The hon. gentleman says that the consumers do not pay it.

Mr. CLANCY'. The increased duty on woollen goods has had the effect on the one hand to give the British manufacturer and tlie British exporter the advantage of the increase, but the increased duty to the people is because the duty has been raised to the people of Canada, who are paying the tax and receive absolutely not one farthing reduction from the retail dealers in this country.

Hear, hear.

Mr. CLANCY.

That is where it is. We were told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the leader of the opposition did not point out one case where there was an oppressive duty. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that all duties and all taxes are oppressive, and the m st oppressive taxes are those that we pay without receiving compensation in return, and these are the kind of taxes we are paying to-day in Canada. I am not prepared to say we ought to reduce our duties, but I say that under a better arrangement of the duties we would take less taxes from the people and we would give more labour to the people of Canada. These gentlemen opposite talk of being friendly to a protective tariff. Why they would not know how to administer a protective tariff. They do not understand the aims of a protective tariff ; they understand no tariff but a tax collecting tariff.

In conclusion, Sir, I wish to say a few words in reference to the conditions in western Canada. That country is rapidly being settled, and if properly directed that immigration will be of immense benefit to Canada. But in this connection, 1 know of nothing so dangerous as the position taken by the Liberal leaders in this country. Unfortunately they are preaching, not Canadian but American sentiment. They are telling the people of the west that they are not to look upon Canada as their home. They are placing such literature as the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) before them, which counsels them to look to American institutions and to trade with the. American people. What do the people of the older provinces think of that state of affairs ? We have done what was our duty in voting millions of dollars to advance the west, and I trust

this House will not be beggarly in voting generously sums of money to promote the welfare of that country. But I ask the patriotic Canadians who are ready to bear this taxation, what the outlook is to be if we are to adopt the policy propounded by hon. gentlemen opposite. Our railways will cease to be an advantage to the west; our waterways will fall into disuse ; we will find ourselves a part of the American republic without our consent, and we will find the great west which ultimately will be a controlling factor in this Dominion ; we will find it not a part of British North America, but a part of the United States, if the Liberal government succeed in their policy. These gentlemen have a shifting policy for every occasion. They commenced with a reciprocal tariff, and they end with a preferential tariff, that they now threaten to abandon. They commenced with what they called a reform tariff, and now they are ending with increased taxation. Every policy they have adopted they have abandoned in turn, and their latest policy is unrestricted policy. Let us not conceal it from ourselves that we are on the dangerous ground we were in 1891. We are to be Americanized by this Liberal government.

I see gentlemen upon the other side of the House who will go back and appeal to the people of the North-west on the ground set forth by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and sanctioned by the ministers, including the first minister, who asked him to make that speech.

Mr. DOUGLAS.

How do yon know ?

Mr. CLANCY.

I will tell my hon. friend (Mr. Douglas) because he intends to repeat that speech.

Mr. DOUGLAS.

I intend to do nothing of the kind.

Mr. CLANCY.

I would be the last to disclose a thing that comes to me in the way of confidence, but I will gratify my hon. friend's curiosity by telling him that the hon. gentleman from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) told me so himself.

What did he tell you ?

Mr. CLANCY.

I will tell what he told me. I wish the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) was in the House, so that he might hear my words. I met him in the corridor and I said : 1 When are you going to speak.' He said : ' I am very sorry that I am

taking your place, but at the request of the first minister I was asked to follow the Hon. Mr. Tarte.' That is what he told me. Is that specific enough to satisfy the curiosity of my hon. friends opposite, who intend to ) use that speech in the North-west ?

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say tliat we cannot have two Canadas ; one east of Lake Superior and the other west. If we are not to lose our identity ; if we are to be saved from another campaign such as that of 1891, which was frustrated by the good sense and patriotism of the Canadian people, then we must be on our guard. This government on the eve of an election, intends to make such another campaign with the hope of being returned to power on it. But, Sir, our first duty is to cultivate a Canadian sentiment; our first duty is to show to the people of Canada that it makes a great deal of difference whether an article is manufactured by Canadian labour or by foreign labour, and our first duty is to provide home labour for the people of our own country. Well, Sir, how are we to do that ? We must do it by cultivating a Canadian sentiment, by giving the first opportunity to Canadian enterprise and Canadian industry. If we prefer our Canadian home trade for Canadians rather than giving it to foreigners, if we prefer, in a word, to remain Canadians rather than to become a part of the United States, we must above all cultivate the sentiment of Canada for Canadians. Hon. gentlemen who fail to do that, who, instead, discuss the question from the standpoint of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) seem to me to be enemies rather than friends of that part of the country. I doubt if they are not playing a false part. I am not sure but that they will be the principle sufferers themselves ; but what compensation is that for the wrong done to Canada and the evil effects that will follow the proclaiming of such an evil policy ? I indulge the hope, however, that these hon. gentlemen will retrace their steps and follow a course that will unite rather than separate the country, that they will come to advocate a policy for the goad of Canada as a whole, instead of different policies for different parts, each contending for itself and against the others. That we should have a united Canada, and not one broken into parts by the principles proclaimed by hon. gentlemen opposite, is, I am sure, the devout wish of every loyal Canadian.

At six o'clock House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) who addressed the House this afternoon at some length, said that the budget speech was somewhat disappointing. I have not the least doubt that it was somewhat disappointing to members on the other side of the House; but so far as the members on this side are concerned, I want to say that it was not disappointing at all, but was Mr. CLANCY.

a speech with which we are very much pleased. The hon. gentleman saw fit to read the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) a lecture on patriotism. He told the House that the hon. gentleman, in making a speech on reciprocity with the United States, was speaking to the new settlers who are going into the North-west Territories at the present time with the desire of influencing their votes. He also stated that the hon. member for North Norfolk had made that speech by arrangement with the government. He said further that the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) had made a protectionist speech the other night also by arrangement with the government. In fact, he asserted that members of the government had arranged with their supporters to speak to different parts of the country; that is, one section of the House was to speak to the manufacturers of the east, another section to the farmers of the west, and another section to the new settlers coming into the country, with the intention of influencing their votes. Now, surely the hon. member for Botliwell (Mr. Clancy) has forgotten that in days gone by the party of which he is a member were guilty of what he is accusing the Liberals of at the present time. I suppose he has not forgotten that on a certain occasion a gentleman who was Minister of the Interior for a few days, the Hon. Hugh John Macdonald, came to the west and advocated a policy of free implements, while the Hon. Mr. Foster, the Finance Minister at the time, and the other leaders of the party, were advocating protection in all other parts of the country. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that the candidates of the Conservative party in the North-west Territories previous to the last election went all over the country advocating free implements and everything of that kind; but we did not hear anything of that kind in this part of the country. With reference to the hon. member for St. Mary's, I presume he speaks for himself and himself alone. I presume that the hon. member for North Norfolk, in advocating the policy of reciprocity with the United States, a policy which I want to say I myself believe in, also spoke for himself. I fancy that the policy of the government is laid before the House by the Finance Minister in the budget speech. Every individual member of this House has a perfect right to advocate whatever policy he considers to be in the interest of the country or in the interest of his particular locality, without being read a lecture on patriotism by the hon. member for Bothwell. Ol' course, the hon. member for Bothwell and his political friends imagined at one time that they had a monopoly of all the patriotism in this country. They used to boast of being the only patriotic party. They kept themselves in power for several years by waving the old flag; but in 1890 their hand seemed to lose its cunning. They

