Public Works will be considered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.05 a.m. Sntnrdav.
Arthur Cyril Boyce: Monday, April 13, 1908.