lost power, and In the last parliament, al- [ though they began by waving the old flag j as before, they found that the people did not take any stock in it any longer and they dropped it. The speech made by the hon. member for Bothwell this afternoon was the same old speech that we have heard from him on several occasions during the last seven years. It was an old friend with a new face. It is true, he rubbed some of the corners off it, and put a little varnish on it, and tried to pass it off as a new article; but every member of this House who listened to it knows that it was the same old speech which has been replied to in this House half a dozen times. But I suppose the hon. member had nothing new, and in order to have something to say he had to refurbish the old speech and deliver it once more to the House. The leader of the party opposite, the hon. member for Halifax, dwelt at some length on ancient history. He told us what the Finance Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said and written some fifteen or sixteen years ago. We have heard that time and time again in this House for the last seven years. There has not been a budget under discussion when those same gentlemen did not resurrect something which the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said some fifteen years ago. Let me tell them that the people of this country do not care tuppense ha'penny what the views of these or any other hon. gentlemen might have been long ago. Conditions change, and any statesman who cannot change with them, would be a very poor specimen. A policy that might have been good fifteen years ago might be anything but good at present. Why, in private life, a speculation which might have been a very good one a year ago might be just the reverse to-day. I have seen a gentleman in my town want to swap horses one day, but the next day changed his mind because he thought he could do better by keeping his own. And so with the government. They must keep up with the times and suit their policy to the changing conditions of the country. What our hon. friends opposite did was just the reverse. They stuck to the one policy until they practically drove half the people out of the country and had the whole country in a state of stagnation. The hon. leader of the opposition and also the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) had to admit that the country was highly prosperous, but they made desperate efforts to show that none of that prosperity was due to the administration and policy of this government. Well, Mr. Speaker, while we do not claim that governments make the rain to fall and the sun to shine or the little birds to sing, we do claim that by adopting business methods and applying these methods to the administration of public affairs and by adopting a fiscal policy suited to the needs of the times, this government has brought about a certain measure of

prosperity. It is astonishing how, as times change, these hon. gentlemen sing a diffei'-ent tune. In days gone by they claimed every dollar of prosperity was due to their national policy. That policy, they said, made the hens lay more eggs, and they argued that the government which could not bring about prosperity should be turned down. To-day, however, they refuse all credit to the present government for the prosperity which they are forced to admit our country is enjoying. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that these hon. gentlemen protest too much. To ordinary people, the business of the country is governed by the same general principles as those of a private Individual. If you want to do business to the best advantage you must advertise, you must let people know what you have to sell. If you have lands to sell, you must let the whole world know it. That is what this government has done and what the other government did not do. We have advertised our wares in the British markets and the other markets of the world. We have let the people of the other countries know what we have to dispose of and we have in this way brought about a prosperous condition of affairs. We have taken a leaf from the book of the United States. We have adopted up-to-date methods and applied them to our immigration policy, and in this way we have started a stream of immigration into our unoccupied lands, which is bound to produce the happiest results.

I do not intend to follow the example of my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) and weary the House with an abundance of figures. If those given by my hon. friend were analysed, it would be found that he was considerably astray in his conclusions. I have, however, here a couple of statements to show the progress this country has made in the way of business during the last few years. Take the foreign trade of Canada and that of the United States and compare the two. I am taking this trade on a basis of merchandise only. In the United States the increase was 38 per cent and in the Dominion it was 81 per cent. Then, take tiie domestic trade, on the basis of merchandise only. In the United States the increase was 51 per cent, while in Canada it was 81 per cent.

Then, take the per capita of the foreign trade of the United States, on a basis of merchandise only, and compare with that of Canada :

United States. Canada.

In 1890

26-30 41-38" 1896

23-66 45-16" 1902

28-92 76-47

That, I think, is a pretty fair showing, and you will notice that most of the increase took place under the administration of this government. Let me now give the per capita trade, in domestic imports of merchandise only, in the United States and Canada :

United States. Canada.

In 1890 13-50 17-18" 1896

12-29 20-97" 1902

17-49 36-04

I submit that the statement made the other evening by the hon. leader of the opposition ivas misleading, because he gave the amounts en bloc in comparing the trade of Canada with that of the United States. The only proper way to make a comparison is to take the per capita basis.

My hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) dwelt at some length on the tariff, which is a question that interests particularly the people of our western country. He is kind enough to tell us that we are going to get the support of the people out there by circulating the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Well, Mr. Speaker, I know something about the people in the west, and judging by the sentiment out there, X should say that there is no necessity whatever to circulate the speeches of the hon. member for North Norfolk-although they certainly are good ones-or of anybody else, in order to get support for this government. The people in that part of the country know that they are prosperous. They can put their hands down into their pockets and feel that they have some money. But in 1896, they would feel in their pockets a long time before they could find a six-pence. It does not require speeches by my hon. friend from Bothwell or my hon. friend from Norfolk to convince them that the country is prosperous. With reference to the tariff, I submit, with all due respect to the hon. member for St. Mary's division of Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte), that the tariff should remain as it is. We in the west, as I have said, expect that we must pay our share of taxes to run the affairs of the country. We are not selfish; we know that the government of this country is a matter of compromise, and that we are not to be exempt from taxation while our brothers in the east are taxed. But the conditions in the west are different from those in the east. Practically everything that we in the west produce must be exported, and our products must be sold in the open markets in the face of the worlds' competition. Even products of ours that are sold within the Dominion are sold on the basis of the English price, so that we get no benefit from any home market whatever and thus we get nothing in return for the taxes we are called upon to pay in customs or excise. There are no industries as in the east and we are not building up a home market. As I have already said, we are contented with the tariff. We got reductions in certain lines, such as in woollen goods that were beneficial to the people, and we are willing to accept the present status. But we do not want to have an increase in the tariff at the present time or at any other time. That is the feeling of the people west of the lakes.

Mr. DAVIS.

and I submit that that feeling will have to be taken into consideration now and in the future in carrying out a fiscal policy for this country. Our hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in discussing this question the other afternoon told us that what we wanted was to have industries started west of the lakes. That may be very true. If gentlemen interested in manufacturing enterprises use some of their capital to set up establishments west of the great lakes to manufacture agricultural machinery, woollen goods or other commodities that we have to use, the creation of a home market will be begun, and we might take into consideration the fact that we are getting some benefit. But at the present time we feel that we are paying enough.

Now, as to the propaganda for an increase in the tariff, as I understand it, those who are most strongly in favour of an increase in our taxes, who have been the prime movers in the manufacturers' association to have petitions signed and delegations sent to wait on the government, are those interested in the manufacture of woollen goods and those interested in the manufacture of cotton goods. I venture to say there are no two industries in this country so well off at present as the woollen industry and the cotton industry. The great point is that they have a raw material on tiie free list. The class of wool used by the woollen manufacturers comes in absolutely free. The cotton people are in a similar position, for they get their raw cotton free. Contrast this with any other line of manufacture. Take, for instance, the furniture manufacturing interest. They certainly get their rough lumber free, but every other commodity that goes into the manufacture of furniture is taxed. What is raw material to the manufacture of furniture is the finished produce of other lines of manufacture. For instance, varnish, bolts and screws- everything that enters into the manufacture of furniture except rough lumber is subject to customs duty. It does not make any difference for my present argument whether the commodities are imported and pay the customs duty or whether they are manufactured in Canada, the price is increased to the extent of the duty, for the men who manufacture the varnish or the bolts or any of these other things take advantage of the duty and sell up to the limit that it allows. The manufacture of shirts is another illustration. Cambric and cottons of all sorts are the raw material of those who make shirts, and these are the manufactured products of the cotton people. It is true that the shirt manufacturer has the benefit of the duty upon the shirts brought into the country. I have not at hand at the moment a copy of the customs law, but we will say, for the sake of argument that the duty on these shirts is thirty per cent. If, then, the duty on raw material is thirty per cent,

the men who manufacture shirts have very little to protect them. All they have is the duty on the value of the labour put into the manufacture of the shirts which must be a small rate of protection. The same thing applies all along the line. It applies even in the case of agricultural implements. Unless the manufacturers in that line have their own paint factory, they must buy their paint, and, whether it is imported or whether it is manufactured in this country, the price is higher to the extent of the duty. And so in all classes of goods used in the manufacture of agricultural implements. When we consider these things, we see what an advantage the manufacturers of woollens have in being able to import their raw material absolutely free. Therefore, it seems to me, that these are the last people who should put up a propaganda in favour of increasing the tariff. The country is fairly prosperous. I know, as a matter of fact that the manufacturers of woollen goods in this country cannot fill their orders. I happen to be in business and know all about it. They are three, four, five or six months behind with their orders. They employ all the men they have room for and are increasing the size of their plants and working over time. We have a right to believe that they are working at a profit-they would not work at a loss, for they are not in this business in a philanthropic basis. In view of the prosperity they now enjoy I think they might very well leave the tariff alone. But they tell us : That is all very well,

but the hard times will come. Weil, there is an old saying it is time enough to bid the old gentleman good day when you meet him. When the hard times come, if there is necessity for the revision of the tariff, I suppose the Finance Minister will take it into his consideration and will arrange the duties to suit the affairs of the country. For my part, I am in favour of no tariff at all. But, as we must have revenue, I admit that we must have customs duties. But those duties should be imposed so as to bear as lightly upon the poorer classes of the community as possible. My hon. friend from Bothwell, speaking of the woollen trade this afternoon found fault with the government for taking the specific duty off woollens. It appears to me, on the contrary, that taking off the specific duties was a great boon to the poorer class of the community. The hon. gentleman talks about shoddy, I suppose he was alluding to blankets. I might illustrate the point with a case which I have given before, but which will bear repetition. Take a blanket weighing eight pounds and costing say $1.50. There is specific duty of forty cents. Add to this the ad valorum duty, and you make a duty of about fifty-five per cent on the blanket that is bought by the poor man. On the other hand, the better blanket that would be bought by the rich man pays a duty of only thirty per cent. The same point is illustrated by the case

of shirts. A dozen shirts of the coarser quality costs $3.05-say $3 for the sake of the argument. There is a specific duty of $1 per dozen or thirty-three and one-third per cent, and an ad valorem duty of twenty-five per cent. That is a duty altogether of about fifty-eight per cent.

Now, if you take the other line of shirts worn by the rich man, which costs $30 a dozen, and spread a dollar a dozen over that, you have five per cent ; add to that, 25 per cent, and you have 30 per cent that the rich man will pay on a shirt, while the poor man has to pay 55 per cent. That is the way of raising a revenue that appeals to the hon. member for Bothwell. He says the government should never have done away with the duty. I say the government in doing away with it, did something that is in the interests of the people of Canada.

Hon. gentlemen opposite would like to make the tariff of this country prohibitive, so far as I can gather. I am not sure what they do want. The leader of the opposition has talked about adequate protection. In the west we never can get a statement of what is meant by that ; but from the drift of their speeches we must come to the conclusion that they are all in favour of raising the duties right along. Now, if you make a prohibitory tariff what will the effect be ? You will enrich a few individuals at the expense of the great majority of the people; you will divert taxation from the treasury where it is going at the present time, into the pockets of a few individuals who will get rich ; because if there are no goods coming into the country, if you raise the tariff high enough, so that you will have no importations into the country, of course there is no duty to be paid and nothing to go into the treasury, and men who sell goods to the people are going to get the benefit, and the majority of the people who use goods, although paying high prices, will have to pay taxes in some other way in order to run the affairs of the country, so they will pay taxes twice over.

Now, there is another thing, Mr. Speaker, If you impose a high tariff of any kind you are going to reduce the value of lands all over the country, because a high tariff will increase the cost of the production of every bushel of wheat, and every bushel of oats that a farmer raises, or of every animal or anything else that the farmer of this country has to raise ; because he will have to pay so much more for his mowing machine and his rake, so much more for his plough, so much more for anything else he uses on his farm. That is going to increase the cost of the production of his grain' and his animals. If you do that, you are lowering the earning power of that farm, and if you lower the earning power of the farm, you are lowering the value of the farm and lowering the value of the land. That is one of the results that would follow from increasing the duties.

Now, what would we get by adopting the

policy advocated by bon. gentlemen opposite ? If you put the duties up sufficiently high-and I have heard some lion, gentlemen opposite-I think the member for Bothwell himself advocated putting them up forty or fifty per cent-you would immediately close out all the importations coming into this country and you would leave us without sufficient revenue to develop this country. It is admitted by all classes of people that this country will require money for public works. If we are to keep pace with other countries we must have money to do it with. Now, the only way to have money coming into the treasury is by way of duties, otherwise you will have to borrow the money and pay interest on it. Now, Sir,' under the scale of duties existing at the present time our revenue is increasing, it has doubled in seven years. Existing duties already give us sufficient money to run the country with, and this year we have a surplus. But if you were to adopt a high tariff you would simply shut off revenue and leave us without any money. You would build up a few millionaires, a few Rockefellers, you would build tip a few trusts and combines such as the hon. member for Bothwell was talking about this afternoon. That has been the effect of high tariff in the United States, and that is the effect a high tariff would have in this country if it was enacted, there is no doubt at ali about that. Talk to any bon. gentleman you please from the other side of the line, I don't care if he is a Republican or a Democrat, I don't care how high a protectionist he may be, he will not deny that the outcome of a high protective tariff in the United States has been to build up the trusts and combines they have there at the present time. These trusts and combines have got so strong that they are able to take the people by the throat. There is no legislature that the people can elect in the United States that is able to cope with the trusts at the present time. The trusts have got so strong there that they would simply turn out any government that would interfere with them. If the people were to elect a president of the United States to-morrow who was in favour of reducing the duties, who was in favour of regulating the trusts and combines, they would simply shut up their factories and turn hundreds of thousands of people on to the streets to starve. That would create a panic, and the consequences would be of the most alarming character. Now, we do not need to go to the United States for any patent of that kind. I think the people of this country have sufficient intelligence to frame a tariff to suit themselves, and if they are sensible they will frame a tariff to suit themselves without reference to what their neighbours are doing around them. It does not make any difference to us whether the people of the United States put a dollar a ton on iron going from this country to the United States. We have got to have iron, we have got to

Mr. DAVIS.

have raw material for our manufacturers. If it is a benefit to this country to get that iron in here, we will simply put it on the free list without reference to what the people of the United States may think or may do.

Now, an argument that has been used a good deal in this country, by gentlemen on this side of the House as well as gentlemen on the other side, is in regard to the balance of trade. They tell us that because we buy from the Americans some forty or fifty million dollars worth more than we sell to them, it is a ruinous policy for us to pursue, because the balance of trade is against us. I don't look at it in that way, I don't think there is anything in the balance-of-trade argument at all. We buy from the United States such commodities as we require, we buy raw material from them if we want it. If we want iron we buy it from the United States, simply because we want it in our own interest. If we buy certain other commodities from the United States we buy them because we want them, and if we put up a duty on these articles merely for the purpose of retaliation, we are simply, as the old saying is, cutting off our nose to spite our face. If the manufacturers of agricultural implements in this country, for example, had to pay a higher duty on the raw material which must come from the United States, they would have to increase the price * of their commodities, and the people of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific would have to pay that increased price. So I say there is nothing in the balance-of-trade argument at all. I myself as a business man have bought goods for years from a firm, and paid them thousands and thousands of dollars, but they never bought anything of me in return. Still I did not lose any money by it, I made a little money as I went along. When we do buy more from the United States than they buy from us, we sell more to other countries than we buy from other countries, so on the whole the balance-of-trade is pretty nearly even, at the present time I think it is exactly even. Therefore, so far as the balanee-of-trade argument is concerned. there is nothing in it.

Now I have something to say of the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) on reciprocity. That seemed to trouble my hon. friend from Bothwell a good deal this afternoon, tie seemed to think that if that speech was circulated it would have the effect of turning the votes of the newcomers in the west in favour of the Liberal party. Well, setting aside the political question * entirely, as a member from the west, as one who has lived in the west for many years, and studied the conditions, and knows* something about the feeling of the people there, I would like to see reciprocity brought about. We have a great field in the west for raising sheep. If we can get the markets of the United States for our wool, sheep raising will become a profitable

*enterprise and millions of acres of very valuable land that is not used very much at the present time because it cannot be used for anything else, would be utilized for the purpose of pasturing sheep. Sheep can be raised profitably in the west and the people would make money out of it. We would also be able to get more for our cattle. We sell a great many young store cattle to the people of the United States. We would also get more for our wheat. I want to say a word in reference to wheat. To those who are acquainted with affairs in the west it is a well known fact that the laird wheat belt is moving northward all the time. Thirty years ago the state of Minnesota could not grow wheat on account of frost. To-day the state of Minnesota is turned into a corn state. They cannot produce hard wheat at all, the climate has changed entirely and they are producing scarcely anything but corn. In South Dakota, where they were affected by frost a few years ago. they are to-day going into the raising of corn. It has been figured down by scientific men that the wheat belt is moving northward at the rate of about five miles per year. The millers of the United States have found that it is impossible for them to run their mills at a profit without getting more hard wheat. They have managed to get permission from their government to mill ou'' wheat in bond, and to-day we find that the Americans are building elevators all over the western country and entering into competition with the local buyers, thus increasing the price that the farmers are getting for their wheat. The Americans must have our wheat, and if we get reciprocity the demand will be greater and we will get a larger price. I claim that reciprocity with the United States would be one of the best things that could happen the people of the North-west. We must take into consideration, in speaking of the west, that the west and the east are practically one. We cannot be prosperous out there without the people of the east feeling it : you cannot bn

prosperous here without the people of the west feeling it. We are talking about reciprocity in natural products; we are not talking about reciprocity in manufactured articles. You will always have your market for manufactured articles in the west. The more we get for our wheat the more you will get for your manufactured articles. It is to the advantage of the people of eastern Canada to see the people of the west in a state of prosperity. The first step to take in bringing about that condition of prosperity is to secure reciprocity in the products which we raise in the west. I feel confident that we are going to get it. The feeling.in the western states is growing strongly hi favour of reciprocity with the Dominion of Canada. Anybody who studies the times knows that. There have been meetings held all over the United States to consider the question. We have had pronouncements made by several of the most prominent men

of the middle and western states upon that question. The feeling, as I have said, is strong and reciprocity is going to be brought about. One of the reasons for this change of feeling is the fact that the government have advertised this country in the United States and the Americans now know what we have. Eight or nine years ago they did not know what we had. They imagined we had nothing but a country where everything froze up. To-day they know we have tlie finest agricultural lands in the world and they are anxious to come over and get some of these lands, and notwithstanding the statement made by the hon. member for Botliwell (Mr. Clancy) I am of the impression that they will make first-class Canadians. In my own district as soon as they put in the three years which enables them to become Canadian citizens, they become Canadians. In one case a state senator from Minnesota in my district, who will have completed his three years next year, is going to take out his papers and become a Canadian citizen, so well satisfied is he with the institutions of the country, and I may say that these people are better satisfied with our institutions than with those which they had in their old homes. The sentiment is growing in favour of reciprocity and we should not do anything to hamper it. If you adopt a policy of retaliation you are merely going to strengthen the hands of those people who are opposed to freer trade between the two countries in the New England states. The proper policy to pursue is to arrange our own tariff to suit our own people and never mind what our neighbours are doing and in a very short time we will find that this feeling has grown so strong that reciprocity will be brought about and when it is brought about it will confer a great benefit upon the people.

Mr. Speaker, I have never looked upon the British preference, from the sentimental standpoint from which a great many people claim to have looked upon it. I have looked upon the British preference as a reduction in the taxation that the people of our part of the country have benefited by. With that preference we have been enabled to buy goods more cheaply, notwithstanding the statement of the hon. member for Both well. I think I am in about as good a position, having been in business for over twenty years, being in business at the present time and handling wcollen goods, to speak with authority on that question as the hon. member for Botliwell, and I say that the British preference lias reduced the price of woollen goods and other commodities of all kinds to the people of the whole Dominion. Not only has it had the effect of reducing the price on all kinds of goods that come from Great Britain, whether they be great or small, but it has had the effect of reducing the price of all commodities that we import from the United States. It has also had the effect in reducing the cost of all commodities that are

produced by the Canadian manufacturers, because, if any person who is doing a business can go to a Canadian manufacturer, if he wants to buy a bale of blankets, or a bale of tweeds, make him an offer, saying : tinder the preferential tariff of 334 per cent I can lay these goods down at such a price, you are a Canadian I would like to deal with you and if you can supply the goods at that price I will give you the order, but if you cannot, 1 will get the goods from Great Britain. If the business .man can do that, the Canadian manufacturer in order to hold the market, comes down to the price which has been mentioned, the merchant obtains the goods at a lesser cost and the people who consume those goods get the benefit of the reduction in price. Therefore, not only does the British preference apply to what we import from Great Britain, but it applies to what we import from the United States and all other countries, and also to goods manufactured in the country. I noticed this evening, and I have no doubt other hon. gentlemen have noticed, that Mr. Ritchie, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced to-day that the tax will be taken off wheat. I have observed that for some time the opposition have tried to make a point of that. I think it was generally understood by the majority of people that the tax was a war measure, and I think most people were under the impression in this House, as well as in Great Britain, that it would only last so long as they required to have it, for the purpose of getting revenue, that it would be taken off again and we see that it has been taken off. That will exclude some of the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite and some hon. gentlemen no doubt will have to change the speeches that they have written up in view of the statement that has come over the wire today. Now, the people in my part of the country, as well as the people in all other parts of the country, are very much interested in the amount of taxes they have to pay. The people in the west are not as partisan as those in the east. The people out there are more independent.

In the west a man may vote one way to-day and another to-morrow, for he is always on the lookout for the best government he can get, and naturally to pay as little taxes as he can. They will vote for the platform that will best suit their views, but they want to know what that platform is. The leader of the opposition accom* panied by some of his leading supporters, toured through the west last summer, and I think he must have come to the conclusion that the people whom he counted as Conservatives would not be favourable to his policy ; that is if they could find out what it was. Personally I am at sea as to what ' adequate protection ' means. It may mean anything, and it may mean nothing. It is like the American pedlar Mr. DAVIS.

who had but one suit of clothes in his bag, and it was big enough for any man and small enough for any boy. The policy of the opposition at present is intended to suit every body, like the pedlar's clothes. When the Conservatives try to convert us to their way of thinking we have a right to know what their policy is before we take a plunge in the dark. Does the leader of the opposition think that the present duty on agricultural machinery is adequate ? He was asked in Manitoba if he thought 20 per cent was adequate protection on mowing machines, and he said it was. We have his policy as to that particular item, but what is his opinion about the duty on threshing mills, fanning mills, disc harows, ploughs, and all that class of machinery ? Is it adequate or does he want to raise it. The manufacturer might think that 40 per cent would be about adequate protection, while the farmer might think that 10 per cent is adequate enough. Now, the hon. gentleman from Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) did not give as much consolation to gentlemen on the other side of the House as they expected, but nevertheless he is a high priest of protection, and he says that about 49 per cent would be about a fair rate of duty, and I suppose he voiced the sentiments of the Conservatives in this House when he said that. The people of the west would like to know if the Conservatives think that 49 per cent on farm machinery is adequate protection. What would they consider adequate protection on blankets and shirts and course tweeds and woollens, which the farmers of the North-west use a great deal of, it being a cold country, and all of which they have to import. A farmer does not want to pay 35 per cent more for a piece of tweed than he would otherwise pay, in order that there should be adequate protection. These gentlemen opposite, if they hope to make any headway in the west, will have to come out of the woods and state exactly what they mean by adequate protection. They cannot play fast and loose with the people as they are trying to do.

I tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) who is leading the opposition to-night, that in the west his party cannot run with, the hare and hunt with the hounds. He will find that his own supporters in the west, and there may be a few left, are in favour of a lower rate of duty, or at least that they are in favour of leaving the duty as it is to-day. It is certain that they do not want any increase of duty. Now, the leader of the opposition told us that from our standpoint we should have no surpluses at all, but that we should reduce the taxes. That may be true, but does not the hon. gentleman know that it is desirable to have stability of tariff and that it would be a very foolish thing to tinker with the tariff in the middle of a session just for the purpose of dissipating a surplus. A surplus is a good thing in its way. This is a great

*nd growing country, and we must have money to develop our resources, and if gentlemen in the east do not know what to do with a surplus of $13,000,000, I can tell them how they can spend it in a way that will redound to the interests of Canada at large. We are getting a hundred thousand immigrants or more into our North-west this year, and you can with great advantage devote your surplus so as to improve the condition of the people who are flocking into that country. You can equip a winter port in the beautiful harbour of St. John, and you can go to the St. Lawrence and expend money there in improving your transportation facilities. That will get rid of your surplus and it will confer great benefits on the people of Canada as a whole. I am afraid that most hon. gentlemen do not realize what the immense immigration into the west means to Canada. It means that each immigrant, man, woman and child, whom we bring in is assuming $50 of the national debt, and for 100,000 people, that means $5,000,000 a year. These 100,000 immigrants will bring $10,000,000 in wealth in the shape of merchandise and cash, and there you have $15,000,000 to figure on immediately. I submit that in a young and growing country like this, each immigrant is worth at least not less than $1,000, and therefore, if the government would spend $1,000,000 out of the surplus in bringing in say 150,000 people, we would be getting $5 back for every dollar we would expend in that way. Is not that a very profitable way in which to get rid of your surplus ? The leader of the opposition presented a statement to the House which purported to show the money taken out of the pockets of the people when the Conservatives we.-o in power and the money taken out of the pockets of the people as he alleged since the Liberals came into power. He went on to say that when the Conservatives were in power in 1896 the taxation of the people amounted to $27,759,285, and that it had increased in 1902 to $43,389,122, which he said meant that in seven years the Liberal government had practically doubled the taxation of the people. The hon. member for Bothwell said this afternoon that when the Conservatives left office the taxation was something like $7 per head, and that this government had increased it to over $11 per head. I never heard, and no hon. member on the other side of the House ever heard, of this or any other government going to any man's door to collect taxes. Perhaps the hon. leader of the opposition has heard of it, but I never have. The government do not go to collect taxes from any person. The people tax themselves, because they are able to pay taxes. The hon. leader of the opposition the other day undertook to show that the Conservative government in 1891 collected $30,000,000 from the people and in 1894 brought it down to $27,000,000. I suppose he wanted 55

to make out that that meant economy; but what does it show ? It shows that the people in those days of deficits were so hard up that they could not import many commodities. If a farmer buys a binder, and is is imported, he pays a certain amount of taxes. If he buys a plough, and it is imported, he has to pay more taxes. If he buys a suit of clothes made of tweed which is imported, he has to pay more taxes. When hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, he could not afford to buy a binder or a plough; perhaps he could not buy clothes; and then of course he did not pay taxes. If he is able to-day to dress his family or has luxuries which he could not afford when the Conservatives were in power, and a certain portion of these commodities are imported, he pays more taxes. If he lives more as a human being ought to live at the present time, he of course pays more taxes. The people were not able to pay as much taxes when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. The farmers could not buy binders, mowing machines and ploughs; they were so poor that they could hardly buy a suit of clothes. Now that prosperity has come, and is rolling over the country, they have more money; they can buy the machinery they require on their farms, they can dress their families in a proper manner, and have ten cents to put on the collection plate on Sunday, which they did not have when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. The greatest evidence of the prosperity which is rolling over the country at the present time, is the fact that the revenues of the country have increased by leaps and bounds. This shows that the people are able to buy largely of everything they need, and are consequently paying more taxes. If hon. gentlemen opposite had their way they would put up a high tariff wall, so that this money, instead of going into the public treasury, would dribble into the pockets of some individuals, and the people would get no advantage. That is the policy they want to adopt, but I think it will be a great many years before they have a chance to put into force a policy of adequate protection.

We have a great deal of money in the treasury of the Dominion at the present time; we are told that this year we shall have over $60,000,000. How is this money being spent ? Have hon. gentlemen opposite been able to put their finger upon a single dollar of improper expenditure ? I notice that when the estimates are going through, every member on the other side of the House wants more money spent. One wants a dock, another a post office, another a public building, another a harbour, another a dredge; and after they have all clamoured for more expenditures of every kind, they come down with a mock motion at the end in favour of retrenchment, and claiming that the government have spent too much money. How many of these votes

Lave they challenged 1 Perhaps one or two out of millions and millions in a whole session of parliament. Yet they will talk about the increased expenditures.

If the money that is coming into the treasury is properly expended-and it is, because hon. gentlemen opposite have not been able to show any wrong expenditure, although they have had their microscope on it right along-the people of the country will be perfectly satisfied. We require a good deal of money to-day. When the Finance Minister took over the financial affairs of this country, he found a pretty serious state of affairs. Mr. Foster, the Finance Minister, under the Conservative government, did not leave very much behind. It reminds me of a story I heard about an Irish undertaker, who was called in to bury a man who belonged to a peculiar sect. After he had prepared the corpse for burial, an elder of the sect to which he belonged gave him a five dollar bill to put into the box along with the corpse. The undertaker asked him what that was for. The elder told him it was to pay the passage of the corpse across the river Styx. After the elder left, instead of putting it in the coffin, the undertaker put it in his pocket, saying to himself, ' Begorra, times is hard, and I need that in my business, so I will let this fellow schwim.' That is exactly what the late Minister of Finance did with the present Minister of Finance ; he took everything in the treasury, and when the present Minister of Finance came in, he had to swim, and in his first year or two he had a good deal of swimming in order to pay off the debts left by his predecessor.

The hon. member for Bothwell referred to the expenditure of the Post Office Department. I was surprised that the hon. gentleman had the audacity to attack the Post Office Department of ail the departments in the government. He said that the Postmaster General in the late government had opened about 1,000 post offices while in the same length of time the present Postmaster General had only opened 556-to show that the other Postmaster General had spent more money. But, when the present Postmaster General took over the Post Office Department, he found a deficit in the finances of about $700,000. He took over those thousand post offices, a great many of which I suppose had been opened for political purposes; he had to provide funds to run them, and, according to the hon. gentleman's own argument, he has run them and 556 more, and run them successfully. And with all that he has wiped out the deficit, and given the people penny postage. Then the hon. gentleman said that he had cut off a lot of mail contracts, and had dismissed a lot of people who should not have been dismissed. Any person who will take the time to look into the affairs of the Post Office Department and who knows anything about the Mr. DAVIS.

inside history of that department, must come to the conclusion that the pruning knife was badly needed when the change of government took place. Look at what was going on all over the country. In my own riding a man was getting $7,000 for carrying the mails ninety miles. He had that contract year after year, but when the present Postmaster General took office, he cancelled it and called for tenders. What was the result ? The same work is now done for $1,000. Six thousand dollars per year have thus been saved to the people and we are getting a better mail service. This man had the contract some ten years, so that $60,000 were squandered of the people's money on this one contract, or sufficient to build a bridge for the people at Saskatoon. Hon. gentlemen opposite can surely not have forgotten the case at Brockville, where a man was paid a certain sum of money for transferring the mails from one platform to another and paid the same amount for watching himself while he did it. Nor can they have forgotten what took place in Nova Scotia, where a relative of the late leader of the opposition (Sir Charles Tupper), was getting some $600 per year for carrying the mails from the railway station at Amherst to the Amherst post office. And this man farmed the contract to another, who did the work for the sum of $200. So that this friend of the former leader of the opposition put $400 of the people's money into his pocket as long as he lived and did nothing for it. And when he was about to shuffle off tliis mortal coil, he bequeathed his contract to another relative of Sir Charles Tupper, who in his turn sub-let it for $200 and pocketed the $400. And when this man was about to die, he transferred it to another relative of the Tupper family, who also farmed it out for $200, and pocketed the $400. When the present Postmaster General came in, he applied the pruning knife to this transaction and let the contract for less than $200. Is it any wonder that with leakages of this kind, there should have been a deficit of some $700,000 which our Postmaster General is now succeeding in wiping out. My hon. friend from Bothwell can talk as much as he pleases about the Post Office Department, it will take a long while for him to convince the people that any change is necessary.

I wish now to crave the attention of the House for a few moments while I discuss a subject which more particularly interests that part of the country I come from, but which of course closely interests every part of the Dominion. We all belong to the same country, and what benefits the one is bound to be of advantage to the others. We have to work together, and our proper policy, as the hon. Minister of Finance has told us, is to build up our western country. Every producer you put on the soil is bound to consume manufactured products. Every one who grows wheat must buy manufactured articles. Let us fill up that country, and the

big industries down east will reap tlie benefit. It is well known that railway construction in the west is not keeping pace with the development of that country. Very little has been done in the past few years outside of the province of Manitoba in the way of constructing railways. We are getting people in there very fast, and if we do not do something at once towards building railways in that country, we may have a reaction and find people going out perhaps faster than we are bringing them in. What are the facts of the case ? The congestion which has existed in that country in the way of accumulated freights during the past two years is well known. I am not going to blame the railway companies. Although I hold no brief from the Canadian Pacific Railway, as everybody knows, I do not blame that company. I believe that its intentions were good. I believe that the $9,000,000 which it was supposed to spend west of the lakes in improving its terminals and motive powers and rolling stock, it intended expending there. But if a man wants a horse and can find no one with a horse to sell, what can he do ? If the Canadian Pacific Railway wants locomotives and could find none to buy, it is difficult to blame that company for not getting any. But the situation is one which demands a remedy. We have spent money on our canal system, but I am sorry to say that it has not proved, as my hon. friend from Bothwell has shown, a success. My hon. friend from Bothwell shows that although a lot of money has been expended on our canals, the tonnage passing through them is decreasing, but he forgot that while business is decreasing on the canals it is growing up by leaps and bounds on our railways. This is a railway age. I have given some study to the subject, and I am convinced that any money spent on canals, except for the purpose of utilizing them as a safety valve to regulate freights, is money wasted. I shall not take into account the people who came into our western country last year and who are coming in this year, because they are not yet producers, but the people who were there up to two years ago have produced about 125,000,000 bushels of grain in round figures. Up to two years, there were not more in that western country than 500,000 people. If 500,000 people produced over 125,000.000 bushels of grain, and if we put people into that country at the rate of 100,000 per year, we will double our production in five years. To-day we are suffering from a congestion of traffic; we cannot get our grain out. What we got to the lake ports we had not sufficient boats there to move, and, even if we had boats, we could not get it all to the lake ports in sufficient time for navigation. Consequently more than one-half of our crop is in the terminals or elevators throughout the country and will have to be kept there a year. Every bushel of wheat which has to be kept over at the close of navigation

costs six cents to the farmer. The storage insurance, interest on money and other charges, amounts in round figures to about six cents per bushel. We have 50,000,000 bushels lying on our hands, and if you figure out how much this comes to at six cents a bushel, you will find that our 500,000 people in the North-west have lost enough money to pay the interest on the bonds of railways which would carry that grain out during the winter months. What we absolutely require is some way of marketing our grain every year. We cannot store our grain at the head of the lakes. We have a surplus of fifty million bushels this year, and it is quite within the range of possibility that in ten years we shall have a surplus of one hundred and fifty millions requiring to he stored thei'e. Suppose you throw one hundred and fifty millions of bushels on the market in the spring of the year, you would certainly depreciate the market very seriously. This would be an addition to cost of five or six cents per bushel for keeping it in store and depreciation while there. The only safety for the people is to have a railway built with proper grades, with large locomotives and cars of great capacity such as we have now. We could then market our grain twelve months in the year. This must be done some time, and the sooner it is taken up the better. It will unite the two parts of the country, it will bring the people of the east and the people of the west together and there will be a better feeling. It will make it possible to carry out cheaply the products of the west and to bring in at proportionately low rates the commodities that the people of the west require. You would have no trouble then about bringing in goods from the outside. You would build up a solid country, and this is the only way you could do it. In the meantime, with conditions as they are in the west, something must be done immediately. If some action is not taken in the present session to provide a railway along the Saskatchewan Valley up towards Edmonton to afford railway facilities for the people in that country, some of whom are fifty or sixty miles from a railway, it is within the range of possibility that you may have people going out of the country faster than you can bring them in. We know that a great many of the people going in there are people from the United States, from a country where they have railway facilities-

Mr. MACLEAN.

Who built the railways?

Mr. DAVIS.

It is the money of the people that builds everything. These people from the United States are accustomed to having railways close at hand, and to everything moving quick. If they stay there two years and find that the government is taking no action towards giving them relief, it is, as I say, quite within the range of possibility that they may pack up and leave the country. What would that mean ? That would

mean a depreciation in the value of farm lands from one end of the country to the other. The condition of things is serious, and it is absolutely necessary that this matter should be dealt with at once-the sooner tiie better for all parties interested. Now,

I notice that my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) is very much interested in the railway problem. Judging from the speeches lie has made on the question, he is always in favour of government ownership of railways. 1 may tell him and other gentlemen who are troubled with the disease of government ownership of railways that if he had been in this House this afternoon and had heard the criticism of his friend from Botliwell, he would have come to the conclusion that government ownership of railways is not a paying proposition. But, I am not very particular about how the roads are built. Some people are opposed to giving subsidies to railways. If any person can get capitalists to go in there and build a road in the Saskatchewan Valley, with the necessary branches and do it without subsidies, I shall be quite in favour of it. But before capitalists will enter upon an enterprise of that kind, they must see where the interest on their money is coming from. Except for the business of taking the people into the country you are not going to get any revenue for the first two years, I do not suppose my hon. friend from East York would propose taxing immigrants enough to pay the interest on the cost of the road for those first two years. How, then, is the interest to be provided ? Of course, if you can get the roads built without subsidies, I am with you. But we must have railways, whether the companies build them or whether the government build them. There are people in the west who are in favour of government ownership of railways. But, it seems to me, from the study I have given to it, that it would not work very well with the system of government we have here. Put the railways under control of the government, I do not care whether it is a Liberal or Conservative government, and the result, it seems to me, would be dangerous. In place of government ownership of railways, I think it would be government ownership of people. I think my hon. friend from East York and the people of his way of thinking will find, that if the railways were in the hands of the government, it would be difficult to move the government from power, whatever the occasion for doing so might be.

Mr. SPEAKER.

I would call the attention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) to the fact that there is an amendment before the Chair moved by the leader of the opposition concerning the tariff. According to the rules of parliamentary procedure, when an amendment has been moved the discussion would be confined to that amendment. I find that the hon. gentleman is now discussing the question of government owner-Mr. DAVIS.

ship of railways. The amendment as he is aware, deals with the tariff question.

Mr. DAVIS.

I have not read the amendment. I did not think it worth my while.

Mr. SPEAKER.

The amendment reads as follows :

This House regarding the operation ot the present tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians ;

And that the financial policy of the government should include a measure for the thorough and judicious readjustment of the tariff at the present session.

I would invite the hon. member to confine his remarks as much as possible to the question of the tariff.

Mr. DAVIS.

I am glad to hear the amendment. I had not taken much notice of the wording of it, but I understood that it was generally in favour of adequate protection. It seems to me, that the discussion of railways is quite germain to the subject. A vigorous railway policy is necessary for the welfare of the agriculturists as well as for the healthy development of trade. I do not see how the railway question is to be omitted from a consideration of the financial affairs of the country. The hon. member for Rothwell, this afternoon, discussed the Intercolonial railway and every other question from Dan to Beersheba and if there had been anything outside of that that he could have got after, he would have brought it in too. I am under the impression that the subject I was trying to discuss is as important as those covered by the hon. member for Botliwell, and it has a direct bearing upon the welfare of the country and on the question of the tariff, for, as I have shown, if you build up railways between the east and the west you are going to keep trade within ourselves, and it will not be necessary to go outside the country to buy the commodities we require.

Mr. SPEAKER.

I thought the hon. gentl-man was discussing the question of ownership of railways, which was, perhaps, going a little outside the question.

Mr. DAVIS.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if I am in the wilderness, I was led there by the hon. member for Both well. He was in the wilderness all afternoon. He gave us the track mileage of I don't know how many railways and all sorts of details on railway questions. I was going on to say that we need railways from the east to the west. I was not going to discuss the question of government ownership of railways- I leave that to my hon. friend from East York who appears to have a patent on that kind of thing for this country. I keep well within the lines of the trade question when I say that if we are going to build up the

country and keep the trade of the west for our home industries, whether the tariff is high or low, we must build railways so that the people may be contented with their lot, and so that the people of the west and the people of the east may exchange ideas and everything else.

Now we must have railroads built. As I said before, it does not make much difference to the people of the west in what way they are built. We have some people up there in favour of government ownership. But how is the government going to construct those railroads ? For my part 1 believe that the time for giving subsidies to railways has passed. I think there is a better way than by giving cash subsidies, and that the majority of the people of this country are coming to that opinion. We cannot at the present time have government ownership of railways because it yyould not be practicable under our system of government. It would not be practicable unless you took over all the railroads in the country, because you cannot run a government railway to compete with an independent line, the government railway has got to go to the wall. So I say it would not be wise for us to build government railroads at the present time. But there is another way of doing it, and that is by guaranteeing bonds.

Now I want to say a few words with reference to the state of feeling in the province of Ontario at the present time. I find that certain delegations of farmers have been waiting on the government protesting against giving bonuses to railways. 1 find that such papers as the ' Farmers' Sun,' and perhaps the Toronto ' World,' are also opposed to granting cash subsidies to railways at the present time. That feeling seems to have taken strong hold of the people of Ontai'io. But the people of Ontario seem to forget that every man in the province has a railway at least within five miles of his own door, and they seem to forget that those railways were built with money out of the public treasury of this country, and if it did not come out of the treasury it was money bon-owed on the credit of the whole people, who have to pay interest on that money. The other day I asked a question about how much public money had been given for building railways. I find that $09,418,275.54 have been spent on the Intercolonial Railway ; I find that $5,000,000 odd were spent on the Prince Edward Island Railway. I find that subsidies have been granted to railways to the extent of $1,872,000 in Nova Scotia, and $1,292,000 to New Brunswick. I am not complaining of anything that has been given to these provinces, I think they are entitled to it. I find that Quebec got $10,000,000 and over by way of railway subsidies, and I find that Ontario got $18,750,000, money that was borrowed on the credit of the whole people of Canada towards constructing her railways. And to-day, after every man

has got a road at his own door, he says : Well, it is time to stop giving subsidies. It is like a man sitting down to a free dinner, and after eating a good hearty meal himself he pushes the dishes away and says : No more meals to be given away. This money that has been spent on railways all over this country, has been borrowed on the credit of the people. Now let me go a little further. I find that $3,000,000 odd were spent on railroads in Manitoba, principally on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway ; in the North-west provinces, $7,000,000, on main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway ; British Columbia, $9,000,000 odd on main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Now it is often said that the Canadian Pacific Railway was built for the people of the west. I take issue with that statement. Where did the $25,000,000 given to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the west, come from ? It was not paid out of consolidated revenue, it was borrowed on the credit of the people of Canada. The people of the west have got to help pay the interest on it, and it is within the range of probability that in the near future, judging by the development up there, we may be called upon to pay the greater part of the principal. W'hen they tell us that they are building railroads for us in the west-it is nothing of the kind. Every railroad in the west has been built out of our own land, granted without stint. More than 80,000,000 acres of the most fertile lands in the world have been given away for railroad construction ; in my own district, 10,000,000 acres of land, have been given away to subsidize railways. How many miles of railway do you think we have in Saskatchewan 1 About one hundred miles. We have given $50,000,000 worth of land and have got one hundred miles of road. We are not complaining about that, because after all I do not think it will matter much to the 1 people of this country in thirty years from now whether that land is given away to railroads or to settlers. The land is of no value until you get some person to buy it and begin producing, then it becomes valuable. But the argument still remains that we in the west, who have contributed to build all the railroads in the east for the last eighteen years, think it is not unreasonable now to ask the people of the east to assist ns in opening up and developing that country.

I was going on to say that there was a better way of building railroads than by granting cash subsidies, because I think the age of cash subsidies is past. Now a railroad should not be built at all unless it is built in a section of country that will support a population. If a tract of country will not support a population, there should be no railroad built there. If you build a railroad through a fertile tract of country that has passed the experimental stage, and where the people are coming in and settling, there can be no risk at all in the govern-

ment guaranteeing bonds to the railway under certain conditions. 1 claim that tbe government would do well to guarantee tbe bonds of a railway company to build that road through to Edmonton, or further if it is found necessary, at a certain figure, and take a first mortgage on that road, so that we may have something to show, and that we may get interest on the money. And in order to satisfy the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) and gentlemen of that school, let us insert a clause in the agreement that the government will have a right to purchase. If you do that the gentlemen who build that road will be able to go into the money markets of the 'world and borrow money for 3 per cent and less, on a government guarantee. That being the case, if you put $13,000 or $14,000 a mile into a railroad at 3 per cent, it must necessarily follow that the fixed charges and the interest on that money every year are going to be less than if it was built with 6 per cent money that a corporation would have to pay if they had to borrow money without a guarantee. You would have double the amount of interest to pay every year if you built the road by a private corporation without a government guarantee. If the government guarantee the bonds, they should also take the right of supervising the rates to be charged on the road. As soon as the country settles up thickly, as soon as development takes place, as soon as production takes place, the road becomes more valuable. If the government do not wish to purchase the road in the meantime, the company can get other parties to take bonds without a government guarantee. After the country is settled, the government can release the mortgage and the railroad will not cost the people of the country a cent. Bonds were guaranteed on railways in Manitoba eight or ten years ago, and the government of Manitoba have never been called on to pay a dollar, because the profits after the opening up of the road were sufficient to meet all the charges on the road.

I think, if the government takes this question up, and there is an urgent necessity that it should be taken up at once, by guaranteeing the bonds and taking a first mortgage on the road, inserting a clause to suit the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) if it is necessary, we will get the road built this year, and we will be enabled to hold not only the people we have, but we will be enabled to get hundreds and thousands of more people to come into that country. We have a boom on now, we are bound to get the people, we have the land, the climate is all right, but we must be alive, we must act quickly, we must show that we are alive, because", if we do not, people are not going to stay here and let the moss grow upon them. Now, I think I have taken up, perhaps, too much of the time of the House. I may be trans-Mr. DAVIS.

gressing the rules of the House in bringing this question of railway construction in the west to the attention of the government, but in doing so I am only doing what I feel is right, not only in the interests of the people of the west, but in the interests of the people of the east. I know what the conditions up there are. I know people forty and fifty miles away from a railway, and I know that a man cannot farm with profit fifty miles away from a railway. If a man has to haul his wheat a thousand miles by railway and fifty miles by laud, it will cost him more to haul it fifty miles by land than to pay the freight for 1,000 miles by rail. We must secure cheaper freight rates for the people in that country. These people who are waiting year in and year out for railways will get tired and leave the country. I know people in my district who have been for twenty years fifty or sixty miles away from a railway, and if they do not get some relief they will feel like moving out. If the newcomers see old settlers going out, they will not look with favour upon the country. I hope the government will take this question up and deal with it. We have a large surplus and we will have large surpluses in the future, because, having a government which carries on the affairs of the country on business principles, we are bound to have surpluses. I do not claim that this government have made all this prosperity, that they have made the rain to fall or the sun to shine, but they have done something in the way of building up the country by adopting business methods in the conduct of public affairs. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that while prosperity exists in Canada today all the world is prosperous, and that we are only getting our share. I will say however, that there is a possibility that if the government had not risen to the occasion while other countries were carrying on an increased business and enjoying a large measure of prosperity this country might not have been prosperous. If a man is running a business in a town and he does not advertise his business, look after it and apply modern methods to it, he might set on his counter and do nothing, while every other merchant of the town was doing a rushing business. I claim that this government are a first-class business government, that they are conducting the affairs of the country upon business principles, and I am certain that when the appeal is made to the country again, the people will think twice before they return to what they had seven or eight years ago- periods of depression, stagnation, and people going out of the country faster than we could bring them in.